# Worst drought ever



## Bobby (14 October 2006)

My thoughts are that we should stop all overseas payments to who ever & direct the billion plus we pay , to helping our farmers now !
Your thoughts please   

Bob.


----------



## billhill (14 October 2006)

Need to tackle the problem at its source. Need to encourage governments to change their tune to the global warming issue or this kind of event may become the norm.



			
				Bobby said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that we should stop all overseas payments to who ever & direct the billion plus we pay




Don't know about this but do agree the farmers need some serious assistance.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that we should stop all overseas payments to who ever & direct the billion plus we pay , to helping our farmers



Bob,  They mentioned on ABC this evening that Aus is becoming a bipolar society - city vs bush.  (so what's new).  IMHO - Let's all us city folk immediately pay 2% extra tax, to be channeled to the bush, for them to truck water if necessary- who nose, they may end up with 105% of the income we get (on a good year), and 65% (on average). As for overseas payments - lets accept that we make ten tmes what they make and not even blink as we pay it! 

PS they said 6 years since decent rain !! sheesh. - so dry the trees were chasing the dogs !! so dry the frogs drowned because they forgot how to swim!


----------



## bowser (14 October 2006)

Aren't we taxed enough as it is? With the record budget surplus this year its not like to government is short of spending money.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

bowser said:
			
		

> Aren't we taxed enough as it is? With the record budget surplus this year its not like to government is short of spending money.



sorry mate Ive got a bad habit of talking from the heart and not the pocket - heaven forbid that I should have difficulty paying off the mortgage on my comfortable suburban house, when my "brothers" and "sisters" are having difficulty finding the energy and the will to tackle the gut wrenching torment of day after day dragging their dead sheep or cattle (and kangaroos) out or their putrid muddy dams.  

Maybe you are saying redirect the surplus instead of increasing taxes - fine by me mate paper shuffling as far as Im concerned.


----------



## bvbfan (14 October 2006)

Bring on the drought, maybe those idiots will start to realise that Kyoto was something we should have ratified instead off going down the US line (or should be going down on the US)


----------



## krisbarry (14 October 2006)

Its time we started farming more efficently...Ban crops such as cotton and rice, and any other crops that use ridiculous amounts of water and that are unsustanable for Australia's climate.

The city-folk domestic use is 9% of total water used...and the rest is used by farming and commercial business'.

The government needs to start a buy-back scheme ASAP and reduce the amount of farmers on the land.  It sounds silly but we should be importing all fruits and vegitables that Australia cannot grow, or cannot afford to grow with our limited water.

Sure we will lose a few farmers and slightly increase out imports and slightly reduce our exports but if a farmer has these odds, what the hell are they doing out in the desert, called Australia.  1 out of 10 years is a bumber crop, 2 out of 10 years is an average crop and 7 out of 10 years is a below average crop.

*And yes every 4 days a male farmer commits suicide within Australia*


----------



## Prospector (14 October 2006)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Its time we started farming more efficently...Ban crops such as cotton and rice, and any other crops that use ridiculous amounts of water and that are unsustanable for Australia's climate.
> 
> The city-folk domestic use is 9% of total water used...and the rest is used by farming and commercial business'.
> 
> ...




STC - you are absolutely right!
We drove from Adelaide to Brisbane last year, through the Hay Plains, then up through NSW.

I was disgusted that in the middle of arid, desolate lands, 'irrigators' had massive, open trenches brimming with water.  To feed their mini-corn, and rice!  This is the problem, we should not be trying to grow rice and cotton and corn - we can import those from Asia and not only give struggling Asian countries an export, but then save the water for crops we HAVE to grow like wheat.  These farmers are also not the struggling farmers who have inherited their lands and are desperate to make them work, they are (probably) overseas large scale conglomerates, with local (probably) city living rich jocks who cash in on the cheap water at the real farmers, and our expense!

For what it is worth, I also dont believe that we people are responsible for global warming.  It is part of the natural cycle that our planet experiences, and we just happen to be in a warming cycle.  How do you explain the dinosaur eras - the planet was WAY warmer then and we werent even around to blame!


----------



## yogi-in-oz (14 October 2006)

Re: Reticulate Australia ..... 

Hi folks,

Instead of whining about the symptoms of drought, let's
inject some constructive thought into drought-proofing
Australia ..... it CAN be done, with a genuine commitment
from BOTH governments and the private sector.

We have been pumping water from Perth to Kalgoorlie, which 
is 360 metres above sea level, for over 100 years !~!

Imagine, how much water and energy we can save, if we
could REVERSE that flow ..... there would be a torrent of 
water flowing into our parched reservoirs in Perth ..... a
torrent of water, that could also generate power, as well !~!

Right-of-way for a pipeline from Kalgoorlie-to-Perth presents
no problem, as it has been established for over 100 years !~!

Described as the largest infrastructure project, since the
Snowy River Scheme, Reticulate Australia has the potential
to bring into reality the dreams of forward-thinkers, like
Ernie Bridge, billionaire Richard Pratt and C.Y. O'Connor ....

Imagine the benefits to farmers across the nation, a water
supply that never runs dry!!

Controlled broadacre irrigation to ensure a bumper cotton and
grain crop .... EVERY YEAR!!

Open up new land that was previously marginal, due to
lack of water.

First, from the Kimberley, a short link to maintain 
underground reserves in the Officer Basin and then another
pipeline from Kalgoorlie-to- Perth and on to the dry interior 
of Southern West Australia.

Fill the old gold mining pits and regional dams to optimum
levels to encourage local industry, leisure and tourism
activities.

Another line from the Officer Basin to be run eastwards, in
tandem with a gas pipeline from Kalgoorlie to the Palm Valley
gasfields, the onwards to Alice Springs and Moomba and 
Cubbie Station, at the head of the Darling River system.

From there, both water and gas can be distributed in this
dual-pipe configuration to link with established networks
and create new links to critical dams and reservoirs at the
head of our failing eastern waterways .....

..... Adelaide has the worst water quality in Australia, yet a 
pipeline shorter than the Dampier-Perth route, could supply 
Adelaide with pure, clean water, straight out of the tap ... !~!

Despite the scaremongering about lack of water and water
quality, we DO have plenty of RENEWABLE potable water, 
we have the technology, so let's get a committment from the 
pollies to stand up and lobby for a common-sense approach 
to maintaining water and energy, throughout Australia.

Towing icebergs from Antarctica or giant desalination plants
are NOT the answer for Perth, Adelaide or elsewhere, either.

Current estimates of supplies from Officer Basin tell us, that
the established reservoir could meet Perth's requirements
for the next 400 years ..... and that's without a replenishing 
line from the Kimberley resources !~!

Do something for Australia ..... lobby for the advancement of 
a pipeline network that will  drought-proof Australia and 
provide cheap energy nationwide, at the same time..

have a nice day

       yogi


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> Re: Reticulate Australia ....Do something for Australia ..... lobby for the advancement of a pipeline network that will  drought-proof Australia and provide cheap energy nationwide, at the same time..have a nice day,   yogi



Yogi , lol I love most of this - but - how you gonna get energy out a system that takes water from (not far above) sea level to (not far above) sea level?  Or are you saying its downhill from Kimberley to Kalgoorlie because of the Latitude? lol.  Gotta pump that water over the next hill mate.   

"billionaire Richard Pratt " - shame he's not a quadrillionaire  - but I agree that's where the Govt should get involved.   

Cwealth Water report just out (radio interview with Malcolm Turnbull) - needless to say it's all about the States not doing their share - surprise surprise !   might be an interesting read though.
Also these stories on yesterday's PM:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1764849.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1764655.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1764622.htm


----------



## yogi-in-oz (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Yogi , lol I love most of this - but - how you gonna get energy out a system that takes water from (not far above) sea level to (not far above) sea level?  Or are you saying its downhill from Kimberley to Kalgoorlie because of the Latitude? lol.  Gotta pump that water over the next hill mate.






20/20 .....  was referring to power generation, in the
360 metre drop from Kal-to-Perth ..... wherever the water 
does need pumping, the power already generated can be
used or the tandem gas line can supply energy for the 
pumping stations, along the right-of-way !! 

Technically, we have the expertise ..... it just seems, 
that we have no pollies prepared to accept responsibility
for such a project, as yet.

There's only a SHORT pipeline proposed from the Ord
River Dam to the NORTHERN end of the Officer Basin,
diverting water, which would normally flow out to sea,
via the Fiztroy River system, every year.

So, there's no need for a pipeline from the Ord to Perth,
just 2 shorter pipelines, instead ..... one from the Ord
River to the NORTHERN end of Officer Basin and another 
from the SOUTHERN end of Officer Basin to Kal/Perth ...

..... and the Kimberley pipeline need not be built in the 
immediate future !~!

Wherever the water does need pumping, the tandem gas 
line will supply energy for the pumping stations, along
the right-of-way .....  too easy!~!

With capped gasfields in the Kimberley, the Ord will then
benefit, with cheap energy supplies coming on stream,
while the rest of Australia benefits from a completed gas 
grid and a RENEWABLE source of water, piped to all
corners of the continent (if necessary) ..... 

have a great weekend

   yogi


----------



## Prospector (14 October 2006)

Totally  :topic Yogi, but why are all your posts aligned to the left? Maybe its just me but I find them really hard to read!


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> 20/20 .....  was referring to power generation, in the
> 360 metre drop from Kal-to-Perth ..... wherever the water
> does need pumping, the power already generated can be
> used or the tandem gas line can supply energy for the
> pumping stations, along the right-of-way !!  have a great weekend,   yogi




Well mate I dont think you're going to get much power out of this line but I'll keep an open mind lol.   Ive been proved wrong many times .  At least 2 last week for instance - or 20 if you ask my wife lol.   There's the other plus,  that if there's a fire in the gas line, you'll have the water right there to put it out   (Editor's note - wink here means I'm saying it, but I'm not believing it).


----------



## Julia (14 October 2006)

I completely agree with STC and Prospector.  Australia is no place to be growing cotton or any other similarly thirsty crop.  Most of the water used is by the agricultural sector while garden lovers watch their much loved plants die because in many places all outside watering is banned.

Successive governments have been complacent and basically negligent about not having contingency plans.

The point has been made that the federal government has a heap of surplus money, some of which can be used to assist farmers.  However, I see no point in pouring money into farms which are essentially unsustainable for whatever reason.  Yes, it's sad.  But we've all had to give up our dreams in various ways.  It makes a lot more sense to me for us to support farmers in less affluent countries than our own by importing their produce.

Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

We've got all the water we could possibly use in this country. The problem is that it's either:

1. In northern Australia 
2. In Tasmania 
3. Salt water in the ocean
4. Right near our major cities but flowing unused into the sea

There is absolutely no reason for water shortages in any of the state capital cities. No reason whatsoever. All we need to do is stop telling outright lies as the Victorian government has being doing (their false claims that dams don't collect water and cloud seeding doesn't work) and work out which of the available options is the most sensible to implement.

IMO we'll see major new water supply schemes built to supply Melbourne and Sydney before much longer. At some point there will be the inevitable realisation that if garden watering restrictions are permanently applied as an alternative to expanding supply then we are all in deep **** when there's a drought because the system would become (due to population growth) dependent on the watering bans even with normal rainfall. We would end up with no alternative but to seriously restrict toilet flushing, showers, washing hands etc during droughts and I can't see the voters tolerating that for long.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> We would end up with no alternative but to seriously restrict toilet flushing, showers, washing hands etc during droughts and I can't see the voters tolerating that for long.



Well toilet flushing is another topic - recycle it mate !.   I'm not taking the p*** by the way lol   (despite the icon)

Like that lady in Toowoomba saying SHE wouldnt drink anything that had been through someone else !!.   (might be a complete STIRRAAANGER !!! tccch tcch ) Well try Adelaide lady - the water has been through 8 people, 15 cows, used to wash down the dairy floor, and then some 

PS AS Jo Bjelke Petersen used to say ,  "you can lead a horse to drink, but you cant make him water".  Relevance? marginal at best lol.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 October 2006)

bvbfan said:
			
		

> Bring on the drought, maybe those idiots will start to realise that Kyoto was something we should have ratified instead off going down the US line (or should be going down on the US)




The trouble with Kyoto is that it discriminates:



> Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.




See link attached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol


----------



## macca (14 October 2006)

Kyoto is a sop to the bleeding hearts, both India and China will INCREASE their green house emissions in the next year by more than the TOTAL emissions in Australia.

If Oz stopped emissions completely then by the next year it would have made no difference to the world, but a hell of a difference to us.

In fact, because we actually try to limit our emissions we should manufacture more in Oz, this way the countries that do not limit emissions will have less demand, the world will be better off 

Also, if we look at the history of the world we are in fact still in a mini ice age, of course we are going to get warmer, the world has had no polar icecaps for the vast majority of provable climatic history (drill cores etc)

The current federal government is the first in recorded history to actually try to do something about the stuff up the states have created with our river systems. 

By law, the states control the water in their own rivers, an example is that Qld, NSW, Vic and SA have managed to sell 128% of the water flow of the Darling Murray system     

All state political parties are guilty, the only way to fix it is to buy back the water rights from the farmers, this is what the federal government has quietly been doing. But in reality the states, all four of them, need to reduce everyones water rights and leave some water for those lower down.  

There is a guy in Qld with dams bigger than Sydney harbour for his cotton, he  has weirs across the river and pumps it all in to his dams. In the old days it would have been a range war, with dynamite and rifles, but he has the rights issued by the Qld government so NSW etc can get stuffed !!

I believe that a river which is part of a system that crosses state borders should be controlled federally so that everyone gets a fair share.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Well toilet flushing is another topic - recycle it mate !.   I'm not taking the p*** by the way lol   (despite the icon)
> 
> Like that lady in Toowoomba saying SHE wouldnt drink anything that had been through someone else !!.   (might be a complete STIRRAAANGER !!! tccch tcch ) Well try Adelaide lady - the water has been through 8 people, 15 cows, used to wash down the dairy floor, and then some
> 
> PS AS Jo Bjelke Petersen used to say ,  "you can lead a horse to drink, but you cant make him water".  Relevance? marginal at best lol.



The basic point is that if we adopt permanent water restrictions then in due course we end up with a water supply system which can only cope with that level of water demand even under "normal" conditions. Nobody is going to build an maintain a system with a big surplus capacity that is never used.

Then at some point when there's trouble due to drought, equipment failure etc and consumption has to be restricted below that "normal" level then there is no easy way to do it. We have to stop showering, shut down industry etc possibly for years on end.

In contrast, if we build a water system which can normally supply all the water we want for gardens etc then we have a lot more room to cut back when trouble strikes (as it will from time to time).

Agreed with macca's comments. Emissions are going up and the climate is going to change, for whatever reason, whether we like it or not. I do think the world needs to do something but it just isn't happening. That leaves adaptation as the only option for Australia. We're going to have no option but to build more water infrastructure for the cities and see the demise of some water-intensive agricultural operations. That isn't going to be cheap...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> ... That leaves adaptation as the only option for Australia...



 As usual you make it all sound so easy  - but without too much smoke and not too many mirrors ( none that I can see). 

but but but, the situation isnt going to get better until that particular lady is made to apologise and drink RAW horse urine on a combined sitting of "This Day Tonight" and " A Current Affair". !!   (that wink means Im saying it but im not meaning etc etc ). Speaking of which the dog needs to go water a tree up the road.

PS I might miss a post while Im gone - BUT the dog NEVER misses a post !

PS Got your point about "not using up the reserve in the system, because then when we want a reserve we wont have it". Are you implying that politicians and planners push their luck with planning ? Dont build any fat into their plans?  and then blame "bad luck" when they are shown to have cut corners or dont have enough resources? ( be it water, power, back burning? ) SHAME on you smurf


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> As usual you make it all sound so easy  - but without too much smoke and not too many mirrors ( none that I can see).
> 
> PS Got your point about "not using up the reserve in the system, because then when we want a reserve we wont have it". Are you implying that politicians and planners push their luck with planning ? Dont build any fat into their plans?  and then blame "bad luck" when they are shown to have cut corners or dont have enough resources? ( be it water, power, back burning? ) SHAME on you smurf



The way I see it, it comes down to an engineering problem. The water is available, but not in the place and at the time we need it. That has ALWAYS been the case but in the past we built the necessary engineering works to overcome this constraint. As the population has increased these works are no longer adequate - that is ultimately the entire cause of the problem as far as urban water supply is concerned. 

You can have 98% reliability of water supply pretty easily, it all depends on how hard you push the system. For example, if we accepted a 50% chance of system failure (running out of water) in any one year then we could generate x amount of power from the Tas hydro system. If we cut back that chance of running out of water to 2% in a year then the system will only produce 91% as much power. So, you lose 9% of the output but incur the same costs in order to achieve a major increase in reliability. Liberal politicians, economists and environmentalists see this as inefficiency, I see it as commonsense planning as does the Hydro.

You can't get 100% reliability if you're depending on nature. 98% is about the limit of what is economic to achieve but that means water (or in this case power) problems once every 50 years rather than practically every year as is the case now with water in most states. Certainly, over 99% reliability is quite doable in an engineering sense but you would have to derate the system (losing revenue) quite a lot in order to do it. 98% is just where the balance of cost / benefit sits reasonably well.

There is no engineering reason why Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne couldn't have a water supply system where restrictions of any kind are a once or twice in a lifetime event. Indeed Sydney had exactly that at one point, but then the population grew and supply hasn't been expanded to keep up.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 October 2006)

macca said:
			
		

> Kyoto is a sop to the bleeding hearts, both India and China will INCREASE their green house emissions in the next year by more than the TOTAL emissions in Australia.
> 
> If Oz stopped emissions completely then by the next year it would have made no difference to the world, but a hell of a difference to us.
> 
> ...




macca,

Yes Kyoto gives Japan India and China a fair go. Aus and the US get nothing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Yep that all makes sense as well. Gotta feeling it makes more sense in Tasmania than in Sydney.  Dont see how you can increase the reservoirs around Sydney with a flash of a magic wand.  They've already raised the Reservoir walls as high as they can (stressing on extensions).  And  the combined effect of more population and lesser rainfall is just crippling things.  Lateral thinking necessary I would think. Desalinators made sense to me, but that got flushed. 

Not sure about a grid up and down the length of the coast.  Probably no need to take the pipes further than "local solutions".  A lot of water available between here and Newcastle, and Im sure they wouldnt mind sharing. 

Not like California mate.  The people in Sacramento (community minded, God fearing, NEEDING the Sacramento river to irrigate and make a livelihood) - you can imagine how they feel about sending massive percentages of water down to LA ( that great den of iniquity as they would claim).

Further south, the once great Rio Grande (Hoover dam etc) no longer even reaches the sea.   But don't worry Nova Castrians, we wouldn't stop the Hunter reaching the sea


----------



## krisbarry (14 October 2006)

I am going to use a little language is my post but it is in good taste  

Sydney flushes their toilets after pissing and shi_tting, then it flows down the Murray, where Melbourne drinks it.  The Melbournites pi_ss and sh_it in it and the flow continues to Adelaide where we pump it into homes, drink it and pi_ss and sh_it it downstream to the Murray Mouth were it is nothing more than a trickle on a good year.

The same flow cycle continues for irrigators, garden wastes, rubbish, illegal commercial dumping etc.

So you can see what a filthy mess we have here.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

:topic  :bs: [all of the above]
Here's a few lines I scribbled about Bourke, an imaginary old digger, and an imaginary flood (been a long time since they had one of those).  In reality its more about the spirit of the diggers that is dying with them.  That attitude is probably not relevant today - but cripes I love those diggers. 

WHEN DUTY MEETS FLOOD
An order came through on the phone to young Jimmy, 
Some Digger up Darling way - just back of Bourke - 
"And hurry son, pack it and send it by sundown, 
Without it I'm sunk 'cause the pump just won't work." 

"It fits on the handle, the one that you push on, 
The pulling side's perfect - I don't need the kit ! 
There's no sense in wasting 'cause wanting can follow, 
The rest of it's pristine - I just need one bit" 

"The price is outrageous - what, two dollars fifty! - 
But Noah's on standby, my back's to the wall - 
I think it's the model before the Big Mopper, 
Before World War 1, son - when duty was all." 

Now, floods had been raging for nigh on a fortnight, 
The whole of the Darling was deeply immersed, 
But Jimmy decided he'd do as was bidden - 
What Diggers would do if the shoes were reversed. 

He donned an ole trenchcoat and Wellies and waders, 
He fitted his scooter with waterwings too, 
Like James Bond's intrepid amphibious duckling, 
He set off through rain that was falling like stew. 

He ploughed through the creeks that were running a banker, 
He raced along cliffedges, floods on all sides. 
He dodged the great deluge of cascading debris, 
He island-hopped treetrunks mid waterfall rides. 

And after a night of incredible courage 
And hundreds of miles through the torrents and churn, 
Eureka - he shook the old hand of the Digger, 
And ooohh - what a grin he received in return.   

"Now sit with me son while I demonstrate will power 
learnt pumping trenches at each bugle call." 
.... 
He fitted the part, and he pumped till the flood 
receded by inches, then metres, then mud, 
with blisters on blisters he finally stud - 
and smiled through loose dentures like bull chewing cud, 
.... 
"A breeze after Flanders - no bullets no blood - 
But that was when duty was all."

PS Just had a couple of thoughts.
1.  I wouldnt like to be the one who had to tell those people out west that they should walk off their properties - that we werent prepared to add 2% tax to city incomes, and channel the money into improving the lot of the outback.   
2. I wonder if there was another (justifiable) call to arms, what would be the percentage response from the cities, and what would be the percentage response  from the bush?


----------



## billhill (14 October 2006)

whoa, all of a sudden our renewable energy powered desalination plant here in WA doesn't sound like such a stupid project.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Yep that all makes sense as well. Gotta feeling it makes more sense in Tasmania than in Sydney.  Dont see how you can increase the reservoirs around Sydney with a flash of a magic wand.  They've already raised the Reservoir walls as high as they can (stressing on extensions).  And  the combined effect of more population and lesser rainfall is just crippling things.  Lateral thinking necessary I would think. Desalinators made sense to me, but that got flushed.
> 
> Not sure about a grid up and down the length of the coast.  Probably no need to take the pipes further than "local solutions".  A lot of water available between here and Newcastle, and Im sure they wouldnt mind sharing.



All that needs to happen in Sydney is to add more supply to "the system". It doesn't matter how it's done (desalination, another dam somewhere in NSW, pipeline from Qld, tankers from Tas) as long as it adds bulk supply to the system. If the new supply is reliable then there's no need for additional storage. If the new supply is intermittent then storage is needed although that could be built anywhere - it doesn't have to be at the source of the water. 

Contrary to what the Victorian government has being saying recently, there's no need to pump water directly into the storages in order to push the level up. You just pump the water into the supply network and that means you release less from the storages - they then rise naturally over time through having "positive expectancy" in investment terminology. 

It's the exact same principle as how we push up the level in the storages in Tas by burning gas - the gas doesn't put water in the storages but the alternative supply of power means less flows out. Same principle and it works anywhere as long as there is at least some rain sometime (which in practice there is). Put more water or power into the system and the level in the long term storages will increase over time due to the reduced outflows being less than long term inflows.

Just like increasing your net wealth. Doesn't matter if it's through wages, investment, winning the lottery or whatever. Likewise doesn't matter if it's put in the bank, paid of the mortgage or invested in shares. It's an increase in the overall position either way.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Sydney flushes their toilets after pissing and shi_tting, then it flows down the Murray, where Melbourne drinks it.  The Melbournites pi_ss and sh_it in it and the flow continues to Adelaide where we ..., drink it .



Not sure you'd get a degree for geography here STC lol, I mean I know the Murray meanders, but its been a while since it went through Melbourne lol.

But DESPITE all that, I still love Coopers beer   Just dont look at that cloudy brown stuff lol.  
Ahhh - but I find the funniest thing is Tas, 10,150 people in the northern half drink that pristine James Boag stuff, 10,150 people in the southern half drink that pristine Cascade stuff, but all 20,300 would fight to the death defending their brand lol.  Ahh but talk about clear water. 

PS I think Smurf has been spoilt - should get out and see the real world lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Not sure you'd get a degree for geography here STC lol, I mean I know the Murray meanders, but its been a while since it went through Melbourne lol.
> 
> But DESPITE all that, I still love Coopers beer   Just dont look at that cloudy brown stuff lol.
> Ahhh - but I find the funniest thing is Tas, 10,150 people in the northern half drink that pristine James Boag stuff, 10,150 people in the southern half drink that pristine Cascade stuff, but all 20,300 would fight to the death defending their brand lol.  Ahh but talk about clear water.
> ...



Let's stick to a polite discussion without the personal nonsense.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Let's stick to a polite discussion without the personal nonsense.



specifiics mate - Ill respond  - I cant for the life of me see what you would call impolite.  I mean is it impersonal to suggest that the Murray and the  famous Yarra should be a common river system lol.

PS Ahhh - you're talkin about the pristine Tas water .  vs the water they use for Coopers ? ever wondered why Coopers started selling "Beer minus the water"?  but then again ( rather than offend southaussies) - I hav to say that I really like Coopers "warts, crud and all" 

PS Not every city has a river like the Derwent (Hobart) - or the Esk (Launceston) running through it - Launceston, sheesh what a ferocious torrent after rain !! - right there in the suburbs.!!

PS All due respect mate - but the rest of the country isnt having to balance the conflicting demands of power generation and irrigation - they are trying to get enough for their cattle or (worse) sheep to drink.

PS Gotta feeling we are both engineers  - maybe we should sort this out over a beer - you might remember me - I won the yardglass competition at the engineers symposium in hobart in ... in ... -woops you werent even born maybe you wouldnt remember lol.

PS and FOR CH***T's sake dont take this personally !! I respect your opinions immensely. proactive , challenging,  incisive, novel etc 

PS I went to Tas for some construction work in 2002 - was allegedly a "drought" - the roads were closed half the time while the grass-cutters sorted out the 2 foot high grass along the sides of the roads lol -   Flinders Is was buying up all the prize breeding beef that the rest of the country couldn't afford to keep due to the drought .  At 1/10 of what they were worth.   Mate - Tasmanians wouldn't know what a drought was !!


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

Maybe I misinterpreted your post but I do think saying that people are spoilt and need to see the real world is a tad insulting. Anyway, back on topic...   

We've said plenty about water and the drought, but what are we going to DO about it?

There are options for increasing rainfall. It would help mostly where there are storages since the effect is to increase rainfall mostly when there isn't already a drought. It could help quite a bit but it's by no means a total solution since it doesn't do much in conditions such as those seen recently when non-storage inflow rainfall is most needed.

Mainland Australia has 88% of the fresh water in this country, Tasmania has the other 12%. But there's no way that we're going to be able to afford some massive scheme to shift water from northern Australia or Tas to the farms where it's needed. At least not doing it with pipelines or concrete lined canals.

Urban water supply is pretty easy. If nothing else, just ship the stuff in from the north or from Tas in conventional oil tankers. Or build a desalination plant. A pretty easy problem to fix given the political will to do so. It is a matter of infrastructure just like roads, power etc.

Industrial processes are fairly easy too, just build the factories where there is water or build a pipeline. Water is just another consideration along with transport, raw materials, power, gas etc.

So, what we really have is an agricultural problem rather than a water problem per se. Water there is and we can get it to cities and industry but we can't get it on the farms. At least not in the quantities we're talking about. And if we did put huge volumes on the farms then we'd end up with salinity problems anyway.

So perhaps we need to be looking more at agriculture itself than water? Growing different things and growing them in different places. In some cases, not growing them at all.

Genetic engineering might have a role to play here, if the technology can be put to sensible use rather than producing crops that live on pesticides conveniently manufactured by the same company...


----------



## Julia (14 October 2006)

Smurf

You are suggesting Sydney's water problems could be partly solved by a pipeline from Queensland.

Where the hell is the stuff coming from to put in the pipeline?

Why are people having to let their gardens die if we have enough to send to Sydney???

Julia


----------



## 123enen (14 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> the rest of the country isnt having to balance the conflicting demands of power generation and irrigation - they are trying to get enough for their cattle or (worse) sheep to drink.




At the risk of sounding callous... I don't buy it! At least not for ANIMAL farming.
You really think these animal farmers are having a hard time?
They are exporting heaps of this stuff to Japan / Canada etc. at very healthy / inflated prices /profits.

Why has beef etc. become so expensive to buy here in Aust? 
Because they are selling it overseas and saying to us poor city smucks ... if you want it then pay top dollar... no fair go/ favours for you city slickers.

And then they have the nerve to ask city smuck taxpayers for financial support if things aren't so comfortable anymore, or in fact even now when they are doing quite well. How pathetic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Smurf
> 
> You are suggesting Sydney's water problems could be partly solved by a pipeline from Queensland.
> 
> ...



I was thinking of North Queensland. There's quite a lot of water up there that isn't being used for anything. If nothing else, it would make sense to supply SE Queensland with some of it even if the pipeline wasn't extended to Sydney.

For that matter, I don't have any data but to my understanding there's plenty in northern NSW too. If that's correct then it raises some serious questions (lack of proper planning!) as to why Brisbane and Sydney both have water shortages.


----------



## moses (14 October 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> At the risk of sounding callous... I don't buy it! At least not for ANIMAL farming.
> You really think these animal farmers are having a hard time?
> They are exporting heaps of this stuff to Japan / Canada etc. at very healthy / inflated prices /profits.
> 
> ...



Spoken like a truly selfish city nerd. For a start, it isn't stock (animals) that consume the bulk of the water, it is crops. Cotton being the worst culprit. Second, the price of beef is actually plummeting, because the drought means there isn't even enough water for the animals, and every farmer is selling. More to the point there hasn't been enough rain for the grass, and so the cattle feed is dying or non-existent. And the dams that the cattle drink out of are dry, nothing for cattle to drink. Unlike city folk, farms don't have piped water or government provided dams; they rely entirely on the rain, or underground water, or rivers that go through the farm.

So far as inflated prices go, thats a joke. Its all supply and demand, and droughts distort the market. Instead of eating grass, fodder has to be transported, supplements have to be bought. In short, the cost of feeding cattle goes up and up and up, hopefully to be recovered by high prices because everyone is experiencing the same. Hopefully...but not always. Soon your meat will be cheap because farmers are already selling their cattle at a loss to get something back, anything back, because dead and starving cows littered all over the farm don't do much for the income. And then when (if) it rains farmers will desperately try to buy and breed up their herds again, only to find everyone is doing the same. Guess what happens to prices?

City taxpayers?

At the end of the day, it is primary producers who are creating the wealth, which is why they are called "primary" producers. Everyone else is just value adding.


----------



## yogi-in-oz (14 October 2006)

Hi Macca et al,

That huge on-farm water storage for cotton is at 
Cubbie Station and right now he is hurting like 
everybody else ..... but, if we were to fill him up with a 
guaranteed annual supply from the north, then ONE 
condition that could be imposed on him would be, that 
he releases enough to reestablish a flow in the Darling 
system .... 

..... and that would make a lot of people happy,
downstream.

Another obvious storage area would be the lakes region
of Western Victoria !~!

So, we have the water and we have the storage, we 
just need to put the infrastructure in place to transport
the water to the desired catchments.

-----

With regard to modifying our agricultural base, maybe
something may also be done about bringing some of the 
production areas to the water, where it can be monitored
in an intensive irrigated cropping regime ..... anybody 
that has worked in Libya can tell you that there's huge
circular areas of irrigated crops there, right on the edge
of the Sahara Desert ..... 

.... and would you believe it ... ??? It was Australian 
technology that was used to develop those systems !~!

Abosolutely amazing, we can do it for other countries,
yet we can't help ourselves.

happy days

 yogi

P.S. ..... and if you want more water storage, let's fill up 
             the depleted Palm Valley gasfields in Central Oz 
             while we can, as insurance for years to come.


----------



## 123enen (15 October 2006)

moses said:
			
		

> Second, the price of beef is actually plummeting, because the drought means there isn't even enough water for the animals, and every farmer is selling.
> 
> Soon your meat will be cheap because farmers are already selling their cattle at a loss to get something back, anything back, because dead and starving cows littered all over the farm don't do much for the income.
> 
> At the end of the day, it is primary producers who are creating the wealth, which is why they are called "primary" producers. Everyone else is just value adding.




You are kidding aren't you? 

Around two-thirds of Australian beef production is exported. Demand for Australian beef has been strong from late 2003, mostly due to a lack of competition from the U.S. in South Korea and Japan due to mad cow concerns. Japan in late July lifted its import ban on U.S. beef, clearing the way for exports to resume. This is why prices are very gradually easing. Stock producers have been lapping it up for years getting world’s best prices with total disregard for the battler Aussie mum and dad trying to feed their families.

__________________________________________
Even the meat and livestock association doesn't try to fool us with this gloom and doom.

“Prospects for the Australian cattle industry remain bright despite the ongoing drought and imminent return of US beef to North Asia, according to Meat & Livestock Australia in its mid-year update of the Cattle and Sheep Industry Projections 2006, released today. “

“Cattle prices so far in 2006 have been higher than predicted in February, as a result of the further delays in the US return to North Asia, and despite the spreading of the drought to again cover the majority of the eastern states.

Overall, few changes have been necessary to MLA’s projections outlined in February, with the herd expanding by around 3 per cent/year in the short term, and beef supply still expected to rise by around 3 per cent in 2006, and 16 per cent by 2010, allowing for a modest lift in both exports and domestic consumption” 

http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarch...to+bright+outlook+for+the+cattle+industry.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Anyway, back on topic...



agreed 



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> There are options for increasing rainfall. It would help mostly where there are storages since the effect is to increase rainfall mostly when there isn't already a drought. ...So, what we really have is an agricultural problem rather than a water problem per se.




"Increasing rainfall" ? maybe - needs careful management yes? not just to redistribute rainfall?  Like, China "steals" rain by seeding clouds (silver iodide?) that they used to receive west of there.  But you're right let's look at all the options. Good points about achieving this where there is storage - "brillliant!" as the Irishman said when offered a Guiness 

As for Farming vs Grazing, sorry I have a natural empathy with animals - more inclined to share the pain of a skinny horse or a cow or sheep (no Im not a Kiwi lol) than a skinny cabbage.  You know why the Kiwis call their sheep "arti" dont you? - listen carefully to the words of the haka lol.  "Komarti Komarti etc".  

And likewise I have less joy communicating with rice and cotton.   It's a weakness I have - and my posts are made less representative and more vulnerable to discard on the grounds of bias, prejudice or irrelevance as a result.  You're all no doubt right - the real cause lies there. agriculture!  But the animals suffer as a result  :  

One thing I do know is that previously viable agricultural land (SE QLD) that used to require bores down 50 feet now have to go 500 feet - and even then there's b***** all water.  

The problem aint easy thats for sure.!  But interesting that it's made the news, and who knows, the pollies might even do something this time ? I think i agree that the Fed Govt has to coordinate - gotta be a step in the right direction.     I mean, leave the states to their own devices, we end up with railway gauges that change at virtually every border 

123enen, mate - have you any idea of the sort of feed bills that they pay to get through the dry times - those people you say are making a motsa pay 6 figure numbers per month for feed - for months on end !!     Would you swap with them? (damned if I would)  Why are so many leaving? Gotta feeling you're guessing friend.


----------



## macca (15 October 2006)

Gee we have solved the country's problems in a few days  

Talking about capital cities, virtually all are on the coast except the big C.

All get plenty of rain BUT their catchments are inland, in NSW they want to spend 1.5 Billion on a desalination plant, if they use that money to give one million people a $1500 subsidy to put a water tank on and connect it to their sewer we are MUCH better off.

I know Brisbane have started it already, so lets do it every where.

Say a 5000litre tank on one million homes, only need about 12 mill of rain and all are full, that is a hell of a lot of drinking water not sucked out of the dams

Easy way to start fixing the problem IMO


----------



## moses (15 October 2006)

123enen said:
			
		

> You are kidding aren't you?
> 
> Around two-thirds of Australian beef production is exported. Demand for Australian beef has been strong from late 2003, mostly due to a lack of competition from the U.S. in South Korea and Japan due to mad cow concerns. Japan in late July lifted its import ban on U.S. beef, clearing the way for exports to resume. This is why prices are very gradually easing. Stock producers have been lapping it up for years getting world’s best prices with total disregard for the battler Aussie mum and dad trying to feed their families.




Not at all, although this time it would be nice to be wrong.

In any case...why shouldn't farmers accept the best price they can?

Also, battler mum and dad are already subsidized more often than not (which I'm not criticising), but I doubt if you'll get far pushing for a special beef subsidy when at the supermarket any more than you'll get a banana subsidy. 

At the end of the day, if farming is so outrageously profitable and producers are raking it in, then fewer of our best land and most productive farms would be broken up for weekenders and hobby farms for city folk made wealthy on the back of the property boom.


----------



## 123enen (15 October 2006)

moses said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, if farming is so outrageously profitable and producers are raking it in, then fewer of our best land and most productive farms would be broken up for weekenders and hobby farms for city folk made wealthy on the back of the property boom.





http://abc.net.au/rural/outlook2005/stories/story13.htm

ABARE says agriculture a good investment
Despite the drought, ABARE says average returns on investment for farm businesses over the past five years have outstripped those for the money and share market.
ABARE's survey's branch manager Rhonda Treadwell told the Outlook Conference, there's been a steady improvement in the financial performance of Australian farms over the past two years.
______________________________________________________________

Profitable enough for the big boys to out bid the hobby farmers.

AAc, Futuris, Queensland cotton, etc,

My point really relates back to the very first three threads ( the original topic)

I would not like my tax money to go towards "easing the pain" of those that lapped it up at our expense during the good times ( and MLA confirm the good times). I never heard MLA / farming community say "while things are as good as they are we wish to give some relief to the Aust. consumer".


----------



## BSD (15 October 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that we should stop all overseas payments to who ever & direct the billion plus we pay , to helping our farmers now !
> Your thoughts please
> 
> Bob.




Just going back to the start. 

I agree to this concept (even though I dont understand what you are talking about) as long as in the next bear-market a similar scheme operates for Stockbrokers. 

Heck, Cotton Farmers have far more assets than Stockbrokers, so I cant see an equity argument. I could certainly use a tax free $500K slushfund like the farm management deposit


----------



## Realist (15 October 2006)

It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought.

Australia is the dryest continent in the world (apart from Antarctica) - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry.  Then they moan about it not raining enough.  No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much!  If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.

If we need lamb, beef, veges, bananas or whatever buy them from Tasmania or NZ or overseas.  They need to buy Australian uranium, nickel etc. 

It is a global economy.

Survival of the fittest, if you are farming a desert expect poor results.

And I do not want to have to pay $40 for a roast beef, or $12 a kg of bananas because it hasn't rained here, or rained too much - import from overseas for christ sakes.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought.
> 
> Australia is the dryest continent in the world (apart from Antarctica) - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry.  Then they moan about it not raining enough.  No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much!  If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.
> 
> ...




Completely agree with every word, Realist.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought.
> -  import from overseas for christ sakes.



Realist if I didnt know you better Id think you were a selfish bludger who did nothing for the country except trade on shares and other self interested activities.    Australia's economy rides on the sheeps back -  or it it the shepherd's back? 
PS Guess that "rides on the sheeps back" is past tens - now figurative for 
""at least partly" on the  bush'es contribution"


----------



## happytrader (15 October 2006)

Talk about out of the mouth of babes. My son was telling me he had heard that every four days a farmer commits suicide. You hear about the murder suicides but the actual suicides are exempt from media reporting.
I reckon everyone needs a sideline and a range of identities and occuptions they can feel free to adopt. If everything you are is tied to your identity and you only have one, then you're in for a rough ride unless you can take a step back, adjust or adapt.

I also note the government has unveiled a $837million package aimed at older workers, aged 25 and over, who left school early and want to further their education o' people aged 30 and over who want to switch career and start an apprenticeship but cannot afford to go back to an apprentice's wage.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought.
> ... Then they moan about it not raining enough.  No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much!  If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.
> If we need lamb, beef, veges, bananas or whatever buy them from Tasmania or NZ or overseas.  ..Survival of the fittest, if you are farming a desert expect poor results.



Realist - If youre saying that hard headed economic models cannot take into account the plight of people who live west of Katoomba, around Bourke etc, then Id say let's soften the model a bit. (refer Happytrader's post below)
There are enough electorates in the bush, albeit dwindling in population, to ensure that the govt of the day (and I care not which) takes at least some notice of their plight.  I think you'll find the govt of the present day is closer to my thinking than yours on this.  (although there's still a bludy gr8 gap between them and me)  And I think that there are still a few city folk who don't think only of their own plight to add a couple more votes. 
Priority given to a pipeline perhaps, or better still topping up the aquifers near their perimeters (saves miles of piping).  
But let's not just say "they knew what they were getting themselves in for" (almost certainly incorrect, things are worsening).  I just don't think that "survival of the fattest" or "let em eat cake" is an appropriate reaction.  The French were hard headed in those days too.    :behead:


----------



## Realist (15 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Realist if I didnt know you better Id think you were a selfish bludger who did nothing for the country except trade on shares and other self interested activities.





YEP, and proud of it!!    



> Australia's economy rides on the sheeps back -  or it it the shepherd's back?




Australia rides on the miners back now doesn't it?


----------



## Realist (15 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Realist - If youre saying that hard headed economic models cannot take into account the plight of people who live west of Katoomba, around Bourke etc, then Id say let's soften the model a bit. (refer Happytrader's post below)
> There are enough electorates in the bush, albeit dwindling in population, to ensure that the govt of the day (and I care not which) takes at least some notice of their plight.  I think you'll find the govt of the present day is closer to my thinking than yours on this.  (although there's still a bludy gr8 gap between them and me)  And I think that there are still a few city folk who don't think only of their own plight to add a couple more votes.
> Priority given to a pipeline perhaps, or better still topping up the aquifers near their perimeters (saves miles of piping).
> But let's not just say "they knew what they were getting themselves in for" (almost certainly incorrect, things are worsening).  I just don't think that "survival of the fattest" or "let em eat cake" is an appropriate reaction.  The French were hard headed in those days too.    :behead:




So if someone in Alaska wanted to start a farm growing pineapples and the snow ruined their crops the government should bail them out year after year?

I think not.  Obviously pineapple cultivation and snow don't mix, much like farming and deserts don't mix.

I do sympathise with the farmers, but I believe they need to bite the bullet now and accept most of Australia is too dry to farm.

The government should help these people relocate and/or reskill to other jobs, not just pay compensation year after year when it doesn't rain.

The drought aint gonna end, outback Australia aint gonna be getting wetter,  it is only gonna get worse.  Time to change.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> So if someone in Alaska wanted to start a farm growing pineapples and the snow ruined their crops the government should bail them out year after year?..Time to change.



Mate the way global warming is going - it'll be too hot to grow pineapples in Alaska soon.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Mate the way global warming is going - it'll be too hot to grow pineapples in Alaska soon.



2020,

We know you're being flippant and facetious here, but it's a way of avoiding having to agree that Realist is actually right on this one.  It's not a matter of being unsympathetic or unkind to farmers, but I just don't see why they should be regarded any differently from people in any other industry whose jobs have become redundant because of technology or any other factor.

I can absolutely understand how people who have lived their whole lives in the country to the exclusion of any other way of life must develop an immense attachment to that land, but sometimes we all just have to be realistic and understand that the way of life we once were able to enjoy is simply not sustainable.

As Happytrader has pointed out, the government has announced a package of retraining options.  Millions of people have had to retrain and completely redirect their planned way of earning a living.  I don't see why farmers should be any different IF it's clear that climatic conditions mean that their capacity to sustain themselves on their land is simply not cost effective without ongoing government (taxpayer) subsidies.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> 2020, We know you're being flippant and facetious here, but it's a way of avoiding having to agree that Realist is actually right on this one.  It's not a matter of being unsympathetic or unkind to farmers, but I just don't see why they should be regarded any differently from people in any other industry whose jobs have become redundant because of technology or any other factor....  I don't see why farmers should be any different IF it's clear that climatic conditions mean that their capacity to sustain themselves on their land is simply not cost effective without ongoing government (taxpayer) subsidies.Julia



Julia guess Ill read Malcolm Turnbull's "Federal Water Report" whatever its called (make that a summary of it - I get far too much sleep as it is lol) before I  comment further.  I dont agree with Realist, nor you if you say that the farmers have to take it on single handedly - that its their problem and not "ours" - that some sort of "user pays" philosophy applies.  This might be a global economy as Realist says - it's also a national problem.  
But my guess is that Malcolm Turnbull's not quite ready to throw in the towel just yet. First test for him after all (if you ignore his loss to the Royalists over the Republican debate).   I'm pretty terrified that they are going to talk a lot but balk at anything that costs real bucks, that they'll tinker with the margins and say that "better management, etcetc" when all that will achieve is a better sharing of the current resources, probably cutting out some industries like cotton ( that were being encouraged a few years ago sheesh).  Maybe the problem's too big for the surplus to even look at.  What price a desert? What price a deserted Australian centre? Proactive Intervention hasn't even had its surface scratched yet. 
Read any of Smurf's posts.   We've gotta try at least.  Don't just say "I'm off to NZ" - In any case most of them are coming over here - to our cities of course.   Ive got no problem with that  - as long as their kids play Rugby for Aus not the allblacks. 

Sadly this next proposal is tongue in cheek, (even I have to be realistic at times I guess) - There was a rather novel proposal put forward in the 60's.  An underground nuclear explosion out near the Alice - or wherever you needed a big underground tank  - just large enough not to break the surface , you'd be left with a HUUGE vitreous lined flask - easily accessed from the surface. It would be waterproof, After 50 years (100?) the claim was that the radioactivity would be at sensible levels - You could fill it and it would become the centre for a thriving oasis .
The people who proposed this (the pioneers of lateral thinking atomic energy) also proposed a harbour up in the Pilbara ( instead of having loading facilities like Cape Lambert 2km out into the ocean).  - their answer - one big bomb should do it.  We'd all have to pleased they were voted down on that one - but it was a serious proposal at one time.    But back to the topic - let's see if there isnt some way to spend a few (billion) dollars at help apply some suntan lotion to this sunburnt country we all love.
"her beauty and her terror, the wide brown wife for me" - PS don't tell the missus I said that pls.

PS Just as my tone to Realist (and you - implied - since you agreed with him) has become more "middle ground", so too has his (and yours) to me, conceding that he (and you) have sympathy for them after all.  That wasnt evident in his original post.  And my reply to that first post was more blunt and arguably argumentative than I intended.  I guess that's what discussion is about -  not that it really matters lol.  It's not as if this is the UN security council for instance.   If I know Realist, criticism is like water off a ducks back. - or rather ..he thrives on it !


----------



## nioka (15 October 2006)

I would not like my tax money to go towards "easing the pain" of those that lapped it up at our expense during the good times ( and MLA confirm the good times). I never heard MLA / farming community say "while things are as good as they are we wish to give some relief to the Aust. consumer".[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I farmed in a fairly big way for 40 years or more. Can not ever remember lapping it up. Had a few very good years and they ALMOST made up for the bad times. The best thing that ever happened to me was to stop trying, sell the farm and use the money and time better. If you haven't been there you would not understand.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> So if someone in Alaska wanted to start a farm growing pineapples and the snow ruined their crops ... Obviously pineapple cultivation and snow don't mix, much like farming and deserts don't mix...Time to change.



Realist, (since you open up the topic of farming in NZ and /or Alaska)- In some parts of NZ SI, they have to get up every winter morning and hover over the vineyards in helicopters to blow away the frost.   Never  underestimate the grit and determination of farmers mate.  BTW, It's not that Eskimos aren't smart enough to grow pineapples, it's just that they prefer whale blubber lol. One was overheard to say, after tasting pineapple -  " I'd prefer to eat kayak!!"   Aussie farmers are really resourceful folk given a chance.  (that's the main point Im trying to make).
Am I being flippant about the pineapples - of course.
Are you being flippant to "write off" the big part of Australia's agricultural and grazing centre as "desert" - and turn your back, walk away, all help denied? Id like to think so.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 October 2006)

I think we ought to give cloud seeding a go. It's not a practical means of ending the current drought (since you need clouds to seed) but it's a cheap means of increasing rainfall on average and thus filling the dams, getting the soil moisture back up, putting more flow in the rivers etc in the future. That way, we'll be better prepared when the next drought arrives.

Whilst there are some who claim it doesn't work, it's been working quite well in Tasmania for the past 40 years and it is remarkably cheap. In the Tas context, it's spending $1 million a year and getting 20%+ increases in rainfall in the target areas. Indeed some on the West Coast say it works _too_ well.

All it needs is a few light aircraft, pilots and the necessary equipment. All up, it ought to be possible to do a mainland trial for a few $ million over a selected target area (eg the entire state of Victoria) and see what happens. Worst case we waste a relatively trivial amount of money. Best case it fixes the problem and we get more rain than we otherwise would have received.

Obviously there's a big difference in the climatic conditions between Tasmania and NSW but it would seem a little strange if Tas was the _only_ place it worked. And the evidence from the target areas in Tas (which is only part of the Hydro catchment areas - mostly the headwaters) is pretty strong to say that it works. In theory, cloud seeding could be pushed a lot harder in Tas, about 3 times as much in terms of extra power generated,  although that would mean targeting many towns etc and no doubt would be anything but popular - hence the focus on the headwaters.

Snowy Hydro has started a trial of cloud seeding too but they're doing it from the ground rather than using aircraft as in Tasmania. Obviously it will take many years of data, the trial is for 6 years, to assess effectiveness given that rainfall varies from year to year naturally.

If we could get this to work nationally then, whilst it is not a total solution, it ought to help considerably, particularly in terms of putting more water in rivers and dams. More water for the cities too. 

Greenhouse gas emissions from the aircraft would be more than offset by the additional hydro-electricity produced as long as the relevant catchments in Qld, NSW / Snowy and Victoria were targetted along with agricultural and urban water supply areas.

Cloud seeding FAQ's are here. Note that the map only shows the cloud seeding target area and not the entire catchments which are considerably larger.

http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Energy/Cloud+Seeding/FAQs+Cloud+Seeding.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I think we ought to give cloud seeding a go. ... Indeed some on the West Coast say it works _too_ well.



Smurf, thanks for the positive attitude. Looking at it though, you have the advantage in Tas of not being accused of stealing rain that would have fallen downwind.    (West Coast of NZ is unlikely to complain    But in Aus mainland (just like the problems with sharing the rivers, we have to share the clouds - if they seed at Parkes, the people in Bourke would not be amused.  Bit like water rights, they'd be selling "cloud rights" maybe .  Still if it can be shown that its "a bird in the hand" instead of a "pint in the sky" that drifts by and disperses, then maybe...


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Smurf, ... Bit like water rights, they'd be selling "cloud rights" maybe .



I just have this image of farmers running round western NSW with a bucket each and looking up (like a long distance cricket match) crying out " mine,  mine,  !!"   - not that its that bludy funny.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 November 2006)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1783497.htm

Just a quick thought..

The bad news:- We are going through "the worst drought in living memory".  

More bad news:-  We are living longer.  

meanwhile the Govt can't decide to buy out Cubby (cotton on Qld border who have a "diversion channel" to get "their share" that is wider that the Darling river) - or do anything proactive really - just more gabfest... so what's new?



> But the Member for Mallee, John Forrest, says ...yesterday's measures are not enough.
> 
> "I don't think the premiers or the Prime Minister get it, we have 24 weeks of supply left in the Murray River at our current rate of consumption, 24 weeks, that's five months the Murray River is going to run out of water, we need a national declaration of an emergency," he said.
> 
> "We need a moratorium and everything reviewed immediately.  They just don't understand, I mean it's nonsense to think we are going to get enormous rain over the summer - that will be just a disaster for horticulture - we are in a state of emergency.


----------



## constable (8 November 2006)

It is very scary. Here in ballarat we are now on stage 4 restrictions meaning you cant water your garden at all. I heard that a bloke last thurs got the first $3000 fine for washing his car . Meanwhile yesterday we spent $900 on a pressure pump and fittings so we can pump water out of our inground pool to keep the garden alive!
 Next project is to hook all the storm water and some grey water off the house and into the pool.
 Once ive done that my prediction is the drought will break!


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 November 2006)

constable said:
			
		

> .. Once ive done that my prediction is the drought will break!



Lol - I like the fact that you can still smile.  Not sure it qualifies as Murphy's Law if the drought breaks - but I hope for once Murphy works for the good


----------



## nioka (8 November 2006)

If you eat you are involved in agriculture.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> If you eat you are involved in agriculture.




I don't know, I don't eat cotton.

I do however, have a friend, Milo Minderbinder, of catch-22 fame, who is trying to sell me some suspicious looking cotton candy...


----------



## macca (8 November 2006)

Funny thing I read about that Cubbie Station, they bought the water rights from the Qld state government, which would be right as states do own the water rights to their rivers, and now the state wants the federal government to buy it from Cubbie.

I wonder will the Qld govt stump up the money they got for the rights in the first place and the federal just pay the balance, I doubt it


----------



## Duckman#72 (8 November 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought.
> 
> Australia is the dryest continent in the world (apart from Antarctica) - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry.  Then they moan about it not raining enough.  No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much!  If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.




Your understanding of Primary Production makes me laugh Realist.    It is the right out of "Townie Textbook 101". Have you seen a cow that wasn't in a Golden Book?

Lets have a think Realist. Sheep country at Orange is selling for $1600 per acre - Barcaldine is selling for $200 per acre. Yes - at first glance the country at Barkie is "cheap"  - hey Realist? But what if I was to say you need 8 times the country at Barkie to make the same as the property at Orange.  

I'll explain it to you in terms you might understand. Share A costs $1000 and pays a dividend of $100 - Share B costs $200 and pays a dividend of $20. Based on the return on investment which is the cheaper share?

The reason "dry" land is cheap is due to the fact that it only "carries" a small number of livestock to the acre. Good country in proven rainfall areas carry say 3-4 head to the acre, poorer quality dry country runs say 1 head per 20-30 acres. Which is why you get much bigger land holdings in inland regions.
People buying property in Barcaldine do not expect NZ or English weather conditions. But they depend upon their "average" rainfall to make a reasonable living from their larger sized holdings.

Unfortunately the bush has experienced the same spike in land prices that the cities have experienced. The current price of land is completely out of kilter with what can be made off it. In my opinion the drought is a distraction. Where I am the price per acre has NO CORRELATION to current commodity prices. Unless you have existing land holdings somewhere to help service debt - it is impossible to purchase a sustainable farming operation and repay the debt. Drought or no drought.

Stick to your share threads Realist - you are out of your depth in these ones.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 November 2006)

macca said:
			
		

> Funny thing I read about that Cubbie Station, they bought the water rights from the Qld state government, which would be right as states do own the water rights to their rivers, and now the state wants the federal government to buy it from Cubbie.
> 
> I wonder will the Qld govt stump up the money they got for the rights in the first place and the federal just pay the balance, I doubt it




Macca , Cubbie station (or Cubby as I called it) seems to be a test case yes?  btw, when I misspell words it's because I rely mainly on the ABC - the spoken word - hardly ever read these days lol.  (ABC? - the best 8 cents I spent today )   I drive to work during AM, and come home during PM.  because PM lasts for 60 minutes, I drive a longer route lol.

I posted a lead to the following website on post #33 of thread " should Australian Farmers get relief"   https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4746
http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1767730.htm

No doubt there are more recent updates. 

btw, pleasing to see that there was a majority who voted yes to that question on that thread,  BUT not by the sort of majority you'd expect from citizens of "the lucky country" - 
"and the small percentage who know it".  

the results were 59% "yes" and 41% no - shouldnt give drought relief!
oops - then again only 27 voted lol - not like the topic set the world on fire 

I also whipped up a poem on #37 there - Ill stick it on the poetry thread (at the risk of being accused of grandstanding - I write these to keep my own conscience on track - if it catches someone elses as well, then great - mind you I'm happy to be proven wrong - and could care less if the words rhyme or not) - BUT I suspect that since then the mood has changed - partly because the drought has worsened, and partly because us city folk are having it sooo easy, it's gettin to our consciences at last.   


PS - good point about Qld govt and Aus govt !! lol


----------



## chops_a_must (8 November 2006)

I don't think farmers should get handouts. I run a small business, and if I have a bad couple of months or whatever, I don't start crying poor and looking to sponge off taxpayers. So why should farmers?


----------



## Julia (8 November 2006)

constable said:
			
		

> It is very scary. Here in ballarat we are now on stage 4 restrictions meaning you cant water your garden at all. I heard that a bloke last thurs got the first $3000 fine for washing his car . Meanwhile yesterday we spent $900 on a pressure pump and fittings so we can pump water out of our inground pool to keep the garden alive!
> Next project is to hook all the storm water and some grey water off the house and into the pool.
> Once ive done that my prediction is the drought will break!




Constable,

I do feel for your situation.  Must be awful.  How is it that the pool water doesn't kill your plants - presumably it contains salt and chlorine amongst other chemicals which plants wouldn't like?

I've always been told never to let the pool overflow in heavy rain because, despite the dilution of a lot of rain water, it would still damage the garden.

Julia


----------



## Julia (8 November 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Your understanding of Primary Production makes me laugh Realist.    It is the right out of "Townie Textbook 101". Have you seen a cow that wasn't in a Golden Book?
> 
> Lets have a think Realist. Sheep country at Orange is selling for $1600 per acre - Barcaldine is selling for $200 per acre. Yes - at first glance the country at Barkie is "cheap"  - hey Realist? But what if I was to say you need 8 times the country at Barkie to make the same as the property at Orange.
> 
> ...




Hi Duckman,

I'm not here to defend Realist in his absence, and understand completely the point you are making.

However, isn't it reasonable to think that if farming in the areas you describe is so difficult then it might be better to relinquish the struggle?

I absolutely acknowledge that I'm completely ignorant about farming anywhere.  Just don't quite understand why if a business (which farming must be considered to be I guess) doesn't appear to be sustainable, you would persist in trying to make it so, and in the process expect a lot of government assistance?

If I decide (being a keen gardener and lawn enthusiast) that I will set up a nursery and turf farm, buy the land, set it up in an area with minimal rainfall, and the plants and the turf fail to grow, then I guess I'd have to take responsibility for attempting to do something which just wasn't realistic.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, Duckman.  I'm just a bit puzzled about why it's seemingly unacceptable to say that trying to have a viable farming operation in some areas, given the weather conditions, is such heresy.

Kind regards
Julia
J


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> ..I'm not here to defend Realist in his absence, and understand completely the point you are making. J



I could be ultra- nasty and speculate on how many farmers from Bourke  travel - to Tasmania let alone Europe - but I wont  
None of us wanna go there - give anyone a hard time - we all want everyone to have a good life - even Realist lol -  but hell if we can't be a bit generous when half the country that provided prorata more than their share of "the fallen" in world wars, is getting "burnt to death - slowly, slowly" - then it's gettin a bit stingy imho.  This is not "user pays", this is a national DISASTER.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> ..and in the process expect a lot of government assistance?



Julia - I think it's more a case of charity - beware of words that might come out sounding a bit like something Ayn Rand would say  - "no-one is entitled to a single cent of the money that I have earned",  "greed not need" etc.  Youve got a case, - and surely farmers should be HELPED (imho) to get ff their land, but the stronger case imho is with the farmers.  Global warming is mainly driven by us dudes in the cities after all - and our extravagent wasteful decadent self-indulgent etcetc lifestyle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I could be ultra- nasty and speculate on how many farmers from Bourke  travel - to Tasmania let alone Europe - but I wont
> None of us wanna go there - give anyone a hard time - we all want everyone to have a good life - even Realist lol -  but hell if we can't be a bit generous when half the country that provided prorata more than their share of "the fallen" in world wars, is getting "burnt to death - slowly, slowly" - then it's gettin a bit stingy imho.  This is not "user pays", this is a national DISASTER.




http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography
"Ayn Rand ...Atlas Shrugged was her greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatized her unique philosophy in an intellectual mystery story that integrated ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics and sex. " _ I dontr  recall much sex in that book - but I do recall her saying things like the quotes above  - one tough lady - then again born in Russia , saw the Bolshevik revolution in 1917/18 etcetc.

Some of her quotes :-
http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl
"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - ..."
 [ Hey lady - you have a heart?  Ever lost when the dice of life were rolled, ever queued up at the Salvos for a meal?  the winners in the game of life should recognise the fact there are others less fortunate - not ignore them - imho ]

PS Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reapingthe rewards today ...

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution

[ life expentancy ? - try the miserable expectancies that the third world has inherited from this attitude  - but I digress, only wanted to make a point about "blind  - no - blinkered eye to suffering and charity"]

Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ayn_Rand/
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 November 2006)

Randism is a crock of ****.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Julia - I think it's more a case of charity - beware of words that might come out sounding a bit like something Ayn Rand would say  - "no-one is entitled to a single cent of the money that I have earned",  "greed not need" etc.  Youve got a case, - and surely farmers should be HELPED (imho) to get ff their land, but the stronger case imho is with the farmers.  Global warming is mainly driven by us dudes in the cities after all - and our extravagent wasteful decadent self-indulgent etcetc lifestyle.




2020

I think you're missing the point I was making.  I'd be the first to help where such help would enable viable farmers through a difficult period.  But my comments were based on Duckman's description of farmers trying to farm poor land (that being why it was cheap), and if there was never likely to be much chance of such land being successful, it just seems pointless to try to sustain a living from it.

Don't insult me with comparisons to Ms Rand.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> 2020,  I think you're missing the point ...were based on Duckman's description of farmers trying to farm poor land ... it just seems pointless to try to sustain a living from it.
> Don't insult me with comparisons to Ms Rand. Julia



Julia,  Apologies for any insult, unintended.  I meant to clarify that there was a chance it could be misinterpreted as going down that road  

As for the viability of Barcaldine and points west, you'll probably find half of Aust closing down.  If you are saying pay off a few and give twice the land to the rest, maybe that would help.  "sheep to the acre" becomes "acres to the sheep" etc.   My grandfather was born out near Birdsville, not that far from where Burke & Wills died (as the crow flies - mind you they fly backwarks out there to keep the sand out of their eyes).  His father went out there about 16 years after Burke and Wills - and only had aboriginal stockmen. He went broke (first time) during the tough times around 1901 - but that can't qualify as the worst time on the land in living memory? - because he died yonks ago  

Hard headed Randy economic models?  They dont come much harder than Realists #43 - but his #49 (partly) corrects this - at least he states that he sympathises with the farmers.  And it would be unfair of me to selectively quote from his or anyone elses posts.


			
				Realist said:
			
		

> post #43 - It is about time people stopped moaning about the drought. etc]
> 
> In post #49:- (but) I sympathise with farmers, govt pay for training reskilling etc ( -all good suggestions)




PS I was going to say that if yuo want a RANDY opinion then just ask Realist lol  can't imagine anything insulting him, his skin's like Rhino hide.


----------



## jollyfrog (9 November 2006)

Smurf as some good points,  ONLY ONE mention of cubbie station! they have HUGE water storages on the place, stopping the natural flow of the inland water system in the channel country! 
  Try reading The Cattle King by Ion Idriess A fascinating very discriptive tale about Sid Kidman, & how he founded a cattle empire on the fact seasonal rains spread SLOWLY southwards.
   Also about flooding of lake Eyre & how the theriory is its a sinkhole for the Artesian Basin! Which is also DROPPING in the water table & a lot of bores are failing! & others now need a pump on them its VERY frightening stuff!
   I still feel Cubbie Station is a water theif & a hell of a lot of cokies would agree! 
   Maybee A water storage in the monsoonal north & pumping southward is a possibility something to DWARF the Snowy Scheme?
   Also THE Land is a worthwhile weekly read( the cokies newspaper) its not just cows & sheep!


----------



## Happy (9 November 2006)

Best example would be India, Pakistan where water table was dropped by hundred metres or more due to extraction of water for farming from bore holes.

I think to lesser extent it happened in Vietnam too and few other countries in that region.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Hi Duckman,
> 
> However, isn't it reasonable to think that if farming in the areas you describe is so difficult then it might be better to relinquish the struggle?
> 
> ...




Hi Julia

Sorry - I forgot Realist was away!  I wasn't trying to kick the boot in while he was away.

A couple of points:

1. I agree that we should not be supporting primary producers that are operating businesses that are simply not sustainable. There is no question about that.

2. Like all walks of life there are primary producers who will never make money. Their land holdings are too small, they are poor operators/managers, they are poor decision makers. These people should not continually be given support because their businesses are failing. 

3. Then there are those people who are good managers, have adequately sized land holdings and are very careful with their funds. Basically these primary producers need assistance due to financial tightness brought on by the drought. Accourding to Realist and others on the forum there is no difference between farmers in Paragraph 2 and those in Paragraph 3. 

4. The problem with this debate is that it is so subjective. Who makes the call " You're sustainable - here's your exceptional circumstances payment"', "you're not - sorry, please leave". It all seems too hard for Realist so he lumps all primary producers in together.

5. The example you have provided Julia seems to indicate that you have missed the point of my argument. The person in your example does not have a viable business (drought or no drought). They should not be eligible for assistance - primary producer or not. You have just provided a scaled down version of the "pineapples in Alaska" argument. In your argument you knew that a turf farm should not be established where it was set up. 

6. The reason primary producers are afforded different tax status and financial assistance is in part due to the lack of control they have over their business (read - income). Their income is heavily dependent upon climatic conditions. Yes - I know all industry groups are affected by the state of the economy. Builders, hairdressers, publicans and primary producers alike - but not all industry groups are reliant upon the weather. Other industry groups have much more control over their businesses.

7. You made a comment to Hindsight questioning the need to help those primary producers that own cheap dry land out west. I'd like to clear a couple of things up at this point. Throughout the course of this thread there have been a number of assumptions made about primary producers that are not correct. These being:

*All primary producers and land holders are rich
*All producers sell livestock o/seas for top dollar. 
*All primary producers operate businesses that are not sustainable
*Primary producers in western areas don't make money
*All primary producers expect handouts and a lot of it.
*Primary producers don't pay tax. 

These are simplistic generalisations and just not correct. Julia, there are some extremely successful primary producers near Burke, St George, Longreach and Dimboola. Per acre these places are very cheap compared to land on the Darling Downs. They make money becasue they are of a *sustainable size*, they are good managers who employ sensible farming practices. The farmers there don't expect 10 feet of rain per year - their country doesn't need it. But they do expect to get 1 foot - their country needs that. People seem to have this perception that it doesn't rain in inland Australia - therefore it is always in drought. You can have a drought at Bourke just as you can have a drought in Orange.  

8. The people I sympathise with are those regional areas of Australia that rely on Primary Producers for their income. There is no assistance for them. The fencing contractors, tractor dealerships etc. They are the ones that are really feeling the pinch.   

9. We heard a number given at the water summit "' a 1 in a 1000 year flood"''. Who knows if that is right? Could be rubbish - but it provides the point - primary producers can make an adequate living in average seasons - yes even at Barcaldine! The only reason they are not at the moment is due to exceptional drought circumstances. 

10. Please don't throw the majority of worthy primary producers in with Rice and Cotton Growers. That is just a distraction. Water wasters. You would be very surprised to see the % of rice and cotton growers recieving EC payment. Overall it would be very low - yet seems to have taken up a large part of the debate here.    

Regards

Duckman


----------



## constable (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Constable,
> 
> I do feel for your situation.  Must be awful.  How is it that the pool water doesn't kill your plants - presumably it contains salt and chlorine amongst other chemicals which plants wouldn't like?
> 
> ...



Hi julia sorry about the late reply ,
we chlorinate our pool but over the winter it doesnt get treated. Chlorine breaksdown with uv which is why generally you have to treat your pool on a weekly basis otherwise it goes green pretty quick! As far as poisoning im not aware of slight chlorine levels affecting your plants. Ballarat,s water supply and meltons for that fact both  reek of chlorine  and im more worried about drinking it than putting it on my garden!


----------



## constable (9 November 2006)

Also would like to add my two bits worth, id rather see my taxes subsidise farmers thru bad times and be able to continue to eat fresh australian produce. Charity starts at home and as far as im concerned plenty of other industry sectors get government help at one time or another via tax breaks grants etc etc.
Granted there are some bad farmers on marginal  land out there,but if they get a free ride while we help the greater good , so be it ,what goes around comes around.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> ... a number of assumptions made about primary producers that are not correct. These being:
> 
> *All primary producers and land holders are rich
> *...*All primary producers operate businesses that are not sustainable
> These are simplistic generalisations and just not correct.




Likewise I should qualify my comments that I am talking for those that are not rich (a large percentage, especially after a few years of this drought).   And I agree that some are "extremely" rich.

As for the bad managers who often happen to have small properties getting the flick, and presumably buga all help (implied) , - what choice does this "bad" manager have but to work his land hard! , and leave himself vulnerable to dry times? he's gotta gamble if he wants to put food on the table! there is no other option. - he's only playing the hand he was dealt! ... 

Talk him into leaving with dignity - he'd love you forever -  and you'd have his vote forever.  Believe me, he's not so dumb that he wouldn't run from that property if he had the chance - take an offer for reskilling? jump at it , provided he could extricate himself from the clutches of some bludy bank that was strangling him so tight that he wished "the almighty had not fixed his canon 'gainst self slaughter."  It's only their bludy okker courage that gets em through the day.

And I suspect he's at least as clever as scientists that pretend that the weather isn't getting hotter, and the land isnt getting drier, and the bores arent getting deeper, and the salt isnt getting whiter , etcetc.  

The peripheral damage to the small businesses that service the farmer has been spelled out firsthand in other posts (these people all rely on the farmer as the first in the financial food chain) - no rain, no food on the table for any of 'em.  As they said at the Conference - It's a CRISIS. 

There were I believe 14 mayors representing downstream of Cubbie who lobbied to plead the case that Cubbie be bought out - will it happen?  a real test of committment of the fatcat pollies overseeing this?  time will tell.   

PS I wonder whether we'll see action ? or algae first?


----------



## chops_a_must (9 November 2006)

After Monday night's Today Tonight, my industry is looking for a handout. It's a national DISASTER!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> After Monday night's Today Tonight, my industry is looking for a handout. It's a national DISASTER!




tell me chops - what's the suicide rate in your profession ?
-  and incidentally , if you're genuine, then sure - make your case !


----------



## chops_a_must (9 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> tell me chops - what's the suicide rate in your profession ?
> -  and incidentally , if you're genuine, then sure - make your case !




Oh boo hoo!

Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue. 

And if you are getting depressed in the outback, move. It's pretty simple.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> 
> Sorry - I forgot Realist was away!  I wasn't trying to kick the boot in while he was away.
> 
> ...




Hi Duckman

Thank you for detailed reply.  I think we are now at risk of getting bogged down with misunderstandings all round.

All I was trying to say was what you have clearly stated in your Point 1 above.

I've never suggested that I thought  all those generalisations you have listed by asterisks were reasonable.  It would never have occurred to me to make such blanket and thoughtless statements.

All I ever wanted to suggest was that we should not - out of some misplaced sense of sentimentality or tradition - continue throwing money into unsustainable situations, and by that I mean unsustainable for whatever reason.

If Australia (and its political masters) had unlimited funds to offer to everyone who could conceivably have a need, then I wouldn't care who received assistance and for what.  But as long as I'm trying to find a bed for some mentally ill person who is living on the streets, or some woman and her children who are attempting to escape domestic violence, or finding funding for someone who needs urgent transport for cancer treatment, and *there is no government money there to assist them* , then I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.

This is not an attempt to subvert this thread, just an explanation of why I feel there is a need to justify how money is spent. No offence to farmers or any of the trades and businesses attached to farming communities.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue. .




and which party is that chops?  state? federal? and conversely which party would you recommend     Worse than boo hoo m8 - it's pathetic


----------



## Bobby (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> *there is no government money there to assist them* , then I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.
> 
> 
> Julia



 Julia I know iv'e taken the above out of your context, but Wow its so pertinent.
I want all our resourses spent here first . 
When all is fixed in Aussz ( DREAM 0N ) then we could consider giving our wealth away , the joke is thats what we're doing Now !   

Bob.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> All I ever wanted to suggest was that we should not - out of some misplaced sense of sentimentality or tradition - continue throwing money into unsustainable situations, and by that I mean unsustainable for whatever reason.
> 
> ................ I will continue to be concerned about money being spent in areas where it is not going to be effective.
> 
> ...



Hi Julia

We are back on the same train Julia. I know we agree   , sometimes Realist just takes things to the extreme. People that see things in black and white all the time frustrate me. Sorry.

The key ......which you mentioned above is....."unsustainable for whatever situation".  Many farmers wrongly blame everything on the drought.

The thing that annoys me are the primary producers who continually cry "broke", put the hand out and blame the drought - when in fact they will never make money. The are on properties that will never service the debt levels. The "drought" is just a cover for weaknesses in their business structure.  

Many of these operators don't try to help themselves when they do have good seasons by putting money aside in Farm management Deposits, spending money on water conveyance expenditure or off-farm assets. Their first thoughts are - "I am entitled to $$$$". I won't even mention those people receiving handouts that have full time jobs. 

But water and the drought are just distractions. The big issue is the future viability of rural Australia. Like urban properties, rural property prices have spiked over the past 3 years. People cannot get anywhere near a reasonable level of return based on current commodity prices. Over the generations, fathers have passed properties down to their sons. Giving one block to A and another parcel to B. And so on and so on. After a couple of generations we have a parcels of land that used to support one family - now trying to support three families. It's not going to work. There are properties around here that are worth approximately $2M - that would have trouble providing a profit of $40000. Why the hell wouldn't you get the hell out of there and invest the money at 5% minimum?

Regards

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Maybe if they stopped voting for a political party that doesn't invest in the health system it wouldn't be an issue.



I think Choppy must be referring to Queensland, Hindsight. 

The Beattie Government doesn't believe in spending on the health system.........hold on, wait a minute.......that's not fair.......they've spent a truckload of the health budget on the Dr Death fiasco.


----------



## Bobby (9 November 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> I think Choppy must be referring to Queensland, Hindsight.
> 
> The Beattie Government doesn't believe in spending on the health system.........hold on, wait a minute.......that's not fair.......they they've spent a truckload of the health budget on the Dr Death fiasco.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> and which party is that chops?  state? federal? and conversely which party would you recommend     Worse than boo hoo m8 - it's pathetic




The federal government controls the intake of Psychiatrists.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2006)

> 9. We heard a number given at the water summit "' a 1 in a 1000 year flood"''. Who knows if that is right? Could be rubbish - but it provides the point - primary producers can make an adequate living in average seasons - yes even at Barcaldine! The only reason they are not at the moment is due to exceptional drought circumstances.



It is possible using synthetic data generation techniques to create 1000 years of "records" of rainfall. It's not 100% guaranteed but the results are more accurate than you would think.

This process is used on a fairly large scale for water management, at least in Tasmania.  Basically the Hydro runs 1000 simulations of the entire system starting from the present storage position to see how many failures (running out of water) occur. 

The accepted standard in Tas being no more than 20 failures out of 1000 simulation runs. If there are more than 20 failures then some action is required - in this case running thermal power generation, buying power from Victoria etc since the issue is electricity supply from hydro generaion rather than water per se. 

Why 20 in 1000? It's purely an internal standard to manage financial risk to the business and to the state's economy (given that two thirds of Tas exports are potentially at risk). You could have any standard you like - *the higher the accepted probability of failure, the more water you can take from the river on average*. If you only accept 1 in 1000 failure rate then you get a lot less supply from the system and more water spilled from dams in wet years - hence 20 in 1000 is simply a point where the risk / reward meets acceptably.

So it is quite possible to make a valid claim that it's a 1 in 1000 year drought if there has been some proper research done which reaches that conclusion. It's not a fact, it's an estimate, but there's a proper way of doing it. Whether or not that has been done is another matter - I suspect it hasn't and it's purely a political claim. 

I think that we need to get a lot more scientific about water management in Australia. Start doing proper analysis into the operation of major systems such as the Murray. Maybe we already are but nothing is ever said about it so I suspect it isn't happening. That we have the Snowy about one sixth full going into Summer and are only now starting to panic suggests that there was a bit too much optimism and not enough proper science.

As for what we would do when a simulation produced an unacceptable chance of failure (running out of water), the options are cut demand earlier for the lowest value uses (thus limiting broader economic impacts) and cloud seeding. Why there is such an outright refusal to even try the latter is a good question in itself... 

Proper river system simulations and similar strategies for other areas would be a practical means of working out which land is worth farming in the first place. For example, if crop x needs a minimum of y rain each year then it is entirely possible to determine how often that crop will fail due to lack of water whether that is due to lack of rain or lack of water available for irrigation. At some annual probability of failure, say 5 or 10%, we just decide that it doesn't make sense to grow that crop on that land. 

Get the failure rate low enough and it makes sense to accept the 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 annual risk of failure. Then manage the business accordingly and there's no need for government handouts unless something truly unforeseen happens.

One very major point in the above approach is that the larger the area of land, the higher the sustainable yield _per area of land_. That is, if you have 10 times as much land then you get more than 10 times the annual yield (assuming geographic diversity of that land and not simply one farm 10 times bigger). So we need to be managing farms as a whole and not individual properties.

The whole of a water or hydro system is far greater than the sum of its individual parts, hence *the last thing you want in water is any form of competition*. *Competition by its very nature precludes a system-wide approach to water management and cuts yields - exactly what we don't need*. What we _do_ need is to apply the concept of an integrated system spanning multiple catchments and storages. That way the probability of failure is reduced and yield goes up. 

It works perfectly well with hydro electricity in Tasmania and urban water supply in Melbourne. Both of those systems would fail miserably without it (a point that needs to be rammed into the heads of the competition advocates who don't understand that water is valuable but doesn't actually cost much - hence nothing to save and everything to lose). Whilst it's a bigger scale, in theory at least it should work in agriculture.


----------



## billhill (10 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> The whole of a water or hydro system is far greater than the sum of its individual parts, hence the last thing you want in water is any form of competition. Competition by its very nature precludes a system-wide approach to water management and cuts yields - exactly what we don't need. What we do need is to apply the concept of an integrated system spanning multiple catchments and storages. That way the probability of failure is reduced and yield goes up.




Couldn't agree more. I was shocked to hear that future minister for water Malcomn Turnbull said to solve the water crisis we needed to privatise it. I saw a documentry on SBS about water privatisation a few weeks ago. Basically it demonstrated exactly what you said above. Prices rose and efficiency declined leading to even more problems. We need a sensible and cooperative approach to the looming water crisis whether this is a 1 in 1000 year drought or the beginnings of a new climate.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> ...The thing that annoys me are the primary producers who continually cry "broke", put the hand out and blame the drought - when in fact they will never make money. The are on properties that will never service the debt levels. The "drought" is just a cover for weaknesses in their business structure.
> 
> Many of these operators don't try to help themselves when they do have good seasons by putting money aside in Farm management Deposits, spending money on water conveyance expenditure or off-farm assets. Their first thoughts are - "I am entitled to $$$$". I won't even mention those people receiving handouts that have full time jobs.




Duckman, We have to start defining our terms lol.  Or rather EMPHASISING that we are each only talking about one sector of the bush.  You and Julia seem to want to talk about the rich ones .  I want to talk about the poor ones.!!   (and Julia I appreciate your comments about homeless - other funding commitments etc).

You'd agree I think that your statement would come across as unfair if applied to the poor amongst the country folk .  Certainly the majority of those in severely drought-affected areas.   I also am not not talking about continuous handouts ad infinitum - some decisions required on which farms are sustainable / viable etc - throw in the water crisis, and a few crystal balls to guess which will be viable in future.  (btw, NEXT year the rain might fall on the "bad manager" instantly turning him in to a "good manager" - maybe he's been going to night school !! - with a distinction in rain dancing!!)

But the hard question of how to get these people off when they owe the bank "motzas" if not millions.  Whilst I agree that there are plenty of farmers falling in between "filthy rich" and poor as well - where some scaling would be involved, the filthy rich don't need the help and shouldn't get it.  Of course I'm not talking about them. 

The ones I am talking about didnt go to the Melbourne cup m8 -  - their wives wearing big expensive hats looking like $1 million, (though many bushies do and good luck to them - a bit of fun for chrissake).  I'm talking about the ones whose wives wear hats with corks around the edges, and looking like TWO MILLION !!! lol.

I don't see these bushies down at the casino spending thousands after a bit of rain - although maybe they take their wife into town once every six months to buy a pair of sexy  nickers lol.

And maybe the stats of the unemployment handouts in the cities could be put up for comparison.

This one from a previous post :- obesity is allegedly costing Australia $4billion per year - (how they work that out is anyone's guess, sounds like an inflated figure to me  - Now Im willing to bet that there's only a small percentage of country folk contributing to that sum as well. For a start there arent (m)any doctors to go to in the first place, ill or otherwise.    

And chops - these people are too damned stoic to go a pshychiatrist even if there was one around - and they'd get a guilt complex about the petrol they used to drive the 100km to town to get this alleged help.  As this old bloke said to me the other day - "WHAT to talk to some bludy shrink!! - who do you think I am? Marilyn Monroe?"   .  They'd prefer to talk to their mate down the road - they've already loaded up the family scene with enough stress - a quiet chat over the fence chewing a stick of grass (if they can still find one).  

Hell, I've been in business in the city - one day I sat down and realised that even if I won $500,000 in the lottery, I was still in trouble.  If I won $1,000,000 I would've been ok.  Fortunately with a mixture of 
a) being approached for buy out 
b) some awkward discussions with the bank manager, and 
c) doubling my mortgage I got out of it . 
You wanna know why I say I'm broke lol.  That litle phase in this adventure called life!   I didnt ask for handouts as you say.  BUT this isnt about me.  I'll be ok no question.  (especially if I hang around this ASF - and read and learn - EVEN maybe win the $50 tipping competetion !!! - and then the world is my OYSTER lol)

Just hope the country folk can have the opportunity of similar 
a) , b),  c) ,  and probably 
d) some consideration from city folk that Australia's countryside is sinking financially - just like the artesian water table. 

But as you say chops, "boo hoo"  - and as you say, your profession is also in a crisis / dimemna - who nose , maybe even a downturn!!!     Or your bright (yellow) idea "just leave" - not that easy m8.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2006)

Smurf, You'll agree Im sure that any projection into the future  is an "extrapolation into the unknown".  Always frought with inaccuraciies.  Whether its a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 980, it's serious.  
And I agree - Turnbull isn't the ideas man I was hoping to see in charge.  Bludy ex-banker ! lol.


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Smurf, You'll agree Im sure that any projection into the future  is an "extrapolation into the unknown".  Always frought with inaccuraciies.  Whether its a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 980, it's serious.
> And I agree - Turnbull isn't the ideas man I was hoping to see in charge.  Bludy ex-banker ! lol.




Hmm... A lot of people seem to be of the mind that if this is a 1 in 1,000 year drought, then surely next year should see the dams overflowing. Well, if climate change is REALLY upon us, what are the chances of this "1 in 1,000 years drought" happening again next year and the year after etc ... IE becoming THE NORM??? 

So, here's some food for thought...

Figures from the Murray Water Authority from 6 Nov so actually a bit worse by now:

HUME DAM at 10% and falling by 1% a week. Less than 3 months till empty....

DARTMOUTH DAM (which feeds Hume Dam) at 43% and falling at 2% a week. Less than 5 months till empty...

BLOWERING DAM 31% and falling at 1% a week. Less than 8 months till empty.

Those are three of the largest water supplies in the system. All the other minor dams combined only make up a small fraction of those three.  

Currently, the outflow from Dartmouth dam is at MAX. The Mitta River is running a banker to try and slow the rate of fall from Hume dam. But it is failing to top up Hume dam even at the current extreme outflow rate! Hume dam has reduced it's outflow but I believe is forced to maintain near the current rate to satisfy demand downstream as far as Adelaide... without the flow, Adelaide would be in serious trouble.

The much vaunted back-up of the Snowy system which is supposed to provide a minimum amount for town's drinking water needs along the Murray system in case of failure of the Dartmouth and Hume dam systems is shrinking daily...

Meanwhile, pollies both state and federal spout hot air about who gets what 'value' from water 'rights'. They will make some decisions around December? Well, Hume dam will run dry shortly after. And Dartmouth by around Feb/March - given the annual rainfall expected for now until April, the odds are VERY MUCH in favor of this scenario coming to pass.

Meanwhile, pollies both state and federal will continue to spout hot air about who gets what 'value' from water 'rights'. They'll be wringing their hands worrying about how all this is going to hurt their election chances... well STUFF 'EM! They've had years of advance warning and done bugger all to ease the situation. I suppose it will be too much to ask that they will have the collective will to sacrifice their egos and REALLY DO SOMETHING POSITIVE.

Sigh....

We shall all just have to grin and bare our asses in the meantime I s'pose...

Cheers? I think not..

'Parched' Aussie


----------



## chops_a_must (10 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> And chops - these people are too damned stoic to go a pshychiatrist even if there was one around - and they'd get a guilt complex about the petrol they used to drive the 100km to town to get this alleged help.  As this old bloke said to me the other day - "WHAT to talk to some bludy shrink!! - who do you think I am? Marilyn Monroe?"   .  They'd prefer to talk to their mate down the road - they've already loaded up the family scene with enough stress - a quiet chat over the fence chewing a stick of grass (if they can still find one).



There's not much you can do if people do not want help.


----------



## nioka (10 November 2006)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> HUME DAM at 10% and falling by 1% a week. Less than 3 months till empty....
> 
> ...



Look at it this way. If the dams weren't there the situation would be much worse.  
 THE ANSWER.. BUILD MORE DAMS It always rains at the end of adry spell.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> Look at it this way. .......It always rains at the end of adry spell.



And the darkest hour is just before dawn ?  hope your rite N


----------



## 123enen (10 November 2006)

"Citrus growers advise that frost and poor weather will cause the second lowest valencia orange crop in 20 years this season".

The first reaction for most would be "poor farmers". You guys fall for it all the time. What are the consequences of this reduced crop?
-----------------------------
The Australian Citrus Growers' director, Kevin ****, says world parity prices have nearly doubled.

"Compared with last year's $80 and now it's nearly up around $200, $180 at the moment, so that's worldwide, so we're just monitoring that, but it's one of these swings and roundabouts, growers didn't harvest fruit last year and we are now in an under-supply situation," he said.

They will make "compensatory" money .......subsidised by the consumer again.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1785273.htm


----------



## 123enen (10 November 2006)

Vice-chairman Kevin **** said the 2005-06 Valencia crop used for fruit and juice would be just 207,000 tonnes, a 26 per cent reduction on last year.

Prices per tonne now range between $180 and $200 ”” a significant contrast to the $80 per tonne from previous seasons.
------------------------------------------
A 26% crop reduction BUT a whopping 150% cost increase.

"Poor farmers"



http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...zes-annual-crop/2006/11/08/1162661757229.html


----------



## Happy (10 November 2006)

I wander what would happen if all non-salty water after treatment was pumped inland, not into ocean.

Surely would increase available vapour for condensation and subsequent rainfall.
We all know that every drop of water we consume could have been anything.

I followed -Biosphere- projects and to some extent what happens to water on spacecraft.

-Biosphere- project turned out to be fraud run by University graduates from University that didn’t exist, but the concept in itself was interesting and could be continued with anybody. 

You don’t have to have degree to live in closed sphere. A lot of the concept was common sense.

As previously mentioned, we don’t have to go too far with our imagination, how recycling can effectively replace our usual water needs to just topping up the water we lose in vapour from cooking and breathing.

This also can be captured with run of the mil dehumidifiers.
Recent comments on effective filtration stated that we only have to pay 1 to 2 cents per litre of recycled pure water.
It is 7 to 10 times more to what we have to pay now for tap water. It is much more, but if there is no water in the dam, then price means nothing.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 November 2006)

Apparently, these farmers that would "do anything for water" do not want recycled water.

They should come back and complain when they are actually serious about their situation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

I've stuck a post in on poetry thread #141.  Another letter from a winging bushie - crying poor   ITS Bludy UNAUSTRALIAN!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Apparently, these farmers that would "do anything for water" do not want recycled water. They should come back and complain when they are actually serious about their situation.




Chops - this post follows our recent exchange on US elections etc  - we've established approx ages etc - 

When I was young I went to a bush wedding - I thought I'd contribute to a "running joke" about it being a shotgun wedding, (evryone laughing) by making some joke (forget what).  BUT I had it all wrong - I assumed that it was the BRIDE who was under duress under these circumstances lol.

Anyway - I was dunked in a horse trough for my troubles, clothes and all lol.

NOW ...
If either of us was to walk into a bar out in a drought region and say in a loud voice what you just said , i.e. "Apparently, these farmers that would "do anything for water" do not want recycled water.  They should come back and complain when they are actually serious about their situation"

THEN ...lol
I can GUARANTEE you that we would be dunked in a trough.  Might even be a small white trough and prior to it being flushed ( given that we introduced the topic) - AND btw, it wouldn't make much difference because the water in the horse trough outside (or the local creek) would be just as filthy!!


----------



## chops_a_must (11 November 2006)

I think a worse punishment would be them forcing me to drink Adelaide water.  :


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I think a worse punishment would be them forcing me to drink Adelaide water.  :



see - I knew we'd agree on something!! - albeit totally peripheral to the thread lol.
correction - relevant to the worst drought - but totally peripheral to your original objections about the bushie's case.


----------



## chops_a_must (11 November 2006)

The ironic thing?

Adelaide people drink water that has already been recycled many times, they just don't know it.

I know another problem, here in Perth at least, is that some councils have made it very difficult for people to put grey water systems in. Which to me, seems pretty silly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> they just don't know it.



You GOTTA be joking !! Of course they know it - 
Furthermore, the Toowomba vote on recycling water was the biggest insult to alleged Aussie intelligence ever.  overheard in voting stations:-
a) land prices might fall (?? because they would have had the cleanest water around IF it was recycled!!?)
b) I'm not drinking anything that's been through a TOILET!! - ( well try it after it's washed down a dairy floor lady!)
c) I might grow BREASTS!! ( well give up chicken for a start!!!)
d) I don't know about anyone downstream!! - did you say that they have to drink our effluent !!! yuckk!!!  well then   tsst tsst - that's THEIR problem!!!  first in, first to have a piss!!, and the rest can just - EAT CAKE!!  annn..d  DRINK COKE!!


----------



## chops_a_must (11 November 2006)

Ahhh, the ABC is great.

The recycled water is cleaner than dam water anyway. It's not like there are going to be bondi cigars floating around everywhere.

It has to be legislated that every new home be built with a grey water system. That's the first step.


----------



## Royce (11 November 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that we should stop all overseas payments to who ever & direct the billion plus we pay , to helping our farmers now !
> Your thoughts please
> 
> Bob.




Not too sure what you mean...Do you want to stop aid to poorer nations, or refuse assistance to victims of earthquakes, Tsunami and  starvation etc .

Your being very mean spirited aren'y you.. If farmers want to stay on the land , they should be growing  drought resistant crops.

Royce.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Ahhh, the ABC is great.The recycled water is cleaner than dam water anyway. It's not like there are going to be bondi cigars floating around everywhere. It has to be legislated that every new home be built with a grey water system. That's the first step.



a). m8 - the ABC is the best 8cents I spent today that's for sure.
b).  dams ?  well for a START you have to fish out the dead and dying animals.
c).  Grey water - yep. You'll probably find they are way ahead of you on sharing the water they washed their teeth in etc
btw, the dam probably won't qualify as grey water, because
d) it will hardly qualify as mud let alone water
e) the colour will probably be mud-brown - possibly a bit of grey if it happens to be a grey kangaroo dead in there , etcetc

Like we're all saying , at least half of us , on this thread,  this is a crisis.


----------



## Bobby (11 November 2006)

Royce said:
			
		

> Not too sure what you mean...Do you want to stop aid to poorer nations, or refuse assistance to victims of earthquakes, Tsunami and  starvation etc .
> 
> Your being very mean spirited aren'y you.. If farmers want to stay on the land , they should be growing  drought resistant crops.
> 
> Royce.



royce , as you said your not sure what I mean,    so until you do don't post .

Learn how to spell !  whats ( aren'y ) ?


----------



## chops_a_must (11 November 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> royce , as you said YOUR not sure what I mean,    so until you do don't post .
> 
> Learn how to spell !  whats ( aren'y ) ?




Ahem!


----------



## Royce (11 November 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Ahem!





Haven't you ever done a typo dick brain....get a life and post something worth reading.

Better still go suck a bomb.


Royce


----------



## Bobby (11 November 2006)

Royce said:
			
		

> Haven't you ever done a typo dick brain....get a life and post something worth reading.
> 
> Better still go suck a bomb.
> 
> ...



royce ,

Don't be offensive , or you will find your membership will be short.


----------



## Royce (11 November 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> royce ,
> 
> Don't be offensive , or you will find your membership will be short.




Sorry Bobby didn't mean to offend....certain people get on my nerves. ..high on the list would be racists, time wasters  and smart alecs.

Royce


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2006)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Hmm... A lot of people seem to be of the mind that if this is a 1 in 1,000 year drought, then surely next year should see the dams overflowing. Well, if climate change is REALLY upon us, what are the chances of this "1 in 1,000 years drought" happening again next year and the year after etc ... IE becoming THE NORM???
> 
> So, here's some food for thought...
> 
> ...



Agreed about the high outflow rate from Dartmouth etc. One of the potentially serious issues is loss of power generation from these sources. Hume doesn't contribute a lot but Dartmouth is 150MW - not huge but significant in an already tight power supply situation. 

But the elephant in this context is the Snowy. Sure, we could let more water out of the Snowy right now to fix the lack of water in Hume. But if that goes to the point of actually running the storages to zero then we lose the Snowy's power generating capacity. Now, that's 3740 MW (including Blowering) which is a lot by any standard, at least in the Australian context.

There is no realistic way, especially now with unit 6 (of 2, the numbering is historic) at Vales Point power station out of action following the explosion this week, that NSW / ACT / Vic / SA combined power demand could be met (at times of peak demand) without the Snowy. Well, OK, it could if we don't get a hot Summer (but a hot Summer is exactly what we're expecting), Vales Point gets a new transformer sorted out and nothing goes wrong in any of those states and also Qld and Tas are able to maintain maximum exports at peak demand times then it could work. Possible. But the odds are strongly against it. 

So in practice we need the Snowy to remain operational at least partially no matter what happens with rainfall. That's going to mean not running the Snowy storages down to zero no matter how bad it gets with water in the Murray. Doing so would only delay the inevitable and add an entirely new problem, lack of power, to the consequences of the drought.

It's worth noting that there's only 666 GL left in Lake Eucumbene (the major Snowy storage) which is just over 15% full versus 1718 in Dartmouth and 308 at Hume. Hence the Snowy is no "silver bullet" to fix the problem. 

In short, we're potentially in massive trouble and the Snowy offers no solution, apart from the generation of peak electricity, until such time as it actually rains.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> Look at it this way. If the dams weren't there the situation would be much worse.



Absolutely true. But try telling that to the "No Dams" brigade...

One of the biggest problems is that we just haven't been expanding water supply infrastructure especially in the cities. Now we're stuck with what seem to be permanent restrictions.

The problem with that approach is it leaves no room to move in the future when another drought occurs or something else goes wrong. We already have harsh restrictions because we didn't expand supply in line with population- now what? The inevitable answer is that at some point Melbourne especially will see bans on showers, clothes washing and the like. 

Through all of this I can't help but think that the decision to abandon big dam construction in Tasmania (and immediately after in the other states) is looking more environmentally reckless by the day. An annual increase in greenhouse gas emissions, due to hydro power foregone, equivalent to putting another 800,000 cars on the road whilst the Greens mutter something about climate change being the cause of the drought. It takes the hipocrisy of politics to a new level altogether.

Time to build at least one major new dam in every Australian state in my opinion (possible exception of the NT). Mainland states and ACT for irrigation and town/city water supply, Tasmania as a source of renewable energy. A far more sustainable approach than running nuclear powered desalination which is where we seem to be heading at the moment. 

Uranium is finite whereas at some point it will rain. We need to be ready to catch that rain when it falls because at some point there will be another drought. Yes this will need a subsidy - just like nuclear (or wind or solar) power, wars and all the other things our taxes get spent on. At least water and infrastructure is actually useful and will be around for generations to come.

As for the politics of it all, I only wish I'd taped that public meeting I was at in 1998 when the (Liberal-Green) Tasmanian government spokesman assured me that drought wasn't something worth worrying about - "that happened in the 1960's, we've moved on a lot since then you know..." or words to that effect. Fool.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Absolutely true. But try telling that to the "No Dams" brigade...



Dam it all Smurf - you are one smart dude


----------



## chops_a_must (11 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Absolutely true. But try telling that to the "No Dams" brigade...
> 
> One of the biggest problems is that we just haven't been expanding water supply infrastructure especially in the cities. Now we're stuck with what seem to be permanent restrictions.



In WA, every river that can be dammed has been. Every other river has become brackish, or was brackish to begin with. This is what stopped the Swan from being dammed in the first place.


----------



## Bobby (11 November 2006)

Royce said:
			
		

> Sorry Bobby didn't mean to offend....certain people get on my nerves. ..high on the list would be racists, time wasters  and smart alecs.
> 
> Royce



Royce,

Lets  all try to get on, sure there will be posts that upset us & warrant a  rebuff, its that reply  we will be judged on    

Regards
Bob.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2006)

ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE SHOT!!!!
.... 
SORRY MODS - PLS DELETE THIS - MEANT TO SAY 
"ALL ICED CREAM IS GETTING HOT"
ahhh - shuddup - Nite all  - sorry - just been reading about Aunty Jack lol.  :goodnight


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 November 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Agreed about the high outflow rate from Dartmouth etc. One of the potentially serious issues is loss of power generation from these sources. Hume doesn't contribute a lot but Dartmouth is 150MW - not huge but significant in an already tight power supply situation.
> 
> But the elephant in this context is the Snowy. Sure, we could let more water out of the Snowy right now to fix the lack of water in Hume. But if that goes to the point of actually running the storages to zero then we lose the Snowy's power generating capacity. Now, that's 3740 MW (including Blowering) which is a lot by any standard, at least in the Australian context.
> 
> ...




Good point Smurf1976... I hadn't given much thought to the effect on power supplies if the hydro dam levels fall too low!

Well, thankfully it seems some pollies have at last removed the cotton wool from their ears...

From the ABC online news today:  "The New South Wales Government has announced it will significantly cut water allocations for irrigators in the Murray and Murrumbidgee areas. 

Along the Murray, high security allocations will be reduced by a further 32 per cent and in the Murrumbidgee, general security will be cut by 5 per cent, while high security will drop by 10 per cent. 

Natural Resources Minister Ian Macdonald says the Government has been forced to make this decision to ensure towns have enough water. 

"It will have a significant impact on production in the region, there's no denying that," he said.

"It's a touchy decision but it has to be taken, as the drought continues our priority must be to town water supplies." "

I feel a bit sorry for some of the battler irrigators out there, but the last sentence of the above news report is exactly how ALL politicians need to view the impending crisis.

How reducing the outflows from some of our largest dams to stretch out town water supplies will affect power output, I'm not sure. Any ideas Smurf1976?

Cheers for now,

Parched Aussie,
From Wodonga


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2006)

All of the following is just an exercise in multiplication, length x width x height.  
People keep talking about large volumes of water in terms of equivalent "Sydney Harbours" - Personally, I still have problems visualising this ( length of river?, depth? etc)

I read Smurf's 666GL below for Eucumbene - and couldnt visualise it - so got the calculator out.   
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/levelTwo.asp?pageID=245&parentID=242

Bit of trivia,  What does 
A. 1 GL of water look like?
B. the volume of Sydney Harbour ? (560GL)
C. Lake Eucumbene when it's full ( 4366GL)
D. Lake Eucumbene currently (666GL)

I reckon ( might be wrong) that they are the volume of rectangular blocks formed as follows:- 

A. 1 GL of water :-
apart from the fact that its 100m x 100m x 100m, 
The total volume under the deck of the sydney harbour bridge is about 1.2GL :-

* the span of the arch (503m)
* clearance under the Sydney Harbour Bridge (49m) 
* width (also 49m)
503x49x49 x1000 = 1.2 GL

B. 560 GL of water (= sydney harbour volume):-
mmmm 470 of the above "bridge clearance volumes of 1.2GL each", 
or the volume under the bridge if its width was increased to 23kM, i.e. about the distance from South Head to Parrmatta.

* the span of the arch (503m)
* clearance under the Sydney Harbour Bridge (49m) 
* width (23km 
503x49x23000 x1000 = 560 GL

(or the "harbour volume" is about 500 "bridge clearance volumes"

C. When full Eucumbene is 4366 GL of water (= 7 sydney harbours):-

D. At the moment it is only 666GL ( = bit more than 1 sydney harbour, 15% full as Smurf points out)

E. Here's another mental image :-
* the span of the arch (503m)
* clearance under the Sydney Harbour Bridge (49m) 
* distance to the Opera House (600m) 
503x49x600 x1000 = 15 GL

Maybe measure water consumption in "Opera-bridges?




> Geologically, Port Jackson is a drowned river valley, .. It is 19 km long with an area of 55 km ². The estuary's volume at high tide is 562,000 megalitres.  (CALL THIS 560 GL)  ...
> 
> In Australia the size of many bodies of water are referenced back to the size of Sydney Harbour, that is a body of water x is y times the size of the Sydney Harbour. For example:
> Lake Argyle, the Ord river dam and Australia's largest lake, is variously described as "18 times that of Sydney Harbour" [2], "8-13 times the size the volume of Sydney Harbour." [3], and "nine times the size of Sydney Harbour" [4].  (?? bit confused there  )
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge#Description
The "volume of the Harbour BRIDGE" i.e. 48.8m wide x 503m arch span x 49m clearance above water at midspan.  

PS.  Overheard in pub in Sydney "what they should do to fix Sydney's water problems? - Move Lake Argyle from the Ord to Parramatta  - !! Easy !!" 

PS lol - multiple typos - spelling errors - hopefully corrected b4 anyone reads this


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 December 2006)

"Ho! Ho! Hum! Jingle Wells, Jingle Wells, drying all the waaay...."

A Merry Dry Xmas coming up y'all....

In the 3 weeks since my last post here, 

HUME DAM has dropped from 10% to 7%.
DARTMOUTH DAM has dropped from 43% to 36%.
BLOWERING DAM has dropped from 31% to 26%.

So much for the water allocations being cut. Hasn't made a jot of difference in the past couple of weeks to the rate of dam level decline in NE Vic.

Bugger it...I'm ordering a water distilling unit from Santa Online. See, I don't quite trust the authorities to supply potable water to me within 2-3 months time!

Not only that, but the bushfires are threatening water supplies with pollution as well.... and we ain't seen nuthin' yet folks as far as the bush fire season is concerned! 

Oh, cheer up...

Things can only get worse!

AJ 
*HACK... COUGH*** the smoke pollution in Wodonga is atrocious this morning...


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 December 2006)

"Date 11/12/2006 
Author Rod Myer 
Source The Age -- Page: B3 
 The drought is starting to affect the power generating capacity of south-east Australia's hydroelectric power scheme. Snowy Hydro has revealed that dam storage levels have declined to a record low of 17%. River inflows over the past year have been only 25% of the long-term average, although the company does not currently foresee any issues in meeting its commitments in the national power market. AGL Energy, which owns Southern Hydro, has noted that water levels in the Dartmouth and Eildon reservoirs have been affected by the drought, which in turn will have a negative effect on generating capacity, although its contracts are protected by hedging arrangements." 

Any tips on companies that might benefit greatly from supply of bulk quantities of candles?

AJ


----------



## Happy (11 December 2006)

Desalination is probably the best shot even China does it, not mentioning Libya, Israel and USA.

And new reverse osmosis systems fitted with tightly packed nanotubes are going to be great hit in not so distant future.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

and "Recycling" and "demand management" as I read somewhee recently.
An article by UNSW attached to the "Australian Demographics" thread - which is irrelevant to water mangement.

Lol  I guess on second thoughts...as you get older, water managment can take higher priority lol.


----------



## scsl (19 December 2006)

The drought's bad as it is... this just puts a (really scary) figure to it!
From today's Commsec daily market commentary. 



> The effects of the worsening drought conditions will be felt for many months to come. ABARE estimates that farm cash income is likely to fall to $12,728 per farm in 2006/07 from $85,911 a year earlier – a drop of around 85%.


----------



## The Once-ler (19 December 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> Australia rides on the miners back now doesn't it?   :





Sure does. Mining privides well over half of Australias export income.
Agriculture provides nearly 20% though. Not bad when it only employs a few percent I reckon.

Cheers.


----------



## The Once-ler (19 December 2006)

This is a great thread everyone. Sad that I only just noticed it. I would have liked to contribute earlier. Anyway, better late than never.

I notice that cotton and rice has coped it here. I notice that everywhere today, in the media too. Well, I would like to put up a slightly different view. I don't want to say rice and cotton are great, just even things up a bit.

The beauty of cotton and rice is that they are annual crops. Farmers plant the seed, water the crop, the crop dies/rippens and the crop is harvested. They certainly take lots of water, but this is the 'land of drought and flooding rains' remember. Whats the problem with catching the flooding rains in dams, releasing this water over the next few years for these crops, and generating billions of dollars worth of export income. Then when the dams are empty or getting that way, just simply stop growing these crops while the dry continues. 

This is what happens now. There is very little cotton or rice planted this year as there is no water.

But, I can't work out why cotton and rice is getting the blame for the dry rivers. The rivers are dry because there has been a rain deficiency now for so long. It would make no difference whether these crops had been planted last year or not. The water that these crops used last year would have run out to sea 6 months ago. The rivers are dry now because there has been stuff all rain for the last 6 months. Or more likely 2 years ago, where the water was stored.

Right, now, the big disaster that is likely will be with grapes. Grapes cost tens of thousands of dollars to plant, and they can't just be forgotten about. They will have to be watered. How come grapes are seen as the golden crop, and cotton and rice are the villans? Rice is one of the big three grain staples with wheat and corn. Rice provides a hell of a lot of nutrition per tonne. A tonne of rice would keep a lot of people alive for a long time. What about a truck load of wine?

OK, per megalitre of water, grapes will flog rice and cotton per dollar produced, that is true, but I think we can value agriculture in other ways besides dollars.

Adelaide is another worry. It is the only city that relies on water from a catchment other than its own. The Murray River actually went dry a few times 90 years ago in another big drought. If it happens again, Adelaide, along with half the Australian grape industry will be in a bit of trouble.

Yep, why is cotton and rice the villans here?

Cheers.


----------



## Rafa (19 December 2006)

i agree, water storage is a big issue, we need to store all we can for the times of drought... 

is it prudent to use it all up to grow cotton and rice knowing that we do get severe drought here every now and then...?

As for grapes, i think you need to give us some facts on % of water used for irrigation of grapes, vs rice / cotton... I have a negative view of grape growing as well, but i need some facts as to how much water it takes from the murray darling basin in particular.


----------



## trading_rookie (19 December 2006)

Is it really a drought though?

While half asleep yesterday watching Sunrise they had some Prof. on who stated that during the first 50yrs of Federation the weather was a lot hotter and the continent a lot drier, with the next 50 being a lot less extreme. He believes we're cycling back to what it was like during the first 50yrs.

I recall reading my local suburban rag and it stating how the residents in the old days (1920's and 30's) were more conservative with water usage than say later generations...anyone recall that long gone craze of hosing down the driveway!  So maybe he's onto something.


----------



## skint (19 December 2006)

trading_rookie said:
			
		

> Is it really a drought though?
> 
> While half asleep yesterday watching Sunrise they had some Prof. on who stated that during the first 50yrs of Federation the weather was a lot hotter and the continent a lot drier, with the next 50 being a lot less extreme. He believes we're cycling back to what it was like during the first 50yrs.
> 
> I recall reading my local suburban rag and it stating how the residents in the old days (1920's and 30's) were more conservative with water usage than say later generations...anyone recall that long gone craze of hosing down the driveway!  So maybe he's onto something.



Not sure what the Prof smoked for breakfast but here's the annual temps since 1910. Sorry, not sure how to turn the web address into a hyperlink.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml


----------



## The Once-ler (19 December 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> i agree, water storage is a big issue, we need to store all we can for the times of drought... is it prudent to use it all up to grow cotton and rice knowing that we do get severe drought here every now and then...?
> 
> .




Well that is my point. We do get droughts, so we don't grow cotton and rice when we get one. Why not grow these crops in the nine out of ten years when there is water, rather than just letting the water run out to sea waisted. There is hardly any planted this year as there is no water. These crops are annual crops. That is the beauty of them compared to grapes. I think annual crops are more suited than perannial. 

The dams that supply water for cotton and rice are west of the divide. This is because the water fell here. Its not a simple matter to pump it over the hill so city people can use it. Besides, city people haven't worked out yet what a rain water tank is. There is hundreds of thousands of litres of water per house running of the roofs of city houses now. It's all just currently waisted.

Remember that most of the dams were built to catch water for irrigation, and in some cases, paid for by farmers. This strange argument that farmers are using this water foolishly is silly. The water would have just run out to sea years ago. Instead, it's been used growing these crops. Now the water is gone, these crops aren't planted. What's the problem with that?

But, the grapes still need water! From where I ask?

Cheers.


----------



## skint (19 December 2006)

skint said:
			
		

> Not sure what the Prof smoked for breakfast but here's the annual temps since 1910. Sorry, not sure how to turn the web address into a hyperlink.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml



How about that. It does it by itself!


----------



## trading_rookie (19 December 2006)

Thanks for the link skint. 

Had a look at it - the graph 'Annual mean temp anomalies for Aus' and yeah it implies he was smoking something.


----------



## Happy (19 December 2006)

Cotton and rice need water to grow, but end product is quite dry.

All we have to do is find the way to capture that water and reuse.

That’s why -Sphere- project was so interesting, where community was sealed in water and air tight structure, where they had to produce own oxygen and food.

Maybe this is our future?


----------



## The Once-ler (19 December 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> As for grapes, i think you need to give us some facts on % of water used for irrigation of grapes, vs rice / cotton... I have a negative view of grape growing as well, but i need some facts as to how much water it takes from the murray darling basin in particular.




I don't have the figures. Grapes use less water than cotton/rice I believe. If you have a negative view on grapes too, what are you positive about? 

This country has a big trade deficite. Irrigated crops are one of the few things we can still do to create something to trade with the rest of the world. Surely irrigated agriculture is better than just blowing up the dams, and letting the flood water run to the ocean. 

The plain and simple fact is that the rivers would still be dry now, with or without irrigation.

I don't grow rice, cotton or grapes. I'm not a farmer but I know a few cotton growers. I'm just confused as to why some crops are to blame and not others. In reality, I think the only thing to blame is lack of rain. 

The drought will soon be over and we will all wonder what the fuss was about. Until the next one that is.

Cheers.


----------



## Rafa (19 December 2006)

The Once-ler said:
			
		

> I don't have the figures. Grapes use less water than cotton/rice I believe. If you have a negative view on grapes too, what are you positive about?
> 
> This country has a big trade deficite. Irrigated crops are one of the few things we can still do to create something to trade with the rest of the world. Surely irrigated agriculture is better than just blowing up the dams, and letting the flood water run to the ocean.
> 
> ...




Take it easy there mate, i'm postive about a lot of things...
there are plenty of crops suited to australian conditions, rice isn't one of them, neither is cotton. But whilst i can tolerate rice to some extent, Cotton and Grapes are both cash crops, and hence i don't consider them essential agriculture. 

As i said in my post earlier if you bothered to read it, i agree that water flowing into the oceans is a waste... i'd rather they be stored in dams, aquifer's, whatever, for when the drought hits...

i am not blaming the rice farmers at present, becuase as things stand at the moment, there are not enough dams to store this water anyway.

the problem is infrastructure...
please read what i write before jumping around.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2006)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> "Date 11/12/2006
> Author Rod Myer
> Source The Age -- Page: B3
> The drought is starting to affect the power generating capacity of south-east Australia's hydroelectric power scheme. Snowy Hydro has revealed that dam storage levels have declined to a record low of 17%. River inflows over the past year have been only 25% of the long-term average, although the company does not currently foresee any issues in meeting its commitments in the national power market. AGL Energy, which owns Southern Hydro, has noted that water levels in the Dartmouth and Eildon reservoirs have been affected by the drought, which in turn will have a negative effect on generating capacity, although its contracts are protected by hedging arrangements."
> ...



I can't help with the candles, but a few points:

Dartmouth has lost about one third of its generating capacity due to the reduction in head (water level). That is, it now generates 100 MW (and is doing so flat out) instead of 150 MW.

The Snowy Hydro system hasn't really lost any significant peak generating capacity (peak capacity is 3740 MW) but average output is way down and there is more use of pumped storage (Tumut 3 power station).

In the mainland states, hydro-electricity is a major source of peak generating capacity but coal generates most of the actual electrical energy used with gas taking up almost all of the non-coal or hydro balance (bit of wind, tiny bit of oil is the rest).

So, all it means doing is not running the hydro plants at times if intermediate demand for electricity but instead running them only when demand is highest. That way less water is used but the peak capacity is preserved. Dartmouth and Eildon are exceptions since the water is released primarily for irrigation with electricity only a by-product.

So, no blackouts but more coal and gas gets burnt.

Tasmania is an exception with its baseload hydro-electric system (average output twice that of the Snowy) which supplies virtually all power used in the state and has always done so. Inflows are seriously down as are storage levels (currently 31.3%). The Tasmanian system also supplies 600 MW of peak capacity to Victoria.

If the Tas system runs dry then the lights will go out in Tas and, if it gets hot enough, Victoria as well. But for some time now Tas has been importing about a third of its electricity from Victoria in addition to using gas for another 10% of generation locally in order to slow the fall in storage levels.

So outflows have been cut and the 31.3% storage isn't a serious problem. Most likely it will end up somewhere around 15% by next Winter - makes it difficult to balance water between the storages (since it can't be moved from one to another and there are 6 major and 1 minor catchment areas) but overall it's not a cause for panic. Just a lot of power imported from Victoria and a lot of coal and gas burnt to generate it.

So overall, the bottom line is the lights stay on for the moment at least but more coal gets burnt especially in NSW and also more gas especially in SA, Tas and Vic. If 2007 is a repeat of the weather of 2006 then we could be in trouble however.


----------



## Kipp (19 December 2006)

Interesting Smurf... an implication of the drought I hadn't previously considered   
Like most city dwellers, it has taken me longer to feel its impact than in the bush.  Till only recently, Melbourne always looked green, but introdcue stage 4 water restrictions and it might as well be Cunnamulla.


----------



## The Once-ler (19 December 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Take it easy there mate, i'm postive about a lot of things...
> there are plenty of crops suited to australian conditions, rice isn't one of them, neither is cotton. But whilst i can tolerate rice to some extent, Cotton and Grapes are both cash crops, and hence i don't consider them essential agriculture.
> 
> As i said in my post earlier if you bothered to read it, i agree that water flowing into the oceans is a waste... i'd rather they be stored in dams, aquifer's, whatever, for when the drought hits...
> ...




Yep, I'll go along with most of that.

But why aren't rice and cotton suited to Australia? OK, they need lots of water, so they are not suited in that aspect. But then Aussie farmers get very high yields out of these crops, as high as anywhere in the world. Mainly because of the hot dry conditions and the ability to turn on and off the water. In the agronomic regard, these crops are perfectly suited.

As for cotton not being essential agriculture? Why do you say that? I'll go along with grapes, but not cotton. I think you would be surprised at how much cotton is in every form of clothing. Cotton seed even ends up in oils of every form.

I agree with your other points.

It is great that Australia has such a diverse range of agriculture. We really don't have to import anything, and almost two thirds of what we grow is exported to help our shocking balance of trade. I would like to see cotton and rice continue to be grown and exported for these reasons.

Cheers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 December 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If the Tas system runs dry then the lights will go out in Tas and, if it gets hot enough, Victoria as well. But for some time now Tas has been importing about a third of its electricity from Victoria in addition to using gas for another 10% of generation locally in order to slow the fall in storage levels.



A point of clarification. Tasmania is importing electricity from Victoria during the 95% of the time when demand is moderate or low and there is surplus power available from coal or gas power stations in SA, Vic, NSW or Queensland. So the supply to Tasmania isn't leading to draining of water storages in the Snowy etc.


----------



## skint (20 December 2006)

Hi Rafa & Once-ler, You both seem to be advocating more dams, bigger dams and trapping as much water as possible. Sounds good until you consider the terrible effects of further depleting the environmental flows necessary to sustain the river systems. Water recycling, rain water tanks etc.. in the cities is a no-brainer. This water does flow out to sea with no benefit. West of the divide, the rivers are already at breaking point in non-drought times. We need to move to less water intensive practices and crops. Appropriate pricing, I believe, is the only way to make this transition. In 2006, the world is very slowly coming to realise that it only makes sense to work with rather than against the environment. Otherwise, worse droughts etc...
P.S. Spent some years on the land, so not just an "urban greenie".


----------



## The Once-ler (20 December 2006)

skint said:
			
		

> Hi Rafa & Once-ler, You both seem to be advocating more dams, bigger dams and trapping as much water as possible. Sounds good until you consider the terrible effects of further depleting the environmental flows necessary to sustain the river systems. Water recycling, rain water tanks etc.. in the cities is a no-brainer. ".




That's a fair comment. And I definately agree on the rain water tanks and recycling bit. I just can't believe city people let so much water run down the drain then try and figure out who they can get some more water off.

As far as the more and bigger dams bit goes, I don't think we have a choice in the long term. Remember that the dams mainly only collect flood water. The rivers now would be dry weather or not irrigation or dams were there. In fact there is generally an environmental flow allowance let go with a big irrigation flush, so one could argue that some rivers would have more water than they otherwise would get.

We are using more power. Therefore powerstations will need a guaranteed supply. Already irrigators have had allocations cut to zero in the Hunter, because the remaining water in Glenborn is needed for power generation for Bayswater and Lidell, which produce 40% of NSW power.

Have you checked grain prices lately? Food production has been hit by global warming. Crops were down last year all around the world. Grain production has been less than consumption for 6 of the last 7 years. Plus America is for some dumb reason turning 40 million tonnes of corn into ethanol.

I think we either cut back the human population [which ain't gunna happen] or we drop our standard of living, meat consumption, energy consumption, [which ain't gunna happen] or we need more and bigger dams.

That's just how I see it.

Cheers.


----------



## Kipp (22 December 2006)

The Once-ler said:
			
		

> I think we either cut back the human population [which ain't gunna happen]
> 
> Cheers.



Europe and NZ have both achieve 0 population growth so why can't we?  I think we are at less than 2 births per woman so we probably would if it weren't for our pretty high immigration rates.

Environmentist Tim Flannery claims the sustainable population for Australia is 6-12 million.  And it'd be a pretty safe bet every city in Australia wouldn't be on water restrictions if that was the case.

Anyway... this is a very unrealistic scenario.  I was thinking about something else the other day though.  How much drought can the native bush tolerate?  Everyone has always considered the Eucalpts etc to be very hardy and drought resistant, but surely there is a point when it will all die off as well?  (Particularly for seedlings)  Is this possible?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 December 2006)

The Once-ler said:
			
		

> That's a fair comment. And I definately agree on the rain water tanks and recycling bit. I just can't believe city people let so much water run down the drain then try and figure out who they can get some more water off.
> 
> As far as the more and bigger dams bit goes, I don't think we have a choice in the long term. Remember that the dams mainly only collect flood water. The rivers now would be dry weather or not irrigation or dams were there. In fact there is generally an environmental flow allowance let go with a big irrigation flush, so one could argue that some rivers would have more water than they otherwise would get.
> 
> ...



Dams are fundamentally a means of regulating the flow of a river or of providing a diverted, regulated flow taken from the river. Nothing more and nothing less.

Build the dam big enough and you get 100% regulation of outflows. Australia doesn't have too many dams like that - Great Lake in Tasmana being the largest storage relative to annual inflows (holds 5 years of inflows with 20% of that inflow itself being regulated by another dam which holds 4 years worth) as far as I am aware.

Elsewhere, the problem is that dams tend to overflow, or the water is unnecessarily let out, during floods thus failing to fully regulate the flow of the river. Due to smaller size, they also tend to run dry (or the outflow is reduced to avoid actually running out) during droughts.

Bottom line is if th dams are big enough then you do capture all of the available water whereas smaller dams don't do this.

The second point about dams is expectancy. If annual water release exceeds long term annual inflows then it will run dry eventually no matter how large the dam is. Likewise it will spill if outflows are less than inflows. A point that 99% of those commenting on water (in general, not referring to posts on ASF) fail to grasp. 

You CAN drought proof a hydro-electric system and you CAN drought proof a water supply system if you get the storage capacity and inflow/outflow balance right. It is a fact that, for example, the hydro storages in Tasmania (currently at 31.3%) could easily be 70%+ full if there was a decent surplus of long term inflows over outflows which could be achieved by building another major dam. In that context the system could then sustain another 5 years of drought without a worry. It can be done but in all states it isn't being done for various mostly political and economic reasons. We just accept running out of water every few years - something we wouldn't accept with practically anything else.

I say "drought proof" in terms of probability. For example, you can reduce the chance of having ANY water restrictions of any kind to a 1 in 50 year event without losing too much as long as you build enough infrastructure. Most Australian water systems don't come anywhere near that standard and indeed nobody outside the hydro-electricity industry seems to even do the maths to know what the probability of failure for a system actually is. Most systems seem to have failure rates that just wouldn't be acceptable if they were actually properly calculated - but nobody knows for sure because it hasn't been worked out properly.

As for whether we should or shouldn't be building more dams, ultimately it is a question of population and economic growth GLOBALLY. Continue the notion of infinite growth in GDP or population and there's no alternative to more and more infrastructure to underpin that, dams included. 

If we had today's water infrastructure 50 years ago then no drought ever known to have happened in this country would have caused the slightest problem with water supply for any use. Run the sprinklers flat out and it just wouldn't matter. But add in the growth of population and industry and the infrastructure just isn't adequate. Keep growing population etc and in due course sprinker bans become permanent and "water restrictions" come to mean no showers or washing hands for months on end. That is the factual reality of growing population without growing water supply infrastructure (noting that rainwater tanks and recycling systems are a form of water supply infrastructure and are just another source of supply which adds inflow to the overall system).

If global warming does reduce rainfall then we'll need more dams just to stay even with supply volume. Add in population growth and we're looking at some serious engineering works being necessary. At some point you just can't have infinite growth on a finite planet but that notion isn't yet widely accepted - hence building more water infrastructure is the only real alternative.


----------



## The Once-ler (22 December 2006)

Kipp said:
			
		

> How much drought can the native bush tolerate?  Everyone has always considered the Eucalpts etc to be very hardy and drought resistant, but surely there is a point when it will all die off as well?  (Particularly for seedlings)  Is this possible?




I think the harder the drought, the more the natives will thrive. The harder the drought, the more the introduced species will suffer, the natives evolved in this harsh climate of drought and flooding rain [and sticking heat and frost and bushfire].

Don't worry about the native bush.


----------



## Kipp (23 December 2006)

The Once-ler said:
			
		

> I think the harder the drought, the more the natives will thrive. The harder the drought, the more the introduced species will suffer, the natives evolved in this harsh climate of drought and flooding rain [and sticking heat and frost and bushfire].
> 
> Don't worry about the native bush.



Ok... not to worries about Wattles and Gums.  The rainforest ferns etc (Dandenongs, Cape Otway etc) need more water than most introduced species.  So I think we'll still have bush, but where there once was ferns, mosses, etc we'll have banksias, weeds and shrubs in the landscape.  But this is probably only shortterm (assuming rainfall recovers).


----------



## Aussiejeff (28 December 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I can't help with the candles, but a few points:
> 
> Dartmouth has lost about one third of its generating capacity due to the reduction in head (water level). That is, it now generates 100 MW (and is doing so flat out) instead of 150 MW....





Today the Dartmouth generators were switched off. No more generation until the water level rises again (not much chance of that within next 6 months!). However, outflow to the Murray River via Lake Hume to remain at maximum level (about 10,500ML per day) until dam runs dry.

Current levels:

Dartmouth Dam at 30% - (16 weeks till dry at current outflow).
Hume Dam at 4.8% - (7 weeks at best till dry at current outflow).

I've already purchased a water distiller for all drinking water needs 'cos the water supply in Wodonga is getting a bit on the nose again... smells of chlorine/ammonia. It was bad enough last time Hume Dam got down to 6%. I wonder what water quality will be like with Hume Dam at 0% by mid Feb '07?

*Sigh*

Oh well, have a Happy New Year chaps..

Parched Aussiejeff


----------



## Happy (28 December 2006)

Possibly current immigration doesn’t help either, this year 130,000

Statistically every person uses 330 litres a day for personal use.

While ago we’ve had business migrants, who brought money.

Now we can have water migration, for those who can bring millions of litres of water.


----------



## trading_rookie (29 December 2006)

Anyone see that CSIRO scientitst on the news last night? Barrie Hunt - I think he was the one they were talking to on sunrise about the climate being cyclic.

Anyway, he mentioned that according to 10,000 year old CSIRO weather models droughts are not caused by global warming. He went further and mentioned that no one knows what causes them, when they'll arrive and for how long they'll remain.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 December 2006)

trading_rookie said:
			
		

> Anyone see that CSIRO scientitst on the news last night? Barrie Hunt - I think he was the one they were talking to on sunrise about the climate being cyclic.
> 
> Anyway, he mentioned that according to 10,000 year old CSIRO weather models droughts are not caused by global warming. He went further and mentioned that no one knows what causes them, when they'll arrive and for how long they'll remain.



That's in dispute.

There has been a study underway at Murdoch University for the last five years looking at why areas attract more rainfall than others, in Australia. There are many photos of cloud formations that literally just stop in the air, and wont move any further. You can see this along the rabbit proof fence, where on one side there are cloud formations, above vegetation, and on the other, where there are rabbits, there is nothing. This is the same where forrested areas have been cleared for farming, clouds stop over the forrest and are reluctant to move over the farming area.

So the conclusion becomes; that if there is moisture in the soil, there is something for clouds to form over, and something to draw rain down. And if farmers are to attract rainfall they are best off planting native Australian evergreens.


----------



## Happy (29 December 2006)

> From ABC, December 29, 2006
> 
> MORE RAIN FORECAST AMID SIGNS EL NINO FADING
> 
> ...





No worries, we can forget water debate and sleep easy, until next time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2006)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Today the Dartmouth generators were switched off. No more generation until the water level rises again (not much chance of that within next 6 months!). However, outflow to the Murray River via Lake Hume to remain at maximum level (about 10,500ML per day) until dam runs dry.
> 
> Current levels:
> 
> ...



Dartmouth power station ceased generation at 3:15 pm (daylight savings time) on 24th December.

The dam has two outlets. The upper outlet feeds the power station which has a rated output of 150MW when the dam is full. This outlet can not lower the dam below about 30% full and that level has now been reached due to intentionally letting as much water out as possible in recent times (to feed into Hume dam and then into the Murray). 

That the dam can not be drawn down below 30% is a necessary design feature. You just can't have the outlet for a hydro scheme right at the bottom otherwise all sorts of rubbish ends up blocking the trash rack and being right at the bottom makes debris removal a problem. Alternatively, if you don't have a trash rack or some other screen then the rubbish goes through the turbines and pretty soon that ends in disaster.

For dams used only for hydro-electricity, they are considered empty when the water level is down to the intake level even though there is still water in the dam.

But for irrigation use there is a second outlet at Dartmouth which is effectively a means of draining the dam below the level at which the power station operates. This has now been opened so the level will continue to fall and the intake for the power station will be left literally high and dry relative to the water level.

Whether or not the loss of 150 MW generation from Dartmouth matters depends on what happens next. As long as nothing breaks down in Vic or SA, as long as we don't get a record heatwave, as long as Tasmania and the Snowy can both maintain full supply to Victoria during peak times (which in turn requires that not much goes wrong in NSW or Tas) then it should be OK. It's under 2% of Victorian peak demand and only 3% of average demand. But with supplies tight anyway it's possible that it could be the straw that breaks the grid's back if much more goes wrong. Short term though we're just burning more coal and gas to offset the loss.


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 December 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Dartmouth power station ceased generation at 3:15 pm (daylight savings time) on 24th December.
> 
> The dam has two outlets. The upper outlet feeds the power station which has a rated output of 150MW when the dam is full. This outlet can not lower the dam below about 30% full and that level has now been reached due to intentionally letting as much water out as possible in recent times (to feed into Hume dam and then into the Murray).
> 
> ...




Sounds a reasonable policy to me Smurf1976.. 

Do you know the cut-off points for the major Snowy Hydro Dams? (I presume the eastern states would be in mega-trouble if any - or god forbid - all of those were eventually tripped...) 

Cheers,

Aussiejeff


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2006)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Sounds a reasonable policy to me Smurf1976..
> 
> Do you know the cut-off points for the major Snowy Hydro Dams? (I presume the eastern states would be in mega-trouble if any - or god forbid - all of those were eventually tripped...)
> 
> ...



The way the Snowy scheme works is basically as follows.

It is a bit complex in terms of where the water flows end up but it is basically a single catchment scheme in that although water comes from various sources, most of it ends up going through Lake Eucumbene. 

6 of the 7 power stations draw water either directly from lake Eucumbene or are reusing water from those that do. The exception is Guthega power station which is a small (60 MW) power station upstream of Lake Jindabyne (which itself flows into Lake Eucumbene) which is a "run of river" power station. That is, it has little storage capacity and it's output is basically a function of river flows at any given time. 

Water from Lake Eucumbene is released in two directions. It can go through Murray 1 power station (950 MW), down the river and then through Murray 2 (550 MW) power station. 

Other water is released from Lake Eucumbene into a small pondage from which it flows into Tumut 1 (320 MW) then Tumut 2 (280 MW) power stations and into another reservoir. From there it goes through Tumut 3 power station (1500 MW) and into another small pondage from which it is released into Blowering Reservoir (a substantial storage) and through Blowering power station (80 MW) into the Murrumbidgee River.

So the water either goes into the Murray or the Murrumbidgee and goes through a series of power stations to get there. It can NOT go through all the power stations - it is one way or the other even though it comes from the same storage lake.

All the power stations with the exception of Tumut 3 are natural flow. That is, water flows through and then goes down the river. Tumut 3 is natural flow with the ability to pump water from the downstream pondage back up into reservoir which feeds the power station at night using electricity generated from elsewhere (coal-fired plants in Vic or NSW). That said, it takes more than 3 hours to pump up hill what can run down hill on 1 hour so there are limits to this operation. 

At present, Lake Eucumbene is roughly 15% full.

What happens next depends on how the scheme is operated. Most of the time electricity demand is less than maximum so not all power stations need to be running (since electricity itself can't in practice be stored).

If the Snowy power stations (except Tumut 3 in its pumped storage mode of operation) are only used when all other power stations (coal, gas etc) are running flat out then they won't be used very often. Consequently they will use very little water and the present amount in storage is more than enough. That is basically what's happening at the moment apart from Blowering being run in order to release water from its storage to keep the river flowing.

Depending on water availability, the Snowy generally sits somewhere in the middle. Typically, coal-fired plants run all the time, then the Snowy, then gas (twice the cost of coal) and finally oil (not that we have much oil-fired generation in Australia but there is a little bit).

The upside of the present operating strategy is it guarantees that water remains available to the power stations so they can run when needed (not just high demand but also if a coal-fired plant breaks down, for example). That ensures that the lights don't go out.

The downside is of course that the downstream flow is basically cut off. So far, this hasn't mattered since Blowering Reservoir is keeping the Murrumbidgee flowing whilst Dartmouth and Hume are keeping the Murray flowing. But a point comes (and is pretty near now in the case of Hume) where those storages run dry. 

At that point it is a case of either let more water out of the Snowy than is necessary to meet power demand (by running the Snowy power stations more and some other power station (gas, coal) less). If that is done then the level in Lake Eucumbene could well drop rather quickly and that's when the threat occurs to power generation.

So, a conflict between security of electricity supply and keeping the rivers flowing if the drought continues. The electricity is easy as long as you don't worry about the irrigation demands downstream. Or vice versa if you aren't worried about power supplies next Winter. Doing both is the problem. 

In that context it's worth noting that Dartmouth has at the moment twice as much water in storage as Lake Eucumbene so releasing more from the Snowy would only give a couple of months extra water for irrigation. But it could well result in blackouts next Winter (when demand is high) and also next Summer (when demand is even higher) if it doesn't rain.

Effects? NSW and Vic are in big trouble if the Snowy runs dry, especially with Dartmouth already gone (may as well add Hume power station to that too) and a power supply situation that was tight before any of this. 

SA has a chance of a few problems in Summer but not the rest of the year. 

Tasmania and SA could foreseeably come under pressure to "share the pain" and export power to Victoria at times when doing so would mean local shortages. That would mostly mean Summer afternoons for SA and Winter evenings for Tasmania since that is when those states have very high rates of power use coinciding with high rates of use in NSW and Victoria. 

Queensland wouldn't have any problems but could well face pressure to maximise power supplies to NSW. That only becomes an issue if a plant or two breaks down in Queensland since they do have plenty of spare capacity at the moment (though running it is evaporating vast amounts of Brisbane's drinking water - potentially a major problem).

Another problem would be if any of the major coal-fired plants run out of water. We're even more dependent on them than usual (so more water used) at the moment due to the situation with the Snowy etc. I have no idea how they are going in terms of water supply (apart from the obvious ones using urban supplies) but they are truly massive water users so there may be an issue for some of them. Anybody know?


----------



## trading_rookie (30 December 2006)

Hey chops, I'm not suprised it is in dispute! Afterall, the scientific community is an egotistical one and they like nothing better than 'raining'  on someone else's parade. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which one comes out swinging 'I told you so'. 



> This is the same where forrested areas have been cleared for farming, clouds stop over the forrest and are reluctant to move over the farming area.
> 
> So the conclusion becomes; that if there is moisture in the soil, there is something for clouds to form over, and something to draw rain down. And if farmers are to attract rainfall they are best off planting native Australian evergreens.




Not sure I agree with that. Farmers do the basics - they aerate, feed, and water the soil - it ensures crop, or feed for stock. In other words the soil should have enough moisture and nutrients to attract clouds/rain if that were the case.

Most farms have access to creeks, rivers and I think the issue is that overuse and daming of them has impacted on them. Look at the once mighty Murray and what the wine-producing districts have done to it.

Then there's places like Coffs Harbour that's symbolic with banana's yet it's not tropical enough to economically grow 'em. No wonder they can't compete with QLD. Smarter farming practise (from what I've read anyway) will see the farms move to blueberries or be sold off for coastal resorts.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2006)

trading_rookie said:
			
		

> Not sure I agree with that. Farmers do the basics - they aerate, feed, and water the soil - it ensures crop, or feed for stock. In other words the soil should have enough moisture and nutrients to attract clouds/rain if that were the case.
> 
> Most farms have access to creeks, rivers and I think the issue is that overuse and daming of them has impacted on them. Look at the once mighty Murray and what the wine-producing districts have done to it.



No, it's pretty basic biology, just that farmers are surprised to hear it. There are reasons why sometimes forests are called rainforests.

The problem becomes, like we have now, not in normal years where moisture in the soil IS enough to draw rain down, but in times when everything has dried out so much so that there is no moisture in the ground drawing rain down. So it exaccerbates the problems of dry weather.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2007)

Gee I had a Coopers Red tonight - there was a teaspoon of mud in the sediment  things are getting serious !
(hek , now I'm gettin sedimental about my coopers!)

As for the definitions of farmers, wheat boards, etc etc, here's one:-
 ..."she was only the farmer's daughter, but all the cowmen knew 'er" - ahh, guess you had to be there.   

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1825797.htm


> Temporary weir proposed for Murray River
> A temporary weir in the Murray River in South Australia is among a number of proposals outlined by the Federal Government to address Australia's water crisis.
> 
> The plan is contained in a report from last year's emergency water summit. If the drought continues and if the South Australian Government agrees, the weir would be built near Wellington on the Murray River.. etc.


----------



## macca (13 January 2007)

I read in the paper yesterday that the Queensland Govt is to auction MORE water rights to farms to pump from the tributaries of the Darling  

They have got to be kidding haven't they ?  

The sooner all rivers that flow into interstate waterways are controlled by a federal body the better.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 January 2007)

Just an update...

Earlier this week the Snowy Hydro scheme was run flat out for a few hours during a period of high electricity demand caused by hot weather. So a bit of water has been released in additon to the now virtually daily operation of the scheme in pumped storage mode (which doesn't release water downstream).

Victorian hydro stations excluding Dartmouth (which is offline due to lack of water) also ran hard during that period whilst Tasmania exported at the limit of the Basslink cable's capacity.

So, a bit of water released from the dams. 

Current storage levels of various storages for anyone who is interested. All of these figures are for available storage and exclude dead storage (water which can not be taken out of the lake due to being below the outlet level).

Dartmouth (Murray) - 28%, 1020 GL down 70 GL for the week.
Hume (Murray) - 4%, 78 GL down 17 GL for the week.
Lake Victoria (Murray) - 63%, 327 GL down 14 GL for the week.
Lake Eucumbene (Snowy Hydro) - 14.5%, 634 GL down 1 GL for the week.

Menindee Lakes (NSW) - 10%, 173 GL down 7 GL for the week.
Burrinjuck (NSW) - 29%, 294 GL no change for the week.
Blowering (NSW, part of the Snowy scheme) - 16%, 239 GL down 9 GL.
Eildon (Vic) - 11%, 285 GL down 9 GL for the week.  

Tasmanian figures are for energy in storage (GWh) NOT water volume since the latter is of no real relevance in Tas.

System Total - 29.5% - 4293 GWh down 59 GWh for the week. 
Great Lake and associated storages - 21%, 1547 GWh down 10 GWh.
Gordon scheme - 33%, 1548 GWh down 28 GWh for the week.
Derwent catchment - 45%, 805 GWh down 19 GWh for the week. 
King River power scheme - 64%, 150 GWh down 1 GWh for the week.
Pieman and Henty-Anthony schemes - 72%, 146 GWh no change.
Mersey - Forth - 58%, 97 GWh down 1 GWh for the week.
Lake Margaret (out of use until 2009) - 100% full and spilling. 11 GWh.

Urban water supplies:
Sydney - 35.9%, 928 GL down 10.8 GL for the week
Melbourne - 37.9%, 674 GL down 10.6 GL for the week
Brisbane - 23%, 411 GL
Perth - Data unavailable at present time
Adelaide* - 55%, 109 GL
Canberra - 38%, 616 GL
Hobart* - About 80%, 9 GL

*Adelaide and Hobart source most of their water from the Murray and Derwent Rivers respectively. The level in storage within the urban area is thus not a valid indication of the overall supply situation. The situation with the Murray is well known but Adelaide's consumption is a minor use of the river overall and is thus unlikely to be threatened (assuming irrigation is given lower priority). Hobart effectively uses the discharge of Meadowbank and another 9 upstream power stations with the release of water being determined by power generation requirements - the urban supply (including Zinifex - by far the largest user) uses around 1% of the water released and is thus unlikely to be a problem even with prolonged drought. Present Derwent storages being well above the level that would lead to concern about urban supplies.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 January 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Canberra - 38%, 616 GL



Error there due to two sets of data from ActewAGL. It's 79 GL in storage not 616 GL.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Canberra - It's 79 GL in storage not 616 GL



Smurf, Fascinating post - (maybe increase Basslink capacity - ? -  you can supply us all ? lol joking).
Eucumbene seems to be holding up ok? - reluctance to use up last fallback?  as I recall 634GL is a bit over 1 Sydney harbour (560GL), and you said Eucumbebe was around that a few months ago as well.

Q.  Do you happen to know the normal daily usage for Canberra pls?
and Sydney too I guess (I think Sydney is about 1.5GL / day (?))
I guess what I'm asking is a quick indication of how these storage volumes compare with daily consumption?
thnks 2020


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 January 2007)

Here's the latest update of the water levels in the two main storages in my neck of the (burning) woods (as of 15 Jan) - courtesy of http://www.waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/sr/StorageSummary.htmt . 

As per Smurf's post, these figures are for available useable water only and exclude the dead storage (water which can not be taken out of the lake due to being below the outlet level).

DARTMOUTH [Murray] = 955,905 ML (24.5% of full storage, nett outflow 70,116 ML for the week which leaves 14 weeks supply at current average outflow rate).

HUME [Murray] = 94,631 ML (3%, 19,303 ML nett outflow for the week which leaves 5 weeks supply at current average outflow rate).

Now a question for Smurf....

How serious do you rate the current situation with respect to yesterday's massive power outages in Vic? Authorities are telling us on the radio that there is no cause for concern - it's a bit of a one off etc.... - any thoughts? Also some media talk about releases from Khancoban pondages to increase (maybe 10 x current?) to help support the grid...

Cheers?

Aussiejeff
Wodonga


----------



## Happy (2 February 2007)

> From ABC, February 2, 2007
> 
> TORRENTIAL RAIN SWAMPS NORTHERN QLD
> 
> ...




There is no shortage of water; all northern part of Australia receives from 2  to 3 meters of rainwater every year.

We could build railway link to Darwin (only took 100 years or so to complete), same can be done to get water South.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 February 2007)

Or more sensibly, get the farmers to farm where there is rain!


----------



## Seaking (2 February 2007)

> Or more sensibly, get the farmers to farm where there is rain!




Come on up, the more the merrier.. We have had around 600mm in the last few days and still counting. If only there was a way to push it a bit further south..


----------



## nioka (2 February 2007)

Seaking said:
			
		

> Come on up, the more the merrier.. We have had around 600mm in the last few days and still counting. If only there was a way to push it a bit further south..



There has,for many years, been schemes proposed to push it further south and it could be done. Just as the snowy was in the days before the greenie revolution. Peak flows could easily be transferred over the ranges all along the coast. Some purple frog or something of that kind would however turn up and get in the way of progress. A greenie believe change means ruin. I believe a change, carefully thought out, is the only way to avoid ruin. The snowy has it's problems but Australia is a much better place because of it.


----------



## Seaking (2 February 2007)

Don't get me started on weak as piss pollies bowing and scraping to the "anti-life on this planet" people. 
A typical case would be the scrapping of the Tully/Millstream project up on the Atherton tablelands a few years ago. Here was a project that would have created 3 dams high up in the ranges to supply a clean green Hydro power station and looking at it now in the context of water supply to the west of the ranges seems like a no brainer. 
It was canned because a very small section of land that was part of a world heritage area was going to be inundated and the afore mentioned frog would have to move to higher ground. 
Doesn't seem to be an issue when hundreds of families around Gympie are forced to sell there homes and farms and move to higher ground..


----------



## Snakey (2 February 2007)

Line up farmers for your free golden shower


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 February 2007)

Seaking said:
			
		

> Don't get me started on weak as piss pollies bowing and scraping to the "anti-life on this planet" people.
> A typical case would be the scrapping of the Tully/Millstream project up on the Atherton tablelands a few years ago. Here was a project that would have created 3 dams high up in the ranges to supply a clean green Hydro power station and looking at it now in the context of water supply to the west of the ranges seems like a no brainer.
> It was canned because a very small section of land that was part of a world heritage area was going to be inundated and the afore mentioned frog would have to move to higher ground.
> Doesn't seem to be an issue when hundreds of families around Gympie are forced to sell there homes and farms and move to higher ground..




There is much sense in what you say. Poor old Joh Bjelke must be spinning in his grave watching the "southerners" running out of water. He advocated damming( not damning ) many of the inland rivers in Queensland to capture the xs runoff in the wet season. The Chinese and the Egyptians were doing it thousands of years ago, although they didn't have The Age and the SMH to deal with. they just did it to survive. 
Garpal


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2007)

I think the No Dams argument has, at least on a logical basis, lost all merit due to both greenhouse and the drought.

Problem is that it never was a logical debate but an emotional one. 

And the greens could do a lot more now with digital photography since there is no longer a need to go up river where the dam will have no effect and take some pretty pictures to swing the urban vote against the dam. 

If people researched the history of the No Dams brigade and their claims then they wouldn't stand a chance. Promoting nuclear energy, coal mining in national parks, burning the forests, increasing the risk of urban houses burning (according to CSIRO research). If it pollutes and leaves a legacy far greater than any dam then they've backed it at some point. The trouble is that very few have actually done any research into the track record of these people.

And then there's all that changing of mind whenever anyone proposes to do something that these people have proposed. All of a sudden their "good" idea becomes the focus of the new "anti" campaign.  

If it changes the public's attitude towards major engineering works then this drought could turn out to be the best thing that's happened in this country for quite some time. Or perhaps we'll have to wait for an even bigger disaster to change attitudes...


----------



## Happy (5 February 2007)

Ultrasonic washing machines, waterless toilets and shower system that would recirculate filtered out water with tank only topping up for evaporation some splashing and water that remains on body and hair after shower is finished, would save so much water that we could let our politicians do nothing for another 200 years.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 February 2007)

Seaking said:
			
		

> Come on up, the more the merrier.. We have had around 600mm in the last few days and still counting. If only there was a way to push it a bit further south..





Hmmm... thats all well and good if all the farmers are trying to grow is tropical or sub-tropical foods!

I'm pretty sure wheat and grains make up a big proportion of the farming harvest in Oz each year AFAIK. Wheat and grains don't like to be saturated for long periods?

I'm also pretty sure trying to grow wheat and grains would have a lot of drawbacks in the tropics... tropical disease, moulds, massive crop losses due to cyclones, floods etc, etc. Climatologist Mr Flannery is predicting far worse flooding and cyclones in the tropics in coming years, that bodes not well for farmers in those climes?

Geez, how much 'potentially' storable/useable freshwater has flowed out to sea from NE Qld in the past week? Maybe some pollies should pull their heads in and spend a few bucks trying to harness it and pass it down south for the good of the nation as a whole? Apart from spending some CASH (why is spending money on infrastructure so bloody hard for pollies to do?) technically it really wouldn't be that hard would it?

So... maybe moving grain farmers holus-bolus to the tropics is not such a black and white answer? I'm sure some food types could make the shift ok with massive government funding. It will still take a great leap of faith by the farmers that would be "tempted", and do they really have a lot of faith left? 

BTW, how many young people today want to take up farming? I think the whole farming sector is in a crisis that is far deeper than the "drought".... the dry is just bringing it all to a head (ie: now more media worthy..)

Interesting times ahead regardless... how many of us really have 'faith' in our political masters to effectively re-set our climate-struggling nation on the 'right' path before it's too late?

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 February 2007)

Here's this week's latest update of the water levels in NE Victoria courtesy of http://www.waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/sr/StorageSummary.htmt . 

As per usual, these figures are for available useable water only and exclude the dead storage (water which can not be taken out of the lake due to being below the outlet level). The authorities current percentage full figures don't deduct this dead storage, so their figures are always a slight bit more inflated! 

DARTMOUTH [Murray] = 844,761 ML [previous week 955,905 ML] = 19.2% of full storage, nett outflow 65,277 ML [previous week 70,116 ML] for the week, which leaves 13 weeks supply at current weekly outflow rate.

HUME [Murray] = 87,048 ML [previous week 94,631 ML] = 2.8% of full storage, nett outflow 18,465 ML for the week, which leaves 5 weeks supply at current weekly outflow rate.


Sip slooooowly.......



Aussiejeff
Wodonga


----------



## macca (8 February 2007)

I found this scientific report on climate change a good read, very thought provoking

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Christy-Spencer Glob Temp 1978-2003.pdf


----------



## Seaking (8 February 2007)

> Geez, how much 'potentially' storable/useable freshwater has flowed out to sea from NE Qld in the past week? Maybe some pollies should pull their heads in and spend a few bucks trying to harness it and pass it down south for the good of the nation as a whole? Apart from spending some CASH (why is spending money on infrastructure so bloody hard for pollies to do?) technically it really wouldn't be that hard would it?




This is the Burdekin Dam a few days ago...


----------



## clowboy (8 February 2007)

Awesome Photo Seaking.

I bet it was even more awesome taking it, what with the roar and all.

Thanx for posting it.


----------



## Seaking (8 February 2007)

clowboy said:
			
		

> Awesome Photo Seaking.
> 
> I bet it was even more awesome taking it, what with the roar and all.
> 
> Thanx for posting it.




I didn't take the photo, we haven't been able to go south to Townsville for a week or so. Or north to Cairns for a few of those days as well.... I think we ended up with nearly a meter of rain, some places more, since last Monday week. It's just like most wet season Febuary's except since Larry last year, we seem to get a bit more media attention.. OK maybe a bit more than most wet season Febuary's...


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 February 2007)

Exactly what we need more of if we're going to fix the water problems in this country. Dams.

Do it the right way and we can have better flood control, secure water supplies and a bit of hydro-electricity too.

Go another step and build small pondages below the major storages and then we've got all the pumped storage hydro peaking power we need. Combine that with tapping the massive geothermal resource that Australia has plus some solar towers in southern NSW / northern Victoria and a few wind turbines too.

Do that and not only have we fixed the water problem but we'll cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by almost half without the need for a single ounce of uranium.

Where? New dams for water supply everywhere but especially in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

New conventional hydro-electricity in Tasmania, Queensland, Northern Territory and to a lesser extent Victoria and NSW.

New pumped storage hydro in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.

Solar thermal towers in NSW, Queensland and Victoria.

Expansion of wind farming primarily in Tasmania.

Geothermal energy production possibly in all states but initially centred on South Australia.

A major upgrade of electricity transmission links particularly between SA and the eastern states.

Cost? A fortune but probably no more than establishing a nuclear power industry and continuing to deal with ongoing water shortages. It's a far more long term power source than nuclear, coal, oil or gas and it can't possibly melt down or cook the planet. We don't need to go to war in foreign lands to maintain access to it either.

Today we are living off the infrastructure built by previous generations. It wasn't cheap but our standard of living today absolutely depends on it. It is our duty, morally at least, to invest in the infrastructure the country needs for the future regardless of whether or not it is profitable in the short term.  We've spent an outright fortune paying more for the same house - that same money would easily fund a fix to the water problem and turn the clean energy vision into reality.


----------



## nioka (8 February 2007)

I can remember an aspiring West Australian Premier being laughed at for suggesting a pipeline from the Ord to Perth to solve Perths water crisis. I dont think the cost was much more than they now intend to spend on a desalination plant. I wonder if that is being reconsidered under Howards new plans. A natural channel in the form of the Murray / Darling (and it's tribs) exists for most of the way to bring water from north to south for the eastern states. In NSW all they have to do is get it through or over the range. Not a big ask in my book. And as a bonus think of all the new dams to water ski and fish in.( One aspect of changing the environment without ruining it.)


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 February 2007)

I went for a drive down to Mitta Mitta yesterday and took a couple of sad snaps along the way.

The first is of Hume Dam at 2.5% near Bethanga Bridge - note the difference with the second pic taken 2004 which shows the dam at 98%!! 

The last one shows Dartmouth Dam now at 18%... and what it looked like in 2005 at over 90%!  



Drip....drip....

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2007)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> I  Hume Dam at 2.5% near Bethanga Bridge - note the difference with the second pic taken 2004 which shows the dam at 98%



great comparison AJ,  and incredible such a difference in just a bit over 2 years.
I personally think that John Howard is banking on it raining before the election.  And the gaff he recently made is where his thoughts are really "at" , i.e.  droughts are cyclical, - with any luck (in pollies eyes) roughly the same cycle as elections - and he could answer confidently that the problem will go away.  Trouble is the question was global warming and climate change... and addressing that will require more than words.

Suggest he apologise to Al Gore for a start. (just drumming up support for his film, etc).   

Similarly, Sydney has had some good rain recently, including the catchment - and no doubt the State Govt will take the credit - leading into the election. (24 March).   . 
State Parliament will not have sat for 6 months - wont sit before March - 43 days sitting in the year - and you only have to fool some of the people most of the time  ( or is it most of the people some of the time - perferably the month leading into election) - not a bad job either way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2007)

Generally speaking, everyone is counting on at least close to average inflows to storage over this coming Winter otherwise we're in BIG trouble. I'll post an update on the national situation in the next couple of days.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 February 2007)

An update on the water storage situation.

All of these figures are for available storage and exclude dead storage (water which can not be taken out of the lake due to being below the outlet level).

Dartmouth (Murray) - 21%, 746 GL down 66 GL for the week. Dartmouth power station is completely offline at this level although the water is still able to be released from storage (bypassing the power station).

Hume (Murray) - 3%, 54 GL down 17 GL for the week. Annual average flow 3849 GL.

Lake Victoria (Murray) - 53%, 257 GL down 29 GL for the week.

Lake Eucumbene (Snowy Hydro) - 11.8%, 515 GL down 9 GL for the week. The annual average inflow is about 2435 GL. Present storage is equivalent to 920 GWh of electricity.

Menindee Lakes (NSW) - 9%, 158 GL down 5 GL for the week.

Burrinjuck (NSW) - 27%, 274 GL down 5 GL for the week. Annual flow 569 GL.

Blowering (NSW, part of the Snowy scheme) - 13%, 189 GL down 17 GL. Annual average flow 1750 GL.

Eildon (Vic) - 9%, 219 GL down 22 GL for the week. Annual average flow 4268 GL.  


Tasmanian figures are for energy in storage (GWh) NOT water volume since the latter is of no real relevance in Tas. That said, when full the Hydro Tasmania system holds about 15,000 GL. Long term annual net system yield is 10,200 GWh. 

System Total - 26.6% - 3882 GWh down 121 GWh for the week.  
Great Lake and associated storages - 19%, 1424 GWh down 21 GWh.** 
Gordon - 30%, 1417 GWh down 31 GWh for the week.**
Derwent catchment - 36%, 643 GWh down 46 GWh for the week.*
King River power scheme - 69%, 160 GWh down 2 GWh for the week.*
Pieman and Henty-Anthony schemes - 72%, 147 GWh down 17 GWh.* 
Mersey - Forth - 48%, 80 GWh down 4 GWh for the week.* 
Lake Margaret (out of use until 2009) - 100% full and spilling. 11 GWh.

*Scheme is managed to seasonal target storage levels to balance system reliability and ability to meet peak power demands (which requires that all storages have at least some water) with the need to minimise spill during high rainfall events (due to the small storage size relative to annual inflows). Present levels are not greatly outside target. **System long-term major storages.

Urban water supplies:
Sydney - 37%, 955.5 GL (consumption about 1.5 GL / day - summer) 
Melbourne - 35%, 624 GL (consumption about 1.35 GL / day - summer)
Brisbane - 22%, 387 GL
Perth** - 24%, 166 GL (consumption about 0.85 GL / day - summer)
Adelaide* - 55%, 110 GL (consumption about 0.55 GL / day - summer)
Canberra - 35%, 73 GL (consumption about 0.15 GL /day - summer)
Hobart* - About 85%, 9 GL (consumption 0.11 GL day annual average)

*Adelaide and Hobart source most of their water from the Murray and Derwent Rivers respectively with both using a very small fraction of total river flows. The level in storage within the urban area is thus not a valid indication of the overall supply situation for those cities. **Perth sources approximately 50% of its supply from ground water with desalination able to supply a further 17%.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2007)

shinbone - I was thinking it might have improved this week


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 February 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> An update on the water storage situation.
> 
> All of these figures are for available storage and exclude dead storage (water which can not be taken out of the lake due to being below the outlet level).
> 
> ...




Hiya Smurf1976 .... where did you get those recent figures of yours from? According to the figures on the official government site at http://www.waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/sr/StorageSummary.html which they released on 12 Feb, Hume is in the 2% range (not 3%) and Dartmouth in the 18% range (not 21%) - of which neither of their figures deducts unuseable water. Your figures for those two dams seem very optimistic [given that a difference of only 1% of a 3% total in Hume's case is actually 33% of the remainder .. hehe]. Of course, in reality both dams are even lower by now.

Cheers,

Jeff


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2007)

Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Hiya Smurf1976 .... where did you get those recent figures of yours from? According to the figures on the official government site at http://www.waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/sr/StorageSummary.html which they released on 12 Feb, Hume is in the 2% range (not 3%) and Dartmouth in the 18% range (not 21%) - of which neither of their figures deducts unuseable water. Your figures for those two dams seem very optimistic [given that a difference of only 1% of a 3% total in Hume's case is actually 33% of the remainder .. hehe]. Of course, in reality both dams are even lower by now.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeff



The sources of data I'm using is:

The various capital city water authorities for their operations. All release data at least weekly except Hobart which does so on an ad-hoc basis.

Hydro Tasmania for its integrated system. 

Murray Darling Basin Commission for all the rest including Dartmouth, Hume and the Snowy. I used their latest figures but they are a few days old.

As for the actual situaton, basically we're in real trouble with the Murray if we get anything less than average inflows (which requires above average rainfall given how dry the catchment is) this Winter. There will be basically nothing left in storage by Winter so all that will be available for next Summer is what falls between now and then.

For the capital cities, they generally won't run dry but a real panic will be on in the Eastern mainland capitals if there isn't reasonable rain this year. Very tough restrictions would likely be introduced to prevent completely running out of water. Adelaide and Perth should do reasonably OK with a few restrictions whilst it would take a total lack of rain (highly unlikely) to cause any real trouble in Hobart. In Adelaide's case that is assuming the Murray doesn't actually run dry - urban water supply presumably being given greater priority than other uses.

For electricity, If Tasmania gets equal to the lowest on record rainfall then that means importing lots of (mostly coal and some gas-fired) power from Victoria and burning some gas in Tas as well. The lights won't go out but there would be some financial issues since buying electricity or gas is absolutely more expensive than running water through existing hydro-electric plants at virtually zero marginal cost. If inflows were greatly below historic lows then total depletion of storage and loss of generating capacity is possible. If that happens then Tasmania would suffer a major shortfall of baseload power 24/7 even with maximum imports and gas-fired generation whilst there would be peak peak power shortages in Vic and SA next Summer.

For the Snowy, meeting power demand shouldn't be impossible but again it comes down to reducing production with more generation from coal and gas. It comes down to a financial situation where Snowy Hydro just wouldn't be earning as much whilst their costs are largely fixed. That said, if we get close to zero rainfall then the lights going out is a possibility. The real problem would come if there was a decision to release more than is needed for power production in order to keep the Murray flowing since that would rapidly deplete the remaining storage. The effect on electricity supply from the loss of Snowy generation would be mostly in NSW and Victoria although SA may be forced to supply Victoria thus spreading the shortage to SA on very hot days (though no impact in SA at other times). It would also add additional pressure to storages in Tasmania thus increasing the chance of them running dry. Realistically, we would end up with a ban on air-conditioning to maintain supplies (from coal and gas) for other uses. There would be a limited impact on Brisbane's water supply due to a need to maximise Queensland's power supply into NSW - some of which (via coal-fired plants) uses lots of Brisbane's urban water supply.

So in summary, we've come to the point where further drawing down of storages is no longer an option. If the drought continues in a moderate form then water restrictions are here to stay and we'll be using more coal and gas for electricity but there will be no outright failure of either power or water supplies. If the drought continues in a severe form during the remainder of this year then we're all in big trouble with water, power or both depending on which state you're in. 

Western Australia doesn't have too much to worry about however - worst case is tough water restrictions given that two thirds of the supply is either groundwater or desalination and hydro isn't a significant power source in WA.

I have no idea as to the effects on food supply, water for mining operations etc but presumably if the Murray isn't flowing then crops won't be growing too well. As for household use, regional areas generally have far less storage than the capital cities and many are already in trouble either due to outright lack of water or very poor quality of water due to the drought.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 February 2007)

Insight - Brockie is at it again 
a farmer with grapes on either side of the murray is doing fine in Vic, but going broke in NSW.
and is critical of Turnbull. 
only if you're interested ( but insight is a great show)
(PS the mighty Rio Grande no longer makes it to the sea     - never underestimate the ability of man to stuff things up)
ps Farmer from Qld - shame this isn't being discussed in a non-election year, then you'd know their motives were half genuine


----------



## billhill (1 March 2007)

ok, so i'm kinda sick of all the end of the doomsday market talk and while surfing the net found this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228093721.htm
 Interestingly it seems that weather patterns may be on the wetter side in the coming year. The la nina event from my research appears to increase rainfall over australia while causing drought over the US. It also causes an increased number of hurricanes in the atlantic. One thought comes to mind with all of this, hurricanes in the gulf = higher oil$$$. Just food for though.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Annother update on the water storage situation. See my previous posts for details of calculation method, how important the various storages are etc.
> 
> *Irrigation* storages. Those marked * release water primarily via hydro-electric power generation prior to that water being used to maintain river flows for irrigation purpose. That said, the primary purpose of the storage is irrigation and not electricity.
> 
> ...


----------



## macca (13 March 2007)

I don't think we have had this link before, some views against the cause of global warming, interesting read

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2007)

An update on the water storage situation. See my previous posts for details of calculation method, how important the various storages are etc.

SUMMARY

Urban water situation continues to deteriorate in Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth but is improving in Sydney. 

All capital cities except Hobart (not sure about Darwin?) continue to have relatively harsh water restrictions, may of them effectively banning the use of sprinklers. Hobart has neither water restrictions nor water meters.

Key irrigation water storages are now close to empty in the Murray River basin. 

Hydro-electric storages continue to fall although so far there has been minimal loss of peak generating capacity. Both Hydro Tasmania and Snowy Hydro have reduced output outside peak times in order to conserve remaining water (though Hydro Tas still has significant baseload production in operation).

So, in short, we're in rather a lot of trouble if the drought continues beyond the next few months and it has NOT broken on a large scale yet despite a bit of rain here and there.

On a positive note, Hydro Tasmania and Snowy Hydro have formed a joint venture promoting the benefits of cloud seeding and making their expertise more widely available to external users. Both companies will also continue to operate their own cloud seeding operations in their respective catchment areas. For details see http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/sysfiles/media//SnowyHydro_MR_133.pdf

STORAGE LEVEL DETAILS

*Irrigation* storages. 

*Dartmouth (Murray) - 11.2%

*Hume (Murray) - 3.7%

Lake Victoria (Murray) - 21.9%

Menindee Lakes (NSW) - 7.1%

*Burrinjuck (NSW) - 26.0%

*Blowering (NSW, part of the Snowy scheme) - 7.3%

*Eildon (Vic) - 4.6%

Those marked * also generate electricity.


*Hydro-electric* storages. 

Hydro Tasmania - (excluding Lake Margaret presently not in use) - 20.9% (3026 GWh)

Snowy Hydro - (Lake Eucumbene) - 8.6% (around 670 GWh)


*Urban water* storages:

Sydney - 38.5%  

Melbourne - 32.1%

Brisbane - 20.7%

Perth - 21.6%

Adelaide - 55%

Canberra - 33.8%

Hobart - Approx. 80%


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> On a positive note, Hydro Tasmania and Snowy Hydro have formed a joint venture promoting the benefits of cloud seeding and making their expertise more widely available to external users.



they must've been listening to you smurf   
While you're at it, maybe you could arrange for it to rain on my property - buga the bloke down the road    (I seem to recall reading about arguments like this ? in China maybe?)


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> they must've been listening to you smurf
> While you're at it, maybe you could arrange for it to rain on my property - buga the bloke down the road    (I seem to recall reading about arguments like this ? in China maybe?)



How cloud seeding works when done from the air. http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Energy/Cloud_Seeding/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm

Snowy Hydro uses the same fundamental principles in its operation except that it does the actual seeding from the ground. This takes advantage of the topography and wind direction in the Snowy Mountains, avoiding the need for aircraft.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (31 March 2007)

All I know is that the very good rainfall the last 3 months has not changed the fact that the dams used for cooling water for power generation are still going down, and that the water that is left is very saline ie nearly unusable.

There has already been load shedding at some power stations and if the situation doesn't improve dramatically then some power stations will shut down, leading to power shortages. 

NSW residents at least will be faced with 2 options, reduce power consumption ie power rationing or buy a generator. 

This could possibly induce a recession, or seeing how NSW is borderline now, make it much worse.

Maybe Earth Hour could be extended to Earth Day's?


----------



## bel532 (31 March 2007)

macca said:


> Kyoto is a sop to the bleeding hearts, both India and China will INCREASE their green house emissions in the next year by more than the TOTAL emissions in Australia.
> 
> If Oz stopped emissions completely then by the next year it would have made no difference to the world, but a hell of a difference to us.
> 
> ...





I could NEVER understand how State Governments (NSW and Queensland) allowed rice and cotton farming in this country. Let those countries in SE Asia (amd possibly in Northen Australia), which have a plentiful supply of water, engage in these commercial activities. 

Look at the pathetic attempt by the current State Labour Government in Victoria (where I live) in introducing Stage 3A for the Mepropolitan Melbourne, whilst most of regional Victoria (there are some exceptions) has been on Stage 4 and  5 for some considerable time.

We owe it to our country cousins to assist them in their time of need, but they and their Governments, must assure us that every effort is being undertaken to utilise water efficiently.

Just a footnote. A friend of mine recently went to Deniliquin in rural NSW and he was appalled at the waste of water with the residents watering their gardens in the middle of the day in the heat of summer! They obviously think that, because the river runs past their doorstep, there is plenty of water available. This is, of course, a rice growing region!


----------



## Julia (31 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> I could NEVER understand how State Governments (NSW and Queensland) allowed rice and cotton farming in this country. Let those countries in SE Asia (amd possibly in Northen Australia), which have a plentiful supply of water, engage in these commercial activities.
> 
> Look at the pathetic attempt by the current State Labour Government in Victoria (where I live) in introducing Stage 3A for the Mepropolitan Melbourne, whilst most of regional Victoria (there are some exceptions) has been on Stage 4 and  5 for some considerable time.
> 
> ...




Great post.  Completely agree.  Brisbane residents are now about to start on Level Five restrictions which I think aims for less than 800 litres per day per household.  No hosing and bucket garden watering on only two days per week for limited hours.  Today's Courier Mail newspaper published an account of several households using as much as 37,000 litres per day(!).  These households have been identified but the Water Commission is delaying taking action against them for no apparent reason.  This sort of thing, along with rice and cotton farming, can only serve to increase the anger and resentment which is already rife amongst citizens on account of the present situation  having occurred because of years and years of lack of planning by successive governments.


----------



## billhill (31 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Today's Courier Mail newspaper published an account of several households using as much as 37,000 litres per day(!).




Maybe this country needs a water rights trading sceme applicable to the whole population. People would get a yearly water allowance to do with what they please. People who use more then their quota would be forced to buy rights off other people who have not used all their quota. As water supply changes so would the quotas to reflect the change and then market forces could determine the price of water rights. At least then those who don't care about the problem can pay those who do.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2007)

I know there is quite high evaporation in Queensland, but 37,000 litres per day does sound rather high.

Leaking pipes? Faulty meter? Or just a truly massive garden?

But never forget that the SE Qld water crisis is really nothing more than a lack of adequate investment. If we tell people how much water to use then we're telling them how to spend their money. 

If we're going to do that then surely petrol would be a more logical target given that, unlike water, it is actually a reasonably limited resource. Or we could tell them what to eat, where to live, what to do, what to think, who to vote for...


----------



## billhill (1 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If we're going to do that then surely petrol would be a more logical target given that, unlike water, it is actually a reasonably limited resource. Or we could tell them what to eat, where to live, what to do, what to think, who to vote for...




Some people unfortunately need to be told what to do or they end up ruining it for everyone else. I'm sure if there wasn't a quota system for tuna then japan (not that it stopped them) would have fished them to extinction already. Same should go for any finite resource. At the moment i wouldn't call food, living space or thought finite resourses, not that they won't be one day.



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If we tell people how much water to use then we're telling them how to spend their money.




If we continue the status quo there will be no more water. We force people to save part of their income for their retirement which is maybe not popular with everyone but its responsible and integral to the continued functioning of our society. If you let unconditional freedom reign then its a free for all and at the end of the party all your left with is a big mess and no beer.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Maybe this country needs a water rights trading sceme applicable to the whole population. People would get a yearly water allowance to do with what they please. People who use more then their quota would be forced to buy rights off other people who have not used all their quota. As water supply changes so would the quotas to reflect the change and then market forces could determine the price of water rights. At least then those who don't care about the problem can pay those who do.




That's a really good idea.  I'd go for it.  How would it actually work in practice?
Say I want to use twice what my neighbour does:  how would I get her share?
Do we simply have an agreement and what would be the actual mechanics of it?


----------



## billhill (1 April 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> That's a really good idea. I'd go for it. How would it actually work in practice?
> Say I want to use twice what my neighbour does: how would I get her share?
> Do we simply have an agreement and what would be the actual mechanics of it?




My thinking is that the government would calculate each year the sustainable quota of water that each household could recieve. People would then use their water as they normally would. If they go over their quota then they would be billed extra by the water authority for those rights. Those who use less water would receive reduced water bills from the water corp to reflect the selling of their rights to others. Obviously it would be much more complicated then this but IMO that would be the jist.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2007)

billhill said:


> My thinking is that the government would calculate each year the sustainable quota of water that each household could recieve. People would then use their water as they normally would. If they go over their quota then they would be billed extra by the water authority for those rights. Those who use less water would receive reduced water bills from the water corp to reflect the selling of their rights to others. Obviously it would be much more complicated then this but IMO that would be the jist.




I don't really see how that's "trading" water rights.  Sounds like simply charging more over a certain quantity used.  I was thinking something more like a barter system.  What you describe sounds just like a way for the local water authority to make more money.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Some people unfortunately need to be told what to do or they end up ruining it for everyone else. I'm sure if there wasn't a quota system for tuna then japan (not that it stopped them) would have fished them to extinction already. Same should go for any finite resource. At the moment i wouldn't call food, living space or thought finite resourses, not that they won't be one day.
> 
> 
> 
> If we continue the status quo there will be no more water. We force people to save part of their income for their retirement which is maybe not popular with everyone but its responsible and integral to the continued functioning of our society. If you let unconditional freedom reign then its a free for all and at the end of the party all your left with is a big mess and no beer.



My point is simply that in the context of the Australian capital cities water is NOT a finite resource. Its supply being limited by money rather than any physical constraint on the ability to supply water.

Fair enough to have restrictions where it is necessary. But water is unique in that it is one of the few things that does NOT deplete some non-renewable resource in its production and yet it is the only one we are restricting the use of.

We live on the continent that has more water per head of population than practically anywhere else. It's time we got on with the job of properly managing that water rather than using it as a political tool.

I just don't like the idea at all that government intentionally creates a shortage of water, which is precisely what has been done at least in SE Qld and Melbourne, and then uses that shortage as a means of effecting increased control over the population. Fair enough if the shortage was unavoidable, but not when it has been knowingly allowed to develop through years of policies that couldn't possibly have resulted in any other outcome.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> My point is simply that in the context of the Australian capital cities water is NOT a finite resource. Its supply being limited by money rather than any physical constraint on the ability to supply water.



Pretty much.

Look at the Yarragadee aquifer. Country bumpkins and two headed morons want to stop it being utilised, yet, these same fools allow strip and sand mining UPON it, and then say that "using it for drinking purposes is damaging to the environment". Lol! I mean come on. 

And then they use "scientific research" tabled by hacks at a sub-standard university (ECU) with p***s envy (these people were rejected from positions in the environmental departments at Murdoch University) to justify their claims. Hey boys, just because your work isn't good enough to attract research funding does not also mean your work has any credibility.

Country bumpkins (that may or may not be able to read this), take note. If you want help, you have to be prepared to give it as well. Until then, you get no sympathy from me.

*grumbles* -allowing Capel Sands to contaminate the water table yet refusing boring it for "enviromental reasons"- Lol!


----------



## billhill (3 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Pretty much.
> 
> Look at the Yarragadee aquifer. Country bumpkins and two headed morons want to stop it being utilised, yet, these same fools allow strip and sand mining UPON it, and then say that "using it for drinking purposes is damaging to the environment". Lol! I mean come on.
> 
> ...




Chop's,
 Firstly i take extreme offence at your comments regarding country people. I've lived out in rural WA and although you may see everyone out there as backward yokels i can asure you that most are'nt that stupid and in fact many are quite intellegent. These people do it tough as i'm sure you can attest to and although you do not have to agree with them there is no reason to be derogatory. You have your reasons to tap the Yarragadee aquifer, but they also have legitimate concerns. 
Secondly in regard to tapping the aquifier i hold reservations as to the sustainability and management by the government and i worry with falling rainfall it will be sucked dry in a couple of decades (mismanagement of gnagara is seeing it dwindle as a resource). And no one can say that if it drys up that it will not be an environmental disaster. Personally i would rather see recycled water and more desalinated water before we interfere with more of the states environmental systems.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Secondly in regard to tapping the aquifier i hold reservations as to the sustainability and management by the government and i worry with falling rainfall it will be sucked dry in a couple of decades (mismanagement of gnagara is seeing it dwindle as a resource). And no one can say that if it drys up that it will not be an environmental disaster. Personally i would rather see recycled water and more desalinated water before we interfere with more of the states environmental systems.



Rainfall doesn't directly penetrate this aquifer unlike the Gnangara mound. So it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

People do not want recycled water and desal is hugely expensive and energy inefficient.

The Jandakot mound is contaminated, every river that is not damned in the state is brackish (along with many that are) and the Yarragadee empties into the sea. At some point you have to make a decision about these matters. Doing nothing has got us in the situation we are in.

But the fact the people of this region did not campaign at all against the clearing of the Ludlow Tuart Forest, I find their claims of "environmental concern" totally totally disingenuous.


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Rainfall doesn't directly penetrate this aquifer unlike the Gnangara mound. So it is an entirely different kettle of fish.




How does the aquifier replenish supplies? Surely even if indirectly filled by rainfall a fall in precipitation would lead to slower replenishing rates.



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> People do not want recycled water and desal is hugely expensive and energy inefficient




Not all water is used for drinking. Its stupid that recycled water at least isn't used exclusively for industrial purposes or watering parks and agriculture. Must admit that desal still has some issues to sort out.



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The Jandakot mound is contaminated, every river that is not damned in the state is brackish (along with many that are) and the Yarragadee empties into the sea. At some point you have to make a decision about these matters. Doing nothing has got us in the situation we are in.




Shouldn't the fact that there are these problems with the rivers, jandakot mound and gnangara ring alarm bells. I'm seeing a trend that we mismanage current water resources ruin them and then have to move on to the next source. I'm all for using yarragadee if it can be done sustainably, which is something we don't have a good record for.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> How does the aquifier replenish supplies? Surely even if indirectly filled by rainfall a fall in precipitation would lead to slower replenishing rates.



Yes, but not for tens of thousands of years. The amount of water withdrawn is less than the replenishment rate, so there is still a nett gain. The proposed level of withdrawal is equivalent to the amount lost to sea.




			
				billhill said:
			
		

> Not all water is used for drinking. Its stupid that recycled water at least isn't used exclusively for industrial purposes or watering parks and agriculture. Must admit that desal still has some issues to sort out.



As far as I understand, most of the industrial uses of water in Kwinana are from recycled sources. I don't have a problem with not having a garden. Ours is all native and feral. Unfortunately, people selling houses near us don't like that (and I assume most of the people on this site wouldn't agree with that principle either). And after all, we live in a democracy and most people like their gardens. And as long as councils make it almost impossible here to be able to install a grey water system, the problem will remain.



			
				billhill said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the fact that there are these problems with the rivers, jandakot mound and gnangara ring alarm bells. I'm seeing a trend that we mismanage current water resources ruin them and then have to move on to the next source. I'm all for using yarragadee if it can be done sustainably, which is something we don't have a good record for.




As mentioned above, and described here, it is a totally different system to the Gnangara mound.

The Jandakot mound problems actually aren't to do with the Water Corp... or the boring. It is entirely the fault of city council (mainly Melville). Oh thank you lord for right wing hacks and Liberal party donaters in local council. Lol!

The Yarragadee system will be subject to some of the tightest regulations we have seen in regards to water management. As long as Peter Newman, and the ISTP department are managing it and auditing the impacts, there wont be a problem.

Interesting you chose to ommit my final coment.

The real issue here is that the region complaining, and supposedly effected, are dominated by dairy farmers. It is a hugely water dependent industry.

Whilst they complain and are "concerned" by the "unsustainability" of the project, I'm sure they have no problem in using a 1000L of water to produce 1L of milk. Lol!


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Interesting you chose to ommit my final coment




I simply don't know enough about the clearing of the ludlow tuart forest to comment on your final post. 



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The real issue here is that the region complaining, and supposedly effected, are dominated by dairy farmers. It is a hugely water dependent industry




I do see your point but having lived in both the city and rural areas i can sympathise with farmers. The services they recieve out there really are dismal when compared to the cities which is probably why they are so reluctant to let city folk have a share of their resources. Its a bit like the neglect WA seems to get from the federal government simply because we're on the other side of the country. Country people feel that the cities don't give a s**t about them and unfortunately because the majority of votes are in the cities more attention is paid to those areas.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> I do see your point but having lived in both the city and rural areas i can sympathise with farmers. The services they recieve out there really are dismal when compared to the cities which is probably why they are so reluctant to let city folk have a share of their resources. Its a bit like the neglect WA seems to get from the federal government simply because we're on the other side of the country. Country people feel that the cities don't give a s**t about them and unfortunately because the majority of votes are in the cities more attention is paid to those areas.




But it's irrelevant to the issue. Farmers have been helped by city folk throughout this crisis. The country people in the state are not as egalitarian as one would hope and these country folk are indulging in pure selfishness. I mean, it's not as if the city hasn't provided Kal with water for the last hundred years or so is it...


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> But it's irrelevant to the issue. Farmers have been helped by city folk throughout this crisis. The country people in the state are not as egalitarian as one would hope and these country folk are indulging in pure selfishness. I mean, it's not as if the city hasn't provided Kal with water for the last hundred years or so is it...




There are greedy people on both sides of the fence. Perhap farmers would be more accommodating if they had telecommunications, education, health services and roads that were closer to the standard in the cities. Remeber the 1000 litres of water to produce a litre of milk in the end is a result of the demand placed on farmers by the cities for their products. You can't turn around and blame them for complaining when the water they do use is to service the cities needs anyway. Kalgoorlie is not agricultural its mining so i can't see farmers really getting alot out of that pipeline.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> There are greedy people on both sides of the fence. Perhap farmers would be more accommodating if they had telecommunications, education, health services and roads that were closer to the standard in the cities. Kalgoorlie is not agricultural its mining so i can't see farmers really getting alot out of that pipeline.



They never are going to be though. And Bunbury is better off than most other country centres.

The federal government has drastically cut funding for rural roads in WA. Funnily enough, it's being done by the parties people in these areas generally vote for. They have the power to change their own circumstances.

I was using Kal as an example of WA's water resources being available for all.

Alternatively... we could build a canal from the north. Lol!


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

I think we've hit a dead end between us in this debate chops. Obviously we have very different veiws both with there own merits however i can't see you changing your position and so far i'm unlikely to change mine. At least we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> All I know is that the very good rainfall the last 3 months has not changed the fact that the dams used for cooling water for power generation are still going down, and that the water that is left is very saline ie nearly unusable.
> 
> There has already been load shedding at some power stations and if the situation doesn't improve dramatically then some power stations will shut down, leading to power shortages.
> 
> ...



Well we've now got NSW coal-fired generators collectively producing considerably less power than NSW is using. It's not solely due to water problems but production is down nonetheless. 

So we're sending power from Qld, Vic, Tas and SA into NSW to make up the shortfall plus letting even more of what water remains in the Snowy run through the turbines.

Now, there's a limit to how long we can keep doing that. Snowy storages are low, some Qld power stations are also running low on water and Hydro Tas storage is down below 21%.

But at least we can rely on the gas-fired stations in Vic, Tas and SA, right? Nope! Now that's gone too, at least in Tasmania where all gas-fired generation is now completely shut down (since yesterday afternoon) due to gas production problems in Victoria.

This means we're now going to be running down the water storages even faster and Tas will need to get that lost power back somehow given the storage situation. Heaven only knows where that's coming from...  

What next can possibly go wrong?  

We'd better start having a bit more luck, or water to be more precise, before Winter sets in or I'm off to buy shares in candle makers and battery companies.


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> They never are going to be though. And Bunbury is better off than most other country centres.
> 
> The federal government has drastically cut funding for rural roads in WA. Funnily enough, it's being done by the parties people in these areas generally vote for. They have the power to change their own circumstances.
> 
> ...





When you state the Federal Government has cut funding for roads in WA, isn't this is due (assuming your statement is correct) to the realignment of federal funding due to higher taxes being generated in WA by the mining boom? The same applies, but probably to a lesser degree, to Queensland.

When Federation was formed it was agreed that those States that were undeveloped and had a comparatively low population would be compensated in terms of Federal Funding. This meant that, over many decades, the more heavily populated states ie Victoria and NSW received less funding, on a PER CAPITA basis, than the other states. With the wealth being generated by WA and Queensland the time had come for this imbalance in Federal funding to be adressed. I believe this is non existent now for WA (I may be wrong) and reduced for Quensland. Tasmania and the ACT receive the most, by a large margin, in Federal Funding on a PER CAPITA basis.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> When Federation was formed it was agreed that those States that were undeveloped and had a comparatively low population would be compensated in terms of Federal Funding. This meant that, over many decades, the more heavily populated states ie Victoria and NSW received less funding, on a PER CAPITA basis, than the other states. With the wealth being generated by WA and Queensland the time had come for this imbalance in Federal funding to be adressed. I believe this is non existent now for WA (I may be wrong) and reduced for Quensland. Tasmania and the ACT receive the most, by a large margin, in Federal Funding on a PER CAPITA basis.



It was origninally at least partly on the basis of scale of economy. That is, it will naturally cost more to provide a given level of service (in practically anything) in Tas or SA than in NSW or Vic due to scale of economy issues. Doubling the scale of operations doesn't generally double the cost so it costs less per capita in the larger population states. The underlying basis being that all Australians ought to receive a similar level of publicly funded services regardless of their states' actual ability to pay.


----------



## Happy (5 April 2007)

> From ABC , April 5, 2007
> 
> 
> MARS HEATING UP: NASA
> ...







Puts new spin on debate if we are responsible for global warming or we just give helping hand, as it would happen anyway.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

chops, I recall yuo and I having an argument about lousy mental health services in the bush and who is to blame, - more correctly , how serious it was, whether it warranted empathy, and  whether the bushies are too fiercely "bronzed-Anzac-stoic" to even avail themselves of any help if it were available.... at least there's a ray of hope , call it (one cents worth). 
http://abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/longr/200704/s1890288.htm


> Flying doctors get $300K Federal Govt funding.
> The Royal Flying Doctor Service will expand its mental health services in Queensland with almost $300,000 in new Federal Government funding.
> 
> The service has received a grant to conduct several "field days" in central-western Queensland to help drought-affected farmers and communities with issues including mental health,
> ...



As I said at the time, there was a suicide on average once every 4 days


----------



## Kimosabi (5 April 2007)

> From ABC , April 5, 2007
> 
> 
> MARS HEATING UP: NASA
> ...






Happy said:


> Puts new spin on debate if we are responsible for global warming or we just give helping hand, as it would happen anyway.




Oh my god, it's not Global Warming, it's Solar System Warming.

Bloody stupid humans, our CO2 emissions are causing the whole Solar System to warm up...


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 April 2007)

Well....

Another visit to Dartmouth today - another sad sight.

Can you spot the difference between 18% full at end of Feb and barely 10% full now?

Outflow is barely 1,500ML per day - down from 10,000 per day in Feb. The only thing keeping Hume dam at 4.5% at the moment is draining the Snowy storages....

Cheers?

AJ


----------



## Happy (10 April 2007)

One of the dangers using recycled water, is that city folks didn’t do it for best part of 50 years which means 2 or in some circles up to 3 generations.

This means we don’t know how to handle partially contaminated water and some families might be up to few nasty surprises, caused by bacteria and microorganisms that we did not see. 
Ones that were firmly locked in sewage system.

Another problem might be caused by reduced water flow in sewage system causing sediment and blockages.

Maybe we should not be so bent on not using water; maybe we should put more effort into recycling at the sewage plant end, not at the consumer’s end.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 April 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Can you spot the difference between 18% full at end of Feb and barely 10% full now?
> 
> Outflow is barely 1,500ML per day - down from 10,000 per day in Feb. The only thing keeping Hume dam at 4.5% at the moment is draining the Snowy storages....



thanks AJ - gr8 to get the photos first hand.  Thanks for the dramatic photograhic evidence. 
By what you say, there's a rapid drawdown of Snowy (and presumably eventually Eucumbene etc) in the near future. 
I think (may be wrong) that Sydney uses about 1,500ML (1.5GL) per day as well.  (not that relevant to your situation of course).

As many have said before, the relative contribution of man and sun to current global warming may be a matter for debate ,  but the fact that there's damn all water for the forseeable future has gotta be an urgent matter.  

BHP getting as much artesian water as they wish - for free?  sheesh.  That has to be overturned (imo) if necessary by act of SA parliament .

Some idiot water bottling company buying spring water (in Vic) for $2.40 per ML !!! - (did I hear that right on the radio the other day??) - and the licence just awarded despite current topicality of all this !! madness surely.  (hopefully I heard wrong)  

Why are bottlers of water allowed such access to pristine spring water.   It's absolute BS. These people are serious parasites - no value adding at all (you wonder if they have political contacts) (imo)


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 April 2007)

Well, bite my ***!

Northeast Water have just announced that Wodonga and any towns on the south side of the Murray River not already on Stage 2 water restrictions will move to that level on 1 May, then Level 3 on 1 Jun then Level 4 on 1 Jul REGARDLESS of any amount of rain in the interim. 

It had to happen!

Nurseries and pool installers (to mention but a few industries) who will be significantly affected by this news will have to start battening down their financial hatches... 


Drip...drip....


AJ

PS: Of course, bottled water suppliers (see 2020hindsight's post above) will rub their hands with un-abated glee at this news...!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Some idiot water bottling company buying spring water (in Vic) for $2.40 per ML !!! - (did I hear that right on the radio the other day??) -



btw, I'm sure that's what they said on the radio , but I think they meant $2.40 per kL - which after all is a ton of water (literaly),  1 cubic metre for $2.40 sheesh.

If per ML, then the entire water usage of Sydney would be $2.4 x 1500 = $3,600.   (not possible !)
Even if per kL it's bad enough $3.6 million per day - still a good deal for them, when they can sell it for almost $3.6 bilion

i.e. If they buy for $2.40 per kL (ton) 
and they in turn sell for about $2 per litre = $2,000 !
not bad for "a days work"., (as if they only put out one ton per day).

I think they have licence to take out many millions of tons , but I must get the facts  on that. - shame on the relevant Vic Water Resources people  (I'd better check who too lol - before I get sued, lol)

Either way, it's a licence to print money 

(Apologies for not checking these details first - and to any govt agencies I have inadvertently offended lol)


----------



## Rafa (11 April 2007)

i heard mega litre too, i think it was on TV...!


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 April 2007)

If you consider the waste of plastic for bottles plus the very substantial greenhouse gas emissions associated with production and transport (and often refrigeration too) then bottled water would surely win the award for the most unnecessarily polluting product ever to be mass marketed.

I'll stick to drinking water straight from the tap unless some clown thinks of doing something to mess with its quality. If they do that then I'll get a rain water tank and connect it to the roof.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks AJ - gr8 to get the photos first hand.  Thanks for the dramatic photograhic evidence.
> By what you say, there's a rapid drawdown of Snowy (and presumably eventually Eucumbene etc) in the near future.
> I think (may be wrong) that Sydney uses about 1,500ML (1.5GL) per day as well.  (not that relevant to your situation of course).



Snowy water is already just about gone. Lake Eucumbene was at 8% of active storage a few days ago and there's been some released since then so it's probably lower now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

"locals charged 500 times as much "...

sheesh - I just had to go back to double check that this wasn't put out by the BAC on 1st April  - sadly not    (but golly gosh you'd be forgiven for assuming that's the only way it could be true !!) 
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1890540.htm


> Bottled water plan angers Yarra Valley locals
> AM - Thursday, 5 April , 2007  08:16:00
> Reporter: Jane Cowan
> TONY EASTLEY: A proposal to extract spring water from a small town in Victoria's Yarra Valley has raised hackles and questions about how much people should pay for their water.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

Just to be clear here, one ML is the water that would cover a sprinters track, 100m long x 10 m wide x 1 metre deep. 
And they get it for $2.40.   -   and sell it for $2 million !!  (assuming $2 / L, very rough)

For $24 I'm guessing you 'd cover the MCG to 1 metre deep! (10ML)
and sell it $20 million.  

Sheesh, I hope all the animals that die after that selfish bastard , "Man" , (speaking generally)  takes out all this water, and things dry up in the next drought - I hope they are all dumped on the front lawn of this "local water authority" , with a sign saying  "Hope you spent your $2.40 wisely"  

Or the forest fires that rage through the drought ravaged area next summer (or the one after) take out the water manager's Mercedes.  (probably that would affect him more than the dead animals).

As they say, when Noah was rounding up the animals for the Ark, it's a shame that Man didn't miss the boat  



> JANE COWAN: The local water authority has defended its approval of the Powelltown license.
> 
> Southern Rural Water's Graham Hawke says water isn't priced to reflect the scarcity of the resource, but simply the cost of the infrastructure required to deliver it.
> 
> ...




PS "We were going to send you an invoice for the $50 worth of water you took last month (2m over the MCG which was sold for $40 million) - but the boss says to just put on next month's bill to save paper  - in fact why don't we just invoice you annually , that way we can cover the cost of me typing this invoice and mailing it )  

PS not only do I suspect a typo - but I hope it's a typo by factor of at least 1000. (still unconscionable)
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/303748/fromItemId/3669


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 April 2007)

150 million litres.

That's the same amount that's gone through Gordon Power Station (Tas) in the past 9 minutes. 

It was worth about $4000 as wholesale electricity. 

Now, if we can just get this bottling business sorted and sell it at $2 a litre then the Hydro should be out of debt in about half an hour and will be worth more than BHP and the big 4 banks put together by this time next week... : : :


----------



## Rafa (11 April 2007)

nice one smurf,

150m litres = $360 for big business to bottle
150m litres = $4000 electricity
150m litres = $300,000,000 to buy in a bottle!

i've heard similar stories when it comes to crops like rice and cotton
also, what about water prices paid by our big mining companies to produce the minerals.

the cost of water is in no way reflected in the cost of the end product.

its a similar story for CO2 and other type of pollution...
someone pays for it all eventually... but thats mainly the community.


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 April 2007)

How droll!! 

Now the Vic Water Minister has just announced **FANFARE** that many Victorians will be slugged up to 30% more for their water bills ..... while water bottling crooks are granted Megalitres of the precious stuff for essentially NIX so that a PRIVATE COMPANY can make a KILLING!! HAHAHAHA!!!

The Guvment obviously is playing us all for FOOLZ!!!

Cheerz folks....

PS: Hmmm .... does said Water Minister have a portfolio of dodgy shares in this water bottling scam????

AJ


----------



## Happy (11 April 2007)

Not fair.

Would be nice if water cost/price is comparative.
Maybe bottled water final price could be capped?

But: 30% is shop markup
5-50% transport cost
Plastic bottle costs too, plus labour, machinery, amortisation, insurance, other plant costs, tiny profit up to 1000%  

All adds up to $2 a bottle


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

speaking of good money to be made - I notice a job vacant notice for a new "water recycling" facility down the road..
"300 bucks a week and all the piss you can drink"


----------



## Kimosabi (11 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> speaking of good money to be made - I notice a job vacant notice for a new "water recycling" facility down the road..
> "300 bucks a week and all the piss you can drink"




Finally we'll be able to have a piss up without getting a hang over...


----------



## Royce (11 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> speaking of good money to be made - I notice a job vacant notice for a new "water recycling" facility down the road..
> "300 bucks a week and all the piss you can drink"




Turning recycled water into wine...I'd like to see that.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (11 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> speaking of good money to be made - I notice a job vacant notice for a new "water recycling" facility down the road..
> "300 bucks a week and all the piss you can drink"



As long as its not your own piss  After all it is a recycling plant


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> After all it is a recycling plant



maybe they'll have to revise that old quote to read ..
"couldn't organise a pissup in a recycling plant"   

as for the wine-colour or any other colouration,  lol, did anyone see the chaser (incidentally 9.00 pm tonight) - getting people to taste two clear beakers full, one clean and one recycled water - to see if they could identify them correctly , and ...

when they took the blindfolds off , one was the colour of dirt lol.   

(then they did it with desalinated water, and only had a bludy gr8 fish in the glass lol)   funny bugas


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 April 2007)

Yeah... hehe... saw that too.

*Almost* as funny as the clowns running this state...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 April 2007)

AJ and Smurf - brilliant article on ABC news - old drays etc emerging out of the low water at Eucumbene (never before so low)   - real treasures 
moral ?

"every bog has it's dray "  

PS (I think I blamed that article about Yarra bottled water on BAC  - as they say DNA = national dyslexic assocn)


----------



## Happy (12 April 2007)

> From ABC, April 12, 2007
> 
> 
> SCIENTISTS FIND WATER IN SPACE
> ...






In worst case scenario, when we run out ideas where get the water from, it is comforting that we can import it from space.

Might be expensive, maybe more than $2 per bottle, but at least it is there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 April 2007)

Happy said:


> .. it is comforting that we can import it from space.
> Might be expensive, maybe more than $2 per bottle, but at least it is there.



lol, gotta feeling the desalinator proposals might get the nod before this one 

reminds me of the question that some science students ask themselves along the way ... "surely there's a way to "export heat"  into space - like a "heat gun" or similar  ??  - turns out that it just can't be done - something to do with the laws of thermodynamics etc. 

Here's that article about "every bog has its dray" - shame they don't have a photo. 
I notice they say "links to the past have "disappeared" - but lol they forget to mention it's the first time they've appeared since the dam filled in the first place .  
Which is no laughing matter I guess - when you think about it   Like - things are serious (as if anyone needed reminding) .

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1894105.htm


> Scavengers scour the Snowy Mountains
> Unscrupulous souvenir hunters are moving in on some of the farming history in the New South Wales Snowy Mountains.
> 
> After years of drought, some of the historic farming properties which were flooded are dry again, and it's not taken long for scavengers to spot an opportunity.
> ...



Apparently the drays etc are no longer anyone's property - so up for grabs. 
It's getting seriuos when the vultures and other scavengers start circling


----------



## Happy (12 April 2007)

> After years of drought, some of the historic farming properties which were flooded are dry again, and it's not taken long for scavengers to spot an opportunity.





One of the problems that reservoirs are faced with is constant shrinking of capacity volume due to sediment, so in a sad way this scavenging has one positive, namely partially restores capacity of the reservoir.

Pity that they cannot be forced to take few cubic metres of unwanted sediment with their souvenir.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 April 2007)

Happy said:


> Pity that they cannot be forced to take few cubic metres of unwanted sediment with their souvenir.



 That's what we need all right - for everyone to get sedimental about this


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 April 2007)

From the article...

"The area's biggest dam, Lake Eucumbene, has fallen to the lowest level since the Snowy River scheme was built 50 years ago. 

The NSW Police are now investigating."

HAHAHA!

Those silly Cold Case Coppers are wasting their time.... half the geezers who built that mud pit are probably pushing up weeds!  

*chuckle*

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 April 2007)

lol, "a big hole has appeared where the dam used to be ... the police are looking into it" 

PS shame they're not looking into Southern Rural Water


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 April 2007)

Interesting to see that Labor has shown at least some support for the proposal for a new major dam in northern NSW with the water piped to Brisbane.

The No Dams brigade will be out in force (as you'd expect) and are already saying it won't work. But interesting to see that Labor isn't immediately siding with them and neither (of course) are the Liberals. So it might actually get built...

Regarding siltation, it depends on what happens upstream in the catchment. If it's left alone then siltation isn't really a problem. For example, the Gordon storages (Tas) basically don't have silt. Perhaps 2mm after 3 decades of use and quite a bit of that was likely to have been foreshore erosion during the initial filling. And at least some of the rest would be organic matter which eventually rots.  

In contrast there's a dam somewhere in NSW (can't remember exactly where) that filled right to the top with silt and thus became totally useless and that's happened in other places too. Indeed intentional siltation of dams is the very process mining companies use to separate the nasties out of their waste water. It all depends on what's going on upstream...

As for the situation in the Snowy, I'll put it this way. Either we get more thermal power generation going without running out of cooling water or fuel as we are at the moment, we get lots of rain, or the present 8% or so in Lake Eucumbene is going to look rather full compared to what it will be at soon.


----------



## macca (13 April 2007)

I find the fact that they want to build a dam in NSW to supply water to SE QLD rather weird.

QLD gets a LOT more rain than NSW, if they were to build a dam in NSW why wouldn't they use it here ?

If QLD needs another dam why don't they just build one where it actually rains the most, instead of up in the hills.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 April 2007)

macca said:


> I find the fact that they want to build a dam in NSW to supply water to SE QLD rather weird.
> 
> QLD gets a LOT more rain than NSW, if they were to build a dam in NSW why wouldn't they use it here ?
> 
> If QLD needs another dam why don't they just build one where it actually rains the most, instead of up in the hills.





Ya know Macca, as far as many pollies and other so called ex-spurts are concerned, *simple logic* can be so complicated as to defy all their collective reasoning!



AJ


----------



## Happy (13 April 2007)

macca said:


> If QLD needs another dam why don't they just build one where it actually rains the most, instead of up in the hills.





I might be wrong, but they probably thought about free water pressure, so they have more money for their extra super super and stationery expenses and travel expenses.


----------



## Julia (13 April 2007)

Happy said:


> I might be wrong, but they probably thought about free water pressure, so they have more money for their extra super super and stationery expenses and travel expenses.




Not to mention the new government jet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 April 2007)

macca said:


> I find the fact that they want to build a dam in NSW to supply water to SE QLD rather weird.
> 
> QLD gets a LOT more rain than NSW, if they were to build a dam in NSW why wouldn't they use it here ?
> 
> If QLD needs another dam why don't they just build one where it actually rains the most, instead of up in the hills.



It comes down to cost and politics.

Logically, if Brisbane needs more water then you develop whatever is the cheapest option to supply it with the location being irrelevant. 

A dam in NSW would only make sense if it's the cheapest option per megalitre supplied to Brisbane. Whether or not it is the best option I just don't know since dams are highly site specific in terms of cost. 

But at least someone's looking at actually building _something_ even if it may not be the ideal solution.


----------



## macca (13 April 2007)

Hi ya Smurf,

I can understand that but lets say it is built in NSW who pays for it ? NSW or QLD.

If NSW pays for it, then the water would have to be SOLD to QLD, NSW voters won't pay for a dam and then give water to QLD.

Why would QLD buy water long term, when it could build a dam in QLD and never pay for the water.

Strange world


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 April 2007)

hell, If NSW is selling to Qld, mix in some semi-recycled stuff and tell em it's XXXX, - bit of profit there surely -  they wouldn't know the bludy difference , probably an improvement, lol!
Better still tell em it's XXXXX, - with the extra X being "miscellaneous"


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2007)

macca said:


> Why would QLD buy water long term, when it could build a dam in QLD and never pay for the water.



For the exact same reason that Tasmania and South Australia started buying baseload electricity and also gas from Victoria despite having very substantial untapped resources closer to home.

Cost and politics.

With Victoria offering cheap gas and even cheaper electricity, it just wasn't worth Tasmania or SA (1) spending more to expand production than it would cost to buy from someone else and (2) in Tasmania's case going through the massive _national_ political row that would inevitably erupt over any plan for a major new hydro-electric dam or coal-fired station.

Much the same for Queensland with water. If NSW can supply it cheaper and without Qld having to go through all the No Dams / Go Dams arguments, protests and so on then it's a pretty attractive option from Queensland's perspective. 

The only real downside is risk. SA and Tas have both seen their cheap power from Victoria all but disappear (physically it's still available but it's several times the price of not that long ago) and now the gas supply has been reduced too. There are to some extent genuine reasons why it's happened, it's not a case of a dispute between Vic/Tas/SA, but the end result is that SA and Tas don't have anywhere near the same supply reliability from Victoria that they would get from local production.

Qld could end up being likewise backed into a corner over water supply if NSW finds some reason to cut supply or raise the price. That said, intermittent or expensive water is better than no additional water at all.

My overall point on this project isn't about sending NSW water into Qld. It's about the reality that we've come to the point where both Liberal and Labor are willing to at least consider a major new dam being built. Presumably that change of heart from Labor isn't limited to this dam but opens the way for an expansion of water supply in general - which could well mean a new dam being built in Qld rather than getting water from NSW.


----------



## macca (14 April 2007)

Over all I think it is rather a sad commentary on the quality of state politicians of late. 

Nobody is capable of or is prepared to make, an informed decision. 

They don't actually want to govern, they just want the easy benefits, they really are just bludgers most of them aren't they.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 April 2007)

Its about time that NSW gave something back to Queensland after sponging off its wealth and natural resources since Federation.

The ACT, NSW and Victoria owe WA, Qld and the NT more than they can ever repay with a dinky little dam on a secondary creek like the Clarence.

Garpal Gumnut


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 April 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its about time that NSW gave something back to Queensland after sponging off its wealth and natural resources since Federation.The ACT, NSW and Victoria owe WA, Qld and the NT more than they can ever repay with a dinky little dam on a secondary creek like the Clarence.  Garpal Gumnut



hey Garpul,
I don't mind you calling NSWelshmen useless parasitic spongers , 

but hey ... NO WAY do you get away unchallenged calling the Clarence a "SECONDARY CREEK !!" 

PS you're probably right - such an insignificant little creek, - stupid idea in the first place lol.

PS puts a new meaning and level of intensity to the old State of Origin doesn't it lol - "state vs state" , but this year they'll probably drop the "mate vs mate" bit lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2007)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/11/1175971180073.html



> The drought has put pressure on the national power supply — and on prices — by depleting the availability of hydro-electricity from the major generators in the Victorian and NSW alps, as well as in Tasmania.



If only that were the full story. 

I'm being careful not to release confidential info here but suffice to say that the two big hydro companies aren't the only ones in trouble with the drought and for that matter they aren't even the worst affected thus far.

The situation is going to get a LOT more serious than a rise in prices if it doesn't rain soon.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> The situation is going to get a LOT more serious than a rise in prices if it doesn't rain soon.



that's it - I'm selling my 20 mill shares in the electricity grid !


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 April 2007)

http://www.eldersweather.com.au/dailysummary.jsp?lt=site&lc=72160&dt=0

Check out the above link for Albury weather statistics for the period Jan - Apr 2007.

ALL monthly min/max temp averages for each month in that period are well above the 10 year (1995-2005)averages. Now, if that doesn't indicate somethin's a'changin', I'll be a Murray River trout swimming in a deep blue lake!! 

And the rainfall for April to date is none to impressive either = 0 mils  .  Only need a further 37 to reach the 10 year average!

Sigh... talk on, pollies... talk ooooooooooon....... there's plenty of time left to fix the planet..... isn't there?

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Now, if that doesn't indicate somethin's a'changin', I'll be a Murray River trout swimming in a deep blue lake!!
> 
> And the rainfall for April to date is none to impressive either = 0 mils  .  Only need a further 37 to reach the 10 year average!
> Sigh... talk on, pollies... talk ooooooooooon....... there's plenty of time left to fix the planet..... isn't there?AJ



Vonnegut's last book ended with this quote ( they call it a poem? - doesn't rhyme, lol - but it sure hits home!!).......
When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here.

AJ, you know that one (I'm sure) about the fisherman bragging about catching a Murray cod that was so big it was gravel rashed on it's belly and sunburnt on its back ?

As you are implying, Not a joke any more, is it   (and doesn't necessarily imply a big fish any more either)


----------



## bel532 (15 April 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its about time that NSW gave something back to Queensland after sponging off its wealth and natural resources since Federation.
> 
> The ACT, NSW and Victoria owe WA, Qld and the NT more than they can ever repay with a dinky little dam on a secondary creek like the Clarence.
> 
> Garpal Gumnut




We should all see ourselves as Australians, not Queenslanders Victorians etc and stop being narrow minded.

For decades Victoria and NSW have supported the WA, Queensland and Tasmania (and NT and the ACT as well) through the Federal Fiscal Subsidy system which favours those states with a low population, relative to its geographical area (the exception being Tasmania). I think it is only recently this has stopped for WA (or reduced in relation to Queensland). Now the time has arrived for WA and Queensland to start paying their way for all those decades they have been supported by the VIC and NSW.

Remember OZ is a federation!


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> We should all see ourselves as Australians, not Queenslanders Victorians etc and stop being narrow minded.



Exactly. Stop the nonsense between the states and let's sort this mess out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> that's it - I'm selling my 20 mill shares in the electricity grid !



Or you could buy shares in the companies that own plants that aren't running out of water...


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 April 2007)

Hmmm.. the following quote from a climate change website...

_"Trees and other plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow, through the process of photosynthesis. They store the carbon as sugar, starch and cellulose, and subsequently release oxygen back into the atmosphere. 

A young forest composed of rapidly growing trees absorbs CO2 and acts as a sink where CO2 is stored. Mature forests made up of a mix of various aged trees, as well as dead and decaying matter may be carbon-neutral above ground, but CO2 can also be absorbed by the soil.

When a tree dies or rots on the ground, nutrients are returned to the soil. The gradual build-up of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon, thereby acting as a sink by sequestering carbon at a rate that exceeds any soil carbon and other emissions. 

*Carbon dioxide can also be released back into the atmosphere as the trees, timber or wood products are burned.* 

Land plants can hold about three times as much carbon as the atmosphere. However, the rate at which forests sequester carbon is influenced by climate, topography and soils, as well as by the trees’ individual characteristics and how the forest is managed. 

Plantation forests have the potential to help existing forests to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. They also provide a number of additional benefits including reduction of erosion, increased water capture, and economic benefits when sustainably harvested"._

The bit about the burning of trees releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere is an interesting point. Has any one done any hard research into how much CO2 is actually being released back into the atmosphere by so-called "controlled burns" which the various state authorities carry out each year, on the premise that they will save lives and property? 

I'm not convinced that the 10's of 1,000's of hectares of forest burnt through "controlled burns" over the last 20 years did ANYTHING significant to stem the massive destruction of the last bout of Victorian Alps bushfires. If they did, the effect seems minimal from my lay person's point of view. In fact, a lot of destruction and heartache seemed to come about through "controlled burns" started by the fire authorities that rapidly became "uncontrollable burns" that couldn't be stopped by the extremely limited fire fighting resources the Vic Govt had at it's disposal.

My thoughts on this are as follows:

(a) If CO2 emissions are now such a concern of jittery Govt's, why are massive burning programs still consciously initiated each year (underway at the moment in Vic... *cough*..*cough**), knowing that these burns will release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

(b) Given the growing "concern" about CO2 emissions (a significant amount of which is produced by the burning of trees) and the perceived concern about so-called "wildfires", why don't Govt's in OZ spend A LOT MORE on FIRE SUPPRESSION equipment (eg: fleets of ELVIS choppers and LARGE WATER BOMBERS etc - that can be utilised for all manner of non-fire related tasks in the off-seasons) rather than on INCINDIARY AND FIRE LIGHTING equipment?? It seems the first response to any fire these days is for the "fire authorities" to race around lighting a miriad back-burns - some of which themselves get out of control - in the hope it might stop the original fire, rather than hitting the original seat of the fire WITH ALL THEY"VE GOT. 

I don't think I'd be overstating that a squadron of "Elvis's" based in Vic. would make short work of most Alpine fire breakouts WITHOUT the need for massive back-burns or much of the "controlled burns" - thereby saving huge amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Oh, unfortunately I forgot that Guvment would have to SPEND SOME MONEY to buy the necessary extra fire-fighting equipment and I already know their crappy argument - "Oh no, what to do with all that expensive equipment in the off season - it will go to waste - lets spend the money on more fire crews to START fires under controlled conditions" ... yeah, right!

Surely, the "spare Elvis's" could come in mighty handy in flood relief work, natural disaster relief work, maybe even hire 'em out to the Yanks when they need 'em and we have a slack natural disaster period!

Any way, it would be nice to know that someone, somewhere, has done a fully independent cost-benefit analysis that proves what the Guvment is now doing in relation to their burn off programs is actually *improving* the ratio of CO2 emissions for our beloved one and only planet.... surely, they would have looked at this?

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## wayneL (15 April 2007)

There is something weird happening in Perth right now. A substance is falling from the sky... it appears to be... water!  

I've seen this happen on TV and alway wondered what it was like. :


----------



## Kimosabi (15 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> There is something weird happening in Perth right now. A substance is falling from the sky... it appears to be... water!
> 
> I've seen this happen on TV and alway wondered what it was like. :




I noticed this as well, hoefully it penetrates out into the wheatbelt...


----------



## chops_a_must (16 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> We should all see ourselves as Australians, not Queenslanders Victorians etc and stop being narrow minded.
> 
> For decades Victoria and NSW have supported the WA, Queensland and Tasmania (and NT and the ACT as well) through the Federal Fiscal Subsidy system which favours those states with a low population, relative to its geographical area (the exception being Tasmania). I think it is only recently this has stopped for WA (or reduced in relation to Queensland). Now the time has arrived for WA and Queensland to start paying their way for all those decades they have been supported by the VIC and NSW.
> 
> Remember OZ is a federation!




Absolute bull.

Us in WA really aren't Australian. We get ignored, underfunded for everything and would be far better off if the secession had of happened in 1933. If you bastards had let it!

We don't get our fisheries protected, we don't get any royalties from Gorgon and other massive projects. We just get left with the problems. So why the hell should we do anything?

WA has always funded the commonwealth with its mineral wealth. Our economy was also booming before the commodities bull began charging:



> In the modern economy, in per capita terms, Western Australia is the most productive State in terms of per capita income of $45,277 in 2003-04 compared with the national figure of $39,234.[1]




And for the record, WA is NEVER mentioned in the pre-amble to the constitution in regards to the Federation. WA would be well within its rights to break away. If our resources keep getting raped with little re-investment, it may well come back to be an issue as it did in the 70s, when development here was stifled from the peoples over east.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 April 2007)

you going for parliament, chops? 
digging that ditch up the long border, and bolting on a few outboard motors? lol.
You wait till you want to come over and watch your footyteam play in Sydney, we'll charge you tax like you wouldn't believe.


----------



## noirua (16 April 2007)

Does the serious answer to water shortage really in and below the soil of Australia.  Is there a water shortage or is it a problem of salinity. Starting Link sets out the basics:  http://www.awa.asn.au/AM/Template.c...s&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&contentID=4162


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Absolute bull.
> 
> Us in WA really aren't Australian. We get ignored, underfunded for everything and would be far better off if the secession had of happened in 1933. If you bastards had let it!
> 
> ...




Spoken like a true *"sandgroper"*, Chops! 

I lived there in Perth from 1984 to 2005, so I can well understand the sentiment (even if my vision is a bit dimmed by the fluttering of _cockroach_ wings!) hehe..

AJ


----------



## noirua (16 April 2007)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA:  Here in all its glory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secessionism_in_Western_Australia

175th Anniversary of Western Australia:  http://www.175anniversary.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.1925-1950

An excellent desalination plant in Perth:  http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/desalination.cfm

...and a second desalination plant is being built: http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/desalination_plant2.cfm


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 April 2007)

MURRAY DARLING BASIN COMMISSION REPORT FOR THE WEEK ENDING Wednesday, 11 April 2007

_*Rainfall and Inflows:*

Extremely dry conditions prevailed over the Basin for the week ending 11 April. As a result inflows to
the River Murray continue to be extremely low. The Bureau of Meteorology forecasts another dry
week ahead.

*River Murray Operations:*

Release from Dartmouth Dam continued to be gradually reduced over the week to about 1 000
ML/day and will be further reduced to 600 ML/day next week. It is expected that release will be
maintained at about this level over coming weeks if conditions remain dry. Any decision regarding
further alterations in release will be made after consideration is given to likely future levels of river
losses and irrigation demands further downstream. Storage in Dartmouth is currently 470 GL (12.0 %
of capacity).

Release from Hume Dam was increased from 6 000 to 7 000 ML/day in order to meet higher irrigation
demands at Yarrawonga Main Channel. Storage in Hume Reservoir continues to gradually fall and is
currently at 124 GL (4.1% capacity). Under continuing extreme dry conditions Lake Hume is
expected to gradually fall over the coming weeks towards the minimum operating level of about 1% of
capacity. River Murray Water will provide updates as necessary over coming weeks.

Release from Yarrawonga Weir was decreased to 4 300 ML/day in order to continue to store as much
water as possible in the upper storages for next season. Lake Mulwala remains fairly steady at a level
of about 124.75 m AHD. Torrumbarry Weir is back to its Full Supply Level of 86.05 m AHD
following the arrival of increased flows made from Yarrawonga Weir during the previous week. Flow
at Euston Weir has increased to 2 500 ML/day.

Flow to South Australia remains at around 1 700 ML/day which is the lowest ever experienced since
Dartmouth Dam was commissioned in 1979. The low flow to South Australia has resulted in a
reduction in the weir pool level at Lock 6 to around 12 cm below Full Supply Level. River Murray
Water is currently working closely with South Australian and NSW Agencies in an effort to boost this
pool level and maintain other pool levels in South Australia.

The low flows to South Australia have contributed to a further reduction in the water levels of the
Lower Lakes with Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert falling to 0.13m AHD (0.6m below Full
Supply Level). These levels are expected to continue to fall over coming weeks, particularly if
conditions remain warm and dry.

Salinity levels in the Lower Lakes continue to gradually climb with Lake Alexandra levels
approaching 1600 EC and Lake Albert readings around 2700 EC.

DAVID DREVERMAN
General Manager_

------------------------------

Regarding the bits I underlined in the above report ...

(a) What the hell are they doing releasing more water from Hume just because those pesky downstream irrigators demand "more, more, more!!". The authorities are nuts... plain and simple - aren't they supposed to be able to make and take hard decisions to protect our precious water resource? Yeah, right.

(b) What the hell is the Commission doing, bending over backwards to help feed the poor S.A. CROWS!?? Dam it! I live in Wodonga and we are told we are going on to Stage 4 restrictions soon - why? ... obviously so's we can keep supplying those GOD DAM CROWS!!!! 

Sigh...

AJ


----------



## robert toms (16 April 2007)

Do you know that SA has a constitutional right to an allocation of water...guaranteed since federation.
There must have been some inspired foresight there.NSW kept giving out irrigation licences until the Commonwealth took over earlier this year.The NSW premier was only too happy to cede water powers to the Commonwealth after the inept mess that NSW has made of water allocation.
In SA they stopped issuing new irrigation licences in 1973.
I read figures in one newspaper that NSW uses nearly ten times as much water from the Murray-Darling as SA,and Victoria six times as much......I spent last year living in the Riverina.I found some amazing attitudes in NSW.The shire that I was in sold water for $50 a meg when the market rate was $350....but no matter ...it would rain next year and people would forget about it!
The mayor of one shire,I think Wakool,was advocating stopping the river flow at the SA border,because the irrigators in his shire were facing hardships.
In the big picture ,they were Johnny-come-latelies that should not have been there in the first place...or just misled by governments ?
The current state of the river is caused by drought,but there are lot of bad attitudes and over allocations to be addressed.


----------



## bel532 (16 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Absolute bull.
> 
> Us in WA really aren't Australian. We get ignored, underfunded for everything and would be far better off if the secession had of happened in 1933. If you bastards had let it!
> 
> ...





Stop being so parochial.

WA (and to varying degrees other states) have been HEAVILY subsidised by NSW and Victoria until the advent of the resources boom in the mid to late sixties. This subsidy has continued to varying degrees (every investor in the resources sector knows how much that sector has fluctuated in that period) until recent times. Until the advent of the mining boom WA was a very poor state economically and it was agreed at that time, that it and other states, would be subsidised by the then richer states namely NSW and Victoria.

Remember in these  very uncertain times we all need to pull together and help each other and not have 'a dog in manger' attitude. We are a very small pond (from a population aspect) in a very big pool.


----------



## bel532 (16 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Absolute bull.
> 
> Us in WA really aren't Australian. We get ignored, underfunded for everything and would be far better off if the secession had of happened in 1933. If you bastards had let it!
> 
> ...






robert toms said:


> Do you know that SA has a constitutional right to an allocation of water...guaranteed since federation.
> There must have been some inspired foresight there.NSW kept giving out irrigation licences until the Commonwealth took over earlier this year.The NSW premier was only too happy to cede water powers to the Commonwealth after the inept mess that NSW has made of water allocation.
> In SA they stopped issuing new irrigation licences in 1973.
> I read figures in one newspaper that NSW uses nearly ten times as much water from the Murray-Darling as SA,and Victoria six times as much......I spent last year living in the Riverina.I found some amazing attitudes in NSW.The shire that I was in sold water for $50 a meg when the market rate was $350....but no matter ...it would rain next year and people would forget about it!
> ...





I think we ALL need to rethink our attitudes towards water usage in this country. I was appalled recently to be told that people living in Deniliquin in rural NSW were stilll watering their gardens in the middle of the day. And why do we still allow cotton and rice farming in this country? let those countries in SE Asia with an abundance of water grow these crops.

On a recent trip to Perth my wife was also appalled at the amount of water being wasted in a city that has seen a steep decline in its water storages for nearly two decades. One person told her that there was plenty of water but the Government was hiding it! Even their aquifers are drying up.

In my own neighborhood I am simply amazed at the number of people who don't care about the water problem  and take the attittude that the 'the Government should fix it'.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> I think we ALL need to rethink our attitudes towards water usage in this country. I was appalled recently to be told that people living in Deniliquin in rural NSW were stilll watering their gardens in the middle of the day. And why do we still allow cotton and rice farming in this country? let those countries in SE Asia with an abundance of water grow these crops.
> 
> On a recent trip to Perth my wife was also appalled at the amount of water being wasted in a city that has seen a steep decline in its water storages for nearly two decades. One person told her that there was plenty of water but the Government was hiding it! Even their aquifers are drying up.
> 
> In my own neighborhood I am simply amazed at the number of people who don't care about the water problem  and take the attittude that the 'the Government should fix it'.




Unfortunately, only _'the governments'_ have the power to regulate the REALLY BIG users of water - eg: all the massive multi-national companies involved in the mining and agricultural sectors that are right now still profligately using their 'water rights' to drain our dams dry in an effort to maximise their profits.

As has been often stated so far, the general public accounts for very little water use in % terms, and is currently paying FAR more for what volumes it uses than any large company does. Until 'guvments' get off their collective A**E* and make some HARD decisions that will obviously cost some jobs, livelihoods and INCOME, then we are ALL going to sink slowly down the proverbial gurgler. 

IMO the 'general public' hasn't got ANY real hope of significantly improving this situation by so-called _'saving water'_ without some BIG decisions being taken by the  aforesaid _'guvments'_ (err... short of marching in great numbers upon said guvment houses etc...)   

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## bel532 (16 April 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Unfortunately, only _'the governments'_ have the power to regulate the REALLY BIG users of water - eg: all the massive multi-national companies involved in the mining and agricultural sectors that are right now still profligately using their 'water rights' to drain our dams dry in an effort to maximise their profits.
> 
> As has been often stated so far, the general public accounts for very little water use in % terms, and is currently paying FAR more for what volumes it uses than any large company does. Until 'guvments' get off their collective A**E* and make some HARD decisions that will obviously cost some jobs, livelihoods and INCOME, then we are ALL going to sink slowly down the proverbial gurgler.
> 
> ...




I agree that large corporations and agriculture are the biggest users (although in Victoria the State Government is running a campaign denying it), but we must all set an example. Dont' forget that these corporations are run by people who are also householders and their mindset at home impacts on their approach in the workplace.

I once worked for an organisation whose CEO couldn't care less how much water we consumed and, once when I visited his home, I was astonished to see how much water his garden consumed. Interestingly he had the same attitude to energy consumption.

You need to change people's attitude to water consumption before you can change the mindset of corporations, large and small.

The recent decision by the Victorian Government to set the metropolitan water restrictions at level 3A, whilst regional centres have been set on level 4 and higher for some time, demonstrates that the problem is also a political problem.

Footnote: The water restriction levels standard set by various State Governments do not mean the same in every state eg level 5 in Queensland I believe is only equivalent to level 3 in Victoria.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> You need to change people's attitude to water consumption before you can change the mindset of corporations, large and small.
> 
> The recent decision by the Victorian Government to set the metropolitan water restrictions at level 3A, whilst regional centres have been set on level 4 and higher for some time, demonstrates that the problem is also a political problem.
> 
> Footnote: The water restriction levels standard set by various State Governments do not mean the same in every state eg level 5 in Queensland I believe is only equivalent to level 3 in Victoria.



There's a need to be careful here since water per se isn't the problem. Rather, it is over use of water where supplies are limited that is the issue.

If you've got some water guzzling industry using water from a river that still only manages to take 1% of the supply and there is no downstream use then it's not an issue. But that same industry using the same amount of water may be totally inappropriate in a different location where fresh water is scarce.

It's the same with most things. If you live in a small town then there's no real reason to worry about, say, traffic jams since there aren't any. It's no big deal and not worth worrying about since the capacity of the roads vastly exceeds the demand placed on them. Now that's very different if you're in central Sydney etc.

Zinifex in Hobart uses about 10 million litres per day of fresh water. They did look at using recycled water some years ago but ultimately there was no point. Over 8000 megalitres flowing down the river every day and Zinifex takes 10 megalitres. So what, no big deal and not worth worrying about. 

The resources used to purify the recycled water to the standard required plus the hassle of having drinking quality and non-drinking quality water on site would outweigh the benefits both environmentally and economically. But if the same plant was located somewhere else then it would be a very different story and recycled water would make a lot of sense.

As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) with politics and the imposition of restrictions becomes absolutely "automatic".

What you do is a proper simulation of the catchment using all available inflow data supplemented by synthetic data analysis techniques. And set some reliability criteria for the annual % chance of reaching a critically low level. 

You just run 1000 separate simulations starting from the present storage level which will all produce different results. Then you just count how many of these at any point result in levels reaching the defined "critical" zone. 

If more than 20 (or some other defined number - the higher the reliability, the lower the net annual system yield of water will be) of the 1000 runs result in critical levels being reached then you cut back the water consumption in order to keep within the accepted reliability criteria. That's when you impose the restrictions - all determined by the numbers NO politics required. It's not absolutely certain to work, there is always the 2% chance of failure, but it's worked pretty well where it's been applied properly. 

Money management and system backtesting in share trading is essentially the same exercise by the way, just using money and the results of trading instead of water and the results of rainfall. Only difference with water is the need for synthetic data since we don't have 1000 years of actual rainfall records. The approach is more reliable with a multi-storage system than a single dam but it has application in either case.


----------



## bel532 (17 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a need to be careful here since water per se isn't the problem. Rather, it is over use of water where supplies are limited that is the issue.
> 
> If you've got some water guzzling industry using water from a river that still only manages to take 1% of the supply and there is no downstream use then it's not an issue. But that same industry using the same amount of water may be totally inappropriate in a different location where fresh water is scarce.
> 
> ...





I disagree with your statement that 'As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) WITH POLITICS' (my emphasis).

Politics is a very important aspect of water management. Politics is the very reason we have allowed rice and cotton growing in this country and why the State pollys are reluctant to allow water from the Clarence river in Northern NSW to be partially diverted to SE Queensland. However before this occurs, the Federal and State Governments should ensure that the Queensland Government has taken ALL possible steps to reduce water consumption in that part of the State Here is where politics come into play. Does the Qld. State Government have the 'belly', for instance, to restrict or ban residential swimming pools or immediately raise water restrictions to an 'emergency' level? I don't consider the new level,which is still below the level of many regional centres in Victoria, as an 'emergency' level.

The Vic. Government's decision to impose level 3A water restrictions, when it should be at least level 4, is a prime example of the impact Governments can have on water management, or lack thereof.

You must be very careful to ensure that people and/or industries are not using their water resources wisely at the expense of others further downstream, which could be many hundredrs of kilometres downstream, eg Adelaide. We must change people' s mindset in terms of water utilisation in this country. Example is very important.

I don't agree with all those who crave for 'State Rights' as I consider myself an Australian first and being Victorian as secondary and I really despise this 'dog in the manger' attitude adopted by pollys in some states.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1901202.htm


> Murray-Darling farmers face water shut-off
> Prime Minister John Howard says irrigation water for farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin will be cut off if there is no significant rain in the next six to eight weeks.  Mr Howard says the basin is suffering from an "unprecedentedly dangerous" water shortage but water will continue to be available for "critical urban" water supplies.  The Prime Minister was speaking after receiving a report from experts which was sent to him and to state premiers.
> 
> The expert committee was set up after the emergency water meeting Mr Howard held with the premiers on Melbourne Cup Day last year.  "I just want to say that this underlines the critical situation that we face if there is not significant rainfall over the next few weeks," he said.  "It's a grim situation and there's no point in pretending to the Australian public otherwise.  "The report is confident there'll be adequate water for basic human consumption and other needs," Mr Howard continued.
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 April 2007)

....and no decent rain within the next week either...

Oh well, I can content myself with some beautiful, fine... err.. *coff, coff* ... smoke polluted autumn days ahead. Inside the house (rather than touring into the even more smoke polluted alps areas to spend any moolah on their attractions). 

More warnings today by local health authorities in NE Vic on the severe pollution from burn-offs. Again, I can't help wondering what the cost/benefits to all this semi-controlled burning off REALLY is. Apparently, one of the burns has already gotten out of hand. 

NE Vic grape growers were unhappy with the pollution of their crops from the last round of fires... now they can have some more spoilage of what crops they have left. 

People with asthma and respiratory illnesses are advised to seek medical advice (helping to clog the health system further) - goodness knows what the actual health costs imposed on society from endless days/weeks of smoke pollution are..

*coff*...

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2007)

AJ  - never thought of that sort of side effect - asthma - I'm sure you're right.  Priorities apparently :-
a) humans get the water (presumably drinking water first ranging down to gardens and pools etc)
b) animals 
c) agriculture

There will be countless more side effects of course - industries both directly affected ( agriculture) and indirectly affected (anything that relies of a local population with a "critical mass" of financial health to sustain everyone   

What about fires?  Other threads have been discussing that lunatic in Virginia.  No doubt we will still (yet again) have pyromaniacs lighting fires here knowing that the consequences will be ..  unspeakably disastrous


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> I disagree with your statement that 'As for the restriction levels, there's a proper way to determine the required level of restrictions and it's got nothing to do (in theory at least) WITH POLITICS' (my emphasis).
> 
> Politics is a very important aspect of water management.



I would argue that politics is a dominant aspect of the way water has been managed historically. But it most certainly is NOT a proper way to manage the operation of a storage.

Does the Premier of Victoria (for example) actually do a proper long term system analysis and run 1000 simulations before making an announcement on water restrictions? I seriously doubt it.

But what has me more worried is that I strongly suspect that NOBODY is actually doing that sort modelling work for most of the major water storages in Australia. It looks like they're just guessing and hoping for the best in the same manner as a share trader who hasn't done any back testing and doesn't understand money management. Sooner or later a failure occurs.

Would you fly on a plane where politics was used to decide how much fuel to have on board? Personally I'd rather leave that decision to pilots, engineers or others who actually know something about planes. And it's the same with water management - do the proper math and use that to operate the system.


----------



## chops_a_must (19 April 2007)

Oh great, now we are going to be overrun by Okies.




bel532 said:


> Stop being so parochial.
> 
> WA (and to varying degrees other states) have been HEAVILY subsidised by NSW and Victoria until the advent of the resources boom in the mid to late sixties. This subsidy has continued to varying degrees (every investor in the resources sector knows how much that sector has fluctuated in that period) until recent times. Until the advent of the mining boom WA was a very poor state economically and it was agreed at that time, that it and other states, would be subsidised by the then richer states namely NSW and Victoria.
> 
> Remember in these  very uncertain times we all need to pull together and help each other and not have 'a dog in manger' attitude. We are a very small pond (from a population aspect) in a very big pool.




Wrong again Bel:


> Western Australia, with about 10% of Australia's population, *has historically generated approximately 30% of Australia's export revenues*, however the recent commodities boom has pushed this figure to now exceed 40%. The State now generates more export income than New South Wales and Victoria (Australia's two most populous states) combined.



It might be news to you, but an economy in WA did exist prior to 1970. A good one. Lol!

We have produced more than 3% of the world's gold, since 1890. And have helped out Australia in good times and bad, referencing the 1930's boom here. That's how the secession drive got started.

I know you said elsewhere that it was labor's fault the commodities boom in 70's stuffed WA up. But... now look who's doing it. The feds are cutting funding to WA's UNI's... and not giving us any royalities from some huge projects... yet asking for a huge outlay from us at the same time. Why should we? It's not like we need the jobs. lol!

You guys are all looking fat at the weigh in aren't ya?  

Anyway, I'm off to Hutt River!


----------



## bel532 (19 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Oh great, now we are going to be overrun by Okies.
> 
> 
> Wrong again Bel:
> ...





Please stop being so parochial and remember you live in Australia and not in one segment of only.

I repeat for the large part of last century WA and Queensland were supported by the economically strong Eastern States (excluding including Tassy, of course). I never said  that an ecnomy never existed in WA prior to the 1970's, but, on a comparative scale, it was small compared to Victoria and NSW. That is the reason that Commonwealth Government funding, until fairly recently, was slanted in favour of WA (and Queensland). 

I don't know about the Feds cutting funding to WA's universities., but I hear the same complaint from universities all over Australia. Maybe they should all get rid of their 'Mickey Mouse' courses and utilise their funds better.

Incidentally my understanding is that the State Government levies royalties on the mining coys. So what's the WA Government doing with those funds, paying off Burke and his mates perhaps?

Footnote: If you visit the Margaret River wineries, have one (maybe two) for me!


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> Please stop being so parochial and remember you live in Australia and not in one segment of only.
> 
> I repeat for the large part of last century WA and Queensland were supported by the economically strong Eastern States (excluding including Tassy, of course).



Agreed about the not being parochial bit. That nonsense is just ridiculous - we're one country not 8.

But as for Tassie, I must point out that the state has historically done somewhat better than NSW or Vic when it comes to export revenue. 40 years ago the state had just under one quarter of all heavy industrial processing in this country despite having 3% of the population. The West Coast mines and various heavy industrial plants have generated a small fortune in exports for Austalia over the years.

Of course, Tasmania's performance isn't so great these days but in that context it must be remembered that the Commonwealth made many of the decisions that lead directly to this outcome.

That said, generating a lot of exports doesn't change the reality that the small population states lack economies of scale in the provision of most services which is the reason for financial support from NSW and Vic.

But we are ONE country so let's get on with the job and fix the nation's water problems rather than worrying about which state we're in. Actually I think parochialism is really holding us back when it comes to water. Just look at the various state government attitudes towards cloud seeding...


----------



## chops_a_must (20 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed about the not being parochial bit. That nonsense is just ridiculous - we're one country not 8.
> 
> But we are ONE country so let's get on with the job and fix the nation's water problems rather than worrying about which state we're in. Actually I think parochialism is really holding us back when it comes to water. Just look at the various state government attitudes towards cloud seeding...



Well, we don't appear to have any problems. Hurry up and do something everyone else, in the "emo" states.   : 

I'm pretty sure most people in WA are sick of hearing about the water problems. Funny how WA is the driest state, yet we seem to have the least problems.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I would argue that politics is a dominant aspect of the way water has been managed historically. But it most certainly is NOT a proper way to manage the operation of a storage.
> 
> Does the Premier of Victoria (for example) actually do a proper long term system analysis and run 1000 simulations before making an announcement on water restrictions? I seriously doubt it.
> 
> ...




Your point about system failure being an inevitable result of systemic mis-management by un-qualified "experts" (read - politicians of all persuasions) is right on the money Smurf1976...

Think about all the systemic "stuff-ups" and "failures" around the country caused by gross political mis-management (including decisions by politically influenced public service departments): 

(a) General health services
(b) Aged health services
(b) Nation wide water systems
(c) Road transport systems
(d) Rail transport systems
(e) Shipping transport systems
(f) Education systems
(g) National broadband system

etc ... etc ... 

I don't want to add any more. It gives me a migraine to think about how BADLY we are being mis-managed by idiot pollies who generally have absolutely NO formal qualifications, experience or credence in their fields of influence - yet they wield considerable influence over their much more highly qualified public service departmental heads and technical staffers.

It's no surprise, then, to see the mess we are declining into. Think what this country COULD be like if all pollies had to have some *SUCCESSFUL* EXPERIENCE or QUALIFICATIONS in their fields before being elevated to the relevant portfolio - and they were REALLY accountable to the public via performance contracts. (Could you imagine how satisfying it would be if, for instance, a polly who was the minister for transport had to ensure that trains ran within an average 5 minutes of published timetables over a year AND THEY FAILED TO ENSURE THAT. Well, a $500,000 fine, 12 months imprisonment in Baxter Detention Centre and banning from ever standing again as a politician FOR LIFE might just be the answer!

*poof*... oh, my dreeeam just ended! Sigh, the public will continue to carry the can for political mis-management - as always...

AJ


----------



## Kimosabi (20 April 2007)

> *Big dry to hit consumer pockets 'immediately'*
> 
> By Alison Rehn
> April 20, 2007 01:00am
> ...




Well, it looks like this will add more pressure on Interest Rates.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2007)

AJ
as you say , the states couldn't agree on railway gauge :0
- rather than agree, they wanted to demonstrate how big and hairy chested they were ( sorry for resorting to "Rudd-isms" lol)

But the fact that are are going to flood the Mary R Valley - with absolutely brilliant farms going under 
As Barnaby Joyce said where are the pollies at this meeting? - they prefer to speak to the people from "Cowards Castle " as someone at the meeting said.

But to be fair, they announced it prior to the state election (as I understand it) 

Just that it is damned criminal to my mind to flood such country.  
 
Such tough decisions, sheesh. 
 The future's looking worserer and worserer. 

http://abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/sunshine/200704/s1900544.htm  Qld's 'living fossil' at risk from dam proposal, experts say

Many a farmer up there is damned nearly a living fossil as well 

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1900869.htm  PM's version


> KATHRYN ROBERTS: Neither the Premier, Peter Beattie, nor his Deputy, Anna Bligh, attended the hearings, but in State Parliament Ms Bligh had this to say.
> 
> ANNA BLIGH: I've heard nothing from Day 1, of the *Senate inquiry, nothing that would cause this government to reconsider our position for one second.* Mr Speaker, we are determined to build this dam.
> 
> ...



Barnaby Joyce should start his own party !!!


----------



## Uncle Festivus (20 April 2007)

The time for words has passed.

The lights will be turned off soon, then we *WILL* have problems!


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1902229.htm
NSW and Qld appear to come in for the most criticism here..
and rice and cotton should go


> Aust water management laughable, says professor
> An emeritus professor in meteorology says the way the water crisis in Australia has been handled would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire.
> 
> Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger from Flinders University in South Australia says governments need to get tougher on water wasters.
> ...


----------



## bel532 (20 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1902229.htm
> NSW and Qld appear to come in for the most criticism here..
> and rice and cotton should go





It's been every evident for a long, long time that rice and cotton should NOT be grown in OZ, SE Asia is the place for those crops (and maybe in the Kimberley in WA). This should be politically possible now that John Elliot has vanished from the political scene (remember his Water Wheel rice growing coy. that went brooke?). 

However, I know of a family that grows cotton in the Riverina district of NSW and it won't be easy to persuade them to desist from growing these crops. That's the same area where I mentioned the populace still water their gardens in the daytime!


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2007)

so bel, you maybe agree with me that Professor Schwerdtfeger would be well advised to go to deedpoll and get his surname changed to "Smith" or something - before he starts telling cotton growers to leave their properties  

PS I also know people in Deniliquin area - wouldn't swap em places for quids  (doing it tough on the land - despite what the glossy posters say)
http://www.denitourism.com.au/
"welcome to the beginning of the outback" - won't be long before the outback starts about Katoomba


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But the fact that are are going to flood the Mary R Valley - with absolutely brilliant farms going under
> As Barnaby Joyce said where are the pollies at this meeting? - they prefer to speak to the people from "Cowards Castle " as someone at the meeting said.
> 
> But to be fair, they announced it prior to the state election (as I understand it)
> ...



Not much has changed over the years. It took a while for me to find this but following is a quote from page 84 of the book _a million horses_, published by the Hydro-Electric Commission in *1962*. The specific comment was made in the context of the 3 Lower Derwent power stations then at the planning stage.

_...The alienation of land by inundation behind a new dam seems to be regarded as much more objectionable than any other variety of change of use, not only in Tasmania but everywhere where hydro-electric power or water supply developments are undertaken. On the outskirts of towns, large tracts of very valuable agricultural land, especially market gardens, are lost every year under houses, schools, factories, and roads. The news that a great industrial concern has acquired a hundred acres of pasture for a new factory is acclaimed with joy by all local inhabitants; the threat of the loss of an equal area under water can rouse intense and prolonged oppositon..._

That was written 45 years ago and well before the term "environment" was in common usage. Indeed it was written in the misdst of the then often stated (most notably by the Churches themselves) "only authority higher than God" era of massive public support for new dam construction. And there was no popular opposition to the Lower Derwent scheme when it was actually built.

Not much seems to have changed in that time but those words are as true now as they were then. Put the land under bitumen and bricks and nobody really cares. Put it under water and you get an entirely different response.

If we're worried about the effects of loss of land due to dams then it's time to also put a stop to houses, schools, roads etc. Indeed with Australia having recently seen a boom in house construction plus the climate change issue and the drought, I would argue that the case for expanding water storage is a lot stronger than the case for expanding housing or roads. The dam supplies at least water and perhaps renewable energy too whereas the houses and roads directly add to greenhouse emissions and, in the case of housing, water consumption. 

If you live in any of the major cities then odds are you're living on what was once not only farm land, but the very best farming land the country had. That agricultural capacity being one of the reasons the cities were located where they are in the first place. Then we concreted over the whole lot...


----------



## Uncle Festivus (21 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> If we're worried about the effects of loss of land due to dams then it's time to also put a stop to houses, schools, roads etc. Indeed with Australia having recently seen a boom in house construction plus the climate change issue and the drought, I would argue that the case for expanding water storage is a lot stronger than the case for expanding housing or roads. The dam supplies at least water and perhaps renewable energy too whereas the houses and roads directly add to greenhouse emissions and, in the case of housing, water consumption.
> 
> If you live in any of the major cities then odds are you're living on what was once not only farm land, but the very best farming land the country had. That agricultural capacity being one of the reasons the cities were located where they are in the first place. Then we concreted over the whole lot...




Yes, and I think we are paying for that sterilisation of prime farmland now. Only these days we are starting to value the environment & living aesthetics more than in the past. If it wasn't so bad it would be a good thing in that some/most people are becoming more aware of their impact on the planet and are trying to limit their footprint for the sake of the next generation, and maybe save some money themselves.

But what makes it (urban sprawl onto farmland) worse is that what is usually built is one of those McMansions with a million lights & gadgets, pool & air cond. Building energy efficiency codes are far too lax due to pressure on the government by builders & their lobby groups.

I'm against more dams because until we as a society learn to live with what we already have more efficiently and effectivly then we will continue to live the bad way and prolong a flawed ideal (excess consumption/consumerism), in the meantime sterilising either pristine wilderness or prime farmland. 

I'm sort of thinking this drought will be some sort of fuse, where we will get to the stage where we will have no choice but to be forced to live within our means, basically because we will have no water or electricty to do otherwise.


----------



## bel532 (21 April 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> But what makes it (urban sprawl onto farmland) worse is that what is usually built is one of those McMansions with a million lights & gadgets, pool & air cond. Building energy efficiency codes are far too lax due to pressure on the government by builders & their lobby groups.
> 
> I'm against more dams because until we as a society learn to live with what we already have more efficiently and effectivly then we will continue to live the bad way and prolong a flawed ideal (excess consumption/consumerism), in the meantime sterilising either pristine wilderness or prime farmland.




I agree. It's about time we stopped building these so called McMansions, which are a  blight on the landscape. Why are we constructing these buildings which house fewer and fewer people? It is an indulgence we can no longer afford.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2007)

Realist,
I have to concede, you sure called these three posts spot on 
next thing I guess is to see how close to $40 we get for beef. 
Also to see if a few engineers in the wealthy mining market are prepared to come over to water engineering to help save the country and life in a thousand country towns 

And let's not forget that BHP will take heaps of water free from the Gt Artesian Basin , and turn a lot of it into radioactive waste .



Realist said:


> post #43 and #49, and #48 - ... Australia is the dryest continent in the world (apart from Antarctica) - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry.  Then they moan about it not raining enough.  No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much!  If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.
> 
> If we need lamb, beef, veges, bananas or whatever buy them from Tasmania or NZ or overseas.  They need to buy Australian uranium, nickel etc.  It is a global economy.  Survival of the fittest, if you are farming a desert expect poor results.
> 
> ...





> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903220.htm  Dire Murray-Darling predictions released
> The report which prompted the Prime Minister's warning to farmers that they will no longer be able to rely on water from the Murray-Darling system has been publicly released.  *It contains more dire warnings on the reliability of town water supplies*.... etc





> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903118.htm
> *Mining boom drains water sector of much-needed skills*A leading water expert says there is a serious skills shortage across all areas of water management in Australia.
> 
> Professor Peter Cullen of the Wentworth Group of Scientists told ABC TV's Lateline program that state agencies have lost many water specialists in recent years.
> ...





2020hindsight said:


> Not necessarily replying to any post in particular, but ....Let's do a George Orwell and see if we can guess what it'll be like in 2050 or worst case 2100.  Half as many cars, andeach about half the size maybe?  Battery powered? - come home and plug into the grid originating from a few nuclear powerplants and a handful of hydro stations where they get enough rainfall to work - nuclear waste has to be guarded, but that's easier than trying to “turn back the tide” twice a day - air conditioners banned maybe? the wealthy first world no longer allowed to take so much more than their share - (don't we realise that others will suffer from our extravagance).  Solar panels on all roofs – especially in Aus – .. “thrift” at all levels – now there’s a brave new word for a Brave New World.



Anyone want to modify those guesses we made about where we'll be in 2050?  
I'm more pessimistic that I was then ( 6 months ago ) - 
or should I say (even) more Realistic 
Maybe no sports cars either ?  (see attachment )

PS Gotta feeling that either Realist or Smurf suggested the option of farmers going to NZ. (yep Realist takes the credit there too))   - you would have to assume that will be a reality as well, yes?.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2007)

Realist , Just playing Devil's Advocate here..

you say "Australia is the dryest continent in the world - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry. Then they moan about it not raining enough. No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much! If you want rain go to New Zealand or England."

Would it be fair comment to add ..

"Australia is the dryest continent in the world - miners get huge amounts of cheap land (and water) in areas known to be very dry. (AND THEY NEED HEAPS OF WATER) . Then they moan about not having enough water to go round due to it not raining enough. No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much! If you want water and mining-without-limit-and-without-social-responsibility, go to Namibia!"  

This from an article on Green Left. I only want to talk about the water , ok? - and maybe BHP's insistence that the deal they have with SA govt cant be change ( I think it can, you know, BHP ).

Hell maybe they could filter out the radioactve content ? so that the water returns?   Certainly they should be recycling radioactive water where possible ( probably they are I guess - as long as it can't leechout anywhere - they've just had a scandal there as well)


> http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/702/36477  Uranium: Leave it in the ground!
> In 1994, it was revealed that at least 5 million cubic litres of radioactive water had leaked from the mine’s waste-water dams over two years, wreaking unknown damage on the local environment and endangering the safety of groundwater.






Now I'm for 100% in favour of uranium mining - PROVIDED 
a) they pay their way, (whereas BHP get their water free at the moment - subject to SA govt overturning that)
b) that they take into account the fact that water is now worth more than oil.   
c) that they act like good corporate citizens 
d) maybe also that they acknowledge that they are "last on the block" after all - in some British Law, I would have thought "last in first out" would apply :2two cents

Summary 
Could be that not only do farmers have to reduce their expectations for central Aus, but also the likes of the miners?
Could it be that the entire centre of Aus must limit its expectations every which way.
Could it be that the entire world, FIRST WORLD mankind (the selfish bastads),  has to stop ruining the planet and "get real".?


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its about time that NSW gave something back to Queensland after sponging off its wealth and natural resources since Federation.The ACT, NSW and Victoria owe WA, Qld and the NT more than they can ever repay with a dinky little dam on a secondary creek like the Clarence.



Garpal, I guess thousands of NSWelsh retirees went up there , (in the Joh BP days they were considering redesigning the Pacific Highway three lanes north and one lane south ) -  then we could consider sending them a contribution to their water - maybe a tanker or two of water every second week, lol.
Provided they send back a contribution of their retirement funds they earned in NSW and took with em   (joking on both counts) .ABC report refers  http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903447.htm


> Population growth 'madness' ruining SE Qld water savings
> South-east Queenslanders are being warned that savings in water consumption are being eroded by the region's rapid population growth. The group, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) wants the Queensland Government to examine ways of capping the region's population. SPA spokesman Simon Baltais says efforts to conserve water are being undermined by the Government's support for population growth.
> 
> "Now we're telling farmers not to irrigate so we're putting people out of business. We're putting out the services that rely on those businesses and we're destroying communities," he said. "We're being told to conserve water, yet any reductions we make by way of consumption is whittled away by population growth.
> ...



I guess since Joh was involved in this trend - that makes sence, I mean he always liked to dabble in a bit of "madness"   knowingly or otherwise. lol.

Joking aside, and comparing two hypothetical river options - lets call em the Clarence R (which I'm assuming - big assumption - is pretty wild country somewhere up in the headwaters) with Mary R Valley (which I'm assuming includes a lot of beautiful land - tearing farmer's hearts out to leave it etc), you'd think they'd have to take into account the loss of good land. 

So either 
1. wildlife will lose out ( there is damn all forest left for them anyway) or 
2. farmers will lose out (there is damn all decent watered areas for them as well).
3. or a third option demand management / serious discipline  etc might have to be imposed on city folk ( here I'm including Gold Coast - and Sydney for that matter).

i.e.Since wildlife can't vote, it would (hypothetically) come down to damming uncleared forested less-arable valleys. 

Proposal then :-
a) have a referendum on these dams
b) give two votes each to farmers (the givers), and one to city folk (the takers), and
c) give a vote to koalas and other wildlife .
just a thought.

PS and you're probably right in that states' boundaries will start to become lost to history - in every respect, not just this one.


----------



## noirua (22 April 2007)

There is no shortage of water in NSW as the miners are finding it by the plenty at their longwall and underground mines. Trouble is it's a trifle salty.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Well, we don't appear to have any problems. Hurry up and do something everyone else, in the "emo" states.
> I'm pretty sure most people in WA are sick of hearing about the water problems. Funny how WA is the driest state, yet we seem to have the least problems.



Chops, 
concerning whether you have water problems, you think they won't have water problems in the future around Mandurah ?
You all got sick of it because the last election was all about a channel down from Kimberleys surely.
and btw  what does "emo" stand for ? electo motive orgasmatron ? lol
maybe an emu bending over ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 April 2007)

All this discussion about dams, McMansions, loss of farmland, nuclear power and so on all comes back to one central issue.

Growth.

We can't avoid the reality that we are living in a finite planet and that we know how large that planet is. There's zero prospect of a major new land discovery.

Renewable energy etc won't save us if we continue with the notion of infinite growth on a finite planet. It works at first but ultimately you reach the limits of the underlying resource, the ability to develop it and community tolerance over the effects.

Which leaves us with 3 options. 

1. Keep going as we are until it is physically impossible to continue. That likely results in a population / consumption overshoot followed by some sort of collapse as resources are used beyond their sustainable rate.

2. Continue population growth with ever diminishing per capita consumption, including of food.

3. Limit the population.

Realistically I'm expecting option 1 although option 3 is the only one that makes any sense as I see it. Keep up x% annual growth and we end up at some point with Sydney having more people than the entire USA does at the moment. Even with 1% growth it happens eventually.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Joking aside, and comparing two hypothetical river options - lets call em the Clarence R (which I'm assuming - big assumption - is pretty wild country somewhere up in the headwaters) with Mary R Valley (which I'm assuming includes a lot of beautiful land - tearing farmer's hearts out to leave it etc), you'd think they'd have to take into account the loss of good land.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



A dams referendum with a choice between two dams. 

Now where have I heard that one before... 

The mere mention of anything involving dams and referendums is enough to get me worried given the history of that one in Tas.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> all comes back to one central issue.  Growth.  We can't avoid the reality that we are living in a finite planet and that we know how large that planet is. There's zero prospect of a major new land discovery.
> Which leaves us with 3 options.
> 1. Keep going as we are until it is physically impossible to continue.
> 2. Continue population growth with ever diminishing ... consumption / food.
> ...



cripes you make sense Smurf ! 

Assumption on my part :- although you mention Sydney being overpopulated - I imagine you 'd agree that the real problem is the third world  

Meanwhile here's John Billings suggested contraception method of achieving it.  - proudly being taught to the third worls as " the only natural method".  claimed to be "98.5% effective, WHO".  (I wonder if that's WHO as in  ..
World Health Organisation, or  
WHO the heck would be mad enough to claim that?

The fine print in that pie chart reads :-
"THE BILLINGS OVULATION METHOD - Scientifically proven only entirely natural family planning method of *achieving or postponing pregnancy *- simple, effective (98.5% W.H.O.) healthy, costfree and culturally acceptable"

if they are saying 98.5% chance of {{{achieving or postponing}}} - ahh then maybe they could get someone to agree with em.    I mean 5% chance of achieving it, 88.5% chance of postponing it 

healthy ? - I would have thought that condoms were a damned sight healthier - millions of deceased AIDS victims might agere with me

costfree? - yep, except for the medical aspects, and the cost of bringing up big families

culturally acceptable?  lol according to which culture? the one the people naturally hold and aspire to, or the one you preach to them when you make this nonsense a condition of foreign aid.

The press release on this website simply says "he is survived by widow and large and loving family".. doesnt mention the fact that (assuming I heard right on the ABC) *he was survived by 8 of his 9 remaining children*.  

"Abstinence make the heart grow fonder" - in Doc Billing's case, it wasnt the only part of him to grow fonder you'd have to assume 

http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/vale.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> cripes you make sense Smurf !
> 
> Assumption on my part :- although you mention Sydney being overpopulated - I imagine you 'd agree that the real problem is the third world



I only used Sydney as an example. I could have equally used Melbourne, Adelaide... even Launceston.

If you have constant growth at X% per annum then no matter what you are measuring, at some point it becomes very large.

Energy supply is a classic example as is water.

If we keep doubling energy use in Australia every 25 years as we are now then it's not a debate about nuclear versus coal anymore than Tasmania had a debate 25 years ago about hydro versus coal. Keep going and we end up building every dam, every coal-fired plant, developing every gas field, geothermal everywhere and still building the nuclear plants. And still "needing" more power.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> If we keep doubling energy use in Australia every 25 years as we are now ...



or little things like the number of blank pages that go through the photocopier at work maybe?  I see the day when we'll all be allocated two sheets of paper each morning, and told "use it wisely, this is all we have until one of the trees in the backyard regrows".


----------



## Uncle Festivus (23 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> or little things like the number of blank pages that go through the photocopier at work maybe? I see the day when we'll all be allocated two sheets of paper each morning, and told "use it wisely, this is all we have until one of the trees in the backyard regrows".




Um.... would that be toilet paper or photocopier paper.....


----------



## Aussiejeff (23 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> All this discussion about dams, McMansions, loss of farmland, nuclear power and so on all comes back to one central issue.
> 
> Growth.
> 
> ...




Now, where do I get the dejavu vibe from?

Oh, yeah! The collapse of the EASTER ISLAND civilisation, wasn't it? Since they lived on a small island, their  resources were very limited and needed to be veeery carefully managed to avert a catastrophic collapse of society. Did they worry? NO WAY! Twas more important to cut down all the trees to move idiot images of themselves all over the ruddy island! Then, the rain would not fall as much, the food petered out, the natives got RESTLES-S-S... 

So, once the islanders had used up 100% of all their natural organic environment (food, trees etc), as a last bloody resort thery cannibalised each other until *poof* ..... no more problem....  

See, I know where we are heading...

Smurf1976, are you edible??? 

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21600961-421,00.html



> Big dry may force power outage




It seems the media has finally woken up that Snowy Hydro is in serious trouble...

Dartmouth - completely empty as far as power generation is concerned
Snowy - almost gone
Tarong, Tarong North, Swanbank - restricted water supply, dams low.
Several others, some very large, not doing too well either.

Any candle, torch or battery stocks listed on the ASX?


----------



## Uncle Festivus (23 April 2007)

I wonder if insurance companies will invoke 'out' clauses for possible claims resulting from power shortages?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I wonder if insurance companies will invoke 'out' clauses for possible claims resulting from power shortages?



Easy fixed. Won't be able to process the claims at all when the computer stops working.:


----------



## Aussiejeff (23 April 2007)

News release just in:

_"PRIME Minister John Howard has rejected the idea that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians.

Speaking in Queensland today, Mr Howard said Australia was a minor emitter of greenhouse gases and could not influence the global climate by acting alone. 

The Prime Minister said he rejected the Labor Party's zealotry about the issue. 

"Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do," he told the Queensland Media Club in Brisbane. 

"But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best and misleading at worst. 

"It de-legitimises other challenges over which we do have significant and immediate control." 

Mr Howard said such an approach also obscured the need for balanced government decision-making and fed ideological demands with kneejerk policy reactions. 

Climate change was a serious policy challenge and a major priority of his Government, he said. 

"At the same time we know that independent action by Australia will not materially affect our climate," he said. 

No one in the environmental movement had claimed action by Australia alone would help, he said. 
"Australia emits fewer greenhouse gases in a year than the United States and China emit in a month," he said."_

Ah, good to see our esteemed leader is taking the issue seriously... *lol*

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 April 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Um.... would that be toilet paper or photocopier paper.....



ahh forgot to mention 
one of each m8 - but with freedom to allocate to either in accordance with fluctuating supply and demand.


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

Guys... seriously - I wanna know when the *'Sensible Smurf for PM'* movement is gonna get started.   Cause mate - you got my vote. 
You make a lot of straight forward sense - always.
Please give up your day job and take to the streets Smurf.

Save us from those clowns in Can't-berra........


----------



## Aussiejeff (23 April 2007)

... as long as he's *edible* ... hehe.

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 April 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> ...Oh, yeah! The collapse of the EASTER ISLAND civilisation, wasn't it? Since they lived on a small island, their  resources were very limited and needed to be veeery carefully managed to avert a catastrophic collapse of society. Did they worry? NO WAY!



Apart from the fact that I agree with you and Dukey about Smurf for president  , 
As for Easter Island deja vu all over again ,  ...
I've been working on a big rock statue for a while now.. kneeling position ...plan is to take it to Canberra to face up to the heavens and pray for rain .. and some sense to be exhibited by our leaders ...  - trouble is the ute is only good for 1T on a good day, and this thing clocks in around 14T 
(my guess is that they all died of strained backs !)

PS Brilliant comparison btw


----------



## macca (23 April 2007)

Well, there was 100mm of rain in Sydney last night, minor flash floods etc etc.

Naturally, this water was quickly despatched into the ocean, can't have it clogging up any water storage facilities, damned stuff, what a nuisance !!

I bet the councils in Sydney are glad they ordered the removal of all those ugly water tanks, makes the area look untidy when people water their gardens and lawns.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 April 2007)

macca said:


> Naturally, this water was quickly despatched into the ocean, can't have it clogging up any water storage facilities, damned stuff, what a nuisance !!



macca, Lol , my wife's favourite topic  - she who must be obeyed, and who is probably the antithesis of a technocrat , presents me with a never ending series of sketches and drawings of how she would reorganise Sydney's storm water pipes.   
Trubel is, I can't fault her argument . (and she's right more often than me about just about anything lol - just lucky though )esok:


----------



## Julia (23 April 2007)

macca said:


> Well, there was 100mm of rain in Sydney last night, minor flash floods etc etc.
> 
> Naturally, this water was quickly despatched into the ocean, can't have it clogging up any water storage facilities, damned stuff, what a nuisance !!
> 
> I bet the councils in Sydney are glad they ordered the removal of all those ugly water tanks, makes the area look untidy when people water their gardens and lawns.




Oh, I'd almost kill for 100mm of rain.  How wonderful.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2007)

Smurf for PM. Hmm...

Well to tell the truth I do have a history of political involvement, lead a few groups on various issues, organised the odd protest outside parliament etc so anything is possible. Not planning on PM though. Well not unless I can learn to tell lies and keep a straight face at the same time.  

Now, a serious if frightening question for all. What, exactly, are we going to do if the drought doesn't end this year and is still going in 5 years time? The farms WILL be stuffed, the lights WILL be out and the taps WILL be dry by that time if it continues. We've had a decade of drought and used basically all our stored water in that time. What now if it doesn't rain? This county is potentially in very serious trouble if the drought doesn't end soon.

As for things we can do (other than prayers), cloud seeding is the only option we could try at short notice. It's proven to work in Tasmania and Snowy Hydro thinks it's going to help them too (though no proof yet). So I think we ought to give it a try at least in the mountain areas of Victoria, NSW etc to try and get some more runoff into the storages. 

Worst case we waste a few $ million since it's not that expensive. Hydro Tas program costs about $1 million a year - maybe $10's of millions to do a large area on the mainland but that's pretty trivial in the big picture sense. With a bit of luck we'll all end up like those on the West Coast of Tas complaining that it works just a bit too well...


----------



## chops_a_must (23 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now, a serious if frightening question for all. What, exactly, are we going to do if the drought doesn't end this year and is still going in 5 years time?



Move to Perth. A fate worse than death.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Move to Perth. A fate worse than death.



M8, if smurf move to Perth, Tassie will sink !   For a starters, who's gonna look after the DC7 there where he works ? 

PS Never forget, as Homer Simpson would say " If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak English."


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2007)

PS then there's Homer's Presidential campaign .... "I promise there will be fewer nuclear disasters with me as your President than with me as your nuclear safety inspector. "  

I will make the trains run on time. On second thought, coal might be better. I will make the trains run on coal.

I will legalize the hunting of sisters-in-law.  etc etc.

PS these have nothing to do with Smurf, - nor strictly about the drought I guess


----------



## Happy (24 April 2007)

Why desalination is not our water safety valve?


----------



## Julia (24 April 2007)

Happy said:


> Why desalination is not our water safety valve?




Yes, indeed.  Israel does this successfully.  When one of their experts was here recently, neither Peter Beattie nor his deputy deigned to attend his meeting.  They continue to encourage more and more migration to Queensland and build more and more high rises etc.
Might have to move to the Far North.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, indeed.  Israel does this successfully.  When one of their experts was here recently, neither Peter Beattie nor his deputy deigned to attend his meeting.  They continue to encourage more and more migration to Queensland and build more and more high rises etc.
> Might have to move to the Far North.



That attitude is the real cause of all the trouble we have now. The Qld and Vic governments especially just don't want to hear it when it comes to actually fixing the problem. They're just too busy pushing whatever agenda it is they're trying to push - seems to be water recycling in Qld and constantly increasing restrictions in Vic...


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2007)

Some photos taken on 25th April by myself at Great Lake (Tas).

First one shows the Miena dam site with all 3 dams visible. When full, the water level is up to just under the walkway at the top of the concrete tower on the right. At present it is 12.4% full and falling and is the lowest since 1968.

The first dam commenced construction in 1910 by the Hydro-Electric Power and Metallurgical Company (HEPMCO). The company ran out of funds in 1914 and split into the mining and smelting operation (now Zinifex) and the uncompleted power scheme became the sole asset of the newly formed Hydro-Electric Department (now Hydro Tasmania). It was completed in 1916 and stores 500 GL of water.

The second dam is the multiple arch concrete dam visible in the middle. Both this and the first dam are normally not visible due to being completely submerged. Construction started soon after the first dam was completed as the newly formed Hydro had plans that were somewhat larger than simply supplying a single zinc smelter. It and the enlargement of the associated power station were completed in 1922. Also at that time additional water was diverted into Great Lake from Lake Augusta (also dammed but it stores very little). The second dam stored about 1500 GL.

The third dam was initially completed in 1967 to hold 2300 GL. Associated with this was the construction of a new (replacement) power station with nearly 3 times the efficiency and 2.5 times the capacity of the old ones (one of which is now a museum open to the public). Also at that time Arthurs Lake was dammed and diverted (by pumping) into Great Lake. 

The power station was subsequently enlarged in 1977 and the dam raised to its current height in 1982 (3000 GL). 

Second photo shows the Poatina intake (where the Great Lake water goes). When the lake is full, the water would be almost to the top of the concrete - the intake screen (grill) would be completely submerged as would most of the rocks. Note that the photo is looking uphill and the trees in the background are actually somewhat higher than the top of the intake structure. Poatina power station itself is underground and quite some distance away (several KM).


----------



## Happy (26 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> That attitude is the real cause of all the trouble we have now.





You are probably right, but isn't all water in a sense recycled?


----------



## Kimosabi (26 April 2007)

Well it might be a bit early to call it, but there seems to be some very good widespread rain going through South Australia at the moment which looks like it should go through much of NSW and Vic as well.


----------



## krisbarry (26 April 2007)

Pissing down in Adelaide as we speak, and right across SA...Most significant rain event for over a year is predicted in this region.

'bout bloddy time.

Australia is an awesome country, except for being such a dust-bowl for most of the year.  Pity we couldn't increase average rainfalls by at least 50%


----------



## Kimosabi (26 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Pissing down in Adelaide as we speak, and right across SA...Most significant rain event for over a year is predicted in this region.
> 
> 'bout bloddy time.
> 
> Australia is an awesome country, except for being such a dust-bowl for most of the year. Pity we couldn't increase average rainfalls by at least 50%




This time tomorrow, SA will probably be a flood-bowl with that much widespread rain.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2007)

Happy said:


> You are probably right, but isn't all water in a sense recycled?



I was referring to the attitude that we don't want to do whatever is required to fix the problem.

Yes all water is ultimately recycled by nature - it's a 100% renewable resource.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2007)

Happy said:


> You are probably right, but isn't all water in a sense recycled?



speaking of recycling water - some fellow in the bush was interviewed on ABC couple of days ago ... he recycles 100% of his water.

As he put it... "the only water that doesn't get recycled is what is trapped in the clothes I hang on the line, and is lost to evaporation"   Now there's a purist.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 April 2007)

Another photo. This time it's the Lake Echo dam (Tas) which is one of the two major headwater storages for the Derwent catchment. 

Sorry about the quality, it was almost completely dark when I took it so I'm surprised it came out at all. The only water in the photo is to the left of the intake. On the right is just mud (firm enough to walk on). At the lower left is the boat ramp (effectively useless now it doesn't reach the water). 

Inflows to Lake Echo over the past 12 months have been the lowest on record at less than 15% of normal. It would take about 2 years of normal inflows and ZERO outflows to completely refill the lake so it's likely to be low for quite some time unless there's a flood.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 May 2007)

An update on the water storage situation. See my previous posts for details of calculation method, how important the various storages are etc.

SUMMARY

The overall situation continues to deteriorate, most notably in regard to hydro-electric storages. The situation is mixed as far as irrigation and urban supply is concerned although allowing for seasonal factors, the trend is still toward lower storage in most cases. 

All capital cities except Hobart (not sure about Darwin?) continue to have relatively harsh water restrictions, may of them effectively banning the use of sprinklers. 

Recent rises in urban storage levels in Adelaide and Hobart are largely a consequence of pumping from the Murray and Derwent rivers in an attempt to build up or at least maintain urban storage (just in case the rivers do dry up completely). The situation continues to deteriorate in the other capital cities although Sydney is broadly stable. 

Both major hydro-electric operators, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania, are attempting to conserve remaining water by means of reducing production outside peak demand periods. Both have experienced some difficulty in doing so due to a lack of thermal generation available at reasonable cost (or at any cost in Hydro Tasmania's case). Both have thus far maintained their peak generating capacity largely intact although doing so is becoming increasingly difficult with the decline in total storage.

So, in short, we're in rather a lot of trouble if the drought continues beyond the next few months and it has NOT broken yet as far as the major storages are concerned despite some significant rain in some locations. 

STORAGE LEVEL DETAILS

First figure is the most recent data, generally no more than one week old. Figure in brackets is data one month earlier. All data is for active storage, that is water that can be taken from the dam, and does not include dead storage (water that can not be removed from the dam - right at the bottom).

*Irrigation* storages. 

*Dartmouth (Murray) - 10.0 (11.2)%

*Hume (Murray) - 2.7 (3.7)%

Lake Victoria (Murray) - 20.5 (21.9)%

Menindee Lakes (NSW) - 5.8 (7.1)%

*Burrinjuck (NSW) - 23.8 (26.0)%

*Blowering (NSW, part of the Snowy scheme) - 11.3 (7.3)%

*Eildon (Vic) - 2.7 (4.6)%

Those marked * also generate electricity.


*Major Hydro-electric* storages. 

Hydro Tasmania - (excl. Lake Margaret presently not in use) - 17.2 (20.9)% (lowest since 1968)

Snowy Hydro - (Lake Eucumbene) - 5.3 (8.6)% (record low)


*Urban water* storages:

Sydney - 38.2 (38.5)%  

Melbourne - 29.9 (32.1)%

Brisbane - 19.4 (20.7)%

Perth - 21.0 (21.6)%

Adelaide - 59.0 (55.0)%

Canberra - 31.7 (33.8)%

Hobart - Approx. 85 (80)%


----------



## Julia (2 May 2007)

I recently had a grizzle to a friend in Vancouver, Canada, about our no sprinklers/no irrigation restrictions here.

For much of the year there it rains, and rains, and rains.

Therefore I was really surprised to hear that most summers they are not allowed to use any sprinklers.  Presumably they have insufficient infrastructure for storing the water.  She didn't know anything about this.

So, given that -- other than Antarctica - this is the driest continent on earth, perhaps we're not doing so badly here after all.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 May 2007)

Julia said:


> I recently had a grizzle to a friend in Vancouver, Canada, about our no sprinklers/no irrigation restrictions here.
> 
> For much of the year there it rains, and rains, and rains.
> 
> ...



Interesting.

I'm not sure of their exact location (never been to Canada) but they have some truly massive hydro-electric schemes there. They have an individual power station that is 90% the size of the entire Snowy (7 power stations) and Tasmanian (30 power stations) systems combined. Plenty of smaller schemes in Canada too and combined they supply 60% of the country's power.

I'm guessing that they just don't have any means to get the water to the cities. Exact same situation we have in Australia - we have water but not where the people are.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 May 2007)

Julia said:


> For much of the year there it rains, and rains, and rains.



 As the t-shirts say "people don't tan in Seattle / Vancouver,   they rust"


----------



## idribble (3 May 2007)

Drove over the Murray river at Howlong this morning and was amazed.  A few weeks ago it was flowing and deep with a strong current, now there are sand bars and no flow.  Don't know why.


----------



## constable (3 May 2007)

Bucketing down here in ballarat! Now when was the last time i cleaned those gutters


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 May 2007)

constable, m8, I know people bought a property out west - took em 3 years to find out that the roof had a bludy great leak in it 

PS good luck with those gutters - and if the house floods, keep that bludy snake under guard.!


----------



## Julia (3 May 2007)

constable said:


> Bucketing down here in ballarat! Now when was the last time i cleaned those gutters




That sounds marvellous, constable.  Do you think you could direct it up to Qld when you've had enough, please?  Thanks.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (5 May 2007)

Here we go Smurf, it's mainstream news now. Don't know about next year though, may be sooner - 

*HOUSEHOLDS face higher electricity bills from next year unless the drought breaks, with power stations across southeast Australia running out of the water needed to run steam turbines.*
                                                                                                                  The new higher prices are estimated to be the same as a $40a tonne carbon tax, and if sustained, could affect the viability of some energy-intensive industries even before a carbon price is introduced. 
 Major energy users are negotiating new wholesale electricity contracts for next year that are in some cases double what they were offered this year as the market factors in a risk premium for water supplies. 

Two power stations in Queensland have already been forced to cut supplies, while two more in NSW are under increased threat from falling water stores. 

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21675853-462,00.html

About 800MW of lost capacity was caused by water scarcity at the Tarong and Swanbank power stations in Queensland, while Delta Electricity's Mt Piper and Wallerawang power stations in NSW are sitting on water reserves down to about 20 per cent.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 May 2007)

At last the media's getting the story. They don't seem to have realised the true seriousness of it yet though.

Whilst it's true that taking 2 units offline at Tarong and a unit or two at Swanbank B isn't going to cause blackouts under present conditions (it just means some other, more expensive, plant runs more) that's by no means the limit of the problem.

Wallerawang and Mt Piper put together comes to about 2400 MW which is more than enough to cause blackouts. Especially if the Snowy (apart from Tumut 3) goes down too - another 2240 MW at risk there.

Put those two together and either we get a miracle with no cold or hot weather or we get blackouts.

On the positive side, we've had the first decent inflows in Tas for quite some time. It hasn't really done much for overall storage but it's better than nothing. Lots of water coming in to the run-of-river and small storage schemes has pushed up baseload output there and enabled release from the major storages to be reduced. Let's hope there's more coming...:


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Whilst it's true that taking 2 units offline at Tarong and a unit or two at Swanbank B isn't going to cause blackouts under present conditions (it just means some other, more expensive, plant runs more) that's by no means the limit of the problem.



Brown-outs maybe .


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Brown-outs maybe .




Depends on what else happens. In itself, all that taking those units out of service is going to do is force some other (more expensive) plant to run more. That could be either in Qld (Tarong and Swanbank are both in SE Qld) or in NSW, Vic, Tas or SA. Realistically it will be lots of small increases all over the place rather than one major response from a single plant.

It will matter a lot more if it comes to the point, even briefly, that demand exceeds available capacity. That's when blackouts are unavoidable. Unless (until?) that happens, it's all normal apart from higher cost and less efficient generation.

That said, a key question is whether the other plants increasing their output will themselves run out of either water or fuel. There are certainly other coal-fired plants that don't have a lot of water available right now and all that shutting some units in Qld will do is make those others run even harder (and use more water). Likewise the Snowy is near empty so that's not really an option either. Water isn't such a problem for gas-fired plants, but gas is relatively expensive for power generation and there are supply constraints with gas too - some power plants have been completely shut recently due to lack of gas.

So I'd view the overall situation as being like sitting on an aeroplane watching a rivet or two pop out from the wings. Whether or not it matters depends on how many more come out but the aeroplane is clearly less sound with a few missing than if all were in place. Same with the grid - still going OK but a few key supports have been kicked out from under it and there are cracks in others. It will matter only if more plants actually go down and/or we get an extreme high demand (ie very cold weather).


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Depends on what else happens. ...
> 
> It will matter a lot more if it comes to the point, even briefly, that demand exceeds available capacity. That's when blackouts are unavoidable. Unless (until?) that happens, it's all normal apart from higher cost and less efficient generation.
> 
> ...



1. I guess the good news is that this winter probably won;t be so cold thanks to global warming.
2.  We used to have brown outs in the islands - generators just couldn't keep up with demand ( more to do with lousy maintence of the power plant rather than demand as such). 
3. Thanks for the simile about the bloody rivets popping out of the aeroplane, lol - Now I'm gonna be a white-knuckle airline passenger as well as my other concerns, lol

Bit like paddy saying to mick after the pilot announced progressively that the 
"ladies and gents, engine 1 has given up , and our flying time will be 30 minutes longer", 
"engine  2 has now just given up , we'll be 1 hour longer"
"engine 3 now, and we'll be 2 hours longer"

paddy says  to mick, hell I hope the other one doesn't give up or we'll be up here forever. !

4. Did you hear that idiot Andrew Bolton this morning on Insiders, arrogantly shouting over Matt Price about his opinion that the world isn't getting hotter - sheesh ! sorry andrew, but you're an ostrich, simple as that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. I guess the good news is that this winter probably won;t be so cold thanks to global warming.
> 
> 4. Did you hear that idiot Andrew Bolton this morning on Insiders, arrogantly shouting over Matt Price about his opinion that the world isn't getting hotter - sheesh ! sorry andrew, but you're an ostrich, simple as that.



1. Only needs one cold day to get a huge 6:15pm or thereabouts peak demand especially in NSW. In short, most of the generation needs to be working at that time no matter what happens for the rest of the season.

4. There was some political group at Agfest yesterday saying "global warming is a farce" whilst also pushing "an inconvenient truth: Australia needs nuclear power".

I'm wondering what their argument for nuclear is if not to reduce emissions from using coal? It's not as if it's cheaper.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (6 May 2007)

It will be the cold snap type of weather event that will pressure the electricity system due to the reduced spinning reserve and generation that can be called upon quickly. It's a telling sign that the spot price is routinely, actually nearly every day now since about February, averaging over $50 per day. The average a year ago was about $20 or so.

While there are quit a few new projects on the drawing board these won't be ready for another 2 years or so.

If  the experts are wrong and the 'flip' doesn't happen in the next 4 weeks to revert back to a wetter winter weather pattern, then we may just scape through winter but summer will be crunch time for the electricity generators and consumers. 

And not just average rain, we need good steady rain for 3 or 4 weeks at a time for maximum run-off. The next 4 weeks will be make or break time I think.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> It will be the cold snap type of weather event that will pressure the electricity system due to the reduced spinning reserve and generation that can be called upon quickly. It's a telling sign that the spot price is routinely, actually nearly every day now since about February, averaging over $50 per day. The average a year ago was about $20 or so.
> 
> While there are quit a few new projects on the drawing board these won't be ready for another 2 years or so.
> 
> ...



Agreed there although I won't be calling it either way (unless there's an outright flood) until July.

So far, we're actually doing worse than last year. In 2006 there was decent run-off in April and the first part of May but then the rain basically failed apart from another burst in October (at least in Tas).

This year, it started later. If it's still raining in mid July then I'll start thinking in terms of the drought being over. But so far we've seen nothing that didn't happen last year.

Hydro Tas storage up 1.2% for the week to 18.3% today. That's the best inflows in more than six months. But it's exactly what was happening this time last year apart from the actual lake levels being lower. 

Given that we're still getting quite mild weather in May (at least where I am) I'm anything but convinced the drought is over. It's just not normal to be getting every single day above normal temperatures. Some maybe, but not every day and that's been a key feature of the weather in the past few months that clearly hasn't ended yet. On a positive note, at least it's keeping a few heaters switched off.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (7 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that we're still getting quite mild weather in May (at least where I am) I'm anything but convinced the drought is over. It's just not normal to be getting every single day above normal temperatures. Some maybe, but not every day and that's been a key feature of the weather in the past few months that clearly hasn't ended yet. On a positive note, at least it's keeping a few heaters switched off.




Yes, getting some perfect days here too, and we still havn't had a frost yet!

There was a report on Landline on Sunday which interviewed a top weather type person who said that this time of year is the time when the weather pattern is most likely to "flip' over to the opposite pattern. Being a drought, the flip this time is to wetter weather. But, he said the next 4 weeks are crucial for this to happen otherwise it's 12 more months of below average rainfall.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2007)

Chart showing water level in Pine Tier Lagoon. It's not a major storage, it's only a pondage that is diverted into a larger storage (that is actually falling) but it shows the effect of last week's rain. Second chart is for another (larger) storage in the same catchment. Far less impressive rise there... (These charts are publicly available info by the way).

Now I just need to find some stocks that go up like the first chart...


----------



## Uncle Festivus (9 May 2007)

Some more gossip in the event of power cuts. The rumor is that some of the aluminium smelters have borderline/average profit margins & that if they were forced to shut down due to power outages (due to lack of water) that they might not start back up again. Don't know if it's true but sounds plausible.
Now, when does Costello's increased solar panel rebate come into effect?


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Some more gossip in the event of power cuts. The rumor is that some of the aluminium smelters have borderline/average profit margins & that if they were forced to shut down due to power outages (due to lack of water) that they might not start back up again. Don't know if it's true but sounds plausible.
> Now, when does Costello's increased solar panel rebate come into effect?



Aluminium smelting is indeed a _very_ electricity price sensitive business. 

In short, aluminium smelting is by far the largest industry that comes to the power rather than the reverse. Bell Bay (Tas) and Tiwai Point (NZ) are both classic examples. Import the ore, refine it, and export the metal. Electricity is the only local raw material and it is by far the largest component of the total cost.

To produce just one kilogram of aluminium metal takes enough power to run a 100 watt light bulb for a week. That's just one small block of aluminium. 

The Bell Bay smelter actually uses more power than every house in Tasmania (and that's with very high domestic power use in Tas compared to the other states) or 25% of the state's entire load. Tiwai Point uses about 15% of NZ's power generation.

From a technical perspective, shutting one of these plants down isn't easy but it can be done. The main objective is to avoid ending up with solid (cold) metal in the pots - do that and the only solution is months of jack hammering out hundreds of pots (it won't melt - it's nowhere near as simple as it sounds).

So with sufficient (weeks) notice it's possible to do an orderly shutdown of part or all of a smelter. Just empty the pots one at a time (over 500 of these things at Bell Bay alone and they are massive - think something the size of a van (each) with over half a megawatt constantly pumped through it). 

Bell Bay was partially shut during the mid-1990's due to a glut of aluminium on world markets. Also it was partially shut during the 1968 power crisis. In both cases the shutdown was orderly over a number of weeks and in both cases the smelter not only returned to full production, but went on to set new production records.

A short notice shut down is an entirely different problem however. A couple of hours without power is OK. But once the metal sets, it's game over unless the pots are mechanically dug (jack hammered) out and the plant restarted. A massive cost and months of lost production.

So if we're going to shut any smelters due to insufficient power, proper planning is essential otherwise the shutdown could well become permanent. 

The smelters typically buy 5% or so, their "ripple" load, power on the spot market. They'll stop maximising production, just run at the baseload instead, if that gets too expensive. Not sure about individual smelters but Bell Bay's done that for ages (a spot price in Tas was basically invented for them years before anyone had heard the term "electricity market"). Tiwai Point does it too, not sure about those in Qld, NSW, Vic but I assume they maximise current through the pots when conditions allow.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (10 May 2007)

All of a sudden it's an 'unprecedented development' & 'unforeseen'. 

THE security of Victoria's electricity supply is under a cloud after the emergence of threats to the operation of some of the state's key generators.
In an unprecedented development, power companies have been forced to buy emergency supplies of water on the internet after the drought left them short of what they need to run major generators in the Latrobe Valley.
The move has prompted fears about the long-term viability of the region's power stations, which provide 85 per cent of Victoria's electricity.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...as-power-supply/2007/05/09/1178390390080.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> All of a sudden it's an 'unprecedented development' & 'unforeseen'.
> 
> THE security of Victoria's electricity supply is under a cloud...



Looks like we're going to be sitting on $100 / MWh in the afternoons now that Laverton North is effectively an off-peak power station due to environmental problems (now there's a concept - a power plant that only runs when you don't need it...).

Snowy was about 4.6% in Lake Eucumbene a week or so ago and they've been letting more out since then. Probably be even more now with Laverton North restricted.

It's going to get real interesting next Summer if this keeps up. Actually, worst case we might not need to wait that long...


----------



## Uncle Festivus (12 May 2007)

Maybe electricity is the new uranium! Spot prices averaging $80 last month with market alerts ie low reserves. I think there is a NEMMCO futures contract out there somewhere, needs some more research.

http://www.nemmco.com.au/

http://www.yamahagenerators.com.au/


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

Claims that only 0.5%   of $10 billion !!! has been allocated .  Presumably they are talking about last budget allocation (?)



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1921342.htm Govt 'hoarding' water funds
> Federal Opposition water spokesman Anthony Albanese says this week's Budget papers show the Government is not serious about the water crisis.
> 
> Mr Albanese says the Government has tried to win election-year points by committing $10 billion to major water projects but the Budget papers show it has been hoarding most of the money.  *He says less than 0.5 per cent of the Government's $10 billion water plan has been allocated.*
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2007)

This is getting serious. I'm thinking this ought to be on a separate electricity thread (?) but I'll leave it here for the moment. *And for those interested, there's certainly been a good trading opportunity here*. 

In short, prices are going through the roof for wholesale electricity. 

Major users are faced with literally 100% price rises when contracts come up for renewal.

Retailers, the companies that sell power to homes and small business, are potentially in a very serious situation. They're selling power at capped prices but some are exposed to fluctuating wholesale spot prices. This is essentially what happened in California - being forced to buy high and sell low sends the retailers broke.

Drought is part of the problem. But more seriously the competitive market model has, with a few notable exceptions mostly driven by state governments, largely failed to deliver new investment in baseload generation. Exact same thing as happened in the first half of the 20th Century prior to the state electricity authorities being set up and exactly what many predicted when the competitive market was first proposed.

Regarding the link below, I'm pretty sure that they're right about someone losing a fortune. Actually there's more than one that comes to mind as being rather exposed financially but one in particular is acting as though they're desperate for short term cash. I suspect they're so committed with contracts that they can't afford not to generate no matter what the consequences (as in major blackouts) if they actually run dry. I don't know this for certain, it's speculation, so I'll leave names out but I'm not talking about Hydro Tas.

On the subject of Tas, obvioulsy the price has been increased in line with prices in Victoria to avoid _increased_ production at off-peak times (which would be unsustainable) but, apart from some plants out for maintenance (normal), peak generation is business as usual despite what the article claims. Also the 36 year old Bell Bay (gas fired) station is in full production for the first time since 2005.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21715621-643,00.html


----------



## Uncle Festivus (13 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is getting serious. I'm thinking this ought to be on a separate electricity thread (?) but I'll leave it here for the moment. *And for those interested, there's certainly been a good trading opportunity here*.




I was thinking the same thing but I get enough flak for starting gloom & doom threads already .

If there was one single X factor that will bring the economic purple patch crashing down it will be water, & the flow on effects of having none. 

No water - no electricity.

No electricity - no economy.

Maybe a thread for alternative energy might be useful?


----------



## macca (13 May 2007)

At least the ABC is consistent, never let a chance go by to attack the Libs.

The Libs are the first govt EVER to actually address the water problem.

Before they spend money to fix it I tend to think that it would be prudent to talk to all parties concerned and decide the best way to start.

Like all things political it must be done by consensus and committees, too bad the Vic govt won't be involved.

We have an empty river system for two reasons, firstly lack of rain and secondly the LABOR state governments have over sold the water.

Even after the Feds announced they would try to get agreement on how to improve the situation and asked the states to help, the Labor Govt in QLD sold more water rights to a tributary to the Darling.

I don't agree with a lot of the Feds actions but it really makes me wonder why we bother publicly funding a propaganda machine for one political party.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> If there was one single X factor that will bring the economic purple patch crashing down it will be water, & the flow on effects of having none.



"water and it's flow on effects" !! ?? 
We're being flooded with all this doom uncle, and we're drowning in pessimism - and you come up with a pun like that !!!.   
Also I heard the word "poor maintenance of generators" recently - reminds me of the islands

Macca, 
 I think the point I was trying to make was that -  Although the libs showed initiative way back when (last election) and allocated money to the Murray/Darling - question is how much of it has been spent.  Do you know? That article would suggest almost none !?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2007)

Took some more photos today. In order, Gordon Dam (140m high and also the world's highest commecial abseil), Lake Gordon, Lake Pedder. All are located in SW Tas.

This is the largest fresh water storage in Australia with an active storage of 10114 GL under normal operating conditions and total storage 27 times the size of Sydney Harbour.

Lake Gordon is at 18.7% full whilst Lake Pedder is only 1.2 metres below full. The level in Lake Pedder is normally held within 1.5m of full to enhance the scenic value although it may be dropped further under emergency conditions.

Water from both lakes is used at the Gordon power station, located underground 184m below the top level of Lake Gordon. It is the largest single source of renewable electricity in Australia (Murray 1 in the Snowy scheme is a very close second).

Average water discharge is just over 100,000 litres per second with a peak discharge rate of about 290,000 litres per second. None of that water is used for anything other than power generation.


----------



## macca (14 May 2007)

Hi 2020,

The problem is that it is fine to say "lets try and fix this water problem", but the nitty gritty is HOW does one fix it.

The Govt cannot make rain, all they can do is buy back allocations issued by the states, perhaps create weirs to slow the floods, improve the management of the river banks to avoid erosion and pollution plus some other things which farmers and other experts may recommend.

You can't buy back allocations if people won't sell, you can't build weirs until you decide the best place to put them, you can't enter private land without consultation with the owners 
and you can't limit any more pumping rights until you get control of the river water back from the states.

All of these things have been instigated but they all take time to decide, we are working by consensus and committee, nothing happens quickly in any sort of political arena.

The other problem is that Victoria refused to come on board at the summit, so that means that even if the Feds fixed the over allocation in Qld and NSW in an effort to help downstream, eg SA, then Vic farmers can still pump out all the water as they are not part of the agreement.

This article is a political beat up by the Labor party enthusiastically supported by their free publicity machine. 

I don't mind the political beat up, that is all part of the game which any thinking adult is used to, but I do object to the persistent use of my money to publicise the view point of only one side of our political spectrum.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2007)

macca said:


> All of these things have been instigated but they all take time to decide, we are working by consensus and committee, nothing happens quickly in any sort of political arena.



maca
some good points
appropriate that you refer to committees when we are getting into camel country
but please lay off the ABC lol - they's only the messenger


----------



## macca (14 May 2007)

Hi 2020,


One thing this country lacks is an unbiased news service, it seems in the modern era that we get the editors' opinions on the news, rather than just the news. 

Go back 20 years the ABC was brilliant, basically we were given the details of the news and we were allowed to form our own decisions, others weren't bad but the ABC was the best.

I guess I miss the opportunity to hear the news and take in the facts, these days when I hear or read the news I have to be aware of which BS filter I need to use to actually sort out the facts.

The good old days ................ hahaha


----------



## Rafa (14 May 2007)

macca, i think you'll find the bias in most of the commercial (especially news ltd owned) media well and truly counters any bias that ABC might have.

and in the end, what is bias anyway... its simply someone who has an opposing view to yourself.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> and in the end, what is bias anyway... its simply someone who has an opposing view to yourself.




Great definition, Rafa.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

macca - I just think that if indeed only (less than) 0.5% of budget allocation has been spent, (or even allocated to specific projects) - (and here we are well into the election cycle) then that deserves to be brought out..  I don't see anyone denying it btw  

Isn't it healthy for these things to be aired - and for the counter argument to be likewise aired (if there is one) ?

btw, what's your opinion of the govt spending a motsa advertising their industrial relations "fine tuning" with public money - in an election year.   I realise that Labour did exactly the same thing - (they are all as bad as each other) - but when this happens ,  I just start looking for a third option


----------



## new girl (15 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, what's your opinion of the govt spending a motsa advertising their industrial relations "fine tuning" with public money - in an election year.   I realise that Labour did exactly the same thing - (they are all as bad as each other) - but when this happens ,  I just start looking for a third option




I think the government should sit down with the greens and start listening instead of doing all the advertising/talking/thinking on behalf of the people of auz.


----------



## macca (15 May 2007)

Normally I would agree that it is unfair to splurge big dollars on trumpeting Gov't achievements in the run up to elections, witness NSW recently, we had 2 adds in every add break for the Gov't and one an hour for the Libs. The amount of money the Labor spent on TV would have paid for a motorway  

As an ex small business owner I had to be very aware of the draconian, unfair, unfair dismissal laws  

But I do think the Libs have gone way too far the other way now, I really don't think it is realistic to expect an 18 year old at a job interview, to be negotiating terms of employment.

On the other hand, I have read that in a lot of industries the employees are very happy with their AWAs and want to keep them.

It is reasonable for the Gov't to spend some money to explain to people what their rights are, so that they know if their employer is doing the wrong thing.

There is also the HUGE amount of scaremongering being done by the ACTU, where some of the adds have been proven to be wrong.

So I guess under the circumstances I can understand the Fed Gov't is going to spend up to counterbalance the add campaign by the unions. They would have spent some money anyway, but they will really have to rip into it because the ACTU intends to spend millions up to the election.

I really do think the Libs need to act on the legislation tho, that might defuse some of the rightful anger felt by people who have been screwed by unscrupulous bosses.

Funny, when I had my businesses, it was so hard to find good honest, reliable staff that were prepared to actually work, all of my people were on above award money after their probation period, it was a real pain if one left.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> I think the government should sit down with the greens and start listening instead of doing all the advertising/talking/thinking on behalf of the people of auz.



The Greens are highly unlikely to be objective when it comes to water management. I don't doubt that they have some worthwhile ideas on the subject but the party was ultimately founded, via various steps, on the very basis of opposing water resource development.

Whilst I'm not saying it is necessarily the answer, the Greens couldn't consider any river diversion or major storage scheme as being part of the solution. Maybe it is part of the answer, maybe it isn't. Specifics aren't my point. The point is the Greens could not realistically be objective on the issue any more than Labor could be objective in a debate about the need for unions.

I should point out that, all things considered, I'm not opposed to the Greens and I actually do support quite a few of their ideas. But they don't in my opinion fit into the "objective" category when it comes to water. Drugs, religion, wars and working conditions maybe, but not water.

IMO what we should be doing is putting together a team of experts, not politicians, to sort out the mess. We have world class expertise in conservation issues, water storage management, agriculture, cloud seeding and civil engineering. Put them together and it ought to be possible to come up with something that, whilst it won't totally please everybody, fixes the fundamental problems without wrecking either the economy or the environment. 

Trouble is, NONE of the major political parties, including the Greens, would likely support it without knowing in advance what the outcome would be. And that's the real problem. Too many decisions being made for political reasons rather than genuine environmental, economic or technical reasons. Too much emotion and not enough hard facts and science.

Leave it to those who know what they're doing IMO. You won't find them in parliament.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> and in the end, what is bias anyway... its simply someone who has an opposing view to yourself.



Trouble is, many people don't question what they read or hear. They only look at one side of the story and take that as being correct. Outright dangerous IMO.

Just look at the propaganda surrounding water tanks. Fair enough to say that they'll increase the supply of water which obviously they do and that right now this makes a lot of sense. But it's outright nonsense to be seeing "Ã¯nstall a water tank" listed as one of the most important things to do in order to stop climate change. 

That latter argument seems to be being pushed as "keep saying it and in due course they'll believe it" right now. Seen it several times in the past week alone and yet it's basically nonsense. Propaganda...


----------



## Uncle Festivus (16 May 2007)

Rain clouds forming outside right now - here's hoping .

Rio Tinto Coal says it has been forced to cut jobs at its Tarong mine in Queensland's South Burnett region.
 The company says up to 160 employee and contractor jobs will go over the next two months because *the Tarong Power Station is reducing its output by up to 70 per cent due to the drought*.
  A Rio Tinto spokesman says affected workers can either apply for jobs at other sites or for voluntary redundancy packages.
  The company spokesman says the Tarong mine will continue to operate safely.
  The Premier, Peter Beattie, says it further demonstrates how serious the drought has become.
 "I am concerned about it and I don't like it but the facts of life are we are in the worst drought on record and there are ramifications," he said. 
  "I don't like it one little bit but unfortunately when you've got a drought this is what happens. 
  "I just hope it will rain as quickly as possible."


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2007)

The story run in the Australian today about an alleged power shortage in Tasmania is, to be very polite, outright rubbish.

Read it here if you wish. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21751738-5006788,00.html

I wish the Australian would stop playing what looks very much like a game of blatant politics. If you want to find someone who has run their dams to virtually empty then try Snowy Hydro. If you want to find power stations that are in actual danger of running out of water then you'll find them in NSW. 

First they highlighted the situation in Queensland. Now it's Tasmania. But hardly a word is said about what's happening in NSW. Hmm... Don't want to worry anyone? Don't want to scare investors away from NSW?

Australia is potentially in very serious trouble if the drought continues. Recent rain comes nowhere near breaking it in the context of power generation. 

Tasmania's dams and power supply is, in fact, doing somewhat better than that in NSW as is quite widely known in the industry. Sure, it could be better, but it's NSW where the real danger lies right now. Snowy storage is now below 4% in Lake Eucumbene and coal-fired plants in NSW are running lower on water than hydro plants in Tas.

There would hardly be a person living in Tas who doesn't know about Hydro's situation at the moment. It's been widely publicised through all available means. In contrast I'm guessing that 99% of Sydney residents haven't a clue that they're actually in a far worse situation much closer to home.

Denial and diverting attention isn't going to help NSW one bit if the drought continues. It's time to end this one state versus another nonsense and face reality in NSW as has already been done in Qld and Tas.


----------



## Happy (19 May 2007)

Massive scale tidal/wave power generation looks like not the worst idea, especially that pilot plant works well somewhere in NSW South Coast area.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2007)

Looks like the media has finally got it. 



> I think we are in denial, and are going to have brownouts in NSW if we don't get snow this winter




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/18/1178995416714.html


----------



## CanOz (20 May 2007)

How widespread are the rains that you've had this week? 

Imagine the run on effects of more expensive power.....especially to energy intensive business's like....mining, manufacturing. 

Forget the metal prices, stock market bubbles, political parties...this is the greatest threat to everyone and yet the most understated, under funded, 'bury your head in the sand' subject there is!

If and when i move back to Australia i think i'll build a solar home...maybe by that time the rebates will be much higher. I nearly went solar on the last home i built, but at the time it didn't pay, but with higher prices, it might actually pay-back if you had enough to feed back into the grid, which is possible with hybrid generation like solar/wind.

Cheers,


----------



## Uncle Festivus (20 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Looks like the media has finally got it.




Yes, it's now making the nightly TV news.



CanOz said:


> If and when i move back to Australia i think i'll build a solar home...maybe by that time the rebates will be much higher. I nearly went solar on the last home i built, but at the time it didn't pay, but with higher prices, it might actually pay-back if you had enough to feed back into the grid, which is possible with hybrid generation like solar/wind.
> 
> Cheers,




The rains have been  excellent but have basically gone straight into the ground, very little run-off into cooling water dams, & certainly will not alleviate the power generation problems.

I think solar is turning out to be a lost cause. The latest data indicates a supply squeeze for the raw material used in making solar panels, so they will end up being even more expensive than they are now.

I understand grid connected solar also has a major drawback in that if the grid goes down eg blackout, it's a requirement that your solar system is also disconnected, so you end up with a blackout afterall. Maybe someone who has one can elaborate. The answer is to be self contained I think.


----------



## CanOz (20 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> The latest data indicates a supply squeeze for the raw material used in making solar panels, so they will end up being even more expensive than they are now.
> 
> .





hmmm, whats the best exposure to this potential UF?

cheers,


----------



## chops_a_must (20 May 2007)

CanOz said:


> hmmm, whats the best exposure to this potential UF?
> 
> cheers,




I'm pretty sure it's silver Can. From memory a lot of mineral sands type products as well.

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## CanOz (21 May 2007)

Good grief, Silver? What a rally thats been. 

I see Smurf's comments about the drought and power pricing/generation are on the front cover of the AFR today. 

I really wonder how much electricity needs to increase before i seriously starts to affect miners and thier ability to compete? Another variable in the already complex supply and demand issues associated with the commod boom...great.

Cheers,


----------



## Uncle Festivus (21 May 2007)

CanOz said:


> hmmm, whats the best exposure to this potential UF?
> 
> cheers,




From memory, I think it's mineral sands & silicon.



CanOz said:


> Good grief, Silver? What a rally thats been.
> 
> I see Smurf's comments about the drought and power pricing/generation are on the front cover of the AFR today.
> 
> ...





I think it could be a double edged sword - increasing prices & possible blackouts. They can't compete at all without electricity. If it does get to that stage though miners will be the last thing on the politicians minds with an angry populace asking questions.There is the remote possibility that commodity prices could increase because of it, but those who can't produce will miss out obviously. Purely conjecture at this stage, but possible.

When the people who work in power stations start buying generators you know somethings going on.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 May 2007)

It's not getting any better on the mainland but Hydro Tas storage was stable for the past week at 19%. Six successful (rain producing) cloud seeding flights so far this season have helped lift storage from 17% three weeks ago.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> When the people who work in power stations start buying generators you know somethings going on.



You might be able to get some rather large ones real cheap if it doesn't rain...: : :


----------



## Julia (21 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's not getting any better on the mainland but Hydro Tas storage was stable for the past week at 19%. Six successful (rain producing) cloud seeding flights so far this season have helped lift storage from 17% three weeks ago.




Smurf, will cloud seeding work anywhere, or is it essentially suited to the Tasmanian conditions?  i.e. would it be helpful in SE Qld?


----------



## macca (23 May 2007)

If ever we needed an example of the pettiness of politicians here is another

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-is-victorias-problem/2007/05/23/1179601447552.html

This is why we have a water crisis in the Murray Darling, state pollies on their own liitle power trips


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 May 2007)

You may have heard about the energy ministers meeting and a report prepared by NEMMCO regarding the drought's impact on electricity supplies.

You can read it here.

http://www.nemmco.com.au/nemgeneral/900-0001.pdf

In short, the report says:

2007/08 season:

NSW - Maybe a small problem next summer but the lights will stay on most of the time.

Qld - Much the same as NSW but the problem is considerably bigger.

Vic - The power supply isn't up to scratch anyway and the drought will only make it worse. But the lights will still be on most of the time.

SA - Much the same as Vic but a bit worse.

Tas - 100% generation system reliability is forecast as long as nothing truly unexpected happens. 

For 2008 - 09:

NSW, Qld and SA  - Most load will still be supplied but quite a few failures could occur during Summer - enough to have the business lobby screaming and the newspapers in a frenzy.

Vic - Better than the others but there could still be problems.

Tas - The Hydro will keep the lights on so you can watch the news covrage of the blackouts on the mainland. Same as 2007-08. There are some risks for both years however - Bell Bay needs to keep running flat out and also not being sucked dry supplying Victoria 24/7 if something drastic did happen there (breakdown, strikes, mine fires etc).

Note that the report addresses only GENERATION of electricity and not transmission and distribution. It's quite possible to have adequate generation but still get blackouts if transmission or distribution failures occur. (The blackout last Summer in Melbourne was due to a transmission failure, for example). 

The major thing the report DOESN'T address is the issue of price. Physical supply is one thing, retailers and major users staying in business during a price spike is another. It was financial, not technical, failure that was the problem in California and the situation we have now in Australia is not greatly dissimilar.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (4 June 2007)

Has the drought broken? Hope so.



> Spirits lifted as mountain rivers run
> 
> * Milanda Rout
> * June 04, 2007
> ...


----------



## prawn_86 (4 June 2007)

macca said:


> This is why we have a water crisis in the Murray Darling, state pollies on their own liitle power trips




agreed macca,
my father is a fruit and veg grower in the riverland, and faces having 0% water allocations at the end of the month. this means that his income will effectively be stripped from him, as it has already been cut in half.
and now that we have had a small amount of rain the poliss are happy to sit back and 'wait and see' as they always do and hope like hell that it rains or that they get their pension and dont have to do anything.
why arnt things been done now for the future??? 
and imo if water alocations for growers do get cut to 0% then there will be potential for huge law suits against the government for failing duty of care etc. 
anyone out there with a law background have an opinion on this? as i would be interested to know where they stand


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 June 2007)

Regarding the electricity situation, the grid is sitting very close to the edge in NSW right at this moment (17:50).

One problem at one power station and it's blackouts... Wholesale prices are running at about 250 times the long term average level too.


----------



## wayneL (13 June 2007)

Not a drop of rain around the midwest yet... and the local farmboys are getting a bit antsy. Quite a few face financial ruin this year if they don't come... and to think there were record prices for farmland around here only last year. Sheesh!


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 June 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1952340.htm


> Friday, June 15, 2007. 12:41pm (AEST)
> Sobbing woman watched authorities shoot cattle: sister
> The RSPCA and police are under pressure to explain the actions of a team that raided a small property near Pilliga, west of Narrabri in northern New South Wales, yesterday to destroy drought-afflicted cattle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2007)

OK, joke's over. I know we needed rain but not quite _that_ much.

Floods in the Huon, floods in the Derwent Valley, floods in the North East, rain induced rock falls on the West Coast and too much snow bringing down the transmission lines from the South West.

It was still looking pretty drastic in Tas one week ago with the ongoing drought. Then someone turned the tap on...

I won't say the drought has ended though untill the major storages are back to reasonable levels (still about 18%). But it's a promising sign and everything else, smaller dams included, have more water than they can use at the moment.

Add the huge inflows to non-major storage plants in Tas (noting that they comprise 60% of the system) to the new coal plant coming online in Queensland and the end result has been an electricity price crash that makes the ASX look absolutely stable in comparison over the past few days. The major storages, both Snowy and Hydro Tas, need to rise for that to last however but it's a good start.


----------



## macca (13 August 2007)

Hi Smurf,

thanks for the update, when reading in the paper about the floods in Tas I actually thought of this thread.

Hopefully with a good snow season this year the SMA will have enough water to keep them operating over summer.


----------



## Julia (13 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> OK, joke's over. I know we needed rain but not quite _that_ much.
> 
> Floods in the Huon, floods in the Derwent Valley, floods in the North East, rain induced rock falls on the West Coast and too much snow bringing down the transmission lines from the South West.
> 
> ...




We would love some of that in Qld, Smurf.  Oh so dry here.
What does your figure 18% above represent?  If you have more water than you know what to do with, why would storage levels only be 18%?
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 August 2007)

So, we think this dry period is bad..... check out the following site which shows a correlation between natural disasters (such as drought) with the level of sunspot activity - which as it happens is at a minimum in the current solar cycle. 

Then read the conclusion - which is that 2011 (the sunspot maximum year) should be a bumper year for natural catastrophes including droughts. Something to look forward to eh, given that we think the situation is already bad enough in a sunspot minimum year!  

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache.../Pages/Results.html+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au

Cheers?

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 August 2007)

....and notwithstanding the torrential coastal downpours that have topped up the sea levels (sic) here's the latest Murray Darling Basin Commision's weekly report summary regarding the outlook for inland water storages within the basin.

"SUMMARY

The situation is very serious. Although storages are rising slowly, we still have a long way to go to reach even the level of water availability at this time last year. Daily inflow rates have receded to levels observed in late May. Contingency measures are in place to save water, including the disconnection of some wetlands to reduce losses due to evaporation. The outlook for 2007/08 remains grim and is highly dependant on rainfall over the next three months. The months from November to May do not typically yield substantial inflows, as rainfall declines and evaporation losses increase."

In my local area, Dartmouth Dam (now 14% of capacity compared to 49% this time last year) and Hume Dam (now 24% of capacity compared to 52% this time last year) are WAAAAY down on the refill rates. At the present paltry fill rates, by mid November Hume Dam will only get to about 35-40% (compared to 94% last year) and Dartmouth Dam will only get to about 25-30% (compared to 65% last year). 

To state the bleeding obvious, this regional drought ain't over till its over... regardless of how much water the coastal strips receive. 

Parched AJ


----------



## justjohn (21 August 2007)

According to last nights news ,us up here on the Central Coast (GOSFORD ) had our wettest August day for 90years and we really needed it just hope some of it landed near our catchment area:


----------



## ormond (21 August 2007)

Just wondering how much it would cost to set up a political party in SA.
I think i will call it the "water infrastucture party"
While we are forced to do any watering by "buckets only" our gov. seems to be doing f--k all as far a any major projects to secure our future water supply. 
I think i may be able to get plenty of votes even though this would be a single platform party.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 August 2007)

Julia said:


> We would love some of that in Qld, Smurf.  Oh so dry here.
> What does your figure 18% above represent?  If you have more water than you know what to do with, why would storage levels only be 18%?
> Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.



It's an incredibly complex thing to explain, but...

Any consideration of major water storage in Tas is fundamentally a question of power generation rather than water per se. Around 98% of all water use in Tas is for hydro-electricity and apart from Hobart, Launceston, Burnie and Devonport plus a couple of irrigation schemes the state doesn't have much in terms of non-electricity water infrastructure. Water restrictions in the smaller towns occur most years in Summer even if the Winter was wet since they lack adequate storage.

To put it in figures, Hydro's total discharge from river systems (that which flows into the sea) is about 45,000 megalitres per day and the total volume passing through the power stations is about 120,000 megalitres per day (since the water is used between 1 and 9 times depending on where it enters the system).

This compares with Sydney's daily consumption of around 1500 megalitres per day or Hobart's 110 megalitres per day. The Snowy discharges about 8,000 megalitres per day with about 23,000 megalitres passing through power stations.

Topography precluded the construction of large storages where much of the hydro-electric potential exists (though there are 2 very large storages). Also it was impractical to link the catchment areas hydraulically (with some minor exceptions) for the same reasons.

In short, it was far more practical to build separate power stations where the water is available than to move the water to a smaller number of (larger) power stations. 

Trouble is, this means that some of the catchment ares have very little storage capacity. Collectively these produce over 50% of total generation despite holding less than 5% of total storage. In a flood, they will fill to 100% and spill even though the major storages remain low. 

The major storages hold 80% of the total energy in storage when full but contribute only 30% of annual average output. They will in practice never be full and should never be empty.

The means of water management between catchments is to vary production rates rather than physically move the water. For example, if some of the smaller dams have a lot of water coming in then the associated power stations will run flat out 24/7. That enables less (or no) generation from the power stations using water from the major storages thus allowing their level to rise at whatever rate water is flowing into them. Reverse if it's dry.

It comes down to cost. If a dam and power station can capture 98% of the potential from a given river then it just isn't economic to get the last 2% that is the occasional flood. In the case of the major storages which have never been full those flows are captured. But for the smaller schemes the only economic option is to accept a few % loss. 

The level in the major storages is now just over 20% and it's 27% for the system as a whole. That said, the levels in the small storages are very high and some are still at 100% - they are being used as much as possible whilst the power stations drawing on the major storages are essentially shut down at the moment. Strange as it may seem, it isn't good to have the small storages too high - keeping them lower will on average reduce the amount of spill and maximise long term output. But you don't want them too low...

All of this water management stuff is quite similar to share trading really. Positive expectancy (inflows greater than outflows or at least equal), good money management (never run dry) and position sizing (minimise spill - keep the available water spread across the system).


----------



## ormond (29 August 2007)

Fire bans in SA tommorrow is a scarey thought for august but something still baffles me about our current water restrictions!
5% of Murray Darling Basin water is used in SA

If all domestic water use (65% of SA water supply) were to come only from that allocation (no catchment rainfall into reservoirs) then 65% of that 5% is 3.25%

If garden use represents 40% of the household use then 40% of the 3.25% means that 1.3% of total Murray River water used in SA would be used on gardens.

This makes the banning of drippers seem ludacris decision by our goverment.
It pisses me off seeing people in their 70's and 80's lugging buckets around their gardens!5% of Murray Darling Basin water is used in SA

If all domestic water use (65% of SA water supply) were to come only from that allocation (no catchment rainfall into reservoirs) then 65% of that 5% is 3.25%

If garden use represents 40% of the household use then 40% of the 3.25% means that 1.3% of total Murray River water used in SA would be used on gardens.
Not good enough!
p.s our largest reservoir is at 79% capacity


----------



## nioka (29 August 2007)

Julia said:


> We would love some of that in Qld, .




I gather that you got your wish answered with the recent rains in Southern Qld. Hope you had enough and were not one of those flooded out'


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2007)

ormond said:


> Fire bans in SA tommorrow is a scarey thought for august but something still baffles me about our current water restrictions!
> 5% of Murray Darling Basin water is used in SA



There's a degree of politics in it. I think you'll see those restrictions stay even if storage hits 100% and there's an outright flood. It'll be "Monday's for the Murray" even if half the country is outright flooded.

Something very similar was tried in Hobart a few years ago followed by a campaign to install water meters. A few years and countless letters to the editor by numerous people later, the council finally backed down acknowledging that there wasn't much point in having 98.1% flowing out to sea rather than 98.0%. 

As for the politics, two points really. It was the Greens and likeminded people promoting the notion that water is scarce and therefore needs to be expensive. That was always the key point - it's scarce stuff and people need to pay pay PAY for it. Nobody ever said what would be done with the money...

Also involved was the Property Council of Australia pushing for meters (but not restrictions) since this would, in theory at least, financially benefit their office block owning members through lower rates. 

The scam was exposed and that's the last anyone heard of it. The whole thing was a loser financially and resulted in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the need for someone to drive around reading the meters.

The real danger with permanent restrictions is that, over time, system capacity is only built to meet that restricted demand even with normal rainfall. Then when there is a drought or something else goes wrong (eg pumps break down) there's nothing else left to restrict apart from the "hard" options such as drinking and washing.

It's certainly reasonable and sensible to impose water restrictions when problems occur. But relying on them permanently is outright dangerous. Those places that do it will in due course learn the hard way and will end up with bans on hand washing after using the toilet (also banned from flusing) and inspectors running around making sure you're wearing your clotes multiple times before washing them.

As for the drought, I'm anything but convinced it's over. Some spectacular falls of rain in several states maybe but, here at least, the underlying weather pattern is anything but normal. A big dump immediately followed by a return to very low rainfall which is basically what's been happening ever since this drought started - an underlying dry bias.


----------



## Rafa (29 August 2007)

ormond said:


> p.s our largest reservoir is at 79% capacity




I beleive if all of SA water storages, excluding the murray are at 100%, that still is only enough domestic water consumption for about 1 year...

so at this stage, i am happy for water restrictions to save... as every 10% saved is another month or two's water supply...

and from what i've read, murray storages are still only at around 20% (compared to over 50% at this time last year)... so given what we have now (and not considering any of the what ifs and what should haves)... there doesn't seem to be much other option.


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 September 2007)

Well, QLD'ers have been whinging about their Level 5 water restrictions making life tough for them. 

They should be so lucky. At least they are allowed to use buckets or watering cans from an outside tap on designated days to top up ponds or water essential established trees.

Wodonga's current Level 4 restrictions are by far more draconian. They allow for NO GARDEN WATERING AT ALL - fullstop. NO LAWN WATERING AT ALL - full stop. The only tiny concession is that "re-cycled" water may be bucketed out. Looks like me and the wife will have to start pissing regularly on the few trees we are trying to grow for shade - or else wash our clothes more regularly!  

Sigh......

I'm afraid householders here are shortly going to "hit the wall" when it comes to maintaining their garden trees, given the current big dry and miserable long-range forecasts....  

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2007)

Winter's over and I'm starting to think we might just be in a bit more trouble than most seem to realise.

In short, most major water storages are lower now than this time last year which means there's a real chance of some of them reaching zero next Autumn if this Summer is dry. 

Also concerning is that even someone with no interest whatsoever in the weather would surely have noticed Adelaide's record August temperature last week whilst even in Hobart it was 21 degrees. One warm day doesn't make a drought but overall the picture is concerning. Gardening guru Peter Cundall has also publicly noted that it doesn't look encouraging for an end to the drought based on his observations (which date back 50 years).

Major storage situation is as follows. In short, the capital city water situation is particularly serious in Brisbane with Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra also facing serious problems. The situation has improved significantly in Sydney whilst Hobart's upstream supply continues to exceed demand.

The real issue however relates to irrigation and also the Snowy Hydro scheme. Storages are well down on last year and are frighteningly low in the Snowy. *Meanwhile warm weather has lead to an early start to the irrigation season*. 

Note that the data is for active storage (the water that can be taken from the dam) and not total storage which is usually higher (though not usable for water supply purposes)

Cities

Sydney - 58.8% (41.0% this time last year)

Melbourne - 38.6% (about 47.5% this time last year)

Brisbane - 20.17% (about 28.5% this time last year)

Perth - 23.1% (20% this time last year)

Adelaide - 79% city area storages, upstream Murray storages see below. 

Canberra - 42.6% (50% this time last year)

Hobart - About 85% city area storages, upstream Derwent hydro-electric storages are at 44.8% which is not a concern in regard to Hobart's urban water supply at this time.


Irrigation and hydro-electricity

Murray (excluding Snowy) - 18.7%

*Snowy Hydro (Lake Eucumbene) - 6.6%*

Blowering - 27.9%

Dartmouth - 14.4% (power station is completely unable to operate at this level though water can still be released for irrigation)

Lake Eildon - 19.4%

Hydro Tasmania* - 27.3% (32.0% this time last year)

*Hydro Tas figure is for system total energy in storage not water volume.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> One warm day doesn't make a drought but overall the picture is concerning.





> One swallow does not make a summer.
> Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics
> Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)



then again , will there be any water to swallow


----------



## Julia (2 September 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Well, QLD'ers have been whinging about their Level 5 water restrictions making life tough for them.
> 
> They should be so lucky. At least they are allowed to use buckets or watering cans from an outside tap on designated days to top up ponds or water essential established trees.
> 
> ...



I feel for you, AJ.  What is the problem?  Is it lack of rainfall?  Lack of storage capacity?  Inadequate planning by governments?  

Brisbane people do, however, have a right to feel aggrieved.  For many years the State government has been crowing about Qld being the growth state of Australia, how wonderful it is that so many people want to come here to live and start businesses etc., but they have (until 12 months ago when they suddenl woke up to the fact that we were running out of water) completely ignored the need to upgrade the infrastructure.  More than 1500 people per week move to Qld, most of these to the SE corner.  
When people have spent many thousands of dollars creating beautiful gardens, it's really heartbreaking to see them die.

Btw, I'm not personally affected.  I'm further north and our dam is up to 78% after recent rains.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2007)

Let's see what the plane brings...

Cloud seeding extended in Tas. 

http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corpor...d+seeding+program+to+other+parts+of+State.htm


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Let's see what the plane brings...
> 
> Cloud seeding extended in Tas.
> 
> http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corpor...d+seeding+program+to+other+parts+of+State.htm





But.... I thought you stated in your previous post that ya'll lil' devils already had plenty of Chateau H2O! 

Oh, I get it, once the Tassie clouds have been superseeded (sic), they will be towed over Bass Straight by Dick Smith's chopper to the Snowy to unload! 

GREAT PLAN!!! I fully support this.....

As you can see, a serious lack of water can affect your mental state.... hehe

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I feel for you, AJ.  What is the problem?  Is it lack of rainfall?  Lack of storage capacity?  Inadequate planning by governments?





All of the above, Julia. Though of the three factors you offered, the LAST one springs to mind as the most obvious one to fix first. But HOW? More government commissions? (god forbid!). Changes of Government? (the alternatives never seem better than the incumbents!)

Ah well, one day our "leaders" will do the right thing.

But well after I'm gone, for sure........ 

AJ


----------



## macca (4 September 2007)

Hi Jeff,

for the first time in history we have a federal government trying to do something about it, but the states won't let them 

As usual, politics gets in the way of positive action


----------



## Rafa (4 September 2007)

Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html



> *Dams 'contributing to global warming'*
> 
> The world's dams are contributing millions of tonnes of harmful greenhouse gases and spurring on global warming, according to a US environmental agency.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 September 2007)

Rafa said:


> Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html




Hi Rafa...

Well, the Government could pass laws banning re-stocking of fish in all water resorvoirs. And they could let all water in existing dams be released and allow no more water to be collected in dams, thus allowing them to dry out and slow the rotting vegetation process. Those measures would satisfy this (new?) theory. BUT - it might be an unpopular decision with a few folks! 

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Rafa (4 September 2007)

certainly not advocating that course of action...


----------



## Bush Trader (4 September 2007)

Wheat Just hit $370 delivered Melbourne December Delivery. In real terms this is in the 90th decile. Fertiliser prices are at record levels.

Great for farmers you might suggest?

The Southern NSW crop has an average of 2 weeks moisture left under crops, before the shows over.

Many Farmers have had their last throw of the dice this year

Think of them as you eat your going to be more expensive bread and wheatbix, not to mention the cost of a T-Bone that has been fed grain for 90 days before going to the butcher

Cheers


BT


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 September 2007)

Rafa said:


> Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html



It's a contentious issue and one that's difficult to prove either way given the difficulty of actually measuring methane emissions.

It would depend very heavily on several factors. 

The area flooded versus annual power generation is one key factor. Looking at the Tasmanian situation, there is a massive variation in the % of the catchment flooded and also the flooded area versus annual generation. For example, the flooded area at Trevallyn is a tiny fraction of the catchment area wheras it's much larger for the King scheme despite both having very similar annual output. The man-made flooded area at Gordon is massive by Australian standards whereas it is an order of magnitude lower at Poatina despite both having very similar power outputs. There's a lot of variation between the different schemes.

Also it will depend on how the storage was developed and the timeframe under consideration. If the area is cleared prior to flooding then that will greatly reduce methane emissions compared to leaving the biomass there. 

Time is another one. If you look at a period of, say, 30 years then emissions might be moderate. But if you look at it over a longer period of, say, 200 years then compared to the total power generated the level of emissions will be much lower for any storage that doesn't have an ongoing inflow of biomass materials (which is most of them in the Tasmanian situation).

Regarding the actual decay rate, research done by the Hydro (and effectively verified by an ABC TV investigation) found that the actual decay rate for storages in the South-West is _very_ low with twigs, leaves etc still intact decades after flooding. That isn't going to be emitting a great deal of methane.

So overall it's a hard question to answer but for storages that don't have a significant ongoing sediment accumulation and which were cleared prior to flooding emissions ought to be very low. At the other extreme emissions would be very high.

To my understanding the research which found emissions from Tasmanian storages to be one third that of a modern gas-fired plant wasn't looking at the entire system but only at one particular storage. Various previous studies concluded that overall system emissions were likely to be very low (far lower than wind, solar photovoltaic or nuclear) and the following comments were made (published in Hydro's 1997 Environmental Report):



> Newly created hydro lakes exhibit initial rapid decay of some softer biomass material but quickly reach a stage where photosynthetic-fixing is probably equal to or greater than decay rates...
> 
> ...Lake Plimsoll was created in early 1994. It, and other Hydro storages, display similar characteristics to natural oligotrophic (low in nutrients) lakes...
> 
> Hydro Lakes are generally well-oxygenated, and have depth and temperature characteristics that indicate methane loss as a result of biomass decay would be minimal.




So if an area is to be flooded for a storage then clearing the vegetation first would be a logical way to reduce emissions. Also that will avoid contamination of the storage with methyl mercury which is a health hazard if fish are eaten from a contaminated storage or if the water is used for drinking.

The single greatest problem in discussing ANYTHING concerning dams is that virtually everyone has some sort of bias. The Internaional Rivers Network quoted in the SMH article is in fact an anti-dams lobby group. On the other hand, the research I have referred to above was associated with the Hydro-Electric Corporation, by far the largest dam owner in Australia. Along with anything to do with uranium, tobacco and genetic engineering, dams are one of those issues where there is essentially no unbiased information available. In that context it's worth noting that Greens leader Bob Brown was once discovered to be using anti-hydro claims provided by the coal industry at a time when Shell owned the only large coal deposit in Tasmania. Hmm...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a contentious issue and one that's difficult to prove either way given the difficulty of actually measuring methane emissions.......
> 
> So overall it's a hard question to answer but for storages that don't have a significant ongoing sediment accumulation and which were cleared prior to flooding emissions ought to be very low. At the other extreme emissions would be very high.
> 
> ...



fascinating detail as always Smurf
and thanks for the article Rafa..



> "Basically they're factories for converting carbon into methane and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas - it's less known than carbon dioxide but it's actually about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat in the atmosphere." Mr McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide




Smurf, I take it it's not as easy as looking at a forest tree and saying
"there is 2000T of timber, which is about 1000T or carbon (whatever) -  
and if we cut it down and woodchip it we lose the ability for those trees to grow (say 100T per annum) 
If we leave it there it dies like a carbon pencil "stick in the mud"

(lol just like people who want to be buried vertically ) 

I mean - It's not just counting the carbon atoms - it's also counting the gases etc involved - carbon dioxide CO2 , methane CH4.
if it rots in the way described, then methane is a worst choice for breakdown material ? 
(my days of understanding chemistry in detail are way behind me - 
 although..
I gotta feeling my days of being forced to understand carbon credits in detail are not too ahead of me , lol

thanks for any assistance - 

and this is a message for the next generation ...LAY OFF THE ONIONS .
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





PS we had a dump not far away which was "filled" then backfilled over - and the methane that came out of there !! sheesh - flame burnt 20 foot high for 5 years !!


----------



## Rafa (9 September 2007)

thanks for the reply smurf...
insightfull as always...


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Smurf, I take it it's not as easy as looking at a forest tree and saying
> "there is 2000T of timber, which is about 1000T or carbon (whatever) -
> and if we cut it down and woodchip it we lose the ability for those trees to grow (say 100T per annum)
> If we leave it there it dies like a carbon pencil "stick in the mud"
> ...



There are a lot of uncertainties involved which is the problem.

What we do know is that, methane is in the order of (depending on which figures you use) 35 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is thus highly beneficial (assuming climate change is real) to be reducing methane emissions.

Dams are one source of methane. Certain crops, cattle, rubbish tips, coal mines and leaking gas pipes (natural gas is methane) are among the others. 

The problem with dams is that we don't really know what is going in or out other than water. And there's a massive variation between individual dams. Some examples of specific hydro-electric dams ought to make the point.

Poatina power station is the second largest (in terms of annual output not peak power) hydro-electric plant in Australia. Gordon is the largest. They both have large storages associated with them holding several years worth of inflows. 

That's where the similarities end.

Storage for Poatina is the natural Great Lake enlarged (on 4 separate occasions) by a dam at Miena which (since 1983) has raised the level when full to 21.3 metres above natural. 

Additional water is diverted into Great Lake from Lake Augusta (diverted since 1922 and itself dammed in the 1950's) and Arthurs Lake (dammed and pump diverted since 1966).

Overall, this scheme hasn't actually flooded much land. Great Lake, Lake Augusta and Arthurs Lake are all natural lakes only modestly enlarged (in terms of surface area) by dams. Whatever fish, biomass etc is in those lakes creating methane would be largely the same whether the dams had been built or not.

Gordon is however totally different. Lake's Gordon and Pedder form the storage and are completely man-made by the 140 metre high Gordon Dam and the Scott's Peak (literally 1 mile wide), Serpentine and Edgar dams. 

Lake Gordon doesn't naturally exist at all. Lake Pedder is essentially man-made given that the original lake was totally innundated by the new lake with a vastly larger surface area.

Lake Gordon especially flooded quite a bit of biomass which is still clearly visible when the storage is low (as at present). And since the whole scheme is man-made, whatever methane is being produced is directly a function of the dams being built.

That said, biomass decay rates for those two storages are known to be very low as evidencded by dives at Lake Pedder. Note the very visible flooded biomass at Lake Gordon in the photo below taken earlier this year, three decades after the original flooding.

Another factor is the regrowth of plant material when the storage is low and subsequent re-flooding when it rises. The second photo shows a water level marker beside the road in Lake Gordon. Plenty of regrowth there with the level down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2007)

Well here we are. A third of the way through September. We're only a few weeks away from the seasonal peak for most major storages and the situation in many cases isn't good. Indeed it's worse than last year.

Looks like the politicians might be starting to worry too if acknowledgement of the possibility of a "permanent" drought is any indication. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/09/2027925.htm?section=australia

As for solutions, a Melbourne-based consortium is proposing to build 3 pipelines from Strahan (Tas) to two separate locations in Victoria. The scheme would reportedly work on gravity flow from an unspecified existing Tasmanian dam (presumably Lake Burbury given the location) and would transfer 500 GL per year. 

Cost? They're talking about paying $400 million a year for the water which doesn't cover any of the costs of actually building the pipes. Given that we're effectively talking about a 300km+ penstock under substantial pressure, it isn't going to be cheap by any means. Presumably they expect to profit from this venture.

As for uses of the water, providing urban supply to Adelaide was one possible use mentioned but that won't use the whole lot by any means. Doing that would, of course, leave more water in the Murray for some other use. Judging by where the pipelines are shown, supplying Melbourne and also some rural use in Victoria / South-East SA seems likely too.

The only real problem I can see is that the water source is naturally tainted by tannins due to the vegetation type and high rainfall in the area. It's completely natural and not considered harmful, but the water isn't at all clear. But it's better than the water in the Murray and better than nothing. Presumably they could filter it somehow for urban supply use.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

Thanks Smurf
gee you've got me thinking
there's a new dam being built at Traveston in SE Qld
very controversial as it covers massive area for little benefit (wipes out heaps of lovely farms as well) - 
which is another way of saying it's extremely shallow - like a metre or two for bludy sq miles - and (you'd think) this could potentially mean biomass , methane etc by the sounds. unless they 
a) "do the math" - and 
b) get it right, 
c) without political overtones

They should give you a call before they get too advanced imo  (lol)
thanx


----------



## Julia (9 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> there's a new dam being built at Traveston in SE Qld
> very controversial as it covers massive area for little benefit (wipes out heaps of lovely farms as well) -
> (lol)
> thanx



I can't comment on the viability of the Traveston Dam from an engineering point of view, but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

Julia said:


> 1. ...but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
> 2. So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.




1. You're closer to it that I am Julia lol -  massive controversy.
2.  Cost / benefit ratio then? - (bit like the hooker thread comment lol) - I mean, driving hundreds of farmers off their farms adds a fair bit of weight on the cost side of the equation.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=148231&highlight=beattie#post148231

This from ABC's PM after it was rushed through Qld Govt ( Barnaby Joyce stayed up all night for a few days to try to make them weigh things up fairly - but .

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1900869.htm PM's version

Quote:


> KATHRYN ROBERTS: Neither the Premier, Peter Beattie, nor his Deputy, Anna Bligh, attended the hearings, but in State Parliament Ms Bligh had this to say.
> 
> ANNA BLIGH: I've heard nothing from Day 1, of the Senate inquiry, nothing that would cause this government to reconsider our position for one second. Mr Speaker, we are determined to build this dam.
> 
> ...




Barnaby Joyce should start his own party !!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

but you're right 
I guess water is worth more than oil these days etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 September 2007)

I don't know about the specifics of the dam proposed in Qld but if SE Qld is going to keep adding population (an issue in itself) then either more infrastructure is built or the end result is some sort of disaster.

Conservation? The trouble with permanent conservation is that we end up with fairly strict measures (as population increases) even during times of normal rainfall. Then we're completely stuffed when the next drought occurs.

I don't know this for certain, but I'd be surprised if houses and roads weren't a bigger threat to farm land than the dam in SE Qld. Every Australian capital city has taken up valuable land that could have been farmed. More to the point, most Australian houses are standing on what was once an old growth forest...

It's a classic case of dam politics though. Engineering, science, economics and hard facts all swamped by the No Dams Vs Go Dams politics of it all. It's been that way for 35 years so I don't see it changing _until_ there's an actual outright disaster with water in this country.

Much the same with energy. Can't drill here. Can't drill there. Can't build coal. Can't build hydro. Can't build nuclear. Can't even build wind. And even if you get the plant built then the next problem will be transmission lines. All of which will change in about 5 minutes when a major crisis hits. 

The great problem is that since the late 1960's problems with water and energy have been short term and fixed themselves due to ongoing large scale construction that ultimately lead to over investment. Now that we no longer have either surpluses or an active construction program, for the first time in decades the prospect of sustained water and energy shortages is very real.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

some articles on Traveston going back to Feb - 
and also this month hotting up again.
(PS I've posted my thoughts on Poetry Thread #650 )
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/02/23/1855857.htm


> Govt rejects Traveston dam report
> Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:49pm AEDT
> 
> The Queensland Government has dismissed the findings of a new report that questions the value of the Traveston Crossing Dam near Gympie.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/04/2023591.htm


> Print Email Add to My Stories
> 
> Proposed Traveston dam hot topic at Brisbane rivers conference
> Posted Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:26pm AEST
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/03/2022509.htm


> Molloy promises Traveston dam fight
> Posted Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:48pm AEST
> 
> *The former state Member for Noosa says she will make a Beattie Government proposed dam near Gympie one of her Federal Government election platforms.*
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 September 2007)

> "Any of these decisions, pulp mills in Tasmania, Traveston dam in the Wide Bay area, can all be changed, those decisions need to be looked at and if I can stop that bloody dam going ahead I will," she said.



I'm thinking of putting out a scenic calendar for next year featuring that most prized area known as Bell Bay, site of the proposed pulp mill in Tas. I'll just drive around the area and take a few snaps of the power station, switchyards, gas receiving facility, aluminium smelter, ferro alloy furnaces, aluminium powder plant, port, oil storage, wood mills, Basslink converter station... Might even get the old wheel casting plant and board mills too if I'm lucky. Oh, and not to forget all those transmission lines which dominate the Southern approach to the area.

Odds are 90% of Australians have no idea what's at Bell Bay and actually believe the notion that it's some sort of scenic, quiet area. That's the problem with environmental (and most other) politics. Nonsense presented as fact.

The Traveston Dam? No idea but if someone's opposing it and pulp mills in the same sentence then that makes me very wary that this is just another case of oppose it first, ask questions never.


----------



## Whiskers (12 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I can't comment on the viability of the Traveston Dam from an engineering point of view, but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
> So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.




Hi Julia, 

I suspect you are mostly picking up on a conceptual fallasy in 2020's arguement. However I think he is arguing the right cause but probably not putting the best case. I shall endeavour to do that.

It is true that some water from recent rain would have run into the Traverston dam. But despite the misleading information peddled by Beattie, that water mostly comes from tributeries of the Mary river in the sunshine coast hinterland. I doubt it would have gone anywhere near half filling it though. It would make much more sense to build a couple more smaller dams on those tributries where the rain falls. 

I'm not an engineer either, although I have been engaged in the civil construction and agricultural industries all my life and actually built and worked on dams. I think I have a pretty good sense of the issues. I also understand the desperation people in the SE are experiencing with water restrictions. I have had occasion to independently drought declare my property in the nineties and for the rural community over much of Australia water rationing has been the norm rather than the exception for many years. 

Around the Bundaberg, Gin Gin, Childers irrigation scheme farm rations for water have been around 0 to 30% of allocation for years. Some times not allowed to irrigate at all and often not enough for farmers to be able to justify planting a full crop I heard in parts of the Murray, the NSW gov completely cancelled water rights, but did not refund farmers what they had paid for the water. The loss of income to farmers and farming communities has been enormous. 

Many city folke (and some farmers) whinge because they can't turn on a tap and get all the water they want, so their solution is simply to build more dams.

Obviously, the 'Traverston' issue stemmed from poor gov planning for the SE corner and politicians do what politicians do in a crisis. The issue is/should be more about water conservation, rather than more dams. If the water restrictions and/or the cost of water for domestic and industry use in the cities had been implemented even roughly in parallel with rural irrigation costs and restrictions over the rest of the state and country, to account for seasonal conditions we would not have the crisis and urgent ill-conceived need for a mega dam at Traverston. 

People like myself who live in rural areas depend on our rainwater tanks and conserve water all the time. If gov had legislated to install rainwater tanks in a certain way to minimise mosquito problems rather than banning water tanks in towns and cities altogether decades ago, most houses would have a water tank or two even if just for the pleasure of decent drinking and/or washing water and considerably lessened the water crisis. 

Some critics say they don't hold much water, but the point is the SE coastal strip of Qld where most of the population is gets much more rain than inland, and therefore any little shower of rain replenishes some water in their tanks, verses zilch in the dams built further inland.

On the issue of the feasibility of the Traverston dam, while not seeing the exact site myself, there is one thing that can be said with certainty. 

The Traverston dam is built near a fault line. A guy, I think attached to CQU has been monitoring and recording minor seismic activity in this area for years. It has been quite awhile since this part of Qld have experienced a substantial earthquake. But there is one thing for sure, if a quake hit the area there is a good chance that the dam will leak and probably the wall will fail. It seems they are saying they can build the footings deeper and stronger, but at what cost, and I haven't heard anyone guarantee the wall will be quake proof.

For me the big risks are being glossed over. I wonder how many of the strong proponents of the Traverston dam would be prepared to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and live downstream from it.

I'm with senator Joyce on this one. The whole water problem really needs to be thaught out more carefully.


----------



## Julia (12 September 2007)

Whiskers,

Thanks for your comprehensive comments.  I don't live in the area concerned - either the SE Corner or the Traveston area - so am personally unaffected by what happens.  Except that being in Hervey Bay, if our present water supply were to be inadequate in the future, then the proposed Traveston dam would remove our current capacity to access water from the Mary River.

I don't know the actual size of the proposed dam or how long it would take to fill but certainly the Mary River was hugely in flood for many days so I imagine there would have been a pretty reasonable hypothetical flow into the hypothetical dam.

I have to disagree about populations having to accept severe water restrictions on a permanent basis.  OK, you have to do it if you choose to live outside of a metropolitan area and are dependent on tank water.
But people like to have gardens and be able to wash their cars.  And top up their swimming pools.  We are a modern, affluent society and expect this stuff.  It's not unreasonable.  So if we have to create increased water storage (not sure that that will solve the SE's problem) and build desal plants all along the coast, then so be it.

I recently installed three 5000L water tanks which after recent rains are full.
However, I would only have to run my garden irrigation system for an hour on 15 occasions to empty them.  This area can go for three months without rain so they are not going to get topped up.  So tanks are good, yes, but not the total solution, and many properties in built up areas simply don't have the room for them.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I have to disagree about populations having to accept severe water restrictions on a permanent basis.  OK, you have to do it if you choose to live outside of a metropolitan area and are dependent on tank water.
> But people like to have gardens and be able to wash their cars.  And top up their swimming pools.  We are a modern, affluent society and expect this stuff.  It's not unreasonable.  So if we have to create increased water storage (not sure that that will solve the SE's problem) and build desal plants all along the coast, then so be it.




I guess it depends on how much the general population is prepared to pay to access these proposed alternative sources. Of course, those with deep pockets would say "I'll pay ANYTHING to keep watering my beautiful lawns..!!", while those with VERY to MODERATELY tight budgets are likely not going to be too happy to fork out 2-3 or more times their current water bill to keep up appearances. 

Maybe the current pricing systems need to be completely re-jigged on a sliding scale so that low residential water users pay minimal amounts whereas high residential water users (or those who are prepared to pay for high water useage) pay BIG bucket loads for that privilege. I don't think the current scales really place that BIG a premium on higher use ATM.

Interestingly, north-east Victorian irrigators are now saying "well, the Government created this you-beaut water trading scheme - since I have some excess irrigation allocation and the towns are on Stage 4 and desperate to water their lawns and gardens, I am prepared to sell my water allocation to any town that wants to pay me..."

Sounds ok at first glance - it IS a free market now, after all - but the result will inevitably lead to a "virtual auctioning" of "virtual water" allocations to the highest town bidders! Interesting to see which towns/sporting organisations are going to stump up the sky-rocketing water allocation prices in a competitive market environment.

Ho-hum...

Back to the bucket brigade for me...



AJ


----------



## Julia (12 September 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> I guess it depends on how much the general population is prepared to pay to access these proposed alternative sources. Of course, those with deep pockets would say "I'll pay ANYTHING to keep watering my beautiful lawns..!!", while those with VERY to MODERATELY tight budgets are likely not going to be too happy to fork out 2-3 or more times their current water bill to keep up appearances.
> 
> 
> Maybe the current pricing systems need to be completely re-jigged on a sliding scale so that low residential water users pay minimal amounts whereas high residential water users (or those who are prepared to pay for high water useage) pay BIG bucket loads for that privilege. I don't think the current scales really place that BIG a premium on higher use ATM.
> ...




AJ,
Good post.  I can't argue with anything you say, except that many of us who want water for our gardens have no interest in "keeping up appearances".  It's simply the joy and sense of sanctuary a beautiful garden can provide.

Yes, a tiered water charging system makes complete sense.

If you are using buckets, how are you managing, if you have a large garden, that is?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 September 2007)

Peter Garrett should do a Midnight rain dance to Blue Skies are Mine!


----------



## Whiskers (12 September 2007)

Hi Julia and aussiejeff

It looks like we are pretty much thinking along the same lines. Something definetly needs to be done and I am happy for it to include, more water tanks, recycling, tiered water costing, transferable domestic allocations so people who for example don't want a garden can sell to those who do, desalination plants, even cloud seeding and any other options.

As you rightly say Julia, we are an affluent society and should have ready access to a reasonably supply of water.

I just think many people don't fully appreciate that we are the driest continent on earth when thinking about the solution. Too often we are highjacked by our politicans who rush into antiquated ideas and technology to solve short term political faces and not allowed to have careful considered dialog 

Apart from the enviornmentional issues and costs of damming all of our rivers, I just believe it makes more sense to do all the other things we have mentioned, particularly more recycling, before building more dams inland from where most of our rain falls.

I also acknowledge smurfs point that the broader range of solutions often get smudged out by opposing extremist interests. 

Having had training in conflict resolution specifically in enviornmental matters, I have seen these sorts of issues resolved by facilitators through organised processes where everyone can get more of what they want. 

The simplistic classic example is of the neighbours fighting over control of a cow. One neighbour insisted he needed it to keep his grass down. The other insisted he needed it for fresh milk. When a faciliator discussed and worked through the issues with them they were able to see that if they cooperated with each other to share the cow, they could both get what they wanted.

The Qld DPI did build up a very good system of regional consultative committies and facilitators in the early nineties where problems were worked through systematically to find a good solutions to all sorts of issues from water, salinity, erosion, feral animals, noxious pests, quarantine etc, but they have not been used by the Beattie gov in Qld. We have basically seen a man railroading through his own ideas and adgenda, even dismissing his own party members because they would not go in to bat for his adgenda. 

The so called cheaper cost of mega dams don't factor in the longer term costs to things like the fishing industry, silting of the river and rivermouths in particular, putrification of water from salvinia weed build up in still water, the recurring future costs of its removal, interruption of navigation and water sports by the invasion of the weed and silting, methane etc.

People... we need a law similar to business law where a nominated percentage of shareholders can force a general meeting and vote on issues.

Beattie, sacked his own party members for not jumping to his command  on the Traverston dam and arogantly threatened to sack any councils who organised a poll re the redistrubution issue. 

I say do unto others as you wish them to do unto you. 

We need a mechanism in our constitution to enable us the people to call a vote on issues where politicians inexplicibly go against the wishes of the people, to recind bad laws and/or decisions and/or politicans who highjack the system rather than having to tolerate them and the damage they do for up to three years before we can vote them out. 

*We need the power to sack politicans like Beattie as brutally as he sacked and threatened to sack his oponents. That would be true democracy.*


----------



## happytrader (13 September 2007)

Out of curiousity

What level water restrictions are you people on? 

We are on level 1 restrictions in Townsville which basically means you can only use your sprinklers 3 times a week but you are free to use handheld hoses to water.

I heard that Bendigo has had to close public swimming pools because of water shortages. Is this true? It just seems so hard to contemplate. Misery.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## numbercruncher (13 September 2007)

My bro on the Gold Coast tells me they are on level 5 which i understand basically means let your garden die and leave your car dirty!


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 September 2007)

happytrader said:


> Out of curiousity
> 
> What level water restrictions are you people on?
> 
> ...




Lucky Happy you! It's Level 4 here in Wodonga/Albury/Yarrawonga - in fact all along the Murray system. Rather than try to give an indication of what that means, here are the restrictions as taken from the North East Water website (a long but interesting read!)

_*Critical (Stage 4) 
The Following Compulsory Restrictions Apply To Stage 4:*

** Residential or Commercial Garden or Lawn 
A garden area must not be watered at any time. 
A lawn area must not be watered at any time. 

**Public Garden or Lawn
A garden area must not be watered by means of a manual or automatic watering system at any time. 
A lawn area must not be watered at any time. 
Garden and lawn areas must not be watered at any time. 
A garden or a lawn area must not be watered at any time. 

**Sportsground
An exempt playing surface must not be watered at any time. 
Any other playing surface must not be watered at any time. 
No part of a sportsground may be watered at any time. 

**Pond or Lake
A new pond or lake must not be filled. 
An existing pond or lake must not be filled or topped up unless the relevant pond or lake sustains aquatic fauna or bird life, and then only to the extent and in the manner specified in written permission of North East Water. 

**Fountain or Water Feature
A fountain or water feature of any volume must not be operated. 
A fountain or water feature of any volume must not be filled or topped up. 

**Residential or Commercial Pool or Spa
A new pool or spa with a capacity of less than 500 litres must not be filled. 
A new residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of between 500 and 2,000 litres must not be filled. 
A new residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled. 
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa with a volume equal to or less than 2000 litre capacity may be filled by means of a watering can or bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose). 
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled except in accordance with a Water Conservation Plan, prepared by the owner or occupier and approved by North East Water. 
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa must not be topped up except by means of a watering can or bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose). 

**Municipal Pool or Spa 
A new municipal pool or spa must not be filled. 
An existing municipal pool or spa must not be topped up except to the extent and in the manner approved by North East Water in writing. 

**Mobile Spa
A mobile spa with a capacity of between 500 and 2,000 litres must not be filled. 
A mobile spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled. 

**Water Toy
A water toy must not be used at any time .

**Dam or Tank
A dam or tank must not be filled or topped up, except: 
with the written permission of North East Water; or 
in the case of a dam or tank providing water for fire fighting, public health or stock, only to the extent which, in the opinion of North East Water is reasonably necessary to provide for those purposes. 

**Water Tanker
A water tanker must not be filled or topped up, unless; 
North East Water has granted a mobile water tanker permit to the operator of that tanker; and 
the tanker is supplying water to be used inside a dwelling or for fire fighting, stock watering, construction, or public health purposes. 

**Commercial Market Garden or Commercial or Council Plant Nursery
Water must not be used for watering any garden, plant stock, seeds or produce, except: 
a) if written permission of North East Water is obtained, by: 
an automatic or manual watering system used only as required for up to two hours per day; and 
in accordance with, and while displaying any signs required by, that written permission; or 
b) by hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or a watering can or bucket filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from the tap, at any time. 

**Vehicles
Water must not be used to clean any part of a vehicle other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only with a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose). 

**Commercial Car Wash
A commercial car wash must not use water to clean any part of a vehicle other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only with a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose). 

**Motor Vehicle Dealer
Water must not be used to clean any part of a vehicle in a motor vehicle dealership other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only by means of a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).

**Food Transport Vehicle
Water must not be used to clean inside a food transport vehicle except by means of; 
a high pressure water cleaning device; or 
a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, and only if such cleaning is necessary, either to avoid contamination of the vehicle’s contents or to ensure public safety. 

**Boat Motors
Water must not be used to flush the inboard or outboard motor of a vessel unless: 
a suitable receptacle filled by a hand-held hose is used or; 
a flushing device, connected to a hose is used, and the tap is turned off immediately after flushing is complete. 

**Hard Surface
Water must not be used to clean a hard surface unless cleaning is required as a result of: 
an accident, fire, health hazard, safety hazard or other emergency, and a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle is used. 

**Building Facade (including windows)
Water must not be used to clean a building faÃ§ade unless cleaning is required as a result of: 
a) an accident, fire, health hazard, safety hazard or other emergency, and either: 
a bucket, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap is used; or 
a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle is used. 

**Dust Suppression
Water must not be used to suppress dust, unless dust is causing a health or environmental hazard; and then only by means of: 
a water tanker permitted in accordance with item 11; or 
a hand-held hose, fitted with a trigger nozzle, or by a watering can, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap. 

**Construction
Water must not be used in construction except: 
by means of a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or by a bucket or other container, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap; or 
by construction equipment which requires a water supply for its safe and efficient operation. 

**Animal Husbandry
Water must not be used for animal husbandry except for: 
drinking by animals or birds; 
cleaning of animals or birds; 
cleaning pens, yards and cages, and then only if cleaning is done by means of a hose fitted with a trigger nozzle. 

**Commercial Poultry Farm
Water must not be used for cooling a shed on a commercial poultry farm except by means of: 
sprinklers used only for cooling and then only when the inside temperature reaches 30 oC and between the hours of 6am and 9pm; and 
fogging systems and cooling pads, which may be used at any time. 

**Other Purposes
Water must not be used for any other purpose without the prior written permission of North East Water._


So, lots of "cannot's, dont's" and dammed (sic) if you do! Absolutely no reference to bore water (don't know what the rules are for that). So, for us on town water, like I have indicated in previouys posts - it comes down to bucketing water out from the washing machine and bathtub (which we use as a receptacle for the buckets of water we collect from our showers!). My wife and I are approaching our 60's so we don't exactly like the idea of heaving countless heavy buckets around every few days to save a few precious shade trees!

Oh well. With a lack of political will and nous it was always going to come to this, wasn't it?

Chiz,

AJ


----------



## Julia (13 September 2007)

AussieJeff

That is really harsh.  I do feel for you.  Does the Vic government have a subsidised tank installation scheme?  e.g. in Qld there is a $1000 rebate for installing a tank.  Does it rain enough to even make it worthwhile?
I'd move to FNQ.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

a website on Traveston Dam (there are others of course)
THINK TANKS !! 
DAMN THE DAM !! etc 
http://www.themaryvalley.com.au/html/cms/103/traveston-crossing-dam-mary-river


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 September 2007)

Drat.

Looks like the farmers in northwest and central Vic are going to lose their crops. Only one week left for a miracle biblical proportions rainfall event to save the massive plantings they banked on when that late winter season rain and La Nina predictions by long range weather forecasters encouraged them to plant big time.

The weather charts look woeful for the next week or so, so not much hope....

I guess wheat and some other grain futures are likely to go further through the roof.

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> AussieJeff
> 
> That is really harsh.  I do feel for you.  Does the Vic government have a subsidised tank installation scheme?  e.g. in Qld there is a $1000 rebate for installing a tank.  Does it rain enough to even make it worthwhile?
> I'd move to FNQ.




Hi Julia,

Re: moving to FNQ - unfortunately, I'm allergic to cane toads..... (the hopping variety, of course!)  

With regards to water tank rebates...

"Households purchasing and installing a water tank from 1 January 2007 are now eligible for a rebate of up to $1000.
Water tanks can save up to 40,000 litres per household per year.

The rebate is based on the size of the tank and requires the tank to be connected to toilet and/or laundry facilities as follows:
Rainwater Tanks, 2000 – 4999 litre capacity, connected to toilet and/or laundry - $500 rebate
Rainwater Tanks, 5000+ litre capacity, connected to toilet or laundry - $900 rebate
Rainwater Tank 5000+ litre capacity, connected to toilet and laundry - $1000 rebate

The existing $150 rebate for tanks 600 litres or larger not connected for indoor use will still apply.
The rebates scheme is administered by the retail water authorities on behalf of the Government, in partnership with the Department of Sustainability and Environment."

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 September 2007)

Just a few points that seem to be missed here...

1. Australia has MORE water per head of population than any other inhabited continent.

2. ALL Australian capital cities and major irrigation districts would now have run COMPLETELY out of water if we had adopted a No Dams stance 100 years ago and not built any.

I can accept that dams most certainly do have an environmental impact. I've seen more dams than most and they ain't too pretty once you look below the suface (something that's easy to do given the drought).

But why is nobody mentioning the environmental impacts of _not_ building dams? They are certainly there. For example:

1. A house that crumbles as clay foundations shrink represents a truly massive environmental impact to build a replacement house. Even repairing it uses lots of materials and adds greenhouse gas emissions. And somewhere around half of all houses in some Melbourne suburbs are cracking up...

2. Tanks use vastly more materials to construct than a major dam per unit of water supplied. Worse still, the tanks are transported on oil-guzzling trucks from the factory to the house. In greenhouse terms it's anything but "green".

3. CSIRO research following the Canberra fires some years ago found that those who didn't water their lawns were the houses most likely to be burnt. The environmental impact of replacing those houses would likely exceed that of even desalinated water in terms of greenhouse gas emissions - houses are pretty destructive things to build.

And so on. There's two sides to this debate. No dams and you save the river but damage something else. Build dams and you flood the river but save something else. 

If you consider the overall impact of dams for urban water supply versus cars then it's no contest. Cars are the real environmental nasty. So why the stage 5 etc water restrictions but not even stage 1 car restrictions?

Many will argue it's because we live in a free society and it's not the role of government to tell people not to buy an SUV despite the environmental effects of such vehicles. If that's the case then how does it become the role of government to worry about the environmental effects of dams? It is after all far easier to rehabilitate a flooded valley than put oil and carbon dioxide back in the ground, a point that even the likes of No Dams champion Bob Brown have noted.

I just sense a high degree of double standards here and I've seen it before. Dams = bad but ignore other things that are far worse and even promote them as alternatives.

Consider the impact of road building and the amount of materials and land lost to roads. There's an incredibly strong case to argue against ever building more highways anywhere. Likewise there's an even stronger argument against the aviation industry. 

But for some reason we keep getting all worked up about dams. 

Go to an airport and just watch the planes landing and taking off whilst contemplating just how much oil they're burning in order to provide so little actual transport. 

Stand beside a busy highway hearing the noise, smelling the fumes and wondering what happend to the farm and before that forest that used to be there. 

Walk the city steets and note the incredible waste as perfectly good buildings are demolished. 

Visit a landfill and just gaze at the incredible waste of resources and destruction of a once-beautiful valley that's being filled in with literally rubbish.

Visit a new housing estate and just contemplate the construction of all the oversized, energy-guzzling buildings designed to not last very long anyway on land that used to be bush.

And go visit a few dams. 

Do this and I very much doubt you'll be too worried about the impact of the dams.


----------



## nioka (15 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> .
> 
> Australia has MORE water per head of population than any other inhabited continent.
> 
> ...




A good post. Wish Bob Brown could see it that way. Dams don't ruin the enviroment they CHANGE it. In most cases for the better.
 The same applies to a lot of forests too. I once asked a forester why they did so much monoculture and did not selectively log native forest and preserve the native forest. The answer was along the lines that all the forests they were doing that to were taken from them by the national parks and the best way to maintain their jobs was to clear fell and plant single species.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 September 2007)

I would consider myself as being moderately green. I'm certainly not in favour of development at any cost and there are quite a few things that I'd very much like to see the end of.

But let's be realistic. Fly over Sydney (or any other city) and then fly over some dams, power stations etc. You'll soon realise that it is the city itself that is the problem. The water and energy industries would never get away with doing the sort of damage that building the city itself has created. 

More to the point, if they were subject to a proper environmental assessment process then none of Australia's state capital cities would ever gain approval to be built. They destroyed massive areas of old growth forest, all were built right near rivers, all produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases, all produce toxic solid wastes constantly and most expose humans and the few remaining animals directly to toxic air pollutants. And none of them are even remotely sustainable in their present form. 

I don't hear anyone campaigning to stop the construction of cities. But they're happy to campaign against the dams, power stations, mills, mines, smelters and so on that are directly responsible for sustaining the city in the first place.



> The alienation of land by inundation behind a new dam seems to be regarded as much more objectionable than any other variety of change of use, not only in Tasmania but everywhere where hydro-electric power or water supply developments are undertaken. On the outskirts of towns, large tracts of very valuable agricultural land, especially market gardens, are lost every year under houses, schools, factories, and roads. The news that a great industrial concern has acquired a hundred acres of pasture for a new factory is acclaimed with joy by all local inhabitants; the threat of the loss of an equal area under water can rouse intense and prolonged opposition. All hydro-electric authorities are acutely aware of this phenomenon, and are accustomed to devote much thought and money towards the solution of the omnipresent problem of supplying the many with a minimum of distress to the few.




Those words were originally written in 1962. 45 years later we're still trying to get our collective minds around the inherently rather simple issue of land use. Let's hope we never have to deal with anything that's genuinely difficult, like peak oil or climate change.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. If you consider the overall impact of dams for urban water supply versus cars then it's no contest.
> 2. Cars are the real environmental nasty. So why the stage 5 etc water restrictions but not even stage 1 car restrictions?.........
> 3. I just sense a high degree of double standards here and I've seen it before. Dams = bad but ignore other things that are far worse and even promote them as alternatives.



smurf
as usual your post cover heaps 
1.  spot on with double standards re "why not car restrictions" - assuming that you are allowed to merge the argument for drought and environment - and I for one believe that they are linked indirectly even if atmosphere is not the only factor in the climatic change argument.  

And it's too urgent to bring cliamte change into this one.  We need water yesterday.   
Guess I'm all for tanks - though I don't have one personally (must look into that )  - least energy to make one would be nice , as you say. 

2. However, I'm also all for "demand management" i.e. clever water restrictions - no option imo - until we get our act together.-  desalinators , filtering stormwater runoff, whatever.  

People tell me stormwater runoff water is more difficult to filter than salt water.  I find that incredibly hard to believe.  surely easier to get rid ofa hint of perol or oil than dissolved salt by the bucketful. ??

3. My references to Traveston ? - mainly  feel sorry for the farmers.  And I guess I am always suspicious of political BS on these matters. i.e. If one pollie told me it was a good idea (arguably with political motve),

and another told me it wasn't ( eg Barnaby Joyce - with at least a track record of trying to be open, diligent, sincere and honest)  - then I'm more inclined to believe the latter  

(not that I agree with him on his beliefs ) - But I like the man nevertheless - prepared to fight against the "yesman mentality"  of party politics.  With the Libs having held both houses, Barnaby Joyce has been the only conscience in that place to TRY to keep SOME of the BASTARDS a fraction fair and honest (IMO).

But in the end, If it has to be, so be it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Guess I'm all for tanks - though I don't have one personally (must look into that )  - least energy to make one would be nice , as you say.



currently we use about 8 garbage bins out the back - keeps enough water for the garden (sheesh - if you can call a few struggling excuses for plants a garden)  Sydney is green of course at the moment, and Warragamba looking much healthier - forget the percentage full though

PS the dog prefers to drink from them than tap water - 
I keep telling her she needs the flouride for her teeth - but
you think she'll listen??
 no bludy way 
 typical woman 
and her mother was a real bitch I tell you


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> People tell me stormwater runoff water is more difficult to filter than salt water.  I find that incredibly hard to believe.  surely easier to get rid ofa hint of perol or oil than dissolved salt by the bucketful. ??



The trouble is that it's not just a bit of petrol and oil. 

Roads themselves slowly wear away adding blue metal and bitumen. Likewise tyre rubber which is full of all sorts of nasties.

Car brake dust builds up as does particles from exhausts.

So too the animal droppings, cigarette butts, spilled paint (and road marking paint as it wears off), tree leaves, plastic sawdust from water, gas and electrical construction works, spilled drinks, radiator coolant, concrete dust from construction works, human body fluids (including blood from accidents), general litter. 

It all goes into the stormwater system and that water is not presently treated (with one exception that I know of). 

Go to where the stormwater flows into the river / ocean during a high rainfall event following a dry period and the you'll easily see the visible plume discolouring the water. In Hobart it's been known to turn the Derwent brown well south of the casino (just imagine what goes down the drains in larger cities).

Part of the problem is the inconsistency of stormwater. We know what's in the ocean (a disgusting man-made mess by the way) but it changes little in the short term unless there's an oil spill etc. So no big deal to build a plant to treat the water of known quality and remove the salt etc.

But with storm water or sewage it's constantly changing. A cyanide spill into the system one day, petrol the next and rain after that. It's hard running _any_ industrial plant with a constantly changing feedstock. Differing quality coal into a boiler is hard enough. Differing quality water into a treatment plant that needs to maintain absolutely consistent quality of output doesn't make it easy.

And given that there's no shortage of sea water, the only point in treating storm water or sewage is if it's cheaper (financially and/or environmentally) than desalination.

Technically, there's nothing stopping a 100% renewable energy powered desalination plant. Politically it's difficult, too many people protesting about clean energy spoiling the scenery, but technically it's not at all difficult. 

Pipelines are also technically quite doable. There's plenty of water flowing into the sea all over the place that could be diverted without a single new large dam needing to be built. I'm not sure of the cost however.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> The trouble is that it's not just a bit of petrol and oil.  etc.  salt water easier etc



a) well my wife thinks you're wrong wrong wrong! lol

b) for mine,   ... you're promoted from "Mr 110%" to "Mr 115%" - 
i.e. 
when anyone asks you a question, you can tell em 115% more than they ever could have imagined lol 
(bit like a mate at work - gee but he's a great bloke to have around lol)
thanks btw.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 September 2007)

> *Permanent water bans for Sydney*
> 
> 
> Water restrictions in Sydney will become permanent because of climate change, NSW Premier Morris Iemma says.
> ...




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=227694


Wow isnt that just amazing ........

Wonder if this could have an effect on the population size of Sydney, one thing im thinking is that Gardening is one of the most common/popular pastimes - would people move enmasse to a place they can indulge?


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 September 2007)

Like... F.N.Q? 

I guess they could do with a few million more volunteers for the Cane Toad Corps!! haha.

AJ


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=227694
> 
> 
> Wow isnt that just amazing ........
> ...




As long as gardeners are still permitted to use irrigation systems/sprinklers at night, there's no problem.  It's a much more sensible time to water anyway.
But, yes, if the "buckets only" law were to become permanent, I do think keen gardeners would consider moving to FNQ.  I have seriously thought about it.


----------



## Whiskers (16 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> But let's be realistic. Fly over Sydney (or any other city) and then fly over some dams, power stations etc. You'll soon realise that it is the city itself that is the problem.
> 
> More to the point, if they were subject to a proper environmental assessment process then none of Australia's state capital cities would ever gain approval to be built.
> 
> I don't hear anyone campaigning to stop the construction of cities. But they're happy to campaign against the dams, power stations, mills, mines, smelters and so on that are directly responsible for sustaining the city in the first place.




I think the phrase you are looking for Smurf, is '*sustainable development*.' 

The problem is that Politicans mostly think of sustainable development in terms of money and their election prospects in cities. 

Rural areas and farms in particular have borne the brunt of the environmental sustainability arguement so far. Conserving and recyclicing irrigation water has been practiced for decades. But precious little water that falls over cities has been captured in tanks or recycled.

If politicans let the public engage in dialog in structured processes with professional facilitators, (referred to in a previous post) we would tend to get a much better balance between economic and environmental sustainability with planning decisions.

One reason why I don't support the Traverston dam (yet, if at all) is because the process is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## happytrader (16 September 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Like... F.N.Q?
> 
> I guess they could do with a few million more volunteers for the Cane Toad Corps!! haha.
> 
> AJ




Hi Aussiejeff

Wild boar have increased in number because hunters have been attracted to the mines. Apparently, we now need appropriate 'incentives' to attract them back.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## numbercruncher (16 September 2007)

happytrader said:


> Hi Aussiejeff
> 
> Wild boar have increased in number because hunters have been attracted to the mines. Apparently, we now need appropriate 'incentives' to attract them back.
> 
> ...





Im continually amazed by all these side effects emerging from the Mining boom, its really sucking labour from so many professions, from teachers to school leavers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 September 2007)

Whiskers said:


> The problem is that Politicans mostly think of sustainable development in terms of money and their election prospects in cities.
> 
> Rural areas and farms in particular have borne the brunt of the environmental sustainability arguement so far.



If you take out farms, forestry, power generation and one or two specific industrial processes (notably pulp mills) then we haven't had much of a debate about the environment at all.

Even with those things, I'd argue that we haven't pursued _sustainability_ so much as _conservation_. 

The two are not the same and in some cases are at odds with each other.

Looking at some of the big environment versus development battles as examples it's clear that conservation, not sustainability, has been the outcome. I'm not judging right or wrong, just making an observation.

The Franklin dam, Wesley Vale pulp mill and the endless debate over foresty in Tas are all classic examples (and are themselves the ultimate in the conservation movement's acheivements thus far).

A magnificent wild river saved. Clearly a conservation "win" there. But coming at the price of the equivalent of 800,000,000 litres of oil burned every year forever hardly makes it an improvement in sustainability.

A pulp mill scrapped. Another conservation "win" there. But the end result is shipping wood to Japan and importing pulp from Indonesia. All of which is burning far more fossil fuel than if the pulp were produced locally. And of course someone else, somewhere else is producing the pulp not produced at Wesley Vale. A win for conservation but not a win for sustainability in practice. And arguably somewhat deceptive too - most Australians likely being unaware that there is already a pulp mill at Wesley Vale that has been there since the early 1970's.

Forestry is another one. Certainly a conservation win to protect the forests. No doubt about that. But by pursuing a pro-tourism anti-foresty and anti hydro-industrialisation strategy the end result is more non-renewable, polluting oil burned in order to leave renewable water and wood resources untouched. Certainly a win for conservation but it hasn't improved sustainability over the long term.

Wind farms in Victoria are much the same. Scenery isn't permanently damaged - take then down in 50 years and the scenery is back straight away. But don't build them and that's more coal and gas burnt and more pollution emitted. Another win for conservation at the expense of sustainability.

I think we'll end up having to seriously re-evaluate our priorities here. Once peak oil and/or climate change hits in a big way I doubt there will be too much concern about scenery and the focus will shift to sustainability. In doing so that shifts the focus of action largely to the cities and for that reason it won't be popular even though it will be unavoidable.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 September 2007)

Well, the last two prayed-for rainfall events never happened. No more than a handful of mils widely scattered over the Murray Darling Basin in the past week and a half.

The forward looking computer models are looking a bit sick now too - only a chance of some showers (who knows how heavy) around the 26th Sep, then practically nada after that for the foresee-able short term future. 

As of the last couple of days, Hume Dam water is now being released continually due to lower Murray River irrigators demanding their water authority "guaranteed 20% entitlements" be met - or else they will march on governements both state and federal. Unfortunately for us all, the dam has topped out at only 27% - it will be all down hill fairly rapidly from that figure unless the Biblical Event occurs - and Dartmouth Dam providing minimal backup with a paltry 16% that is barely creeping higher does not instil much hope for what water we might be left with in 9 months time!

Ho-hum. One can only imagine the media and press rumblings from farmers/growers/irrigators in the MDB once we really hit summer and the allocations across the MDB are cut by emergency measures to 0%.... This is all looking a bit dejavu to me.



AJ


----------



## macca (20 September 2007)

Hi Jeff,

Yes it is grim alright, EXCEPT if you are in Queensland, up there they are holding an auction to sell off more water rights to the irrigators.

Too bad for the farmers further down the Murray- Darling basin, talk about grounds for a range war 

Oh well, the Liberals did try to put an MD Authority in place but I think party politics killed that !! 

Too bad for the farmers, then again, they all vote National Party, so why should Labor care about them


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 September 2007)

macca said:


> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Yes it is grim alright, EXCEPT if you are in Queensland, up there they are holding an auction to sell off more water rights to the irrigators.
> 
> ...




One wonders if those lucky QLD'ers who are smiling ATM as they sell off their water rights in a frenzied auction will start to frown in the future when the next big drought hits QLD (just a matter of time IMO) and they have NO hope of buying those rights back again - probably EVER! Will they wish they hadn't grabbed for the $$$ now?

Oh well ... ces't la vie! 

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## robert toms (20 September 2007)

One person on this thread talked about sustainability.With reduced rainfall likely in the future ,it is time to look seriously at what is, and what is not economically sustainable in the Murray-Darling .
The real cost of farming rice and cotton in Australia...value per litre of water used....does not stack up.The Murray- Darling plan seems to entrench and encourage these greedy crops....the plan will concrete their chanels etc to supposedly reduce water loss through seepage.These savings,if any,can never be quantified.(12% of irrigation water goes on rice alone,with 2000 families growing)
Perhaps we should have a last on ,first off ,rule for irrigators....this happens with workers.
I can remember thinking what madness it was when the National Party in 1997
used the slogan in the Riverina for a looming election "Zap the Cap".
It was the water rush that was never going to end!
As I have said before on this thread SA stopped issuing new water licences in 1973...no other state did!
What you will never get from politicians is an effective ,rational Murray-Darling policy.An independent water authority was the only way to go to address over-allocation of diminishing water flows.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 September 2007)

well my father has just decided if he can recieve $2500 per megalitre for his water he will sell it all and invest the money into a bank/managed fund and live off the interest, and carry out a little bit of other small cash work.

he has being growing for 20years, but thinks that a change is in order, as there is no assurance that the river system will get back into good health.


----------



## Julia (20 September 2007)

prawn_86 said:


> well my father has just decided if he can recieve $2500 per megalitre for his water he will sell it all and invest the money into a bank/managed fund and live off the interest, and carry out a little bit of other small cash work.
> 
> he has being growing for 20years, but thinks that a change is in order, as there is no assurance that the river system will get back into good health.



We will all be the poorer for people like your father withdrawing from growing, Prawn.  Completely understandable.
Hope all goes well for him from now on.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 September 2007)

Things are starting to look pretty drastic. It's mid-September and it looks like storage levels have peaked in the Murray system at a dreadfully low level that makes even last Summer look incredibly good in comparisson.

Not just the Murray either. 3mm in Hobart today and the Bureau of Meteorology started getting excited that this was one of the "best" falls of rain. 3mm!!!! Meanwhile the entire state of Tas is now drought declared from an agricultural perspective, lack of clouds having largely thwarted the plans for increased cloud seeding. 

Overall, it looks pretty drastic across most of NSW, Vic, SA and Tas for this Summer. Not at all good in parts of Qld either. Either some serious rain falls real soon or we're in big trouble. 

And then there's the question of fires this Summer...


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 September 2007)

The drought was headlining all over the regional news today. Apparently John Howard announced things were critical and all the farmers are cheering that he has acknowledged that fact!

Unfortunately, the sudden flurry of political comment has led to a profusion of "guarantees" being made. I'll throw the damn radio out the back door if I hear another expert talking about "GUARANTEEING" something which CANNOT be guranteed (eg sufficient rainfall)!

For instance, a plethora of....

(a)  Local government politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(b)  State politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(c)  Federal politicians "GUARANTEEING" that they will provide water to farmers/irrigators to allow them to stay on their land "until next year".

(d)  Some weather forecasters all but "GUARANTEEING" that siginificant rain WILL fall one day and save farmers/irrigators, thus allowing them to stay on their land "until next year".

(e)  Adelaide/South Australia demanding "GUARANTEES" that upper Murray authorities release plenty of Hume/Dartmouth water to slake their needs.

(f)  Numerous Water Authorities "GUARANTEEING" they will do everything to "GUARANTEE" the viability of downstream irrigators/farmers (the little water in Hume is now being released to GUARANTEE the promised downstream allocations - then Dartmouth will have to be released to top up the empty Hume etc).

What is wrong with our society where everything has to be bloody-well "GUARANTEED"? Where has our adaptability gone? Aussies were renowned in past generations during the late 1800's for their resilience and adaptability. Seems like the "good, easy life" in recent years has led to a situtation where we cannot get on with life without bloody "GUARANTEES". 

Really, people have to bite the bullet and start putting SENSIBLE priorities on what water gets allocated for. For instance, as much as it might hurt those of you who imbibe a bit, I don't think wine grape growers (who are supporting a "non-life essential" industry) should be allocated water ahead of farmers growing beef/sheep or wheat (who provide pretty much "life-essential" food). Of course, the procedure of prioritising will hurt a lot of farmers/irrigators - I really do sympathise with many of them - especially those on the generational properties where the children are handed down the farm - but we HAVE to make a start sooner rather than later. 

This big hole we now find ourselves slipping into is a bit like Ben Bernanke saying "I didn't see the sub-prime loan crisis coming"! - give me a break! How many years was that brewing?     

Sigh...


AJ


----------



## robert toms (21 September 2007)

Overuse of water,etc....There is a place called Lake Culleraine,in Vic,between Mildura and Renmark.Besides having a large evaporation pond,or shallow man-made lake for recreation ,they decided to grow grapes there.All the big boys got licences about ten years ago,BRL Hardy,southcorp ,Tandou etc.I know that Hardy ,not one of the biggest growers,got 3,200 megs...so I guess 20000 megs or two gigs was let there relatively recently...Boundary Bend has expanded heavily during the last few years.
How did Timbercorp,Select Harvests etc get their licences ?
I can remember when there were no irrigation channels on the Hay plains...now the desert is riddled with them.
The Murrumbidgee at Balranald is a fetid,stagnant drain,even in the good times.
This  crisis has been coming on for a long time....Greed is more powerful than common sense.
On $2500  a megalitre for water...the shire council in the NSW town that I lived in last year called for tenders and sold water from their bore (on the river flats) for $50 a megalitre...the contracts were for three years.The market rate at that time was $350 a meg.But no matter the mayor said,it will rain next year and this will be forgotten?
Too many people,and governments, have not even understood  or respected the value of water...and I have not even mentioned the environment yet !


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 September 2007)

From AAP today:

_"THE Victorian Government has angrily rejected claims by South Australia that it is acting irresponsibly in refusing to sign up to the national water agreement.

SA Premier Mike Rann has accused his Victorian counterpart John Brumby of gambling on the drought breaking, adding Victoria had to recognise SA's perilous situation with Adelaide dependent on the Murray River for its drinking water. 

In a letter to Mr Brumby, Mr Rann urged him to end the current impasse and the “fingers crossed” approach to planning water supplies.

And he called on Victoria to agree to the federal takeover of the Murray-Darling Basin, saying he believed “it is irresponsible for anyone to somehow just gamble on the future that next year there won't be a drought”.

A spokeswoman for Mr Brumby said the Victorian Government did not agree to the assertions made by Mr Rann in his letter.

“There are no immediate threats to Adelaide's water supply. Two weeks ago the South Australian Government relaxed water restrictions in Adelaide,” she said.

“It is completely unacceptable to expect Victorian irrigators to give up 200 gigalitres of water for what might or might not be required next autumn in South Australia.”

She said Victorian farmers desperately needed their allocations and taking them away now would cripple their industries and livelihoods.

“South Australia and the Federal Government proposal will take water off irrigators, immediately killing orchards and crippling the region for more than a decade,” Mr Brumby's spokeswoman said.

“What the Commonwealth wants is to take 200 gigalitres of water, worth at least $300 million on the open market, from Victorian irrigators without compensation and give it free to South Australia for next year.”_

Crikey. The pollies are at each other and summer hasn't even started! 

Not only that, but now Victorian towns along the Murray River system are set to ease water restrictions to Stage 3a (I believe that means allowing 2hrs hand or dripper watering on one day a week...) by being allowed to buy higher water allocations on the open market and recoup the cost by charging all town residents by a flat fee in their rates - about $30-$40 extra per year. 

This situation has come about because a few towns along the Murray that were panicking about how Level 4 restrictions would severely hurt some town industries and disadvantage sporting clubs etc decided to state in the media that they would purchase water for themselves and reduce restrictions in their towns. Of course, once one township says this, all the rest were bound to follow! So, I wonder if after the water restrictions are reduced (apparently in early October) and have been in place a few months and people/industries  are still *hurting*, whether MORE water will be purchased to reduce the restrictions even further.

It seems the Great Water Battle of 2007-2008 is just starting folks.... 

Glug, glug....

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 September 2007)

A correction to my previous post, courtesy of todays radio announcement - Northeast Water has stated that easing of restrictions will mean gardens in Wodonga can be watered for ONE hour TWICE a week (not TWO hours ONCE a week as I posted above) starting from Sat 13th and Sun 14th October (presumably on the alternating ODDS-EVENS house numbering system).  

No clarification of allowed times for watering have been announced yet under the proposed Stage 3a restrictions (I would guess it will be sometime between 8pm and 6am on the designated days).

AJ


----------



## robert toms (26 September 2007)

Yes ,you are right,the water wars are just starting.
South Australian  restrictions were changed from only being able to water with buckets to now being able to water gardens with drippers (not sprinklers) over two periods on a Saturday...5am to 8am and 6pm to 9pm.
Victoria uses six times as much water from the Murray-Darling as does South Australia.
Well may Brumby back  his irrigators...successive Victorian governments have enabled the gluttony and corruption that has seen the over-allocation of water in Victoria.
Last year when South Australia had restrictions,Victorian river towns were still open slather.


----------



## macca (26 September 2007)

And Queensland are auctioning more water rights, so both Vic and SA will get less water to fight over.

Well, the Federal Libs tried, but the States are too selfish


----------



## prawn_86 (26 September 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> For instance, as much as it might hurt those of you who imbibe a bit, I don't think wine grape growers (who are supporting a "non-life essential" industry) should be allocated water ahead of farmers growing beef/sheep or wheat (who provide pretty much "life-essential" food). Of course, the procedure of prioritising will hurt a lot of farmers/irrigators - I really do sympathise with many of them - especially those on the generational properties where the children are handed down the farm - but we HAVE to make a start sooner rather than later.
> AJ




Jeff,
I will admit that i have a slight bias here as my father is an irrigator in the Riverland, but hopefully i can present a non-biased arguement.

I agree that in conditions like this water does need to allocated to the best possible means, and if that means less for farmers/growers so be it. 

However, I myself live in Adelaide (for uni), and you see here that people complian that they cant water their lawns or their gardens and then the government gives them an extra night to water, and how many people actually follow the restricitions? If they were serious about restrictions they would say no garden watering AT ALL and police it strictly. After all who cares if some roses dies, when other peoples income and livelihood are at stake.

Water mains is another issue which comes to find. The government hasnt had enough forsight to replace them over the past and now they are bursting regulary wasting gigalitres in total.

The problem in my opinion lies with the government, both state and federal. I dont want to get too political, but pollies these days are only worried about their own skins and dont want to step out and do something drastic. This complacency is costing the country in more ways than one (ie broadband infrastructure). I dont have a political bias, as i think they are both as bad as each other and never deliver what they promise anyway.

I am fine with cutting off water to irrigators, HOWEVER, if this happens, then they should be adequately compensated, not only for income, but loss of assets (plantings etc). 

Current legal avenues are being explored in the Riverland, as the government has a duty of care to all those it governs, not just the majority of voters in the cities. If they cannot provied for the people in the riverland, by use of forward planning (we have been in a drought for over 5 years now!) then they should have to compensate.

I would be interested in peoples opinions on where the irrigators stand legally. IE do you think that they could/should sue the government?

enjoy

Shaun


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 September 2007)

Hi prawn 86...

I totally agree with your comments on state and federal politicians being predominantly responsible for the water allocation and infrastructure stuff-ups that are now coming (so frustratingly predictably) to a head. 

Why oh why can't we have a system where government ministers in charge of ANYTHING are required to pass at least a basic "Fit To Govern" test or somefink? I REALLY would like to be governed by EXPERTS in their respective portfolios.... sigh...

I reckon irrigators who have been promised water allocations and who have paid for those allocations would technically and morally be feeling entitled to sue for compensation. But in the end, we have given so much power to governments, I'm guessing they would have any number of "excuses" to dud them - such as _"it's in the interests of Australia's National Security not to pay massive amounts of compensation to irrigators. They should take the $150,000 exit funds and be happy"_ - or some such similar sounding drivel...   

Like I said before, I really feel sorry for any farm water users/irrigators who have been hoodwinked up to this point into purchasing expensive allocations that may now be never realised, by a succession of state and federal governments (using bandaid funding and endless soothing placations) into believing _"it will be allright - just hang on till next year - the rain WILL fall"_. It makes me mad to STILL be hearing this sort of thing from agriculture ministers etc.. and the CSIRO has just released yet another report confirming the forward outlook is for PERMANENT drier and hotter conditions in the coming years across northern and eastern Australia. Will the governments EVER listen to the recommendations that endless scientific and technical committees advise to them?

IMO, as many others in the forum are also concluding, the management of our water in the future by totally inept governments is only likely to get worse. So, not an uplifting commentary by me I'm afraid. I think only God knows the answer... we humans are doing a pretty crap job right now! 

AJ


----------



## prawn_86 (26 September 2007)

Like i said earlier, my father has decided to sell his water if he can get a certain price.

he believes, as do I, that there is just as much chance of it not raining, as there is of it raining, over the next 5 - 10 years. The other problem is, we need approx 5 years of above average rainfall just to get us back to where we were 5 years ago, so odds of that happening are slim to nothing.

the thing with government excuses is that there may be a slight precedent for a payout. Im not very good with my law and although it is across industrys, the horse flu epidemic got funding instantly without even a second thought from the gov. Surely irrigators are entitled to the same, considering the problems are majority caused by the gov whereas horse flu wasnt.

if average rainfall was a stock, i would be shorting it!


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 September 2007)

prawn_86 said:


> Jeff,
> Water mains is another issue which comes to find. The government hasnt had enough forsight to replace them over the past and now they are bursting regulary wasting gigalitres in total.
> 
> The problem in my opinion lies with the government, both state and federal. I dont want to get too political, but pollies these days are only worried about their own skins and dont want to step out and do something drastic.



The big problem is NIMBY and BANANA when it comes to major infrastructure.

Just try and build a dam, power station, oil refinery, transmission line, factory or whatever. The BANANA mob will be out in force the day it's announced. 

But they'll never accept immediate and permanent rationing as an alternative so the end result is always the same - the infrastructure is pushed harder and harder until it breaks. In that context water's broken, power has some nasty cracks but is still going so far. Transport isn't good either though it still mostly works.

That the Greens wanted some sort of socioeconomic impact study done into proposed cloud seeding over drought affected agricultural areas in Tas highlights what I'm saying. Now let's get this straight... Worst drought in living memory, farmers facing ruin, a real risk of major fires this Summer and the Greens want a study done before anyone tries to make it rain. And they'd have to know full well that it will be far too late by the time any such study is completed. Thankfully they've been ignored.

Think not being able to water the garden is bad? Just wait untill you get home (walking since the transport stopped working) on one of those scorching hot summer days in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide and find the fridge defrosted and no air-conditioning either. It's coming as are many other major infrastructure problems due to the incompetence of politicians, the excessive undemocratic influence of BANANA groups and outright arrogance of those who willfully consume whilst opposing production (of anything). 

Not to worry though, the Vic government will be ending the proper scientific-based management of Melbourne's water restrictions and moving instead to a politically determined approach. That ain't going to help one bit in the long term, actually it will make it worse. Already they're promising not to make the restrictions too harsh. There's a fair chance of this ending in an outright disaster with the dams running completely dry in the pursuit of votes. 

IMO the Vic Govt politicians should hear about water restrictions the same way as everyone else, on the news, and the government has no proper say in the matter whatsoever unless they can demonstrate that they've done some proper modelling and storage simulation before commenting.

Just wait until we've got a real problem to deal with. Anyone willing to bet that NSW, Vic, Tas, SA and parts of Qld don't have major fires this Summer? You don't need to venture far into the bush to realise how dry it is - and it's only September.

Or that we don't end up with a major problem with crumbling houses in the capital cities as everything dries out and the clay shrinks?


----------



## prawn_86 (28 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Just wait until we've got a real problem to deal with. Anyone willing to bet that NSW, Vic, Tas, SA and parts of Qld don't have major fires this Summer? You don't need to venture far into the bush to realise how dry it is - and it's only September.




i just went home for the uni holidays and already it looks like it is the middle of summer after a week of 45 degree temperatures. Considering 'winter' just finished most things would have been lush and green five years ago.


----------



## Happy (28 September 2007)

Biggest problem is that gum trees are such successful grower, which out-competes many other plants.
Year round oil filled leaves are dropped, so it looks that we get fires that we have to have.

I heard that California declared our gum trees a weed and they try to eradicate them.

Should we do the same thing?
(We do all other things in lock step, so would be logical here too)


----------



## doogie_goes_off (28 September 2007)

Yep, victorian blue gums are labelled "useless" trees over there, they were originally taken over to be grown as mine timbers during the gold rush. Lucky they sent inferioir wood or everyone would want more. Keep the gum trees, let the trees burn, that's how they regenerate, it's only us pesky humans that aren't used to it. We need to push the boundaries for traditional industry. Lets make tassie the new wheat capital.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 September 2007)

A serious question here. What are we all going to do if this drought is still going this time next year?

By that time the Murray storages will be completely empty. What happens to the farmers who are completely ruined financially? What happens to all those  towns and other businesses that depend on farmers?

Agriculture will be all but ruined in SE Australia. What happens to the poor who can not afford more expensive food?

The Snowy will be dry and modest power shortages are then inevitable, especially in NSW but also Vic and SA depending on other factors whilst prices could increase sharply especially in Tasmania. What happens to the elderly and others whose lives are at risk from blackouts or who can no longer afford to stay warm in Winter? 

Brisbane and Adelaide will be in serious trouble with urban water supply to the point of it being an outright crisis threatening essential usage. What are we going to do to ensure enough water for basic hygene to avoid the spread of disease?

And what about fires? Should we not be buying more equipment and training more firefighters now rather than waiting until we're surrounded by smoke and flames before throwing money around?

Overall, I think there's a real need to plan now for the worst since that's where we seem to be heading. We can't force the drought to end but I do think it's time to think about a fair system of allocating the available food, water and power and providing financial assistance in some cases to ensure that everyone gets through until whenever it does rain.


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 September 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> A serious question here. What are we all going to do if this drought is still going this time next year?
> 
> By that time the Murray storages will be completely empty. What happens to the farmers who are completely ruined financially? What happens to all those  towns and other businesses that depend on farmers?
> 
> ...




Hi Smurf1976..

Serious questions indeed... but here's  a blindingly obvious one the authorities seem loath to even consider. Just a day or so ago, the Murray Darling Basin Commission's CEO Wendy CraiK stated that *"We have not even considered a contingency plan for what might happen if our dams run dry"*.

WHAT THE????? 

These flamin' eejits HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THAT POSSIBILITY, OR SPENT THE TIME ORGANISING FOR THAT EVENT BECAUSE IT MIGHT SHOW THEM UP AS HAVING BEEN TOTALLY INCOMPETENT WATER MANAGERS TO GET TO THAT POINT? 

LMAO... what a bunch of tossers. As the daft old Jock from Dad's Army would say: _"We're all DOOOMED, I tell ye... DOOOOMED!"_ 

Well, if these Water Muppets are going to have a bury-their-collective-heads/asses-in-the-burning-sands-attitude and not even consider the worst case scenario, the old Jock's words might be more prophetic than WE wish to know.

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 October 2007)

_Monday 1 October, 2007 

*Allocation Updates Announced* 

Goulburn-Murray Water today increased seasonal allocations in the Goulburn and Murray systems, and eased delivery restrictions in the Broken and Loddon systems. Customers in the Campaspe system received a small allocation. The Bullarook Creek system remains at zero allocation. 

The Goulburn system allocation was increased by 3% to 23% and the gravity irrigation season extended to 30 April 2008. The allocation in the Murray system is 16% of high-reliability water shares, an increase of 6%._

Can you believe it? The CSIRO and others are forecasting permanent drier conditions and these WALLYS are INCREASING allocations of irrigation water with significantly REDUCING inflows. 

What the hell are these "experts" thinking? The head of Goulburn-Murray *hopes* that rain will fall. How perceptive of him..... he deserves a pay rise for that.


AJ


----------



## nioka (2 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hi Smurf1976..
> 
> Serious questions indeed... but here's  a blindingly obvious one the authorities seem loath to even consider. Just a day or so ago, the Murray Darling Basin Commission's CEO Wendy CraiK stated that *"We have not even considered a contingency plan for what might happen if our dams run dry"*.
> 
> ...




Look at it this way: If the dams run dry we are at exactly the same position as the "no dams" brigade would have had us if they had their way. BUILD MORE DAMS.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2007)

six months ago, you couldn't get the coaltion to say the words "global warming" 

Now CSIRO predicts as follows  - massive increase in droughts in our children's lifetimes (gee I'm surprised there are any scientists left in CSIRO after the Libs decimated them in the mid 1990's ) 
and btw the temperature increase in our grandchildren's lifetimes is just a nightmare scenario 


> The report says eastern Australia will face 40 per cent more drought months by 2070, while south-western Australia will face 80 per cent more drought months




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048706.htm?section=justin


> Warming 'inevitable' in Australia
> Posted 1 hour 15 minutes ago
> Updated 40 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 October 2007)

In the short term, it appears that water system management INFLEXIBILITY is what is really going to hurt us. It appears that most water management authorities are "tied to the wheel" as it were - and seem incapable of adapting reasonably quickly to weather events that sit outside their predicted "norms". They appear to make future contracts and allocations for water they DON'T EVEN KNOW WILL BE THERE - it's only PREDICTED by them to be available based on PAST weather history. When it doesn't arrive they throw their hands in the air and sputter _"We couldn't foresee this happening!"_ Total bollocks. Any good scout knows the saying BE PREPARED! 

_"But it (water availability) has always been there in the past"_ they argue, wringing their hands.... well, enough is enough - maybe it IS time some EXPERT over-riding Federal Authority was created to galvanise water management in this country. Mind you, everything regarding water has been allowed to deteriorate into such a convoluted mess that resolving most of the issues (rights/infrastructure etc) in the short term might just be too hard? For example it's all very well for State Authorities saying "Oh, we will have sea water desal up and running in 5 years.." but what the hell are we going to do for water in the meantime? Well, all indications are that in the meantime, the state's populations will keep blowing out and the rainfall and inflows are likely to keep falling - THAT'S what might happen! 

For heavens (and our towns) sakes, authorities have to bite the bullet and actually say (rather than just threaten to say) _"We apologise to our farmers and irrigators for misleading them about this years allocations - unfortunately no more water is going to be let out of these dams for cropping and irrigation unless decent rainfalls and inflows occur"._ Then deal with the expensive water allocations class actions in court as they arise. It will come to this anyway. So they may as well start the process NOW while there is still a little bit of dam water left up their collective sleeves.

Sigh...

AJ


----------



## Happy (2 October 2007)

I saw report that the Moon dust could be spread in upper atmosphere in a band to block about 1 hour’s sunshine per day.

It was also mentioned that extra sun will be reflected toward the Earth with this band, but balance sunshine will be down.

Of course hard to get it right, since it was never done on purpose, but if I remember it right one ice age had something to do with ash spewed into the atmosphere, so it is doable.


----------



## Kimosabi (3 October 2007)

Well this is a little bit embarrassing, it turns out Antarctica is getting cooler since 1957 and the Sea Ice has reached it's highest levels since they started keeping records.

So much for global warming, I think we should be worried about the Sea Ice spreading to Southern Australia...



> *Globe cooling in places*
> 
> Alex Gordon, materials Engineering IV Tuesday
> 18 September 2007
> ...




I'm sorry, but after taking into consideration Global Warming throughout the Solar System and articles like the one above, Global Warming has nothing to do with Global Warming and everything to do with Taxing an essential gas for all life on our Planet by the same people who have suppressed all of the alternative energy sources and have done the most to destroy our planet anyway....


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 October 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Well this is a little bit embarrassing, it turns out Antarctica is getting cooler since 1957 and the Sea Ice has reached it's highest levels since they started keeping records.
> 
> So much for global warming, I think we should be worried about the Sea Ice spreading to Southern Australia...
> 
> ...





**Hi Kimosabi...I took the liberty of highlighting the above section in your quote because perhaps it's worth noting that we are just starting to come out of a *SOLAR MINIMUM* activity cycle (the solar activity cycle is 11 years peak to peak). Yet during this MINIMUM activity period, our average temp across Australia for Jan-Sep has been the highest recorded according to CSIRO - and Arctic regional ice melting is apparently on the largest scale ever recorded. We see and hear many reports on how glaciers in the northern hemisphere are vanishing rapidly and the northern pack ice has been recently disappearing at an alarming rate. If this is happening during a period of VERY LOW solar activity, one can only wonder how the world climate will be travelling in 2011-2012, when we will once again be experiencing the full effect of a *SOLAR MAXIMUM*.

I do tend to agree with you that having suppressed the world's alternative energy technologies for so long, world governments will now tax the hell out of whatever gas suits their purposes!

AJ


----------



## Happy (3 October 2007)

> Kimosabi
> 
> And since 2002, the Larsen Ice sheet has refrozen and even grown. This past year has seen cold and snow records set in Australia, South America, and Africa—facts that received very little play in the news.




It was reported somewhere, that northern and southern hemisphere’s air circulation is restricted to that hemisphere.

Since most of the industrial activity is in northern hemisphere and majority of population lives there, with their cars, houses and all the other heat outpouring processes, it is possible that that activity takes part in warming.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 October 2007)

Well, here is the latest *GRIM* MDBC report...

At last, towards the end of the report there is a comment about the slim possibility that the "unforeseen" worst drought on record *might* actually continue into 2008-2009 (see the forecast warning in the last paragraph) and that the authorities will have to look at the contingencies in case of that critical event. HOORAY!

Note that the maintenance of Adelaide's water supply and quality still appears to be the primary concern within the report.

Cheers?

AJ


----------



## happytrader (9 October 2007)

A business unit of Townsville City Council 
Water Restrictions
Current status is: Level 2 water restrictions


Townsville has five levels of water restrictions
Odds and evens water restrictions apply at all five levels.

Level 1 - When Ross River Dam is more than 20%.

Sprinkers permitted any time of day.

Handheld watering permitted anytime. 


Level 2 - When Ross River Dam is below 20%.

Ban on sprinklers between 9am to 4pm on all days.

Handheld watering permitted anytime.

Target consumption is 140 ML/d. 


Level 3 - When Ross River Dam is 10%.

Ban on sprinklers between 9am to 4pm on all days,
plus increased policing of water restrictions.

Handheld watering permitted anytime.

Target consumption is 120 ML/d. 


Level 4 - When Ross River Dam is 5%.

Sprinklers may only be used between 6.30am-7.30am and 6.30pm-7.30pm.

Handheld watering permitted anytime.

Target consumption is 120 ML/d. 


Level 5 - When Ross River Dam is at 3.5%.

Sprinkers not permitted.

Hand held watering permitted between 6.30am-7.30am and 6.30pm-7.30pm.

Target consumption is 100 ML/d. 
ML/d = megalitres (1,000,000 litres) per day

We offer Water Saving Tips and the Watersmart pages for more tips on saving water.

Even though we are only on level 2 watering restrictions at the moment and they are quite lenient, I notice there is a growing awareness of the need to conserve water and its basically because we can.

I now have friends inviting me over to check out their latest acquisitions - the water tank. I'm not sure whether I'll go that far yet. I'm only at the recycling the greywater stage so far. 

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## ghotib (9 October 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Well this is a little bit embarrassing, it turns out Antarctica is getting cooler since 1957 and the Sea Ice has reached it's highest levels since they started keeping records.
> 
> So much for global warming, I think we should be worried about the Sea Ice spreading to Southern Australia...
> 
> ...




I'm sorry too Kimosabi, because the evidence is overwhelming that global warming has everything to do with global warming and we'll be lucky if taxes are the worst of our worries. 

According to an IPCC report as at February this year, Antarctic ice is still within normal variability. That's fortunate; it's the only ice system that is. It's also by a long way the largest, so you'd expect it to be the last to change. Waiting for the Antarctic ice sheet to start showing abnormal melting is about as sensible as waiting for the Commonwealth Bank to go bust before re-pricing risk. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 October 2007)

Funny how in the last two weeks since the last post in this thread, Goulburn Valley Water has gone ahead and ruffled a lot of feathers in country Victoria by lowering water restrictions to Stage 1 (see partial extract of announcemount below) while many other major centres are on Level 3a or 4!  

-----------------------------------

_*Water Restrictions Eased to Stage 1*

15 October 2007

Goulburn Valley Water has announced that water restrictions for towns supplied from the Goulburn System, including Alexandra, Avenel, Colbinabbin, Congupna, Corop, Dookie, Eildon, Girgarre, Goulburn Weir (Baxter’s Rd), Katandra West, Kirwan’s Bridge, Kyabram, Mangalore, Merrigum, Molesworth, Mooroopna, Murchison, Nagambie, Rushworth, Seymour, Shepparton, Stanhope, Tallarook, Tallygaroopna, Tatura, Tongala & Toolamba will be eased from Stage 2 to Stage 1 effective Saturday 20 October 2007.

Goulburn Valley Water’s Managing Director, Mr Laurie Gleeson said that the Corporation has made this decision primarily for two reasons. 

“Firstly, inflows into Lake Eildon during winter this year have been significantly higher than in 2006. Our allocation is therefore much better now than anticipated in April 2007 when severe water restrictions were introduced,’ he said.  “Secondly, the Corporation decided last season to conserve and carryover around 4,500 megalitres for use by our customers this year.” 

“The combination of an improved seasonal allocation and the decision to carryover water from last year means that our 2007/2008 water allocation is sufficient to supply water to our customers in the towns on the Goulburn System on Stage 1 water restrictions and still provide some carryover for next year.”_

---------------------------

Like all the other water authorities around the place, Goulburn Valley Water seem predominantly preoccupied with "managing" (or fiddling in my opinion) with that amount of water which might have collected in storage sufficient to last "until next year" or even possibly part of the following year. I am continually at a loss to understand how in this parched land our "authorities" can see fit to release with gay abandon what appears to me to be a very precious currency - WATER - based on little more than the hoped for level of storage for the next year!

IMO any authorities restrictions countrywide should stay in place UNTIL AT LEAST 3 YEARS OF FORWARD GUARANTEED WATER CAPACITY has been collected in a storage system. At the moment though, they seem to have a head-buried-in-the-sand mentality and seem "pleased" to announce such comforting platitudes as "there is enough water in storage to last into next year so we will release water for downstream irrigators who are demanding their rights and to towns that are willing to pay more for this stored water"...

How they can be *happy* to "manage" some of these catchments (eg: be somewhat profligate in release of precious water) on what has really become a year by year critical situation in many areas of the country beggars belief.

The latest report by the Murray Darling Basin Commission released 17th Oct supports this view:

----------------------------------

_Rainfall and Inflows

During the past week, up to 50 mm of rain fell across the Darling Downs in south-east Queensland. However, the response in river flows has been small. In contrast, most areas in the southern half of the Basin received less than 5 mm of rain. During the past 2 ½ months the southern Basin has suffered a severe dry spell. Yarrawonga, for instance, has received only 11 mm of rain during this period compared with a long term average of about 120 mm. As a result of the continuing dry conditions, *inflow to the River Murray System during the past week was only 36 GL, compared with the long term weekly average for October of 365 GL*.

River Operations

During the week, Dartmouth storage volume increased by 5 GL, and is now at 18 % capacity
(690 GL). *The release from Dartmouth remains at 200 ML/day but is planned to be increased in late October to transfer water to Hume Reservoir*. Storage volume at Hume Reservoir peaked this week at 29 % capacity (875 GL) and has now commenced to gradually fall. *The release from Hume Reservoir has been increased to provide a flow at Doctors Point (Albury) of 4 800 ML/day and, if the dry weather continues, is expected to continue increasing over the coming weeks*. Total storage for the River Murray System declined by 21 GL, and is now at 2 110 GL (or 23 % capacity). The level of Lake Mulwala is steady at 124.2 m AHD (70 cm below Full Supply Level) and unless there is a significant change in the weather, is expected to remain at or slightly above this level during the coming months. 

*As a result of the increasing demand downstream particularly in the Sunraysia district, the release from Yarrawonga Weir has been increased to 4 300 ML/day and is expected to continue increasing over the next few weeks. Similarly, the release from Torrumbarry Weir has been increased to 3 000 ML/day and should continue to gradually increase over coming weeks*.

The partial drawdown of Euston Weir is proceeding as planned and the pool level is currently 34 cm below FSL. Lowering of the pool will continue at about 3-5 cm/week until it reaches the target of 50 cm below FSL by early November. The flow downstream of Wentworth Weir has reduced to 1 000 ML/day and is expected to remain low until extra water arrives from Lake Mulwala in early November. Water from Lock 8 is being released to supplement flow downstream, and subsequently the upper pool level has fallen to 26 cm below FSL. Further information about the operation of Lock 8 is included in the attached media release. The flow to South Australia increased in early October and has helped control salinity levels between Locks 2 to 6. The salinity at Morgan has dropped slightly from 780 EC on 1st October to 733 EC on 17th October. The salinity at Lock 1, however, has continued to gradually increase.

*The water level in the Lower Lakes (currently at 0.15 m AHD) has been steadily falling since mid August due to a combination of low rainfall, low inflow and increasing evaporative losses. The level is expected to continue falling over the next few months unless there is significant local rainfall.*_

---------------------------------------

So, these authorities continue to release stored water on a "wing and a prayer" as they move into what they have already declared to be "uncharted territory" as far as forward looking rainfall projections go.  

Should this rather reckless attitude change to a more conservative "we will minimise releases and continue with high level restrictions UNTIL we have a guaranteed three years minimum average supply worth of storage"?

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> IMO any authorities restrictions countrywide should stay in place UNTIL AT LEAST 3 YEARS OF FORWARD GUARANTEED WATER CAPACITY has been collected in a storage system.



3 years worth in storage wouldn't be practical without a major new dam building program - lots of new dams not just one or two. We just don't have the storage capacity in most cases to efficiently operate with that level of water in storage.

There's a proper way to work out what restrictions should apply though. Using runoff and rainfall records plus proper synthetic data generation techniques it is quite possible to operate a water system in a sensible, scientific manner with no need for "management" or "politics". 

What you want as an outcome is a situation where the storage never spills and never runs dry. Using proper calculation methods (ie Hydstra software or something similar) it is quite possible to work out what levels the storages should be at and when. 

The proper levels will be different for every storage and depends largely on the storage capacity relative to the range of likely inflows plus seasonal variation in outflow.

If the level starts to track below target then that's when you take some sort of action to operate in a reliable manner. Again, you use the software to work this out too. What it comes down to though is variation in output - water restrictions in the case of irrigation etc or production shifting in the case of an integrated hydro-electric system.

Likewise levels too high can also be dealt with in an efficient manner (assuming there is some use for the water) in order to avoid spill. Spill might sometimes be unavoidable in an irrigation supply system, but it's the ultimate sin where hydro power is concerned (still sometimes unavoidable though). 99% full is not a good situation to be in unless you're damn sure it isn't about to rain.

There's some strange games been played with all of this. Hydstra is Australian developed and is to water management what Microsoft is to computing - absolutely dominant (though Hydstra doesn't crash...). The underlying principles were developed progressively since the 1930's with computers first applied sometime around 1960. Unfortunately the Hydstra business was eventually sold to its only competitor (Kisters) but the Hydstra software is still marketed globally and is now the only real product of that nature. 

It's all a bit too scientific for the "smart" water managers in Oz who know everyhing though...


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 October 2007)

If you look at the two graphs, you can see how MDBC firstly significantly depleted Hume Dam from approx. 93% in mid Nov 2005 to approx. 12% at the start of May 2006, while leaving Dartmouth Dam at approx. 65% for the year. Then, when the expected winter rains didn't come they switched to significantly depleting Dartmouth Dam from approx. 65% at the start of August 2006 down to approx. 10% at the start of May 2007. In the same timeframe, due to the lack of inflows, Hume Dam had also dwindled to approx. 7%.

Since then, Dartmouth has only recovered to approx. 17% and Hume to approx. 28%. It doesn't take blind Freddy to work out from these graphs that the MDBC water release policy for the last two years was SERIOUSLY flawed - how could such quantities be splurged down the gurgler in so short a space of time without considering the future consequences of a "worse than average" dry spell? At the same time, the message this extravagant water release policy must have sent to downstream towns and irrigators was "use it up big time - we expect massive rainfall to top us back up again" - and these people are the experts in managing our very existence in the future?

I just pray that next year, we don't have "the worst drought ever". If it continues even worse (and WHO is to bet that it won't?) we will all be "up the creek without a paddle".

AJ


----------



## Trader Paul (21 October 2007)

Hi folks,

S.A Water says, that they will likely be handing out
bottled water in Adelaide, within the next year ... !~!

Seems like it will be only a short period of time, before S.A Water will
be building that relaitively short Reticulate Australia pipeline, from 
officer Basin to Adelaide ..... to bless them with the sweetest water,
that croweaters have ever tasted ... 

have a great weekend all

            paul

P.S. .....  Reticulate Australia thread:
Reticulate Australia


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> If you look at the two graphs, you can see how MDBC firstly significantly depleted Hume Dam from approx. 93% in mid Nov 2005 to approx. 12% at the start of May 2006, while leaving Dartmouth Dam at approx. 65% for the year. Then, when the expected winter rains didn't come they switched to significantly depleting Dartmouth Dam from approx. 65% at the start of August 2006 down to approx. 10% at the start of May 2007. In the same timeframe, due to the lack of inflows, Hume Dam had also dwindled to approx. 7%.



The order of storage depletion, Hume before Dartmouth, makes sense given the storage capacity versus inflow range for the two storages but agreed with the underlying message.

I'd be rather interested in knowing what modelling the MDBC has done for this and how they worked out that it was OK to run flat out with the storages declining to that level. I strongly suspect the answer is they haven't actually worked it out at all beyond a 12 month timeframe.

The longer the projection period the lower the accuracy, but I've seen 5 year projections done reasonably well so it is possible. 

IMO the real underlying problem is that water management (and a lot of other things) no longer look beyond a 12 month timeframe. Everything now is about this year and this year's financial results. Same with electricity, same with gas, same with oil industry and lots of other things. It's all about today, not tomorrow.

It wasn't always like this. I know for a fact that a lot of investigation work into dams etc was being done in the 1960's for projects planned to be up and running in the 1990's. Literally looking 30 years ahead, realising that something was needed, and then doing a proper investigation of all the available options in order to determine which was best.

The real reason that sort of thing fell in a hole is political. Dams aren't popular and those opposed to them thrive on it not being urgently needed. Never mind that it will take a decade to build, 3 years to fill and is needed then. That doesn't count. If the need isn't immediate then whoever is proposing it will be subject to all manner of "surplus capacity" claims which, whilst true in the short term, are anything but true in the long term.

Bottom line IMO is the only way we'll fix the water is to actually run completely dry. Just as the only way Joe Public will ever understand the oil situation is when they can't buy petrol. Just as they won't listen to anyone telling them about the need for investment in power generation until the lights have actually gone out. Short term, they always focus on the negative effects of these things rather than looking to tomorrow.


----------



## nioka (21 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Bottom line IMO is the only way we'll fix the water is to actually run completely dry. Just as the only way Joe Public will ever understand the oil situation is when they can't buy petrol. Just as they won't listen to anyone telling them about the need for investment in power generation until the lights have actually gone out. Short term, they always focus on the negative effects of these things rather than looking to tomorrow.




Don't blame joe public. It is gutless polititions who are afraid of the NIMBYs.


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...IMO the real underlying problem is that water management (and a lot of other things) no longer look beyond a 12 month timeframe. Everything now is about this year and this year's financial results. Same with electricity, same with gas, same with oil industry and lots of other things. It's all about today, not tomorrow.
> 
> It wasn't always like this. I know for a fact that a lot of investigation work into dams etc was being done in the 1960's for projects planned to be up and running in the 1990's. Literally looking 30 years ahead, realising that something was needed, and then doing a proper investigation of all the available options in order to determine which was best.
> 
> The real reason that sort of thing fell in a hole is political...




Hi Smurf1976.

I entirely agree with you regarding the "shorter terming" of project management over the past 30-40 years, especially with regard to water. I well remember growing up in the 60's with politicians proposing long term management plans for all manner of public infrastructure projects, including the Snowy Hydro and Murray River schemes. The Snowy scheme as you know started in 1949 and was only completed in 1974 - a 25 year project! Imagine something like that getting off the ground now in todays NOW society framework.... 

You can see the result of where this "short term, good times, forget about the future" social and political attitude has gotten us with the current climate change debate becoming one of increasing panic demanding solutions NOW, when Blind Freddy (who I have seen lurking around the corridors of power and media a lot lately) could tell that planning for all this shemozzle should have started 20 years ago AT LEAST). So now, when our leaders finally talk about long term 20 year or 40 year plans to reduce emissions, not only do they pooh-pooh each other over the timeframes, but the media and society also joins in, saying "thats too far away - must have results NOW"!  

I'm afraid "NOW" is a dream that should have been acted upon many years ago.... 

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Don't blame joe public. It is gutless polititions who are afraid of the NIMBYs.



Trouble is, as far as dams are concerned it's not so much NIMBY as BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) and they do have a large influence at the ballot box. Hence the politicians aren't foolish enough (in terms of their own careers) to take an opposing view.

It was too late to avoid the water situation after the mid-1990's. A time when there was absolute opposition to the contruction of public works in general and particularly dams or other water infrastructure.

Water. One of the few totally renewable resources we use. And the only resource in short supply where consumption is restricted by regulation in this country. A rather absurd situation when you think about it.


----------



## Aussiejeff (30 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, as far as dams are concerned it's not so much NIMBY as BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) and they do have a large influence at the ballot box. Hence the politicians aren't foolish enough (in terms of their own careers) to take an opposing view.
> 
> It was too late to avoid the water situation after the mid-1990's. A time when there was absolute opposition to the contruction of public works in general and particularly dams or other water infrastructure.
> 
> Water. One of the few totally renewable resources we use. And the only resource in short supply where consumption is restricted by regulation in this country. A rather absurd situation when you think about it.




But then, the authorities appear to be in a position to make a lot of money from this "man-made shortage" situation through escalating licence fees, water allocation charges and no doubt much higher future water taxes, rates, etc, etc. So, when you think about it, politicians may feel this "shortage" situation is really a nett benefit to them financially to encourage them to continue with (ie: relatively lower spending on infrastructure compared to increasingly higher returns from escalating water charges)?

A cunning plan eh?

AJ


----------



## nioka (30 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> But then, the authorities appear to be in a position to make a lot of money from this "man-made shortage" situation through escalating licence fees, water allocation charges and no doubt much higher future water taxes, rates, etc, etc. So, when you think about it, politicians may feel this "shortage" situation is really a nett benefit to them financially to encourage them to continue with (ie: relatively lower spending on infrastructure compared to increasingly higher returns from escalating water charges)?
> 
> A cunning plan eh?
> 
> AJ



And set it up value wise for privatisation and rake in a bundle to put in the futures fund which is for public service and pollie super in the future. Or am I just being cynical?


----------



## Julia (30 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Or am I just being cynical?




No.


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 October 2007)

According to this latest Total MDBC Storage graph, we better not have another year like the previous 12 months to date... or total MDBC storage will be heading for low to middling single digit figures.

Last night the grain harvest forecast was downgraded to the lowest in 12 years.... when the final numbers are in it will likely be even worse.




AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 October 2007)

nioka said:


> And set it up value wise for privatisation and rake in a bundle to put in the futures fund which is for public service and pollie super in the future. Or am I just being cynical?



1. Let the system run down through permanent restrictions such that "normal" capacity ends up being inadequate even with average rainfall.

2. A drought occurs requiring harsh restrictions to drop consumption below the already restricted "normal" level.

3. Public gets angry. So do opposition politicians.

4. Big business comes in with a "solution" - privatise it and they promise to invest in upgrading the supply capacity (sometimes they will, sometimes it's just lies).

5. The public's water supply assets in rundown condition are given away at fire sale prices.

Plenty of smaller town examples in the US etc where it's happened and in some Australian states it seems the politicians are setting the privatisation wheels in motion. 

Permanent restrictions never make sense. It's simply not wise to rely on an emergency measure on a routine basis. Doing so is like not fixing the car's brakes because the handbrake still works. It's simply asking for disaster when a new problem comes along - and it will sometime.


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Let the system run down through permanent restrictions such that "normal" capacity ends up being inadequate even with average rainfall.
> 
> 2. *A drought occurs requiring harsh restrictions to drop consumption below the already restricted "normal" level*.
> 
> ...




Sadly prophetic about the public anger, Smurf1976...

Overnight..

_"A MAN has been charged with murder after he got into a fight with an elderly man who was watering his lawn in southern Sydney.

A 66-year-old man was watering his front lawn about 5.30pm (AEDT) yesterday at Sylvania when a 36-year-old man approached him. *A verbal argument ensued relating to water restrictions, prompting the older man to reportedly wet the younger man with the hose.* Police allege the 36-year-old responded by punching and pushing the older man to the ground and then kicking him. 

An off-duty police officer intervened and arrested the 36-year-old. The older man was treated by ambulance officers and rushed to St George Hospital in a critical condition but died soon after. The 36-year-old was arrested and later charged with murder. He was refused bail and is due to appear at Sutherland Local Court this morning."_

I suspect that if the so-called "drought" continues on and on etc, "Restriction Rage" might become almost as widespread as "Road Rage"...



AJ


----------



## nioka (1 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Sadly prophetic about the public anger, Smurf1976...
> 
> Overnight..
> 
> ...




Also stated was the fact that the hosing was being done within the allowable restrictions.
 Two years ago a neighbour of mine reported me to the "water police" when I had been watering my garden (within the rules allowed). Luckily for me he didn't get aggressive when I told him to get a life. Think he is jealous of my garden and too lazy to stand around holding a hose for an hour himself.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Also stated was the fact that the hosing was being done within the allowable restrictions.
> Two years ago a neighbour of mine reported me to the "water police" when I had been watering my garden (within the rules allowed). Luckily for me he didn't get aggressive when I told him to get a life. Think he is jealous of my garden and too lazy to stand around holding a hose for an hour himself.




That Sydney instance was just shocking.  Poor old fella just watering quite within the rules and next thing he's dead.  Unbelievable.

After I installed rainwater tanks, I put a notice at the front of the property saying "Tank or Recycled Water is used on this Property", just to avoid any possible aggro.  My neighbours are great but there are some ding a lings walking around, as the unfortunate gardener in Sydney discovered.
Hope the perpetrator gets something well and truly more than a token sentence.


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 November 2007)

Is the worst drought ever over?

HALLELUJAH!

57mm of rain in Albury-Wodonga over the last three days!

80mm+ falls in the mountain ranges and valleys feeding into Dartmouth & Hume!

  

One can only hope this tropical airflow to the south continues for a few more weeks yet..

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 November 2007)

Well, the heavens might have opened up briefly, but the skull-duggery continues to be played out between the "big players" of the water-for-money industry...

This news item appeared today in the Herald Sun courtesy of Reuters:

_*"Victoria water 'secretly traded' for NSW rice*

WATER meant to protect Victoria's electricity supplies has been traded off to NSW rice growers in secret multimillion-dollar deals with the Snowy Hydro corporation.

Snowy Hydro Ltd and the NSW Department of Water and Energy have been accused of jeopardising the future of electricity outputs, the livelihoods of other irrigators and environmental flows to the Snowy and Murray rivers for short-term profits, Fairfax newspapers reported.

The revelation of the secret sales comes as a cross-state deal on the Snowy River made by two former premiers threatens to tear apart the already frayed relations between the states' current premiers. Former Snowy Mountains engineers and managers say the corporation abandoned established drought strategies, maintaining minimum annual water releases without emptying storages in lakes Eucumbene and Jindabyne.

The engineers estimate Snowy Hydro benefited - by about $160 million - from the special irrigation-deal payments and by bringing forward release revenues. “Had such releases not been made, the total active storage in Lake Eucumbene and Jindabyne Dam would now be more than 800 gigalitres, instead of virtually zero,” retired Snowy Mountains Authority (SMA) engineer John Kelly said. “If the current drought drags on, the water in storage could continue to be seriously overdrawn, with the result that future irrigation releases and electricity outputs will be well below the amounts that would have been produced had the water deals not been done.”

Snowy Hydro Ltd spokesman Paul Johnson said the corporation would study Mr Kelly's report before responding. A former executive with SMA and Snowy Hydro Ltd, Max Talbot, has targeted the big irrigators, saying: “Now they have had their crops and made their profits, but they have not had any option to start paying back the water because the inflows have not been there.” The engineers have joined Gippsland activists angered by the NSW government's attempt last week to cancel the return of environmental flows to the Snowy River, citing Lake Eucumbene's critically low water level.

“It's time the Snowy Hydro stopped treating the storages as its own private, bottomless swimming pool,” Louise Crisp, of the Gippsland Environment Group, said. “By their actions they have put at risk future releases to irrigators, their own electricity generation capacity and environmental flows to the Snowy and Murray, whilst all the while blaming the empty dams solely on the drought.”"_

All we need now is for "authorities" to issue licences for the "free" air we breath......

Sigh...


AJ


----------



## sam76 (4 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Is the worst drought ever over?
> 
> HALLELUJAH!
> 
> ...





Casterton recorded over 2 inches yesterday!!

It's beeing raining here in Ballarat for the last 24 hours.

Fantastic news considering city water levels are at 11 percent.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 November 2007)

As I've posted a few pages ago in this thread, what Snowy Hydro have been doing is outright madness from an engineering perspective. It might make a profit but it's putting the security of electricity and water supplies in danger when it need not be that way.

Snowy Hydro is primarily an intermediate and peaking generator. They thus have massive flexibility to cut output at intermediate (shoulder) demand periods with thermal generation making up the shortfall. But at peak times the Snowy _must_ run hard or the lights _will_ go out.

So it would be pure commonsense when storages are low to conserve the remaining water for use during peak demand times, right? Not according to what Snowy Hydro have been up to. 

End result is we're at the start of the dry season with Lake Eucumbene just under 10% full. Better hope we don't get a hot, dry summer...


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 November 2007)

How about sending some of that rain in Victoria a bit further south?

An irrigation dam in Tas was switched off yesterday after storage hit 0%. This is a privately owned irrigation dam in the Midlands and is the same one that nearly collapsed two years ago forcing the evacuation of towns downstream.

Anyway, Hydro got involved but somehow messed up the inflow readings. But, and if this doesn't highlight the seriousness of the drought then nothing will, the stuff up was 2% versus 7%. Hydro concluded that inflows were running at 7% of average and on that basis the farmers cut their water allocation to 7% of normal. 

But it seems Hydro's automated equipment didn't work properly measuring the inflows which were closer to 2% of normal. Farmers presumably didn't check the level and relied on the automated measurements and now the dam's run dry.

2% versus 7%. Wouldn't matter too much if that was 90% versus 95% but when we're down to such low numbers anyway that says it all about the seriousness of the drought. And of course this is right at the start of the dry season so not much chance of those crops growing.

The key thing that seems to be happening is a few places get flooded whilst everywhere else stays dry. Floods in SE Tas a few months ago whilst 100km away it's parched. Floods in parts of Victoria whilst other parts of the state stay dry. Much the same across most of the country - it's raining but it comes all at once and all in the one place thus not ending the drought for most.


----------



## Whiskers (7 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> How about sending some of that rain in Victoria a bit further south?
> 
> An irrigation dam in Tas was switched off yesterday after storage hit 0%. This is a privately owned irrigation dam in the Midlands and is the same one that nearly collapsed two years ago forcing the evacuation of towns downstream.




Geeez, hard to imagine Tassie in drought. I imagined it always rained down there.

Had 90 ml near Bundaberg in last couple of days. Filled the tanks and soaked the ground again, but not a lot of runoff.


----------



## Happy (7 November 2007)

I wander if recent rains filled up any dams?


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 November 2007)

Only little ones and fish ponds... 

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 November 2007)

Announcement today...

_November 12, 2007 12:31pm

*LEVEL six water restrictions will be imposed across Queensland's southeast from November 23*.

Water commissioner Elizabeth Nosworthy warned that if water consumption climbed above the target of 140 litres per person per day, bucket-watering of gardens may have to end.

Pool owners will be banned from using town water to fill their pools and households using more than 800 litres a day without legitimate reason face penalties. 

The first offence will attract a fine of $450 and an outdoor watering ban. 

Repeat offenders will face $1050 fines, an outdoor water ban and a flow restrictor for 30 days. 

Households with five people or more will be exempt from the fines. 

Other exemptions include special health reasons, home businesses with a legitimate reason for requiring water, building or renovation development and change of ownership or tenancy._

Back to the drought, then....



AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 November 2007)

Hahaha! The Britz have the answer to our shortage of water....

_*BEER CHEAPER THAN WATER*
November 12, 2007 01:31pm

*BRITISH supermarkets are selling beer at prices cheaper than water and soft drinks*, with cans sold for as little as 50 cents.

Supermarkets were stocking shelves with beer priced so low they were actually losing money, the Mail on Sunday reported. Experts estimated that the supermarkets were losing up to 18 cents per can through excise and production costs, the newspaper said. Many of the major supermarkets were now selling beer for just 50 pence ($1.15) a litre. The same supermarkets sell mineral water for 56p-92p a litre. Own-brand cola sells for 56p-65p.

The British health department has commissioned an independent review of alcohol pricing and promotion and has not ruled out changing regulations. Policy director at health group Alcohol Concern Don Shenker told the Mail the prices could have contributed to the UK’s binge drinking problem. 

“The fact that it is cheaper than their own-brand of cola per litre is appalling,” Mr Shenker said. “This sends entirely the wrong message to the young drinkers we are trying to steer away from alcohol abuse. They will think that if it’s so cheap, it must be OK. We would urge supermarkets to seriously review their pricing policy.” 

An Alcohol Concern report revealed that children could afford beer with their pocket money. 
Figures from the National Treatment Agency revealed that even 10-year-olds were suffering from illnesses usually found in ageing alcoholics, the Mail reported. _

LOL...



AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Announcement today...
> 
> _November 12, 2007 12:31pm
> 
> ...



_
It must be getting serious if they're considering a ban on filling buckets.

What next? Brush your teeth only on Sundays? No topping up the indoor fish tank?_


----------



## Julia (12 November 2007)

That's awful.  How relieved the people will be who installed rainwater tanks.
I feel so sorry for Brisbane gardeners who are bearing the brunt of years of successive governments' inaction and failure to plan.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2007)

Meanwhile in SW Tas 40 cumecs (40,000 litres per second) will be let go when the Serpentine spillway valve is tested on Wednesday. Won't be for long but it should give anyone standing beside the river a nice bath. 

That is, by the way, not a lot of water. The average discharge via Gordon PS is about 100 cumecs or 370 million litres per hour. It goes up to about 1 billion litres an hour running flat out.

Anyone know how much it would cost to ship this to Brisbane etc? It's more than enough to water the gardens etc there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 November 2007)

One warm day in Hobart yesterday. No heatwave, just 30 degrees and quite humid. Not much wind either. And now there's several fires burning in various parts of the state.

If that's what happens on one humid, moderately warm day then I'm not looking forward to what's going to happen with fires on a genuinely hot and dry one, especially if it's windy.

Presumably the risk is similar in other drought affected parts of the country too.


----------



## nioka (7 February 2008)

Time to get some more discussion on the drought. Which drought was that? Is it now in the past and one we will be discussing in future years by saying "I remember in 2007 etc".
We have had about 30 inches (750mm in the new money)of rain so far this year with floods and semi floods and the ground so wet that rice is a possible crop or just farm fish. The Clarence and Richmond rivers look like I remember the Yarra ( the river that is upside down with the mud on top.) Water restrictions are now just a political tool so that the government is spared the cost of additional infrastructue in our growing area and high water charges a taxing tool for local government. How long will this last?
 And climate change with global warming. We have had the coolest summer so far for many years. Global cooling?? What is going on?


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 February 2008)

nioka said:


> Time to get some more discussion on the drought. Which drought was that? Is it now in the past and one we will be discussing in future years by saying "I remember in 2007 etc".
> We have had about 30 inches (750mm in the new money)of rain so far this year with floods and semi floods and the ground so wet that rice is a possible crop or just farm fish. The Clarence and Richmond rivers look like I remember the Yarra ( the river that is upside down with the mud on top.) Water restrictions are now just a political tool so that the government is spared the cost of additional infrastructue in our growing area and high water charges a taxing tool for local government. How long will this last?
> And climate change with global warming. We have had the coolest summer so far for many years. Global cooling?? What is going on?



Wish that were the case in Tas. The lack of rain now is far worse than it was 12 months ago. Inflows across the Hydro catchments are virtually zero and have been incredibly low for months now. Right off the scale. 22% at the moment heading towards 12% - 15% by the end of April assuming everything keeps going as it is.

That said, the East Coast was flooded this week. Big cracks in the ground and dust everywhere etc a week ago but then it rained, rained and rained some more. That ought to fill the new Meander Dam up nicely but it's not much help beyond that.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 February 2008)

nioka said:


> Time to get some more discussion on the drought. Which drought was that? Is it now in the past and one we will be discussing in future years by saying "I remember in 2007 etc".
> We have had about 30 inches (750mm in the new money)of rain so far this year with floods and semi floods and the ground so wet that rice is a possible crop or just farm fish. The Clarence and Richmond rivers look like I remember the Yarra ( the river that is upside down with the mud on top.) Water restrictions are now just a political tool so that the government is spared the cost of additional infrastructue in our growing area and high water charges a taxing tool for local government. How long will this last?
> And climate change with global warming. We have had the coolest summer so far for many years. Global cooling?? What is going on?





Wellllll....

The Murray river system has pretty much all of it's eggs in two baskets down to where the Darling River joins it. Those baskets are the Hume Dam (currently at a miserable 16% and steadily falling) and Dartmouth Dam (currently at a miserable 16% and steady - for now). Without a massive couple of winters with huge snow melts, Dartmouth and Hume Dam will not recover. Recent "heavy" rains in the Hume catchment areas have done almost nothing for it's volume. 

So, the Murray is nowhere near out of the woods yet.....



AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2008)

Never thought it would come to this. The Hydro turning off its own lights.

Still putting on a brave face with the Earth Hour thing though. Yep, it's all about the environment and nothing to do with empty lakes and spending $ millions per week trying to keep the system going. 

21.9% and falling on Tuesday despite a bit of rain during the week. 

Hydro Tasmania to join Earth Hour http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corpor...eleases/Hydro_Tasmania_to_join_Earth_Hour.htm


----------



## Julia (14 February 2008)

nioka said:


> Time to get some more discussion on the drought. Which drought was that? Is it now in the past and one we will be discussing in future years by saying "I remember in 2007 etc".
> We have had about 30 inches (750mm in the new money)of rain so far this year with floods and semi floods and the ground so wet that rice is a possible crop or just farm fish. The Clarence and Richmond rivers look like I remember the Yarra ( the river that is upside down with the mud on top.) Water restrictions are now just a political tool so that the government is spared the cost of additional infrastructue in our growing area and high water charges a taxing tool for local government. How long will this last?
> And climate change with global warming. We have had the coolest summer so far for many years. Global cooling?? What is going on?



Yes, coolest summer and the wettest I can ever remember.  So much for global warming in coastal Qld at least.

I was in Woolworths today, having ploughed through waterlogged streets to get there, and one of the staff was busy putting up posters which said "Woolworths supports Drought Relief to Farmers".!

The price of fresh fruit and vegetables is increasing every day, such staple vegetables as beans are more than $10 kg.  First we were told, 'oh, it's because of the drought', now of course it's 'oh it's because of the rain'.
How about "it's blatant profiteering".  I don't imagine for one millisecond that the farmers are participating in the increased prices.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, coolest summer and the wettest I can ever remember.  So much for global warming in coastal Qld at least.
> 
> I was in Woolworths today, having ploughed through waterlogged streets to get there, and one of the staff was busy putting up posters which said "Woolworths supports Drought Relief to Farmers".!
> 
> ...




Well, Perth has had one of the hottest and wettest Summers in history. Humidity being a real problem.

With Australia moving north at the rate of 1cm per year, I think it is safe to say that Perth is now in the tropics.


----------



## ithatheekret (14 February 2008)

We seem to be able to get close to farmgate prices from a local down my way , basic seasonal veg , but I prefer the money going to the farmer . If he's not here next year , well there goes the cheap veg .


----------



## nioka (15 February 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Wellllll....
> 
> The Murray river system has pretty much all of it's eggs in two baskets down to where the Darling River joins it. Those baskets are the Hume Dam (currently at a miserable 16% and steadily falling) and Dartmouth Dam (currently at a miserable 16% and steady - for now). Without a massive couple of winters with huge snow melts, Dartmouth and Hume Dam will not recover. Recent "heavy" rains in the Hume catchment areas have done almost nothing for it's volume.
> 
> ...



 I've just spent a few days on the Northern NSW tablelands and it rained most of the time. Creeks running bankers and some roads cut. The water is running west and will eventually reach the Murray unless it is all used up to fill the wetlands on the way. It should help. Our coastal rivers are close to a flood and have been for some time. What a waste. It is all going to sea yet the locals are campaigning against any move to send some west or even construct a dam. NIMBYS ???


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2008)

nioka said:


> It is all going to sea yet the locals are campaigning against any move to send some west or even construct a dam. NIMBYS ???



NIMBY's or more likely BANANA's by the sounds of it.

...

The new Meander Dam in Tas was officially opened today. It's managed to get to about a quarter full thanks to it being in the only part of the state that's actually had decent rain (well, floods actually). Only 1.5MW average generation but every bit helps and it's a major benefit for irrigation.

Also today the Tas Govt announced $80 million to be spent on "drought proofing". This is for irrigation and involves pipelines to carry water to farms from the Mersey-Forth and Poatina power stations plus some new dams elsewhere in the state.  

That money is in addition to funds being spent by Hydro Tas ($100 million last year and counting) and the proposed $1 billion to be spent on upgrading town water supplies. This drought is starting to get rather expensive down here. 

As for the NIMBY's, they're too busy with other things and have been shown to be outright wrong over the power situation so they're lying pretty low on this one at the moment.


----------



## bunyip (16 February 2008)

nioka said:


> Time to get some more discussion on the drought. Which drought was that? Is it now in the past and one we will be discussing in future years by saying "I remember in 2007 etc".
> We have had about 30 inches (750mm in the new money)of rain so far this year with floods and semi floods and the ground so wet that rice is a possible crop or just farm fish. The Clarence and Richmond rivers look like I remember the Yarra ( the river that is upside down with the mud on top.) Water restrictions are now just a political tool so that the government is spared the cost of additional infrastructue in our growing area and high water charges a taxing tool for local government. How long will this last?
> And climate change with global warming. We have had the coolest summer so far for many years. Global cooling?? What is going on?




What's going on is that the climate is just being its usual changeable self. It's all happened before. If not in the last 200 or so years since European settlement in Australia, then before that. The last few million years would have seen hundreds or even thousands of droughts, floods, cyclones, tsunamis etc, the equal of any we've seen in our recorded history. Some of them would have been even bigger and more severe than anything we've seen. In fact, climatologists continue to uncover evidence that supports this.
Mackay in QLD had 24 inches of rain in six hours yesterday. Incredible rain, but not the largest fall ever recorded. 
People tend to have short memories. We get a really hot summer and people say 'Geez, we've never had anything like this before'. 
But I remember when I was a kid growing up in country QLD, about 3 or 4 hours west of Brisbane. One summer we had several days that killed crows and chooks. It has to be pretty darned hot to kill a crow, but some of them died that year. I went over to the chook pen and there was a crow sitting on a low branch, just a couple of feet above my head. His beak was wide open and he was gasping for air, and his wings were held out away from his body, and drooped down, trying to cool himself. Crows are normally wary birds that will clear off when they see a person approaching. But this crow was so heat stressed that he just sat there, and I reached up and gave him a poke with a stick and even then he didn't fly off.
Later that day I found him dead under the tree. Next day we were out mustering and we came across a dozen or so dead birds. Some of our chooks died. The temperature was 115 degrees farenheit in the shade on the veranda at 2 pm. That's 44 degrees in today's language.
In Central QLD I lived through a day that was 45 degrees, and out west near Cunnamulla, we once recorded 46. Some of the locals out there told me they recorded days of 50 in past years.
Yet when we get those sort of temperatures these days, people say it's abnormal weather caused by climate change.

The current drought, incidentally, is not over. In some parts it might be, but there are still dry areas with little or no decent rain as yet. More than half QLD is still drought declared.
The dams that supply some cities are still in dire straits.


----------



## Julia (16 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> What's going on is that the climate is just being its usual changeable self. It's all happened before. If not in the last 200 or so years since European settlement in Australia, then before that. The last few million years would have seen hundreds or even thousands of droughts, floods, cyclones, tsunamis etc, the equal of any we've seen in our recorded history. Some of them would have been even bigger and more severe than anything we've seen. In fact, climatologists continue to uncover evidence that supports this.
> Mackay in QLD had 24 inches of rain in six hours yesterday. Incredible rain, but not the largest fall ever recorded.
> People tend to have short memories. We get a really hot summer and people say 'Geez, we've never had anything like this before'.
> But I remember when I was a kid growing up in country QLD, about 3 or 4 hours west of Brisbane. One summer we had several days that killed crows and chooks. It has to be pretty darned hot to kill a crow, but some of them died that year. I went over to the chook pen and there was a crow sitting on a low branch, just a couple of feet above my head. His beak was wide open and he was gasping for air, and his wings were held out away from his body, and drooped down, trying to cool himself. Crows are normally wary birds that will clear off when they see a person approaching. But this crow was so heat stressed that he just sat there, and I reached up and gave him a poke with a stick and even then he didn't fly off.
> ...




Oh dear, Bunyip, what heresy you speak!  How dare you!  Every peculiarity in the weather is entirely due to man's sins.
The climate change Gods will get you, you know!


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2008)

Agreed that there is a lot of unscientific nonsense about droughts and climate change. 

But it is a fact that something has changed dramatically with the rainfall in SW WA. Ten years of drought in other parts of the country maybe, but three decades of constant drought in SW WA is pushing the limits to argue that it's not a change in the climate there. And we're talking about a two thirds reduction not 5 or 10% so it's rather significant both statistically and in terms of impact.


----------



## bunyip (17 February 2008)

Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena that's been going on for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Extreme weather events like we've seen in our lifetime, particularly recently, are quite normal in the overall context of things. It's all happened before and will go on happening. 
There's irrefutable evidence that Australia has copped cyclones, floods, droughts, even tsunamis, of far greater magnitude that any that have occurred in the last two hundred years since we started monitoring and recording the weather.
The other interesting information starting to emerge from climatic research is that climate change is not always in the same direction. There appears to have been periods of as much as a couple of hundred years when the climate actually became cooler rather than warmer. Or wetter rather than drier. Then a bit further down the track, another few hundred years where the trend reversed again. And so on, back and forth, swinging from cycle to cycle, with many of the cycles lasting for centuries.

However, I don't dismiss the possibility that toxic emissions from factories and vehicle exhausts etc, are harming the atmosphere and perhaps affecting the speed of climate change. Common sense should dictate that we take whatever measures we reasonably can to address this problem. 
Even from a simple human health perspective, it must surely be prudent to put some effort into looking after the atmosphere. It's a lot nicer breathing clean air than having your lungs invaded by the smoggy, toxic muck that people in heavily industrialised areas are forced to breathe.

There needs to be some balanced thinking on climate change. 
It's naive and foolish to yell 'MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE' every time we get a decent drought or a big cyclone or some other extreme weather event.
It's equally naive and foolish to dismiss the possibility that industrial emissions have the potential to adversely affect our atmosphere, our health, and our climate.
And even more naive and foolish not to take whatever measures we reasonably can to minimise the potential damage.


----------



## bunyip (17 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed that there is a lot of unscientific nonsense about droughts and climate change.
> 
> But it is a fact that something has changed dramatically with the rainfall in SW WA. Ten years of drought in other parts of the country maybe, but three decades of constant drought in SW WA is pushing the limits to argue that it's not a change in the climate there. And we're talking about a two thirds reduction not 5 or 10% so it's rather significant both statistically and in terms of impact.




Smurf

Seems to me that a 66% reduction in rainfall in a relatively short period of time is most likely due to the volatile and extreme nature of the Australian climate. 
If it was due to long term climate change, wouldn't it stand to reason that the change would be more gradual?


----------



## chops_a_must (18 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Smurf
> 
> Seems to me that a 66% reduction in rainfall in a relatively short period of time is most likely due to the volatile and extreme nature of the Australian climate.
> If it was due to long term climate change, wouldn't it stand to reason that the change would be more gradual?




No!

Anyone that knows anything about WA would have heard about the Leeuwin Current.

It's the only thing that makes SW WA even remotely inhabitable. Any slight change in weather patterns can potentially permanently damage the current, and jeoperdise the eco-system here. Without it we would have almost no rain, and because of its uniqueness, and the impact on it from many many climates and ocean cycles, it is the most important bell weather (pardon the pun) for temperate Australian weather. Normal Leeuwin Current = good rainfall for all of southern Australia.

And the Leeuwin Current seems to be on the point of serious harm because of various climatic changes. The best managed fisheries in the world are here, but they are stuffed because the current is no longer assisting with spawning for the lobster etc.

Any climatic change is quick, and has leading indicators like here in WA. Rainfall relies on simple but delicate systems, which means sudden changes that may or may not reverse. Until such point as we get another bumper rock lobster catch, or if we do ever get another, then the climate has changed for the worse in southern Australia. And even in times of no quotas and restrictions, we have not seen current dependent fish stocks in WA at these levels before. Some things to look at and be concerned about....


----------



## bunyip (18 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> No!
> 
> Anyone that knows anything about WA would have heard about the Leeuwin Current.
> 
> ...




I'd never heard of the Leeuwin Current. Very interesting.
I jumped on the net and did some reading, and came to the following conclusions.....

An El Niño -Southern Oscillation event causes drought across northern Australia. Drought reduces the strength of the Leeuwin Current which originates in the tropics and flows southward along the WA coast, then east into the Great Australian Bight. The weaker flow in the current has an adverse effect on the lobster breeding cycle, and causes below average rainfall in southern Australia.
Conversely, La Nina (wet) years cause stronger flow in the current....good news for both the lobsters and the rainfall in southern Australia. 

Climatologists tell us that a prolonged pattern of El Niño drought-causing years is a normal part of our climate. Similarly, a prolonged pattern of wet La Nina years is also quite normal. 
They also tell us that it's normal for these patterns to last much longer than our records of the last two hundred years would indicate.

We could see a sudden reversal of these El Niño drought years that have plagued much of northern Australia for the last 10 to 20 years. 
Perhaps the heavy monsoon season in the north this year is an indication that we've turned the corner at last, and are about to go into a run of La Nina wet years. If we do in fact experience a prolonged run of wet years across the north, the resulting improvement in the Leeuwin Current could have quite a dramatic and positive effect on the lobster breeding cycle, and also on the rainfall across southern regions.

Am I on the right track here, or am I talking through my hat? I confess to having very little knowledge of either lobster breeding patterns or the Leeuwin Current. In fact I knew nothing about either of them before reading that article on the net a couple of hours ago.

Below in bold print an extract from that article.

*The Leeuwin Current is also known to be influenced by El Niño conditions, with slightly lower sea levels along the Western Australian coast and a weaker Leeuwin Current.

Measurements across the broad continental shelf at North West Cape confirm the low-salinity Leeuwin flows along the outer North West Shelf most strongly between February and June. Strong winds to the northeast along the shelf can retard or even reverse the currents.
By late winter and early spring the puerulus are carried by ocean currents back to the continental shelf and inshore coastal regions. Earlier studies have shown that settlement of lobster puerulus (small but recognisable rock lobsters) is closely linked with variations in the strength of the Leeuwin Current, which in turn is associated with El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events as well as westerly winds.

During ENSO years, when the Leeuwin Current tends to be weak, puerulus settlement is poor. In so-called La Nina years, on the other hand, the Current tends to flow more strongly and settlement is much greater.*


----------



## chops_a_must (18 February 2008)

Yup. Which is why I said the climate will change quickly, and may or may not snap back.

I had been told that even before this latest el nino cycle, the Leeuwin Current has been distinctly weaker than before european settlement. I'm not sure how they work that out... something to do with sampling from old growth forests I think. And that the current would actually have ceased to exist in the relatively near future anyway. Whether or not we are speeding that process up, who knows?

But I don't think we are out of the woods yet, the breeding season in the fisheries was quite poor by all reports. And we have had one of the hottest and wettest summers here in living memory (I think it has been the hottest on record), certainly the most humid. Which to me indicates we have still had a relatively warm current this summer. I didn't go to the beach pre-christmas this summer, so can't tell if the water was its typical freezing self, (like it should be at that time). So I think it is far too early to tell that we have had a change in southern Australia, because I don't think we have.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> So I think it is far too early to tell that we have had a change in southern Australia, because I don't think we have.



We've had a change alright... for the worse. At least that's what's going on in Tas - 2007 was wet compared to what we're getting now.

Apart from the East Coast which has had floods (due to an easterly weather pattern for a few days), the rest is getting basically nothing. As an example, Lake Rowallan had 52GWh in storage at the beginning of this year and the power station is out of operation (unplanned breakdown). 7 weeks later and there's still 52GWh in storage - inflows literally zero.

Lake Pedder is another one. The canal is normally closed at -1.45m as this is one of the last storages to be drawn down heavily for aesthetic and recreational reasons. Now it's at -1.47m (canal was closed at -1.45) - evaporation exceeds inflows. 

Looking positive though, still 21.1% full across the system this morning so the lights will stay on for quite a while yet. And it might be easier to catch fish if they're all crammed into a smaller volume of water (not sure if that's true in practice).


----------



## chops_a_must (18 February 2008)

Sorry. I meant a change back to "normal" rainfall.

But certainly we have had a now long term change in our climate, especially in SW WA.


----------



## bunyip (19 February 2008)

OK.... For the last several months the monsoon has been very active and intense over the tropics and much of the region has had a pretty good wet season. 
Has there been any measurable effect on the Leeuwin Current as yet?
Or the rainfall across southern regions? 
Or does it take a while for the effect to filter through?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> OK.... For the last several months the monsoon has been very active and intense over the tropics and much of the region has had a pretty good wet season.
> Has there been any measurable effect on the Leeuwin Current as yet?
> Or the rainfall across southern regions?
> Or does it take a while for the effect to filter through?



The WA situation dates back to the 1970's and there has been a progressively worsening "rain hole" (my term) in Tasmania during the first part of the year also since that time.

In a technical sense in WA it is a lack of wet years bringing down the average. Still get the average years and dry years but the high rainfall years have _completely_ disappeared. 

In Tas it is a serious lack of rain centred on March but spreading in both directions (seems to have started 1st Jan this year) but pretty much normal (actually above normal but that's due to cloud seeding) rain once it starts in May or June through to the end of the year.

The WA situation is the worse one in terms of effects thus far but the effect in Tas is certainly measurable and it seems to be hitting the notoriously wet West Coast just as much as the rest - a situation that pretty much rules out it being due to anything done within the state (ie tree plantations etc).

The effects in Tas have been somewhat mitigated until recently with cloud seeding. So we're getting huge drawdowns of water storage during the dry and then almost as impressive refilling during Spring. The top to bottom annual variation for the past few years has been roughly double the historic level due to this. 

Trouble is, as the situation worsens cloud seeding is no longer enough to offset it (that is, can't ramp up cloud seeding any more as already doing as much as is practical) and total runoff is now declining. That leaves building more water infrastructure (ie dams, pipelines etc) as the only remaining way to maintain total water availability. Either that or just let it slide and live with the consequences.

 For those familiar with the detail, it's an overall situation in Tas eerily familiar to how an oil province depletes. First everything is fine and production rises. Then it levels off. Then the decline starts - first you fight it by injecting something to keep the pressure up (the equivalent of cloud seeding), then you fight it by drilling more wells and opening new fields (comparable to building more dams and pipelines). And then you lose and production enters terminal decline.

That's exactly what will happen if the rainfall trend continues. Cloud seeding is maxed out now. Sure, plenty more dams could be built but if the decline continues then it's ultimately a case of running faster and faster just to maintain current production. Investing more capital just to maintain current income. And then you either go broke or run out of rivers to dam (or oil wells to drill) and the game is up. Same as oil although nobody seriously expected the rainfall to deplete - until now. 

I strongly suspect the very similar latitude of SW WA and Tas has something to do with it. That's the only real thing both regions have in common that comes to mind.

My own thinking is that if you draw a line from West to East across Australia then it has moved south considerably. Tas now gets the Summer rainfall that SA used to get - virtually none. As for the monsoon etc in the past few months - all it's done down here is turn dry into a proper drought.


----------



## Snakey (19 February 2008)

Hmmm...interesting thread...Does anyone know where I can buy shares in umbrellas?
:


----------



## bunyip (19 February 2008)

The big dry is Tassie is clearly severe and prolonged. But don't dismiss the possibility that it just might be normal. Maybe it hasn't been like this in the last couple of hundred years since we started monitoring and recording the rainfall and the overall climate. But before that - who knows. As I was saying in an earlier post, climatic research is now revealing that very prolonged wet/dry spells and hot/cold spells lasting as much as a couple of centuries, have occurred in Australia in pre-European times.

Now, I don't want to depress you southern blokes by telling you that your current dry spell might last for another 100 years or more! But realistically, considering the new information constantly being uncovered by climate researchers, can we really rule out such a possibility?

When it's exceptionally dry it's easy to convince ourselves that the climate has changed permanently and will never return to decent seasons.
Central Queenslanders have felt that way for the last 17 years.....that's how long since the Fairbairn Dam last overflowed. But water is suddenly charging over the spillway at an impressive rate, and the Central QLD region is so green that you'd swear the recent drought must have been a figment of the imagination.
It can all turn around so suddenly.....such is the erratic nature of the Australian climate.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 February 2008)

Found this report by UNSW. 
One thing I noticed in the summary :- 

That hydro power resources are in some jeopardy (nothing new there) 
That Lake Eucumbine is lowest since inception / construction

and that water used to generate power will be used (in part) in desalination plants to generate water 

PS Also graphs of rainfall and rivers in "SW Aust"
http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/userDocs/Hugh071015Water_ManagingScarceResource_000.pdf


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 February 2008)

........
damned if I can see a trend there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> The big dry is Tassie is clearly severe and prolonged. But don't dismiss the possibility that it just might be normal. Maybe it hasn't been like this in the last couple of hundred years since we started monitoring and recording the rainfall and the overall climate. But before that - who knows. As I was saying in an earlier post, climatic research is now revealing that very prolonged wet/dry spells and hot/cold spells lasting as much as a couple of centuries, have occurred in Australia in pre-European times.
> 
> Now, I don't want to depress you southern blokes by telling you that your current dry spell might last for another 100 years or more! But realistically, considering the new information constantly being uncovered by climate researchers, can we really rule out such a possibility?
> 
> ...



Can't argue with any of that. Totally agreed.

What I'm focusing on though is the practical implications. It doesn't matter if you're in Sydney or Strathgordon the implications are (broadly speaking) the same. Everything was set up based on the notion of rainfall being X with annual variation Y and that a deficiency would persist for no more than Z duration. That's the basis on which everything from major city water supplies, and to a significant extent the city itself, through to agriculture and hydro-electricity has been planned.

I'll use the Tasmanian figures since I have the data. But this in no way suggests that other parts of the country haven't been even more heavily affected.

Hydro Tas records go back to 1914 and other rainfall data for Tas goes back virtually to European settlement. Based on all this data, a few things have always been assumed to be true. Namely that inflows to the hydro-electric catchments will be between 64% and 137% of normal in any given year and that droughts (1) extend for up to 3 years (2) are always followed by a period of above average rainfall and (3) are never as serious in Tasmania as elsewhere in Australia.

And so 54 dams, 28 power stations and numerous canals, weirs, pipelines, penstocks and so on collectively twice the size of the Snowy were built. And as the commercial said, "As long as it keeps raining in the mountains...". 

Trouble now is pretty simple. No individual year has yet been outside the 64% - 137% range that's existed for decades. But this 10 year drought blows the others away in terms of duration. A slow, steady grind to the bottom. 

It's almost exactly the same with the Murray and elsewhere, I've only used Tas as an example because I have the figures. Everything for the Murray etc was planned on what we knew in the 1940's. Droughts were expected but, just as in Tas, they were to be followed by good rains that would refill the dams. Nobody expected a decade with every single year being dry.

Natural or man-made change I really don't know. But the issue is that we're just not set up to cope with it practically anywhere in the country. .


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ........
> damned if I can see a trend there.



That $80 looks rather cheap compared to the price in SA yesterday afternoon. A few cents under $10,000 and stayed there quite a while.


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Can't argue with any of that. Totally agreed.
> 
> 
> Hydro Tas records go back to 1914 and other rainfall data for Tas goes back virtually to European settlement. Based on all this data, a few things have always been assumed to be true. Namely that inflows to the hydro-electric catchments will be between 64% and 137% of normal in any given year and that droughts (1) extend for up to 3 years (2) are always followed by a period of above average rainfall and (3) are never as serious in Tasmania as elsewhere in Australia.
> ...





Too true....we're just not set up to handle those really prolonged dry spells where there's no runoff rain for a decade or more. And it's difficult to see how we every could be - how can any dam store enough water to last for say 20 or 30 years during which time there is virtually no runoff. Or - perish the thought - a 50 or 100 year dought.

So then Smurf...what's the answer? Alternative power sources that don't rely on water storages?
And for water, large rainwater storage tanks for every building? Not that this would entirely supply our water needs, but it'd have to drastically relieve the pressure on dams etc wouldn't it. Even during severe drought there's enough rain to run plenty of water off roofs. I have a bore and a huge rainwater tank myself, no town water, but if  my bore went dry and I had to rely solely on tank water I could get by quite OK. Particularly if I added a second tank.

Some areas have plenty of water but aren't allowed to use it.  Fraser Island, just a few miles off the QLD coast, has dozens of strong fresh water streams flowing into the sea, even in times of drought. A small fraction of this water harvested and piped to the nearby cities would ensure a reliable water supply for that region, without adversely affecting nature. Yet the greenies have Fraser Island locked down....not one drop of Fraser water can be touched for human use. Ridiculous. 
I'm conservation-minded myself, but not to the extent of being downright idiotic about it. There has to be some balanced thinking incorporated with conservation.

I've never been to Tassie but I believe you have quite a lot of fresh water flowing into the sea. Could a small portion of this water be harvested for human use, without wrecking the rivers or destroying the surrounding ecosystem?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Smurf
> 
> Seems to me that a 66% reduction in rainfall in a relatively short period of time is most likely due to the volatile and extreme nature of the Australian climate.
> If it was due to long term climate change, wouldn't it stand to reason that the change would be more gradual?



Bunyip
I can't see any reason that the change would be gradual.
We are not talking mono-step adjustments to the system.  This is a crazy chaotic world we live in.  Trouble is the stats (to normal confidence intervals) are all pointing to the globe warming (IPCC). (as evidenced by a heap of symptoms).  Worst levels in Eucumbine for a starter. 

The 'extreme nature of the Aus climate' could well become more extreme. Certainly the average is getting hotter.

And today's article - "Early Warning" re global warming etc.  - probably should be on some other thread, since some parts of Aus will become wetter and some drier. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168668.htm?section=justin



> *Garnaut report a call to action, says Brown*
> Posted 52 minutes ago
> 
> Greens leader Bob Brown says the interim report being released today on climate change is another warning about the need to act quickly to cut emissions.
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 March 2008)

I keep hearing about floods in Qld, rain in NSW etc. Any chance of sending some down to Tas?



> over the last four months we have experienced the lowest ever inflows to hydro storages for any November to February period on record.
> 
> “In fact, the inflows were less than 20 per cent of those normally received and less than half of the lowest previously experienced.
> 
> “As of Monday 3 March 2008, the overall storage of water for Hydro was 20.5 per cent




http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=23180

And inflows for January were actually negative. That is, less than the loss due to evaporation so no actual inflow at all.

And the forecast for the next 7 days is, wait for it... fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, fine and fine.


----------



## Prospector (8 March 2008)

Or into Adelaide!  We have not had any rain for 6 weeks; the temperatures since last Monday have been between 35 - 39 degrees, and it will be another WEEK of 35 - 39 degrees.  The longest heat wave ever recorded in Adelaide.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 March 2008)

So is there anywhere getting the right amount of rain? Seems to be either floods or extreme drought across the country at the moment.


----------



## noirua (8 March 2008)

This appears to be the answer:  http://www.wizard.gen.nz/raindance.html


----------



## The Once-ler (9 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> So is there anywhere getting the right amount of rain? Seems to be either floods or extreme drought across the country at the moment.




Northern NSW and southern QLD has had a perfect summer. No floods [excepting coastal areas] like further north, but just good rain all summer. Plus much cooler than average.

The dryland summer crops, mainly grain sorghum,  will be a record yield and tonnage.



That figures too I suppose. This area is in between the wet north and the dry south.


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 March 2008)

If climate change IS really underway, we should expect summers in southern Oz to become wetter (as we have just experienced this summer) and winters to become drier (as we have experienced the last few winters). Time will tell. A few more years of the same pattern we are now experiencing might confirm the "climate change" scenario is upon us, as opposed to the "normal random weather pattern events" argument.


AJ


----------



## The Once-ler (9 March 2008)

Yep. agree.

Also, total rainfall, dryer south, wetter north.

Looking something like the last 3 years,







Unfortunately, most of the extra rain is falling in the northern wet season, which just increases an already very wet time, meaning the whole lot is wasted as runoff. The dry season up there will still be dry. Cropping in the northern wet has never been succesful. It only works up there by growing stuff in the dry season and irrigating.
Plus, it's where hardly anyone lives anyway. 

The dryer areas in the south, are where 95% of the population lives, and 95% of the agricultural production happens.

Oh dear. Not good.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> If climate change IS really underway, we should expect summers in southern Oz to become *wetter* (as we have just experienced this summer) and winters to become drier (as we have experienced the last few winters).



I'm not sure about the other states but in Tas at least it's very much a case of _dry_ summers now, that's the problem. Spring rain is up quite nicely but that increase is man-made (cloud seeding) so not really a valid indicator. Add in the evaporation effects higher summer temperatures and total run-off is down quite badly (and in Tas it is run-off that matters more in practical terms than actual rainfall).

Are you saying that Vic, SA etc are getting wet summers?


----------



## Prospector (9 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> Or into Adelaide!  We have not had any rain for 6 weeks; the temperatures since last Monday have been between 35 - 39 degrees, and it will be another WEEK of 35 - 39 degrees.  The longest heat wave ever recorded in Adelaide.




Make that over 35 for the next 9 days; yesterday was 40, today was 40.  15 days straight of temps over 35 degrees, most of those over 38 degrees.  Can you imagine what that is doing to our environment when we are are only allowed to water the gardens for 3 hours a week and no sprinklers and no rain for 8 weeks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 March 2008)

worst (autumn) for 75 years prospector - you aint imagining it apparently. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/09/2184301.htm?section=justin


> Adelaide bakes in 75-year heatwave
> Posted 7 hours 36 minutes ago
> 
> *It has been 75 years since Adelaide has seen such an extraordinary heat wave in autumn, *and the weather bureau says there is no relief in sight.
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> Make that over 35 for the next 9 days; yesterday was 40, today was 40.  15 days straight of temps over 35 degrees, most of those over 38 degrees.  Can you imagine what that is doing to our environment when we are are only allowed to water the gardens for 3 hours a week and no sprinklers and no rain for 8 weeks.



I'm not sure what's under the soil in Adelaide but if it's clay then be careful you don't end up with the house cracking up or, in the worst case, literally falling down. Clay shrinks when it dries out and this plays havoc with foundations and costs $$$ to put right.  

One thing I'm wondering about is the animals. I live near the bush and the creek has dried up, so now I end up with wallabys etc coming onto the front garden to drink when I put the sprinkler on. Gave me a fright the first time I stumbled across one in the dark but I'm used to the idea now and do the watering at night (turns itself off) to suit them. I don't know how long they can live without water but I'm thinking that in Adelaide etc which is a lot warmer they're probably dying due to thirst? Likewise various other animals?

Pity the humans without air-conditioning too. If it's 40 during the day and 32 in the middle of the night then that would make it rather hard to sleep (or are locals used to it?).


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 March 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> Also, total rainfall, dryer south, wetter north.
> 
> Looking something like the last 3 years,
> 
> ...



thanks once-ler
picture worth a thousand words as they say 
buga buga buga ... ..... buga!


----------



## Prospector (9 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not sure what's under the soil in Adelaide but if it's clay then be careful you don't end up with the house cracking up or, in the worst case, literally falling down. Clay shrinks when it dries out and this plays havoc with foundations and costs $$$ to put right.




Reactive clay it is, and there are houses cracking everywhere!  Even new homes.  Ours is not doing any worse than it normally does, but it certainly does have cracks.  We just learn in Adelaide to live with them!



Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I'm wondering about is the animals. I live near the bush and the creek has dried up, so now I end up with wallabys etc coming onto the front garden to drink when I put the sprinkler on.



Sprinklers are BANNED! 

Hey Smurf, funny you should say that! Guess what arrived in our garden about 2 hours ago (we are 10 minutes from Adelaide CBD!)

This!

I can touch it it is so close to ground level!  And I have rung so many people to try to have it rescued, but the only people licensed to rescue it belong to the Government, it is a long weekend here, and the call goes to a call centre interstate.  They told me to call back Tuesday!

In Adelaide at the moment we have the Festival of Arts, the Fringe, Womadelaide (World of Music), Adelaide Cup Race, Glendi (Greek festival) and it is so fricken hot for all of them.  Adelaide Cup used to be held in May but a couple of years ago it was moved to March because of the bad weather in May.  Ha, stupid horse race!


----------



## ormond (12 March 2008)

The heatwave just keeps on in Adelaide.
Now 9 days of 35c+ with more to come.
Thu-40c
Fri-39c
Sat-38c
Sun-38c
Mon-39c
Tommorow and Friday shaping as the worst bushfire days this summer with strong northerlys predicted.
Seven weeks of no rain and i've had enough!


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2008)

I said to my partner (who is enjoying 25degrees in Mexico) that today seemed cooler.  Well, I guess 39 is cooler than 40.

So, maybe we should do a poll on who is watering their gardens at the moment?


----------



## Julia (12 March 2008)

Commiserations, Prospector.  You seem to have had the most horrible summer.
In contrast, here in coastal Qld it's been very cool, overcast, showery and with gale force winds most of the summer.
We've just had a gorgeous week in Sydney with sunny, calm days.
Such a beautiful city.
Hope there's some relief on the way for you soon, Prospector.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2008)

ormond said:


> The heatwave just keeps on in Adelaide.
> Now 9 days of 35c+ with more to come.
> Thu-40c
> Fri-39c
> ...



Must be hard to sleep at night (even worse for shift workers!) with that heat unless you have a pretty decent air conditioner. I remember being in a hotel there in the middle of summer with windows that got the afternoon sun and it was HOT!

Must say though that the hot breeze outside at 3am was really something. Well, it is if you're not used to the heat anyway. 

Not to worry too much though, the heat is spreading a bit. 34 down here tomorrow and we've got a total ban on ALL outdoor water use and fire ban too. The water ban isn't due to a shortage as such, just a precaution to keep the load on the pumps etc as low as possible in case water is needed for fire fighting. One spark and the whole place is ready to practically blow up with it being so dry plus the warm weather and strong winds forecast.

...

Arthurs Lake (Tas), well known for its fishing locally and even internationally, is now being dropped below the point where the fishing goes kaput. Been trying to avoid that for years but it's do or die (well, drain or blackouts) time now and so the pumps are running 24/7 feeding into the 16% full Great Lake (aka the Hydro's "reserve bank"). Not that it will increase the level in Great Lake, it's flowing out through Poatina far more quickly than it can be pumped in, but it will keep the lights on for a while longer with another storage heading to oblivion.

Don't try jumping off Gordon Dam either. Obviously a 140m fall straight down on the downstream side will kill you for sure but the lake is getting so low that you'd be unlikely to survive a plunge into the water either. 14% and falling. Looking on the positive side, if this keeps up then I guess drowning there won't be much of a risk...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> I said to my partner (who is enjoying 25degrees in Mexico) that today seemed cooler.  Well, I guess 39 is cooler than 40.
> 
> So, maybe we should do a poll on who is watering their gardens at the moment?



Thought you weren't allowed to water the garden in Adelaide?


----------



## trillionaire#1 (14 March 2008)

Allowed to water once a week in adelaide for 15 minutes (no sprinklers)
but you can water using unlimited amounts in buckets ,ive just spent an hour tipping buckets on everything organic in the yard,getting some serious muscletone going!


----------



## Prospector (14 March 2008)

Lovely 31 degree minimum last night, 
40 today, and a cool change tonight which will drop the temperature to only 38 tomorrow. 

No-one is buying chocolate Easter Eggs at the moment.  There are so many still in the shops - actually in many places the Eggs cant be stored in the shops but in the (air conditioned) malls outside the shops.  Haighs have stopped production (usually they sell out by now, now they cant even sell them) and the temperature is not expected to dip below 30 until the day before Easter.  So either people will just not bother this year, or Thursday will be frantic.  Good for the waistline anyway - havent had a drink of alcohol or chocolate for over a week!  Dont like beer and it is way too hot for wine.  Dont drink soft drink so I cant even get into the spirits either!


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2008)

At least you shouldn't have trouble with hot cross buns. They'll cook by themselves without needing the oven. :

SA was using more power in the middle of last night than it does during a weekday afternoon when the weather is mild. So clearly a lot of air-conditioners running so people can sleep.

On a more serious note, fires.

I heard on the news that there are some fires in SA not far from Adelaide. Hope nobody gets hurt, houses burnt etc but with the weather it's going to be hard to fight the fires.

Also there's a bushfire smell throughout Hobart right now. Not sure where the fire is (might even be smoke blown over from SA or Vic?) but it's just hazy and smells of smoke.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2008)

Well I've just got to post this one. The hottest Australian capital city right now is... Hobart! : (source Bureau of Met)

Hobart 36.5
Adelaide 35.2
Melbourne 34.7

OK, it won't last, but there's a novelty value in being the warmest even if not for long. Also it's making the computer fan do some serious revs. I'd better log off before it blows up...

Edit: Change that. 37.0 now only 0.3 off the March record. I'm going outside just for the sake of it...


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well I've just got to post this one. The hottest Australian capital city right now is... Hobart! : (source Bureau of Met)
> 
> Hobart 36.5
> Adelaide 35.2
> ...




Stands to reason.

Yer closer to Hades, being Down Under and all! 

LOL


----------



## noirua (14 March 2008)

Praying for rain:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21680340/


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 March 2008)

A eulogy for Prof Peter Cullen. 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2189841.htm
Some Cullenisms :-


> 'By now we should have learned that praying for rain is no substitute for good planning."
> 
> "Disconnecting the fuel gauge might be one way to stop worrying about how much fuel might be left, but it's a pretty stupid strategy."
> 
> ...




Sadly it was once in a lifetime for him ... question is will we learn anything from the last attempt I guess.  With Senator Xenophon (in July), it is sure to be back on the political agenda. 



> What made Peter Cullen a household name in Australia was not his science – to him that was the easy bit – what made Peter Cullen great was his tireless efforts to work with people from all backgrounds, to carve out a way to get us from where we are to where we need to be.
> 
> I will never forget the day he was invited to make a 15-minute presentation to the Prime Minister's Science Engineering Council on the salinity crisis facing the Murray Darling Basin. This august body meets twice a year, is chaired by the Prime Minister, attended by many Cabinet Ministers and discusses matters ranging from biotechnology to cancer research. Salinity is not up there in the sexy subject stakes, but Peter commanded the room.
> 
> ...




This from a paper he gavein NZ last Dec.. (his last paper?) 
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Adapting_to_Water_Scarcity.pdf


----------



## noirua (15 March 2008)

A very great man indeed was Professor Peter Cullen and with Australia's population adding 330,000 people every year there will be a need for many more desalination plants. He wouldn't take any notice of comments on health problems, so they say, and we've lost him at a time of great need.


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

I just hope that Nick (X) really manages to save Adelaide and South Australia.  Ventured out for a drive today (well, it was ONLY 35 at the time) and trees are dying - 50 year old trees are dead or dying.  The leaves are all shrivelled and limbs are falling off.  There is no green grass.  Everything is crispy, there is dust everywhere, and even if we get rain, things cant come back.  Trees are gone forever.  In a capital city - it is like Australia has forgotten us.  That is what saddens me the most.

Guys, please do something in your state to make people realise this is not about politics or state boundaries anymore.  In order to grow rice and cotton, we are sacrificing South Australia.  It is really, really desperate here.

And how stupid is our water minister - yesterday there was an article in the paper saying we must prepare now for a flood plan!  WTF!  We dont have a plan for the drought that is happening now, and she wants us to prepare for a flood!  I am so angry! 

Peter Cullen - he was our Thinker in Residence and he prepared a plan to waterproof Adelaide.  None of his recommendations have ever been put into place.  Maybe that contributed to his death.  RIP Peter.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

Our water Minister Karlene Maywald has lost all respect.

This has been going on for YEARS and yet the politicians are still 'planning'. In other words they cant be bothered actually doing anything so they wont. 

My father is spending savings to keep fruit trees alive, because if they die, its 6 - 8 yrs for new ones to crop again. That is his personal choice, but there is no compensation for the 75% of the water allocation that has been cut. yet we get some stupid horse flu and instantly that industry gets compo. What a load of sh1te.

Weirs in certain areas would have helped, political action at a Federal level would have helped, foresight would have helped.

There is not one politician who i respect or who i believe is in it for anymore than their pay, especially once they realise that the system prevents them from achieving anything


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Our water Minister Karlene Maywald has lost all respect.
> 
> This has been going on for YEARS and yet the politicians are still 'planning'. In other words they cant be bothered actually doing anything so they wont.
> 
> ...




Prawn, your story is being replicated everywhere, sadly.  I think Karlene has been totally left out to hang by Good News Mike.  Where is he anyway?  he just seems to have vanished, as Foley is acting, AGAIN!

Weirs - well, that would totally kill the Coorong so on that we disagree.  

The only thing this government is doing is praying for rain, as if that will solve their problems.  It is way, way bigger than that.  

Sadly, on this topic every South Australian would agree with you.  I would love to be involved in a Rally - I think we would get as many as marched in the demo against the war in Iraq - in the hundreds of thousands.  What do you think?


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

Yeh im kind of divided on weirs too. My father wants them, but then those belwo the weir would be worse of, so its a catch 22 IMO.

The problem is, and always will be, the fact that farmers/growers are too independent. In their jo they make the decisons for themselves and are their own boss. There is no one who would 'unite' them as such, or at least not enough to get a critical mass.

Same when it comes to pricing. Agents and wineries etc etc can always screw the farmer, because they are too independent and do not get together to collaborate and say "we wont sell below X". Even if this did happen then someone would always undercut them.

As much as a rally is a good idea P, I am enough of a realist to know it wont happen.

My father is just lucky enough to be debt free, and not rely on growing as his sole income source.


----------



## noirua (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> I just hope that Nick (X) really manages to save Adelaide and South Australia.  Ventured out for a drive today (well, it was ONLY 35 at the time) and trees are dying - 50 year old trees are dead or dying.  The leaves are all shrivelled and limbs are falling off.  There is no green grass.  Everything is crispy, there is dust everywhere, and even if we get rain, things cant come back.  Trees are gone forever.  In a capital city - it is like Australia has forgotten us.  That is what saddens me the most.
> 
> Guys, please do something in your state to make people realise this is not about politics or state boundaries anymore.  In order to grow rice and cotton, we are sacrificing South Australia.  It is really, really desperate here.
> 
> ...



Hi Prospector, Sometime in the future when SA is able to mine all that sub-bitumous coal and low grade iron ore, thats there in abundance, more notice will be taken. Unfortunately the SA Government has been slow to fully back some projects, so fault lies with them as well.

The rail extension from Alice Springs to Darwin should make a difference. However, most of the investor money is in NSW and SA is seen as State that can be forgotten. Only some speculative cash is going into a lot of small explorers at present. 

Best thing to do is march on Canberra with banners flying and banging drums. Throw a tomato or two at the P.M. - a direct hit brings publicity.


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

noirua said:


> Hi Prospector, Sometime in the future when SA is able to mine all that sub-bitumous coal and low grade iron ore, thats there in abundance, more notice will be taken. .




Too late noirua, or maybe that is their plan; make us into a mining town and all that implies.



noirua said:


> Unfortunately the SA Government has been slow to fully back some projects, so fault lies with them as well..




Yes, everyone in SA agrees with that too; on the other hand, we have no control over what is allowed to flow down the Murray and that is what is hurting the farmers and the Coorong.  We could have ensured that Adelaide was protected from the drought, but not the rest.



noirua said:


> The rail extension from Alice Springs to Darwin should make a difference. .




Hasnt made any improvement at all, and I gather there are issues with the rail link and people have gone back to using trucks!  Too much damage occuring along the route!  

And it is a pleasant 38 degrees as I type.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> I just hope that Nick (X) really manages to save Adelaide and South Australia.  Ventured out for a drive today (well, it was ONLY 35 at the time) and trees are dying - 50 year old trees are dead or dying.  The leaves are all shrivelled and limbs are falling off.  There is no green grass.  Everything is crispy, there is dust everywhere, and even if we get rain, things cant come back.  Trees are gone forever.  In a capital city - it is like Australia has forgotten us.  That is what saddens me the most.
> 
> Guys, please do something in your state to make people realise this is not about politics or state boundaries anymore.  In order to grow rice and cotton, we are sacrificing South Australia.  It is really, really desperate here.



No offence intended to anyone here, but I think we do have a real problem in Australia when it comes to the smaller states, particularly SA and Tas.

SA has the water problem that is almost entirely due to what happens in the other states. Everyone argues about this, that or something else in Qld and NSW while SA doesn't get a mention. 

And a great many Tasmanians have had more than enough of NSW and Vic meddling. If we hadn't fought and thankfully won we'd literally be in the dark right now. And don't even mention the word "compensation" because the reality is that despite what may be promised, the money never really comes.

Only reason WA isn't in the same situation is they have the mining boom propping up the flagging economies of NSW and Vic and thus can tell them where to go. 

As I said, no offence intended. But this is one country and it's time we ALL started thinking accordingly. SA has as much right to water as anyone else. Tasmania has as much right to economic development without relying on handouts as anyone else.

And of course Qld, NSW and Vic have as much obligation to at least cut their CO2 to SA or Tas levels per head of population - but no doubt we'll be paying for it down here more than they do in Sydney or Melbourne (indeed we already are...).

Australia. It's one country not seven.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> As much as a rally is a good idea P, I am enough of a realist to know it wont happen.



Not hard to organise a rally as long as there is a genuine desire to have one. If there isn't then the farmers etc have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> No offence intended to anyone here, but I think we do have a real problem in Australia when it comes to the smaller states, particularly SA and Tas.
> 
> SA has the water problem that is almost entirely due to what happens in the other states. Everyone argues about this, that or something else in Qld and NSW while SA doesn't get a mention.
> 
> Australia. It's one country not seven.




Yes, yes and yes.  

Well, the rally against the Iraq war was very successful.  I think people here are really ripe, after these last 2 weeks and the damage that has been caused, to shout, loud and clear. We have no choice really, if we dont have water, we have nothing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> I think people here are really ripe, after these last 2 weeks and the damage that has been caused.



Just wondering if you could elaborate on how bad it is? I mean, are you saying that there's basically no trees etc left in SA that aren't dead or dying because of the lack of water? I know it's bad but I'm starting to think that it might be a lot worse than anyone outside SA realises?


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

Well, it is anecdotal of course, but for some examples - in our backyard, we have lost four trees that we had nurtured for the last four years.  In front of our house, the tree in the street has died - the Council will have to come and remove it.  Our neighbour across the road said today that his golden elm in his front yard had died and he would need to cut it down.  Most houses do not have a lawn anymore, maybe that will come back.

We have an avenue of plane trees that lead into the city; I heard on the radio today that they were in the process of dying.  There are anecdotal stories everywhere of friends relatives etc who have lost fruit trees, eucalytpus etc etc.  Another man said his son was driving in his brand new $150k HiAce (?) truck on a country road and a gum tree just fell on the truck (son was injured but alive) and also caused $20k damage.  The trees in the street are not supposed to be watered. Not even the Councils will do it.

And that is just in the city!  The citrus farmers further up the river have left their trees to die and are being pulled out; I think there are only 2 dairy farmers left on the lower river Murray; and they are at risk because they cant reach the (now salty) River water.  The others have sold their herds and left.  These people supply our milk!!!

It had been hard going until the last 14 days, but now, well, people are either giving up, or openly flouting the rules.

Today I heard that a woman with a permit (she is disabled and can water a little more frequently than we can) had been fined $325 because during her permitted watering times, she had dared to try to save the tree in front of her house (but not on her property).  Someone walking past had dobbed her in.  That is the level we have stopped to now - it is eating into our psyche!  But this woman said she would continue to keep watering as the tree was a 'significant one' and she would not let it die.

And all the while the government indulges in talk fests!


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 March 2008)

Wow. I knew it was bad but I didn't think it was _that_ bad in SA. I suspect most outside the state don't realise it's like that either. Are those plane trees you mention the ones on the way to the airport?

Is the water quality still reasonable for drinking etc or has quality declined along with quantity?


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I suspect most outside the state don't realise it's like that either. Are those plane trees you mention the ones on the way to the airport?




Yes, those trees were talked about too Smurf, and they mentioned Bradman Drive (the road you are talking about) but my dried up brain cant remember what was said!  But it wasnt good, so they are obviously at risk.  

We still do have trees, we havent been totally felled of course, but arborists are saying that it wont be for another few months that we can see just how much damage has been caused (unless the tree is already dead!) and trees just die over a period of time.

Is it cooler down your way today?  Our cool change lasted a couple of hours - temperature back up again, whereas I think in Vic and Tassie it stayed down for a while.  And that has been the pattern of the last 2 weeks.

Our water was pumped from the Murray before this summer; which is why we are in debt to the River system; as is every other state in Australia but for some reason we have to pay back the water we need to DRINK while other states can use it recklessly in open drains to irrigate rice in the Hay Plains.  Have you seen the Hay Plains?  What used to be arid land is as green as - for irrigating rice!  Arent we clever! Wonder what the history books will say - we were able to irrigate the desert, and there used to be a quaint little town called Adelaide which dried up because there wasnt any water!


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

I have an Uncle who lives in Blanchetown, which is where Lock 1 is.

The lockmaster has told him that the depth of the river below the Lock is 40cm. This is because water is being held back to 'store' it.

If it were not for mud, you would be able to stroll right across the Murray. Another year like this and the Murray will once again be a heap of puddles like it was 150 years ago during the droughts BEFORE the locks...


----------



## chops_a_must (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> In a capital city - it is like Australia has forgotten us.  That is what saddens me the most.
> 
> Guys, please do something in your state to make people realise this is not about politics or state boundaries anymore.  In order to grow rice and cotton, we are sacrificing South Australia.  It is really, really desperate here.



And what is the benefit of saving South Australia? It's just a dole bludger in a welfare state.



Smurf1976 said:


> No offence intended to anyone here, but I think we do have a real problem in Australia when it comes to the smaller states, particularly SA and Tas.
> 
> Only reason WA isn't in the same situation is they have the mining boom propping up the flagging economies of NSW and Vic and thus can tell them where to go.



For someone so intelligent Smurf, I have to say, that is complete and utter bollocks.

Water policy planning has been a matter of course in WA since the early 90s. All our current water policy projects, have, and seem to continue to have, bipartisan support. Our first desal plant was planned in the late 90s, very early 00s, well well before any "mining boom" FFS! And crossed party lines.

But the fact we are so removed from the rest of Australia, our needs are so ignored, we have an attitude of just doing it ourselves, without expecting to be babied. It's something the other smaller states can learn from. We haven't received any federal funding for any of our water initiatives. And it cracks me up, and annoys the hell out of me at the same time, that TAS and SA always expect outside help.

You have people like Twiggy Forest saying that they wont be able to have workers for mining on their projects, because the federal government turns it into a negative return for the state when it comes to the infrastructure costs.

That's money going in particular to TAS and SA. So why is a state that has done everything right for the last 15 years, across parties, being punished for doing things correctly? What incentive is there for WA to develop the NW, when it turns into a negative return, because of you guys?

I'm just so sick of hearing all this emo rubbish from eastern staters about the water issue.

WA is one of the driest areas on earth. We don't have a water problem. Why not? Because of long term internal planning and independent action.

If the eastern states were people, they would be getting told to grow up, do something about it, or stop your bitching. Because it is getting tiring.


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> And what is the benefit of saving South Australia? It's just a dole bludger in a welfare state..




You say this, and then expect anyone to give the rest of your post any cred?



chops_a_must said:


> For someone so intelligent Smurf, I have to say, that is complete and utter bollocks...



Ditto, like you would even know what happens in Tasmania?



chops_a_must said:


> And it cracks me up, and annoys the hell out of me at the same time, that TAS and SA always expect outside help....




We have already agreed that each state parliament has been especially negligent in this.  There is nothing that could have been done to save the Murray once the water is dammned and removed upstream. A geography lesson - the River Murray has its antecedents in the Darling Murray Basin which extends from Queensland, but more closely through New South Wales, touching Victoria and its mouth is in South Australia.  A logic lesson - taking out water means that there is little left to flow through to the mouth!

Whatever South Australia did to conserve water for the use of the people in the city, could do NOTHING to prevent the capture upstream.



chops_a_must said:


> I'm just so sick of hearing all this emo rubbish from eastern staters about the water issue..




Um, SA is not an eastern state.

And my sister in law who lives in Perth says they do have a water problem!  I will agree with you that WA has done it well, and if you had bothered to read even just a little of what has been posted you would see that Prawn and I have both held our SA Government responsible for the mess. But then, we are unemployed welfare people, so we can't even read our own posts.

How dare you post such offensive stuff!


----------



## chops_a_must (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ditto, like you would even know what happens in Tasmania?



No. But I wouldn't write a blatant mistruth like that. However, Tasmania gets more in funding from the feds than it provides.



Prospector said:


> We have already agreed that each state parliament has been especially negligent in this.  There is nothing that could have been done to save the Murray once the water is dammned and removed upstream. A geography lesson - the River Murray has its antecedents in the Darling Murray Basin which extends from Queensland, but more closely through New South Wales, touching Victoria and its mouth is in South Australia.  A logic lesson - taking out water means that there is little left to flow through to the mouth!
> 
> Whatever South Australia did to conserve water for the use of the people in the city, could do NOTHING to prevent the capture upstream.



This is how I see it. South Australia is not willing to completely cut water flows to its own farmers, as seen with Prawn's Dad. However, he expects compensation regardless. If SA is not prepared to do the hard yards with something that affects them moreso than anyone else, why would anyone consider helping? 

If NSW, QLD and VIC perceive that in a large way they are filling SA coffers, how could they defend making sacrifices on their own economies, to further the SA cause, to their own constituents?

As an environmentalist, I abhor what is going on with the Murray River. But the problems aren't just with the cotton and rice farmers. The problem is right down the line. And until SA is prepared to stop drawing water for any farming, I doubt anyone will take the concerns from South Australians seriously.




Prospector said:


> Um, SA is not an eastern state.



To me it is! :




Prospector said:


> And my sister in law who lives in Perth says they do have a water problem!  I will agree with you that WA has done it well, and if you had bothered to read even just a little of what has been posted you would see that Prawn and I have both held our SA Government responsible for the mess. But then, we are unemployed welfare people, so we can't even read our own posts.



I don't consider it a problem.

The biggest problem we have is deciding whether or not to build another desal plant.

The debate about watering gardens and large tracts of lawn is long gone.

All I'm saying that until SA is prepared to take serious action, no-one else is going to either.

Beware the pariah people...


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 March 2008)

Well I'm confused as to why the SA weirs / dams etc aren't full if the Darling has recently received a lot of flood runoff from Qld ?  

Even if the Murray is a basket case (yes?) 

Not enough storage capacity? (on second thoughts I think Prawn was trying to tell us that)


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> This is how I see it. South Australia is not willing to completely cut water flows to its own farmers, as seen with Prawn's Dad. However, he expects compensation regardless. If SA is not prepared to do the hard yards with something that affects them moreso than anyone else, why would anyone consider helping?




Chops,

If the government said to you "ok we are going to cut your ability to earn 80% of what you currently do" would you expect to be compensated?

Regardless of if the industry is sustainable or not, it has been happening for 100's of years and if the gov wishes to stop it, or dramatically reduce it then those affected should be fairly compensated. 

Just the same as if a new highway goes through someones property. The gov compensates them, it doesnt just take it.


----------



## chops_a_must (15 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Chops,
> 
> If the government said to you "ok we are going to cut your ability to earn 80% of what you currently do" would you expect to be compensated?
> 
> ...




It's a false analogy. People don't necessarily know if there will be a highway going through where they live 20 years in advance. People can see that the envronment is stuffed in SA, and drawing water from the Murray is no longer viable.



> Regardless of if the industry is sustainable or not




That's the point. Why should people be compensated for a business venture that will only end up broke anyway?

Farmers weren't compensated when tarriffs were taken off. I don't see what is different here. See it could be seen as farmer's compensation to the environment. Wouldn't South Australians prefer to have money spent on water infrastructure than bailing out a part of the cause of the initial problem?

I just see more excuses and no real decision or attitude change being made here. Either you stop unsustainable farming practices, and begin treating the problem from your end. Or, you don't, and keep complaining about the same old...


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

If it is unsustainable (which i personally do think it is), then the gov should buy back the land and compensate the farmers for lost income etc etc, as they have been allowed to farm there for X years and have not been informed/supported by the gov during a drought like this.

I know in the Stolen Generation you were advocating compensation for that, I dont really see the difference between past government mistakes in that situation or in this situation. 

Possibly farmers should never have been allowed to irrigate, but they were, so now they should recieve compo.

Why is it the racing industry gets instant compo, whereas those providing food do not? Apart from political donations and the like...


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> That's the point. Why should people be compensated for a business venture that will only end up broke anyway?
> .



Chops 
Just think of it an unemployment benefits


----------



## chops_a_must (15 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> If it is unsustainable (which i personally do think it is), then the gov should buy back the land and compensate the farmers for lost income etc etc, as they have been allowed to farm there for X years and have not been informed/supported by the gov during a drought like this.



Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated? It would be the first time people are compensated because of a natural environmental cycle.

As a business owner, I accept the risk that events beyond my control affect my business. Anything else is socialism. But like the Farmer in Catch-22, most farmers seem to think that any aid paid to anyone but farmers is socialism.



prawn_86 said:


> I know in the Stolen Generation you were advocating compensation for that, I dont really see the difference between past government mistakes in that situation or in this situation.



Not on a broad scale. Only if abuse can be proven. I don't see a drought as caused by the government.



prawn_86 said:


> Possibly farmers should never have been allowed to irrigate, but they were, so now they should recieve compo.



Ummm... James Hardie were once allowed to sell and manifacture asbestos, so therefore they shouldn't have to provide compo?




prawn_86 said:


> Why is it the racing industry gets instant compo, whereas those providing food do not? Apart from political donations and the like...



Because there is a difference between breaches in institutional protocol, and an environmental cycle that farmers know happens from time to time.

I know this is a personal issue, but I am passionate about the environment.

I don't see bailing out farmers as anything more than a reward for their part in screwing the environment, and adopting unacceptable business risks. If they haven't drought proofed themselves, too bad. It's much like the Bear Stearns fiasco.

If someone like Tech loses his business (I sincerely hope not) because of massive credit problems, something outside of his control, I doubt he would be asking for compensation. And the credit problem, in my mind, is much like the drought problem to farmers. Some will survive, some wont. But people shouldn't be rewarded for doing damage to the lifeblood that they have made money from.

However, I think most SA farmers will be bailed out. Farmers always do.

But it doesn't stop me from thinking it shouldn't be so, in what is an industry and environmentally created crisis.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated? It would be the first time people are compensated because of a natural environmental cycle.




If the government said to you "you cannot use 80% of your icecream" dont you think you should be compensated? There is still water in the river, irrigators are just not allowed to suck it dry.



chops_a_must said:


> Ummm... James Hardie were once allowed to sell and manifacture asbestos, so therefore they shouldn't have to provide compo?




Isnt this exactly my point??

The drought has not been caused by the gov, but their lack of infrastructure, planning, and foresight all was.



chops_a_must said:


> I don't see bailing out farmers as anything more than a reward for their part in screwing the environment, and adopting unacceptable business risks. If they haven't drought proofed themselves, too bad. It's much like the Bear Stearns fiasco.




I dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this chops...

IMO the reason for compensation revolves around government action or inaction depending on the way you look at it.

Water is leased to irrigators from the government. Irrigators pay for this water, so theoretically, _at the very least_, these irrigators should be compensated for the 80% they are no longer allowed to use.

On a broader scale, it is the governments who have leased out X amount of water when environmentally it should have been much less (or none). So therefore the government have allowed (and encouraged!) an industry to be built upon something that is (potentially) unsustainable. 

Once again why do the likes of horse racing and car manufacturers recieve such government support, yet farming virtually nil?


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Well I'm confused as to why the SA weirs / dams etc aren't full if the Darling has recently received a lot of flood runoff from Qld ?




We will get none of it because it will be taken out of the river system before it reaches South Australia.  And therein lies the crux of the problem.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> We will get none of it because it will be taken out of the river system before it reaches South Australia.  And therein lies the crux of the problem.




Also, because of such a prolonged drought, the soil is so dry, so it ends up soaking in a hell of a lot of moisture.

Wetlands that have been dry for years etc etc


----------



## chops_a_must (15 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Also, because of such a prolonged drought, the soil is so dry, so it ends up soaking in a hell of a lot of moisture.
> 
> Wetlands that have been dry for years etc etc




Yeah. You're probably going to need 3-4 good years to get rid of the silt, and soak the soil to a point where it's not being absorbed, and can flow.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 March 2008)

Sorry, I just heard that the lip of the weir at Bourke was overtopped, and I just assumed it had made it to SA's capital as well 

many a slip twixt the lip and cap.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> No. But I wouldn't write a blatant mistruth like that. However, Tasmania gets more in funding from the feds than it provides.



And that's entirely my point and the problem.

Consider for a moment if the Federal Government had stopped the NW Shelf gas project completely. Consider if every large scale heavy industrial plant built in WA over the past two decades had also been stopped by Canberra. Consider if 40% of WA, including where much of the mineral wealth is located, were placed off limits to development - again a decision made by the Eastern states not WA. Consider if Canberra had likewise threatened to stop the Perth desal plant and taken years to reach a decision.

Do that and WA's economy would be outright stuffed and locals wouldn't be happy. You'd have Perth as a far lesser city than it is today and not much else. WA would be as dependent on handouts as Tas is now.

And that situation is directly comparable to what has actually happened in Tas. Hence the state's now permanent dependence on handouts.

I suspect that this is not widely known to most, but Canberra did once go as far as to use an implied _military_ threat to halt one project in Tasmania. And the airforce planes did indeed fly over the site. That's going way too far as far as I'm concerned.

And a decade later a group (of which I was a member) backed by both the Tasmanian Government and opposition had to threaten to take Australia to the United Nations simply to get local representation on an inquiry set up, by Canberra, which aimed to dismantle existing Tasmanian infrastructure thus further crippling the economy.

As for overall funding, a few facts.

1. Tasmanian taxes helped build the Snowy scheme in the 50's and 60's. Meanwhile the state built its own hydro schemes, without assistance from the other states, that are collectively twice the size.

2. The Australian Government funds the interstate highways linking the mainland states. Tasmania bought it's own ships to run on Bass Strait.

3. Every Australian capital city except Hobart has it's major road links to the rest of the state funded by the Australian Government. In Tas it stops well short of Hobart with the state paying the rest.

And I could always raise the point that Tasmania was the only state where, in the 1990's, fuel used for baseload electricity generation was taxed by the Australian Government. Fuel that was only being used in the first place because Canberra stopped every attempt to build something else. Meanwhile Qld, Vic, NSW etc stoked up the coal furnaces without paying so much as one cent in tax for doing so. Now tell me how that one's fair?

I contend that the overall situation in the smaller states has been one of outright bullying. In Tas it's a case of do as Canberra wants, become even more dependent on handouts, or we'll cut you off altogether.

In SA they're clearly not being given due consideration when it comes to water. Nobody in their right mind leaves a city of a million people high and dry in order to grow a bit of rice. Qld wouldn't do it to Brisbane and NSW wouldn't do it to Sydney. But they don't think twice about what happens in Adelaide.

But my point isn't about an interstate war or apportioning blame. It's time we ALL worked together for the good of the country as a whole and stopped this state vs state nonsense. As with any war, we'll ALL lose in the end if it continues. Indeed we're likely all losing now to some extent.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Ummmm.... so... if I'm an icecream seller, and we get a massive prolonged cold snap, I should be compensated?



A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.




or didnt give compo at all


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> And that's entirely my point and the problem.
> 
> Consider for a moment if the Federal Government had stopped the NW Shelf gas project completely. Consider if every large scale heavy industrial plant built in WA over the past two decades had also been stopped by Canberra. Consider if 40% of WA, including where much of the mineral wealth is located, were placed off limits to development - again a decision made by the Eastern states not WA. Consider if Canberra had likewise threatened to stop the Perth desal plant and taken years to reach a decision.
> 
> Do that and WA's economy would be outright stuffed and locals wouldn't be happy. You'd have Perth as a far lesser city than it is today and not much else. WA would be as dependent on handouts as Tas is now.




Ah, you see, the feds did pull rubbish like that.

And luckily we had hard heads like Lang Hancock and Charlie Court who didn't allow it to happen. Who, because of my views, I kind of hate, but fully agree when it comes to their secession and anti-eastern state arguments.

Had they not brought secession up, Australia, not just Western Australia, would have been in serious trouble for the long term.

Had we not had the secession movement in 74, WA would be stuffed. But it is an ace we have up our sleeves, and probably us alone. And it is still a popular sentiment in WA, given our royalty payments/ lack of any government funding. It may end up being an issue again when the eastern states begin demanding energy delivery or something like that.

I think Western Australians can sympathise with Tasmanians when it comes to road funding. The Roe highway funding was about 15 years late, and the Bunbury Mandurah bypass (think that is the name) was never funded... so it was funded fully by us. Ended up being 20 years overdue or something. You name it, here in WA, the feds have rarely funded and even obstructed development here. They even refused to SIGN a bit of paper allowing the WA government to buy and fund an MRI machine at the kiddies hospital!

For the smaller states, I think autonomy may well be the way to go. I can see it becoming an issue again here, and it probably should be in Tassie. But unless you have some hard heads, you'll continue to get rolled. I think WA is lucky in that we perhaps have the most patriotic and loyal population with a distinct identity. And that seperates us, and probably means we don't put up with the rubbish the other smaller states do.

But it is not until a far out push like that (autonomy/ secession) gains traction, and becomes popular, that anyone else listens. It has certainly worked here.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A more relevant comparisson would be if the government banned you from having a freezer to store it in and also banned you from owning the equipment needed to sell anything else (eg hot food). Then they handed you compo, all of which was promptly taken back at tax time.




I know where you are coming from, but it is a matter of priorities. If people in SA were really that worried about water, this is a no brainer.

Hmmm... what if freezers were killing everything that redbacks needed to survive on? Would people allow icecream sellers to have freezers?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> They even refused to SIGN a bit of paper allowing the WA government to buy and fund an MRI machine at the kiddies hospital!



Exactly the sort of nonsense I'm on about. Also that of state decisions being made in the relevant state and not in Canberra.

A classic case in point is the pulp mill debate in Tasmania. Sure, it's a controversial issue, but it's a STATE issue not a national one. Not even the strongest opponents are suggesting it will in any way impact any other Australian state other than by way of economic benefits. 

NSW, Vic and SA all have pulp mills, indeed so does Tasmania. And nobody's seriously suggesting that all of those mills be closed as part of a national policy. So let's make the decision in Hobart, not Canberra. Just as NSW decisions are made in Sydney and Victoria is run from Melbourne.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Exactly the sort of nonsense I'm on about. Also that of state decisions being made in the relevant state and not in Canberra.
> 
> A classic case in point is the pulp mill debate in Tasmania. Sure, it's a controversial issue, but it's a STATE issue not a national one. Not even the strongest opponents are suggesting it will in any way impact any other Australian state other than by way of economic benefits.
> 
> NSW, Vic and SA all have pulp mills, indeed so does Tasmania. And nobody's seriously suggesting that all of those mills be closed as part of a national policy. So let's make the decision in Hobart, not Canberra. Just as NSW decisions are made in Sydney and Victoria is run from Melbourne.




For mine it's a classic NIMBY argument blown out of all proportions. Even from an environmentalist's perspective, there are bigger issues. I'm far more concerned about what timber they will be using for instance...

I'd love to see the rest of Oz stopping Victoria building a much needed coal fired power plant, which would arguably be far more damaging in terms of emissions and particulates than a pulp mill. I'm sure the Vics would love that! Lol! Force em to have solar... that'd go great in Melbourne! Just for sh!ts and giggles!


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> For mine it's a classic NIMBY argument blown out of all proportions. Even from an environmentalist's perspective, there are bigger issues. I'm far more concerned about what timber they will be using for instance...
> 
> I'd love to see the rest of Oz stopping Victoria building a much needed coal fired power plant, which would arguably be far more damaging in terms of emissions and particulates than a pulp mill. I'm sure the Vics would love that! Lol! Force em to have solar... that'd go great in Melbourne! Just for sh!ts and giggles!



The point about coal in Victoria is one that has long been noted by many Tasmanians, indeed it was a point made over 25 years ago during the dams debate long before most people had even heard of the CO2 problem or fossil fuel depletion. I honestly think that most thought it was a joke back then and just a last ditch attempt to build a dam but today CO2 has become a big issue. Look in your own backyard first...

As for the timber in the mill, I'm not keen on forestry the way it's done but in principle they could just process the wood that is currently exported. The pulp will be produced somewhere so might as well be here for the economic benefits if it can be done in a reasonable manner.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The pulp will be produced somewhere so might as well be here for the economic benefits if it can be done in a reasonable manner.




That's my exact point in arguments I have used elsewhere.

When you look at cradle to grave environmental problems, it's far more efficient and effective to process the pulp near the site of logging.

Rather than having timber chipped, exported, pulped and produced into products all in different locations, you are far better off having some of those processes in the same area, limiting the energy use and therefore emissions. Because as much as we'd all like to reduce paper product use, it aint gonna happen overnight. And if it is viable to create jobs at the same time, why not? Value adding at the top of the chain is a great idea if it can be done.

From an outsider's perspective with Tasmania, the problem seems to be there is no designated areas (that I know of) for industrial development. And the demographic is such that you have full blooded conservationists and pro development types living side by side. If there was a larger macro plan, people would be able to look well into the future, and choose where to live on the basis of their priorities. And that would stop a lot of the divisions that whip up so much emotional hysteria about matters Tasmanian, outside of Tasmania.

Cheers.


----------



## The Once-ler (16 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Well I'm confused as to why the SA weirs / dams etc aren't full if the Darling has recently received a lot of flood runoff from Qld ?




A big reason is Menindee Lakes. These lakes will hold 1731 Gigolitres [yes, Gigolitres, not Megs] and they are still filling. This water is used for domestic water for Broken Hill, and it is also regulated for the lower Darling and Murray.

This water argument is so complicated. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Murray would have been completely dry by now if not for all the dams and regulated rivers and weirs and stuff, just like it was for long periods in the 1900's. 

A lot of water was taken from the Darling in just the last few months for irrigation, but before that, I thought none was taken for 5 years. Rice was a non event last year or the year before. The great thing about rice and cotton is that you can stop growing these crops in dry times, and that's what happened. Not so, grapes and fruit. Cotton and rice would have made no difference to water levels in the last few years, because no water ran off, so non was taken from the system.

I just think we have to realise that the rivers will run dry in a drought, and get used to it. We have been through an historically wet time. The 70's and 90's were extremely wet, and I think it's just getting back to normal. 


Also, if South Oz is in such an upraw about water, then why did they allow the irrigation from Murray water of the Clair valley vinyards to go in just a few years ago. Adelaide, and the Clair valley aren't even part of the Murray/Darling catchment. Maybe they could take back that water. Irrigating rice makes more sence than grapes to me. At least rice is a staple food, not so a bottle of wine.


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> A big reason is Menindee Lakes. These lakes will hold 1731 Gigolitres [yes, Gigolitres, not Megs] and they are still filling. This water is used for domestic water for Broken Hill, and it is also regulated for the lower Darling and Murray.
> 
> This water argument is so complicated. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Murray would have been completely dry by now if not for all the dams and regulated rivers and weirs and stuff, just like it was for long periods in the 1900's.
> 
> ...



And perhaps we just shouldn't be growing these crops in areas that can not sustain them and those caught up in the downturn should go broke and move on which is the natural cycle of things. Our romantic notions of living prosporously on the land are obsolete. The answer right now is that water should NOT be subsidised in ANY way, and those who prevail, deserve so. The natural cycle of things...


----------



## explod (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> And perhaps we just shouldn't be growing these crops in areas that can not sustain them and those caught up in the downturn should go broke and move on which is the natural cycle of things. Our romantic notions of living prosporously on the land are obsolete. The answer right now is that water should NOT be subsidised in ANY way, and those who prevail, deserve so. The natural cycle of things...




Have always had a bit of a problem with rice growing in Australia.  In lower NSW a mate of mine moved into the rice business(in 1988) and to water a crop we were talking 30 or 40 feet of water a year.

Large crops are grown with a small amount of labour.  Asia the rice bowl is the direct competitor, and the producers have always been small labor intensive holdings. employing millions of people, now most displaced to the polluted cities.

Like the small family store versus the supermarket.  I notice farmers markets springing up around here all over the place on Sundays.   Perhaps the troubled times will take us to better times out of necessity.


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

explod said:


> Have always had a bit of a problem with rice growing in Australia.  In lower NSW a mate of mine moved into the rice business(in 1988) and to water a crop we were talking 30 or 40 feet of water a year.



My point exactly. Rice in lower NSW! WTF!!! If they paid the same for water there as we do in Melbourne then perhaps Adelaide would have some drinking water.

Just why Australia hasn't got behind a water pipeline from northern NT and QLD is beyond me. Let's spend a few billion on a vehicle carriage way, but not on water? Great strategic thinking, fools.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> My point exactly. Rice in lower NSW! WTF!!! If they paid the same for water there as we do in Melbourne then perhaps Adelaide would have some drinking water.
> 
> Just why Australia hasn't got behind a water pipeline from northern NT and QLD is beyond me. Let's spend a few billion on a vehicle carriage way, but not on water? Great strategic thinking, fools.




Exactly Kennas,

It is due to government inaction as to why i am proposing compo, nothing on an environmental level.

If you leaders has any balls (are whatever female leaders need) and/or foresight, the whole of Aus could be developed for agricultre.

Look at how visionary the UAE is, and we wouldnt even need desal to achieve the opening up of your desert. Just a simple pipeline (or a few) down the guts from darwin to Adelaide, with further lines running off perpendicular. Imagine the acerage that would open up...

I dont think any politician has ever done anything that has made me increase respect for them, yet do they care...?


----------



## noirua (16 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> Too late noirua, or maybe that is their plan; make us into a mining town and all that implies.




Most of the sub-bitumous coal (said to be about 120 billion tonnes) is a long way from Adelaide and some is being looked at on the Phillipson tenement (5 billion tonnes) for the powerstation at Whyalla. Maybe three years before they start using it.
The rail line link into Whyalla needs updating and OneSteel seem to have the majority of the train capacity tied up with Western Mining. However, the Adelaide to Alice Springs rail link runs right through the middle of some of the sub-bitumous coal tenements and iron ore tenements. Pity about the rail problems but about 100 bridges on the way to Darwin has caused problems. Blame it on OneSteel as they produced all the long steel for the project.
There is a fortune to be made but the S.A. Government lack the go-ahead attitude of the W.A. Government in these projects. On one pig iron project W.A. threw $50 million at it in 2003 and RIO went ahead with their furnace producing 3mtpa of pig iron. 
The S.A. Government put $6.5 million towards a project and then failed to follow it through because they did not think there was a future in coal, iron ore and pig iron in 2002.


----------



## Prospector (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> My point exactly. Rice in lower NSW! WTF!!! If they paid the same for water there as we do in Melbourne then perhaps Adelaide would have some drinking water.
> 
> Just why Australia hasn't got behind a water pipeline from northern NT and QLD is beyond me. Let's spend a few billion on a vehicle carriage way, but not on water? Great strategic thinking, fools.




yes kennas, yes!  And why wasnt it built when the rail was built a couple of years ago!

And the only reason why rice is profitable to grow is because the price of water is ridiculously low.  Raise the price of water to where it really belongs (liquid gold even - we have to have water to survive!) and suddenly rice, and corn, and cotton will be completely unsustainable, but that is hardly a problem as it is so cheap to import these from our developing neighbours.  May even reduce our need to provide aid to these countries, which I note was mentioned in the very first post on this thread.

We may need to subsidise products we need fresh, like milk, but how can this be such a no brainer, yet nothing happens.  Double


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> *...how can this be such a no brainer, yet nothing happens.*  Double




I think it has something to do with the fact that most Oz politicians seem to spend an awful lot of their time living on a different planet to the Hoi Poloi. From time to time these pollies beam back down to Real Earth, almost inevitably they don't like what they see (everything is in the "too hard" category) and accordingly retreat (beam back up) to **Fantasy World** again quick-smart, before they can be too badly contaminated with radical ideas.... especially from the likes of us.



Sad, but I believe true.


AJ


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> I think it has something to do with the fact that most Oz politicians seem to spend an awful lot of their time living on a different planet to the Hoi Poloi. From time to time these pollies beam back down to Real Earth, almost inevitably they don't like what they see (everything is in the "too hard" category) and accordingly retreat (beam back up) to **Fantasy World** again quick-smart, before they can be too badly contaminated with radical ideas.... especially from the likes of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No votes in a 20 year project. 



Maybe an ASF Party to be created!!


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> Maybe an ASF Party to be created!!




Then i would actually make sure i vote, as opposed to a donkey vote!


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> 1. A big reason is Menindee Lakes. These lakes will hold 1731 Gigolitres  and they are still filling. This water is used for domestic water for Broken Hill, and it is also regulated for the lower Darling and Murray.
> 
> 2. This water argument is so complicated. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Murray would have been completely dry by now if not for all the dams and regulated rivers and weirs and stuff, just like it was for long periods in the 1900's.
> 
> ...



once-ler
some interesting points.
1.	ok - 3 sydney harbours (3x562GL) - sheesh, those floods should’ve walked that in you’d think.  but at least that will act as a reservoir for a while yes?
Gotta feeling that Eucumbine level is down to less than 1 Syd Harbour. 

2. noted – Murray  Murrumbidgee Darling, all needing TLC. 

3. interesting that you make the case for rice and cotton – a lone voice there m8.   Trouble is they are so damned water-greedy when they do decide to put in a crop, and (surely) it’s hard to plan ahead when you get this guzzler messing around - taps on this year – taps off next year etc. 

4. Yep they’ve taken out a lot of grapes and citrus along the Murray apparently.

5. . As for grapes …and SA arguably being hypocritical (or wrong priorities) putting in irrigation lines to Claire Valley grapes that will detract from what’s available for Adelaide ….

your comment “Irrigating rice makes more sense than grapes to me. At least rice is a staple food, not so a bottle of wine.”  is very thought provoking 

I’m reminded of the problem in Sacramento Valley California, (magnificent agricultural area) - where the water is dammed and sent to LA.  to cries of WE WANT MORE MORE !! Boy don’t the Sacramento people love that little arrangement.  

PS I'm not saying that Adealide people are being selfish by the way - far from it - just that the water supply can't even keep ONE of the parties happy , farmers or townspeople - let alone both 

PS THat's Menindee lakes up near Broken Hill .  - at least the waterbirds are having a bit of respite 

Also there's a photo I took of the Murray at Mildura about 2 years back. - One winding river that one


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> No votes in a 20 year project.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an ASF Party to be created!!




I would have thought the ideal of helping to secure the future health and wealth of our children and grandchildren to be a vote-winner. Again, possibly too radical for pollies to accept....

Oh, unless of course the ASF Party were to be elected!! I'm sure WE wouldn't be *korrupted* by the existing *pollies perks 'n power* now, would we?

LOL


----------



## noirua (16 March 2008)

I doubt that people in Adelaide have the spirit to protest:bier:. I read about the miners in the U.K. who walked 350 miles to London to protest in 1932:luigi:.
Stop moaning, get off your butts and start marching to Canberra:walker::aus:. Leave it until June when it cools down a bit:fan.


----------



## Prospector (16 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 5. . As for grapes …and SA arguably being hypocritical (or wrong priorities) putting in irrigation lines to Claire Valley grapes that will detract from what’s available for Adelaide ….
> 
> your comment “Irrigating rice makes more sense than grapes to me. At least rice is a staple food, not so a bottle of wine.”  is very thought provoking




Yes, but again that is not an example of what 'the average person' has any control over, and the stupidly low cost of water.  In both cases, if the real cost 'value' of water was paid by both winegrowers and rice farmers, then neither would exist!   We need to really think about what we need, and what we want.  We need water, we need fresh produce, we need milk.  These are not things that can be negotiated with overseas markets.  As much as we would like to, we do not need to have vines, nor cotton, nor rice.  Surely someone can use this as a vision to determine the future of the water!


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 5. . As for grapes …and SA arguably being hypocritical (or wrong priorities) putting in irrigation lines to Claire Valley grapes that will detract from what’s available for Adelaide ….



As long as rubbish like this goes on, I doubt anyone will take the concerns of croweaters seriously.

Would Adelaide residents be prepared to compete for water at a market rate?

And all this may become irrelevant anyway if the salinity trends in the murray are true...

FWIW, piping water from the north is stupid. South Australians are going to have to adopt water recycling. I can't see another option. The water that is drunk is mostly rubbish from upstream anyway, so there wouldn't be much difference.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I’m reminded of the problem in Sacramento Valley California, (magnificent agricultural area) - where the water is dammed and sent to LA.  to cries of WE WANT MORE MORE !! Boy don’t the Sacramento people love that little arrangement.
> 
> PS I'm not saying that Adealide people are being selfish by the way - far from it - just that the water supply can't even keep ONE of the parties happy , farmers or townspeople - let alone both



And then there's the waterbirds around the estuary.

And again, the comparison with the Colorado downstream of the Hoover Dam which no longer even reaches the sea.


----------



## Prospector (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> South Australians are going to have to adopt water recycling. I can't see another option. The water that is drunk is mostly rubbish from upstream anyway, so there wouldn't be much difference.



Grrr, this is so frustrating.  I would be really happy to drink recycled water (has to be better than the crap that comes from the Murray) but the damn Government refuses to even consider it.



2020hindsight said:


> And again, the comparison with the Colorado downstream of the Hoover Dam which no longer even reaches the sea.




Visited the Murray Mouth recently?


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> FWIW, piping water from the north is stupid. South Australians are going to have to adopt water recycling. I can't see another option. The water that is drunk is mostly rubbish from upstream anyway, so there wouldn't be much difference.



Chops, Can you do a cost analysis comparison of desalination to SEA compared to a couple of pipelines from the north for us. Might put it in a little more perspective. I'm not really sure what would come up trumps, but my hunch is that desalination is long term more costly than dam and pipe. Obviously a well researched opinion from Lima!


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> 1. And all this may become irrelevant anyway if the salinity trends in the murray are true...
> 
> 2. FWIW, piping water from the north is stupid.
> 
> 3. South Australians are going to have to adopt water recycling. I can't see another option.   The water that is drunk is mostly rubbish from upstream anyway, so there wouldn't be much difference.




1. they'll have to put in a desal plant for the Murray soon you reckon

2. mmm - yet it was put forward as a serious option in the last WA last election yes?  Desparate times call for desparate measures mate. 

I still think it would we worth investigating tanker trains from somewhere (? - and there's one of the "rubs" I guess) 

3. yep - agree that recycling would have to be a nobrainer.  - and no more Toowoomba BS campaigns to cloud the issues. 

PS  Let's not forget that BHP get free artesian water - and mountains of it.  -Incuding the stuff that ends up radioactive.   And that could surely be paid for to help finance all this.  (BHP can pay their way as responsible outback citizens surely)



			
				prospector said:
			
		

> Grrr, this is so frustrating. I would be really happy to drink recycled water (has to be better than the crap that comes from the Murray) but the damn Government refuses to even consider it.
> 
> Visited the Murray Mouth recently?



yep - you should be in charge Prospector 
the Govt are too busy taking the piss out of the states upstream . 

no I haven't but I think you or someone posted something recently that the pelicans were being decimated (might be wrong) 

btw, how's the koala going ?  - how much can a koala bear as they say?


----------



## noirua (16 March 2008)

Desalination Plants in Australia:  http://desaldata.com/countries/62
Broken Hill's Desalination Plant:  http://www.arup.com/australasia/project.cfm?pageid=6161


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

kennas said:


> Chops, Can you do a cost analysis comparison of desalination to SEA compared to a couple of pipelines from the north for us. Might put it in a little more perspective. I'm not really sure what would come up trumps, but my hunch is that desalination is long term more costly than dam and pipe. Obviously a well researched opinion from Lima!




To pipe water from the North to Perth was going to be in the many many billions of dollars. 5+ billion. And maintenance was in the 10s of milions per year. Barnett claimed 2 billion, but that turned out to be a bit of rubbish.

Oh.. here we are:




> ALAN CARPENTER: The cost of bringing water from the Kimberley to the south of the state in a canal – $14.5 billion at least – would cripple WA financially.
> 
> In fact I would say it's probably cheaper to move Perth to the Kimberley than bring the water down the canal to Perth. That's my assertion about it, looking at the figures.
> 
> ...




And obviously there is a greater distance to the east...

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1629125.htm

These are the figures for the Kwinana desal plant:



> The total project cost was AUS$387m, with annual running costs of under $20m – less than one dollar per week per household. The anticipated water cost has been estimated at $1.17/kl.
> 
> http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/




And that's for just shy of 20% of our water needs. The extra water costs certainly haven't been noticed by me.



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> Grrr, this is so frustrating. I would be really happy to drink recycled water (has to be better than the crap that comes from the Murray) but the damn Government refuses to even consider it.




I got very angry with farmers and hicks opposing this last year. Complaining about not havng water, yet not wanting to consider real action.

If you aren't considering this, the obvious assumption is that there isn't a problem, is there?


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> FWIW, piping water from the north is stupid. South Australians are going to have to adopt water recycling. I can't see another option. The water that is drunk is mostly rubbish from upstream anyway, so there wouldn't be much difference.




Piping water from the north would not only benefit SA. 

If you took a straight line from darwin to Adelaide, and had offshoots off that line it would open up a huge amount of the interior (desert) to agriculture.

Perhaps the land that would have access to the water, that is commonwealth/state owned, could be sold cheaply and then an additional tax or levy of some form paid on the water, so then more and more pipes built, eventually opening up the whole of Australia. 

this would increase population and agriculture.

Las Vegas is a good example of a city in the middle of a desert. So it is (relatively) easily do-able


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Piping water from the north would not only benefit SA.



Yep, national issue. ie, good for Victoria!


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

Prawn said:
			
		

> If you took a straight line from darwin to Adelaide, and had offshoots off that line it would open up a huge amount of the interior (desert) to agriculture.




Just fantastic.

Why not recreate the problems we have at the moment, in a different location?

Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?


----------



## noirua (16 March 2008)

Adelaide is about to get a $2.5 billion desalination plant or is it 2011 or later. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/11/2030287.htm


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Just fantastic.
> 
> Why not recreate the problems we have at the moment, in a different location?
> 
> Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?




I dont see how it would re-create these problems Chops.

Australia as a whole had much higher than average rainfall in 2007. Problem was, that the majority of it fell in the top quater, in the tropical areas.

When they are getting metres of rain year in year out, i dont see how it will create the same scenario.

Admittedly actual amounts of runoff etc etc would need to be calculated and how much would be sustainable to pipe down, but water is plentiful up there, hence why it is the tropics.

Plus you wouldnt need any pumps cause it could just flow straight down with gravity. Look at a map...  lol


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont see how it would re-create these problems Chops.



Because farmers would be pulling from the same source that ordinary citizens are and need.

It is EXACTLY the same problem as what we have now. And of course they should get compo when we have to restrict water take to make sure residents can have a drink.

We have plenty of water in the north, yes. Farmers should move there. We can't even get a critical mass of farmers on the Ord river scheme. It would cost less to move farmers there... the choice is theirs... and they don't want to make a decision...

But geez... it's like arguing with a typical country bumpkin.


----------



## derty (16 March 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> If you took a straight line from darwin to Adelaide, and had offshoots off that line it would open up a huge amount of the interior (desert) to agriculture.



Much of Australia has saline ground waters and/or crystalline salt trapped in the weathered profile above the water table. 

There are two ways you can get this salt to the surface:
1. clear the land and remove the deep rooted salt tolerant trees that keep the water table away from the roots of the shallow rooted non-salt tolerant vegetation.
2. Irrigate, adding to the water table and bringing that salty water up to the root zone. 

Much of the salinity issues in the Murray Darling Basin are a direct result of irrigation. Once the salt gets to the surface you are looking at 100's to 1000's of years before it is viable again.


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

derty said:


> Much of the salinity issues in the Murray Darling Basin are a direct result of irrigation. Once the salt gets to the surface you are looking at 100's to 1000's of years before it is viable again.



Hooly dooly!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> From an outsider's perspective with Tasmania, the problem seems to be there is no designated areas (that I know of) for industrial development. And the demographic is such that you have full blooded conservationists and pro development types living side by side. If there was a larger macro plan, people would be able to look well into the future, and choose where to live on the basis of their priorities. And that would stop a lot of the divisions that whip up so much emotional hysteria about matters Tasmanian, outside of Tasmania.
> 
> Cheers.



The location of the proposed pulp mill is at Bell Bay (about 50km north of Launceston).

Say the words "Bell Bay" and most Tasmanians immediately think of the power station (gas fired, was oil-fired until 2003). That plant is very well known to practically everyone in the state and is known as simply "Bell Bay". The power station commenced operation in 1971 and was expanded in 2006 with another expansion under construction at the moment.

Some will instead think of the aluminium smelter located there. It too is often referred to simply as "Bell Bay". It's been there since 1955, the first such smelter built in Australia. It now has 3 operating potlines, the last of which was installed in 1981. Subsequent expansion being scrapped due to lack of power.

Also at Bell Bay is the TEMCO plant. This is a ferro alloy smelter with 4 furnaces. The only plant of its type in Australia to my knowledge and it exports to 70 or so countries as well as supplying the entire Australian steel industry with those alloys. It's been there since 1962 with the last expansion during the 1980's, the 5th furnace never being built due to lack of economic power with which to run it.

Until recently there was a wood fibreboard plant there too. It closed a couple of years ago due to financial problems relating to a number of fires and technical problems. 

And if you've got an old Mazda sports car that came with alloy wheels then they probably came from Bell Bay. Likewise Southern Aluminium used to supply a number of other major manufacturers prior to its closure.

And then there's the fact that all gas coming into Tas arrives at Bell Bay. Likewise it's where the Vic - Tas power cable connects at the Tasmanian end. Drive there from Launceston and you'll know you're there when a few transmission lines turns into a whole lot of lines, switchyards etc right beside the road. 

All oil products used in the north of the state arrive via Bell Bay. It's also one of the two major ports in Tas.

Also there is a woodchip mill (next to the pulp mill site).

And the zoning? Well it's "Major Impact Heavy Industrial". There are no houses there and no shops of any kind. Nothing but heavy industry.

The trouble is, that the area on the opposite side of the river seems to have attracted rather a lot of ex-city people looking for a quiet retreat. And so they complain about noise from the power station, complain about any fumes etc that come from the aluminium or ferro alloy plants. And they're leading the fight againt the pulp mill.

That's the attitude that I'm not happy with. Come to Tas and then expect the locals to shut everything down etc just so that you can have what you want - a nice quiet environment. A certain Australian celebrity is a classic case in point - made money outside the state, comes down here then expects to put locals out of work so she can have some peace and quiet.

Nothing wrong with people coming to Tas to live of course. But why not live in any of the 99% of the state that's nice and quiet? Why decide that you _have_ to live opposite heavy industry in the north or amidst nightclubs in Hobart then expect everything to shut down because it's too noisy etc? That, to me, is nothing more than using an entire state and its people as a playground for others who happen to have money.

The big trouble is that this has been going on for rather a long time now. Hence many left the state in search of work, only to be replaced with new arrivals sympathetic to the "shut everything down" mentality. Tasmania has become a magnet for such people. Hence opposition to industry comes from within as well as from outside the state.

The whole thing would be like me moving to Sydney and then complaining that it's too noisy, too much traffic etc and trying to shut everything down. I know and accept that large cities have those characteristics and I wouldn't be complaining if I chose to live in one. So why complain about industry when you decide to live right next to an area zoned "major impact heavy industrial"?

As for the environment movement, I suspect that most Australians aware of the mill issue think that Bell Bay is some sort of natural wilderness due to the claims they make. That's outright rubbish but I suspect that is what most think it is.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 March 2008)

Of course, there is a blindingly obvious (but politically incorrect) solution to MANY of our looming problems.....

Reduce immigration by 90% (currently somewhere around 150,000 per year). Since our natural birth rate is actually negative, the ongoing pressure on housing, water and ALL other resources will slowly come down. Housing prices would stabilise and eventually start to fall. 

Oh wait ... that is exactly the same (politically incorrect?) policy the US has followed for years, by making it nigh on impossible to get a permanent residency in the US! 

For comparison sake, in 2006, the _number of immigrants to the US was a paltry 700,000 persons, representing a mere *.23%* of a total population in 2006 of some 300,000,000!!!_

In Australia meanwhile, we have _150,000 odd immigrants, representing a relatively whopping *.71%* of a total population in 2008 (today) estimated at about 21,000,000_.  

Of course, those 150,000 extra every year need housing, water, food, petrol, EVERYTHING. So it is no surprise inflation is a nagging factor and demand for housing seems insatiable. 



PS: Please don't throw brickbats at me. It was GWB's idea!!!!



AJ


----------



## Prospector (16 March 2008)

noirua said:


> Adelaide is about to get a $2.5 billion desalination plant or is it 2011 or later. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/11/2030287.htm




ha!  that is what we thought too!  Then that stupid water minister announced that before the real desal plant was built, we have to build a play one, just to see (because, for goodness sakes, there are only a few thousand around the world that they have jetted off to) how they work.   And this play one is going to be finished by July 2008.  Except the tenders for this were only announced last week!   So no way Jose for even the play one to be done by the end of the year, which makes 2011 the never never.

Maybe you can get a little understanding of why people in Adelaide/SA would drown the government if we only had a little water to do it in!

I will be down at the mouth at Easter time and will post some pictures.  Have just collected hubby from the airport and he has just flown over the lower murray.  'Beaches' everywhere, except they are usually water.


----------



## Sean K (16 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> ha!  that is what we thought too!



I'm sensing a little sarcasm P. LOL  

Prospector and Julia for PMs!!

Would do better than that Crow groupie!

PS, sorry to lower you.... eeek!


----------



## Julia (16 March 2008)

Prospector said:


> ha!  that is what we thought too!  Then that stupid water minister announced that before the real desal plant was built, we have to build a play one, just to see (because, for goodness sakes, there are only a few thousand around the world that they have jetted off to) how they work.   And this play one is going to be finished by July 2008.  Except the tenders for this were only announced last week!   So no way Jose for even the play one to be done by the end of the year, which makes 2011 the never never.
> 
> Maybe you can get a little understanding of why people in Adelaide/SA would drown the government if we only had a little water to do it in!
> 
> I will be down at the mouth at Easter time and will post some pictures.  Have just collected hubby from the airport and he has just flown over the lower murray.  'Beaches' everywhere, except they are usually water.



This is simply farcical.  Presumably your Opposition is also inept?
Has the recycling of water been considered as is going ahead for Brisbane?
Your situation sounds unbelievably dire.  So sad about the trees.


----------



## ormond (16 March 2008)

Dont know if this has been covered before but salisbury council in Adelaide's northern suburbs has been a trailblazer in the use of stormwater.
Was once told that if Adelaide can recycle all stormwater it can supply all Adelaide's needs.

Sub-surface aquifers break new ground  
Solute distribution at two stages of flushing mode (125 and 365 days) and operational mode (1,095 and 3,650 days). 
Salisbury Council’s wetlands project is blazing a trail in stormwater storage and recovery that will ensure a five-year supply. 

The main advocate of the Aquifer Storage Transfer and Recovery (ASTR) demonstration project in Adelaide’s northern suburb of Salisbury believes that it has the potential to harvest 60 per cent of the city’s stormwater, treat it to drinking water standard and distribute it cheaply and effectively.

Colin Pitman is Salisbury Council’s director of city projects and extols the virtues of storing the water in sub-surface aquifers.

“The cost of production is around 90 cents a kilolitre, compared with drinking water sold on the market for $1.20,” he says. “The great outcome is you can conceivably connect it into existing water mains.”

It’s also set up to provide a five-year supply, an important buffer in these times of variable rainfall and drought.

The five-year, $4 million project is in its third year and is located adjacent to the Parafield Stormwater Harvesting Scheme. It involves injecting stormwater harvested via an engineered wetland into a brackish aquifer, with the aim of recovering the water at a potable standard.

South Australia is at the cutting edge of aquifer storage and recovery. Salisbury alone has more than 30 wetlands totalling approximately 250 hectares and costing in excess of $16 million. All new residential sub-divisions during the past 10 years have been required to install wetlands to contain stormwater on-site as far as possible.

But what makes the Parafield project so interesting is the addition of ‘transfer’. The scheme uses separate injection and recovery wells to extend residence time and enhance passive treatment within the aquifer. This enables more predictable levels of chemical and microbiological contaminant attenuation. 

The US uses similar processes on highly treated effluents, but employing the technique with stormwater as the source is a world first.


----------



## robert toms (17 March 2008)

There are two ways of having more water....saving more or getting more.
The future of Murray river supplies is uncertain and this has a severe adverse effect on the lower lakes.
If there is not more rain in the catchment areas the Lower Murray plight could well be permanent.
Interstate there are a lot that believe that the lower lakes should not be there..wasteful evaporation ponds...and they are not natural anyway.
The counter argument to that is of course,neither are the extensive irrigation schemes in Vic and NSW ,Riverina,Colleambally ,Boort etc.
I believe that the Colleambally scheme,started in the sixties,takes out as much water as is used in the whole of SA (from the Murray)
I was born in Mannum ...the lagoon or swamp where we used to operate as boys is dry for the first time since the lock schemes were introduced about seventy years ago.I do not know the exact measurements but there has been at least a 2 metre drop in river levels  there.
A weir at Wellington may well be on the cards and the lower lakes may never recover.
If rainfall patterns have changed it is not looking good for the lower lakes.


----------



## Prospector (17 March 2008)

robert toms said:


> A weir at Wellington may well be on the cards and the lower lakes may never recover.
> If rainfall patterns have changed it is not looking good for the lower lakes.



We thought so too, RT, but if that is the case, why then did our Water Minister get millions of dollars last week to enable them to pump water into Lake Albert from Lake Alexandrina?  If there is going to be a weir, that is a disgraceful waste of money because once the weir would be built, Lakes Albert and Alexandrina would be cactus, literally!  The weir could only work if they then got rid of the Goolwa barrage and opened up the Lakes to the sea.  That though, would kill off the dairy industry that supplies Adelaide's milk, and also the wine industry - I dont care about the latter but they do seem to have some voice in the Govt.

The water level in the lakes is metres below sea level now; which is why the barrage has to remain shut.  If they opened the barrage, someone told me that the sea water would go back up the Murray many, many kilometres!  That would be an environmental disaster.

As I see it, the only way to save anything is to reduce immediately all water usage along the breadth of the Murray to create some flows.  Some of these areas have been designated under the RAMSAR scheme (International Wetlands Environment Protection Body - www.ramsar.org) 

321 Australia The Coorong, Lake Alexandrina & Lake Albert 1-Nov-85

RAMSAR places this area as ranking 321 in the *World* in terms of Important Wetlands.  But hey, who cares!

Many parts are now stinking mud heaps devoid of life. There is concern they will turn acidic as they dry out. It already is an environmental disaster.  Forget the whales!


----------



## Struzball (17 March 2008)

robert toms said:


> There are two ways of having more water....saving more or getting more.




... and using less.  I don't think rice farms etc on the lower Murray are all that important in the scheme of things.


----------



## Prospector (17 March 2008)

Struzball said:


> ... and using less.  I don't think rice farms etc on the lower Murray are all that important in the scheme of things.




Um, rice farms are not on the Lower Murray!  There is little water on the Lower Murray partly as a result of the rice farms in the UPPER Murray!


----------



## robert toms (17 March 2008)

I think in the big picture dairy farms on the lower lakes will be deemed expendable...hope not though.
When I was living in Riverina,at that time ten years ago,Tim Fischer on behalf of the National party was running around with the "Zap the CaP" campaign in relation to water.
Penny Wong  is trying to buy back water allocations,but with reducing inflows this may well be mission impossible, in trying to get environmental flows in SA.
If my info is correct,not one rice grower has taken the govt. package to leave the land.
Because,as I see it,when some water does start to come down the Murray and Murrumbidgee, one good year growing rice will make up for two years of drought ,at least.I am sure that we can get rice cheaper from Thailand.
Most rice growers got their licences for nix and the price that they pay for their water allocations is very,very small.
One water economist suggested that water should be subject to market rates...perhaps so...then heavy  users of water like cotton and rice growers would be priced out of the market...horticulture would survive.
But I cannot see any government making hard decisions.Until then hope for increased inflows.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 March 2008)

It's official. Lake Gordon (Tas) has hit the big 40. Not 40% unfortunately and not even a 40m walk from the edge to the water - it's a lot further than that now.

No, it's literaly a 40m straight vertical drop from the top water level to the actual water level. And it's still falling. As a percentage it's 13.6% full at the moment and is at its second lowest level since operation commenced (that record low level being only 3m lower).

The system total is about 19% and falling roughly 0.1% per day.


----------



## noirua (21 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's official. Lake Gordon (Tas) has hit the big 40. Not 40% unfortunately and not even a 40m walk from the edge to the water - it's a lot further than that now.
> 
> No, it's literaly a 40m straight vertical drop from the top water level to the actual water level. And it's still falling. As a percentage it's 13.6% full at the moment and is at its second lowest level since operation commenced (that record low level being only 3m lower).
> 
> The system total is about 19% and falling roughly 0.1% per day.




There was a lake that dried up in Europe during the Great Heatwave in 1976, average temperatures in London, England, were higher than the Nevada Desert. 
They took the opportunity to explore a village that had made way for the Lake 200 years before. They also strengthened the bed of the Lake so as to reduce seepage and redesigned and rebuilt piping from the Lake.
Will Tasmania take this opportunity?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's official. Lake Gordon (Tas) has hit the big 40. Not 40% unfortunately and not even a 40m walk from the edge to the water - it's a lot further than that now.
> 
> No, it's literaly a 40m straight vertical drop from the top water level to the actual water level. And it's still falling. As a percentage it's 13.6% full at the moment and is at its second lowest level since operation commenced (that record low level being only 3m lower).
> 
> The system total is about 19% and falling roughly 0.1% per day.




You're not gonna like this Smurf, but I imagine Lake Pedder looks pretty much the same now as it did as  a pristine lake in 1972. 

except that the once beautiful beaches are now buried in 30 years of sludge I imagine. 

A mate's brother honeymooned down there before the dam - reckoned it was "exquisite".

You gotta admit, all this development comes at a price - to the planet, to the environment, to our souls.  

Tell you what, those various state govts of yours (of I assume both persuasions) have been pretty intransigent and provocative over the years. - no public consultation etc .  

http://stott.customer.netspace.net.au/pedder.htm


> In 1972, without any public consultation, this exquisite lake was drowned under 50 feet of water by the Tasmanian Government, to create a hydro-electric scheme. There is now a PROPOSAL to drain and restore the lake. These magnificent photos were captured by Gavin Johnstone before it was flooded


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

PS I believe that Chops suggested that nuclear would make the most sense in Tas.  Not sure why he said that - think it was something to do with requiring water.  (be surprised if you couldn't recycle said water btw).    

But considering you have all those energy hungry industries - zinc etc - it might make some sense 

You said once " exporting zinc is like exporting electricity".
Trouble is you'll be importing electricity to do it.  - Like taking rice to China as they say. 

ZFX price?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

controversial conceded .. as per post before the last 

http://www.rankin.com.au/essay7.htm



> South West Tasmania has gone down in history as the place that stimulated the birth of the modern conservation movement in Australia. But this fact, of course, can hardly be described as an achievement when so much wilderness was lost in the process. The legacy of these early conservation campaigns, however, is that a group of individuals formed whose expertise in communication and understanding of political matters and processes helped them fight with great success other environmental issues across the country in the coming decades.
> 
> In South West Tasmania, the great failure, for Australia, of course was the flooding of Lake Pedder in 1972. The great success was preventing any further building of hydro-electric dams on the Gordon River. All subsequent proposals were cancelled by a High Court decision in July 1983 in the face of growing national outrage.




Smurf the photo is from your post ( Gordon? Pedder?  whichever - same principle) 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1099428


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> You're not gonna like this Smurf, but I imagine Lake Pedder looks pretty much the same now as it did as  a pristine lake in 1972.
> 
> except that the once beautiful beaches are now buried in 30 years of sludge I imagine.
> 
> ...



Lake Pedder right now is 1.44m below full or about 13.5m above natural. Level variations are limited in order to maintain the scenic beauty of the area as well as maintaining the fishery etc. 100% of the inflow to the lake is used, but the storage is drawn down more than 1.5m only under emergency conditions (which we are rapidly approaching).

Detailed studies of the lake were undertaken in 1995, including a dive to the bottom complete with ABC film crew. The resulting footage was publicly shown on the then state-based 7:30 Report - indeed Pedder took not one segment but literally the entire program for the whole week.

The condition of the original lake was found to be largely the same as pre-dam apart from a notable absence of man-made rubbish which once littered the area. Silt was in the order of 1mm on the original beach.

Independent opinion polling at that time put public support for retaining the lake in its dammed form at 95% with 1% in favour of an attempt to restore it to its natural condition. 4% undecided.

A Commonwealth inquiry (noting that the Australian Government seemed to favour draining) found against draining the lake on the basis of both science and an outright lack of public support for such a move.

The move to drain the lake ended when Bob Brown himself acknowledged, live on ABC TV, that saving the Franklin had thus far failed economically, an admission which followed his and many others' acknowledgement that damming Pedder had caused no lasting damage not capable of being reversed relatively easily.

More recent opinion polling puts support for new large hydro-electric dams in the order of 70% although no such dams are actually proposed at present. That level of support is largely unchanged over the past 30+ years. 

As for the other options, public support for gas is around 2% with wood, oil and nuclear being effectively zero. Coal around 7%, wind 11% and the balance (approx. 10%) being opposed to any form of energy development or economic growth in general (the deep green view).

Those figures are circa 2005. Anecdotally, public support for hydro seems to have increased since that time and is probably in the low 70's now. *Even the Greens now talk about "clean, green hydro-electricity" and have turned their backs on ALL the alternatives they once supported*. 

The Lake Pedder dam was built with, and still has, the support of the majority of the Tasmanian population. As a tourist attraction the Gordon power scheme outranks the Franklin River 25 to 1.

All that said, the Hydro itself has errected a small display at a lookout point over Lake Pedder. It pays tribute to the conservation movement and goes as far as to acknowledge the environmental downside of hydro-electric development. 

Personally, and you might be surprised at this, I'm somwhat of an environmentalist. Best way to put that is to say I knew plenty about what was then termed "the greenhouse effect" and oil depletion before I'd been anywhere near even one hydro power station. Seeing that coal-fired power, tourism and all the other non-hydro alternatives would be short lived it simply made sense to me that dams were the lesser evil. Prior to my becoming aware of this circa 1988, I did actually think the conservationists were right. Now even many of the hardline greens are starting to reach similar conclusions as the evidence mounts that climate change may indeed be real - and if it is then their major economic policy position of increasing relaince on tourism (ie oil) is in serious trouble.

The attached photo of Pedder was taken last year with the level almost exactly the same as it is now. The photo of mine in the previous post is of Lake Gordon at about -36.5m this time last year. It would be completely empty without the flow from Pedder.

Surely a more pressing question is how Qld and Vic will cope with no coal industry? Or how WA and SA will cope without gas? Or how Sydney will cope with the demise of oil? Lamenting the temporary loss of Pedder, and both sides acknowledge that it is temporary, seems rather trivial in comparison.

I could also mention that 30,000 years ago Pedder is thought to have looked much like it does now. That is certainly what the scientific evidence points to. It was a large lake with a relatively flat bottom. Erosion cut channels through the rock and lead to the lake level dropping to its 1971 condition. If that's true (and it's difficult to prove either way) then that opens up a whole new can of worms...


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Lake Pedder right now is 1.44m below full ... Level variations are limited in order to maintain the scenic beauty of the area
> 
> 2. ....  As for the other options, public support for gas is around 2% with wood, oil and nuclear being effectively zero. Coal around 7%, wind 11% and the balance (approx. 10%) being opposed to any form of energy development or economic growth in general (the deep green view).
> 
> ...



smurf thanx for the insight. 
1. some attempt to keep the place looking greenish anyway.  - and you wonder which will win out - the artificially maintained water level - the scenery or the power demand - if things continue in the current dry (drought?) dirn. 

2. public support for no devt at all ? - gotta be the self funded retirees  

3. "clean, green hydro-electricity" - no argument it's clean, no CO2 generated etc.   

4. you wonder if those tourist figures have a hint of political spin - but interesting and surprising.  

5. good to see they see both sides. 

6. good to see you see both sides lol

7.  I hitchhiked round Tas in the 60's with a mate when may of the dams and pipes were being built - stayed at construction camps a few times - talk about flaming freezing! - down to eight lives after than one . 

8. yep - the penny has to drop eventually I guess.

9. yep - no doubt the other states will play around with CCS carbon capture and storage for a while - who knows, it might even work lol.  (believe it when I see it - but, hey, give it a try by all means).  

Then my guess is one day we'll bite the bullet and go nuclear.  Somewhere possibly in the 2100's - I believe you agreed back there somewhere.     

Summary :- Can't turn back time that's for sure - and probably (sadly) can't afford to keep the island as some sort of "green museum".   

Having said all that, South Island NZ has the most beautiful natural lakes and landscape - reflections of the Remarkables etc Milford Sound sheesh -  even a few glaciers albeit rapidly receding 
You will always have problems competing with them on the tourist front.

PS One thing - a few years ago now - but I know if you wanted a fight then - then all you had to do was walk into a pub frequented by  timber workers , and suggest that the greens had a case lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> smurf thanx for the insight.
> 1. some attempt to keep the place looking greenish anyway.  - and you wonder which will win out - the artificially maintained water level - the scenery or the power demand - if things continue in the current dry (drought?) dirn.
> 
> 2. public support for no devt at all ? - gotta be the self funded retirees
> ...



1. Depends on what happens. Load exceeds firm supply anyway so not much chance of ever getting to full. Pedder will be the very last storage to be lowered (it's actually law) but it's getting to the point where it could be necessary. It actually takes quite some time to get the water out and into Lake Gordon so it can't be left until Gordon is literally at zero.

4. The tourist figures are collected by the "green" side of government departments (Parks & Wildlife, which opposed the Hydro even decades ago) and are officially reported since it's a World Herritage Area. 

The Hydro used to have a toll gate on the road to the power scheme and the number of _vehicles_ they counted were about the same as the number of _people_ claimed to visit the Gordon Power Scheme now that the "other side" is collecting the data. Most of those cars used to have at least 2 people so possibly a bit of spin going on but if it is then the effect is to understate the number going to Gordon PS rather than to inflate it.

The Franklin figures have been pretty stable for years - not even Bob Brown himself disputes that it hasn't become a major attraction (though he's obviously not keen on mentioning this). That said, to be fair I should point out that the abandoned dam site (which isn't actually on the Franklin by the way) is a significant tourist attraction, though still less than the Gordon dam which was actually built. 

Green museum. Well it could be done for sure. But, and here's the rub, for it to work the mainland states have to accept that they'll be paying $ billions a year forever and getting nothing tangible in return. Could be done but given Canberra's record on paying what is promised it would be a brave state government that let it happen. 

That alone is substantially why the recent state governments aren't so interested in conservation - the promised $ never do turn up via compensation and only part turns up via tourism. Then people kick the government out for not being able to afford health, education etc. Hence the love affair with big business - at least they pay up even if there are some shoddy deals involved. I can't say I blame them really when you think about the reality of politics.

NZ. And the other thing the South Island of NZ is fairly well known for is... Well let's just say that 60% of NZ's electricity is from hydro...


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

I'm not an expert on this,  - I'm assuming that 
a) Eucumbene levels are more meaningful that any of the downstream levels because of the fact that there's no opportunity to fill it from "elsewhere" (unlike the others) 
b) that a comparison of Eucumbene levels in 2007 vs 1998 (for instance) tells a pretty sad story. 
c) obviously there's (normally) a big inflow in late spring from snow.
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/lakeLevels.asp?pageID=47&parentID=6&mode=submitted

Incidentally, also shown below is a graph of the Murray inflows excluding Snowy - compared to long term averages 
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/river-info/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

yep! - it's obviously all hysteria, and we shouldn't even give the IPCC and co the benefit of the drought.  (I mean doubt)


----------



## noirua (30 March 2008)

Lots of water evaporates along the way and some of these rivers and lakes could be covered.  A bit expensive I suppose but something has to be done.  Otherwise its pipe it all the way with pumping stations.  I did work on a contact with pipes up to 1.3 metres diameter and large loops at the pumping stations.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

more recent news..  Easter allocation of water for widlife ( a 9 year "event" apparently)
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/river-info/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

sheesh Menindee Lakes are currently only at 35% storage - after one the best years for a long time.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

noirua said:


> I did work on a contact with pipes up to 1.3 metres diameter and large loops at the pumping stations.



noi, yep - and the new desalinator in Sydney will have 1.8m diam pipes that will run full and flat out - you wonder the power input required.  -  still, "plenty" (?)  of energy stored in the dams in the snowy hydro - ironies abound


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm not an expert on this,  - I'm assuming that
> a) Eucumbene levels are more meaningful that any of the downstream levels because of the fact that there's no opportunity to fill it from "elsewhere" (unlike the others)
> b) that a comparison of Eucumbene levels in 2007 vs 1998 (for instance) tells a pretty sad story.



Lake Eucumbene is the largest storage for the Snowy scheme so that is why it is more meaningful. The Snowy accounts for 30% of Australian hydro-electric output and has about 3740MW of peak capacity so it's quite significant electrically. Also it is of course a major water diversion into the Murray.

It is indeed a sad story over the past decade. Drought is not the sole cause of the present storage situation but it is certainly a major factor.


----------



## Prospector (30 March 2008)

This is Clayton Bay, which featured on the front page of The Australian on Friday I think it was.  These photos were taken over Easter.  The first picture shows the River swimming pool - the photo was taken lakeside looking to shore; now, instead of water there are Danger signs warning of the sucking mud that is there - we saw a stong guy get stuck up to his thighs in thick black sludge, because that is all that remains.  The water was about 2 feet deep next to the river reeds. The next picture is the yacht club - with two things missing - water and boats.  And more danger signs.  

The water is both areas was about 2 metres deep.  This is Lake Alexnadrina, and it will get worse as the Govt pumps water out of Alexandrina into Lake Albert.  This is because Lake Albert (and Lake Alexandrina) will become sulphuric acidic if allowed to dry out completely.  That means the soil will be permanently toxic - never to sustain any fish, plants ever again!  Nice work people!

There are several indigenous communities whose only source of water has ever been in Lake Albert, and it is not possible to extend mains water to them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> c) obviously there's (normally) a big inflow in late spring from snow.



water level graphs here:-
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/lakeLevels.asp?pageID=47&parentID=6&mode=submitted 
snow graphs here :-
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowDepth.asp?pageID=46&parentID=6

btw, There was quite a good fall of snow in 2007.   Hence the increase in Eucumbene storage in spring.  Almost parallel (if much lower level) to storage in 1998.

But have a look at 2006.  For a start there was 75mm of snow instead of 150mm in 2007.  And there ain't no storage improvement in spring either.  
Maybe there are other factors at play here. 
Summary - damned if I'd be investing in snow skiing in Snowies.  

PS you think maybe if they turned the snowmakers on 24/7 , it might make a difference to Eucumbine levels in Spring this year ??   :eek3:

PS Maybe they'll rename them the "Used-to-be-Snowy Mountains"
Bit like One Tree Hill in Auckland - now that the tree is dead / gone?.  "Once-had-a-tree Hill"


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, There was quite a good fall of snow in 2007.   Hence the increase in Eucumbene storage in spring.  Almost parallel (if much lower level) to storage in 1998.
> 
> But have a look at 2006.  For a start there was 75mm of snow instead of 150mm in 2007.  And there ain't no storage improvement in spring either.
> Maybe there are other factors at play here.



The main "other factor" is discharge rate.

The Snowy is an intermediate and peaking scheme as far as power is concerned as the following data will illustrate. Load factor is average output as a % of peak (based on long term average inflows).

Power station    Load factor

Guthega           27%
Murray 1          17%
Murray 2          17%
Tumut 1           32%
Tumut 2           32%
Tumut 3           4%
Blowering          39%
SNOWY SCHEME TOTAL 15%

So even with high rainfall, it's what the turbines that are doing that will determine lake levels. Run flat out and the scheme will dry up with anything short of an outright flood.

This is very different to, say, the Tasmanian system which was built as a base / intermediate load system with no specific emphasis on peak until some recent modifications. Load factor for the Tas system is 31% to 83% for individual power stations and 52% for the system as a whole.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The main "other factor" is discharge rate.



true, but I imagine it is safe to say that (speaking generally) storage / reserve will be depleted in bad years.  Just like the graph of my reserve bank account dips when my petty cash account gets hit, and income dries up. (sorta) 

I'm not saying there was no spring run-off (compare no income) in 2006.  Just that it was "spent" before it hit the "account" - just like my pay.

PS or are you saying that for some reason they needed more than usual power output in 2006?


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

PS In any case, - viewed together with the snowfall graph, all symptoms of a "bad year" generally (2006), I would have thought. - which then lead into 2007, not much better - in fact , "Batton down the hatches" stuff . And now Eucumbene at record lows (since inception).


----------



## Happy (31 March 2008)

This aborted pseudo-scientific large dome project actually makes sense.

You buy water once and if project is large enough and there are no losses, water and everything else will be recycled endlessly, as it is done in nature.

Remember quite a while ago there were totally sealed glass spheres with, water, plant, shrimp and there was something else, but forgot.
The longest one survived for 2 years.

Plant produced oxygen and served as food, shrimp produced fertiliser and CO2, third thing was doing something too (could be water), kind of perpetum mobile, until one ingredient kicks the bucket.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> true, but I imagine it is safe to say that (speaking generally) storage / reserve will be depleted in bad years.  Just like the graph of my reserve bank account dips when my petty cash account gets hit, and income dries up. (sorta)
> 
> I'm not saying there was no spring run-off (compare no income) in 2006.  Just that it was "spent" before it hit the "account" - just like my pay.
> 
> PS or are you saying that for some reason they needed more than usual power output in 2006?



Any hydro system has a firm annual output rating as well as a number of other ratings (probability based).

I'll give you an example.

Scheme x has a storage capacity of 4680 GWh and an annual average output of 1472 GWh.

However, if the machines are run at full gate (maximum water flow) it's possible to discharge at an annual rate of 3400 GWh. 

So in this example, even if the storage was 100% full and rainfall was 100% of normal, it's quite possible to completely drain the storage in about two and a half years. 

Likewise if the storage is empty, it's possible to refill it in about 3 and a quarter years if the power station was transferred to emergency use only. It could be refilled in less than 7 years even with half normal inflows.

So generation output is a big determinant of storage levels.

Looking at the Tasmanian system, water is transferred between catchments electrically. That is, if you want to transfer storage between (say) Lake Gordon and Lake Echo then it is done electrically. Run Lake Echo discharge below average and offset that with higher generation output from Gordon. Then wait... And presto! Echo is up, Gordon is down even though no water physically flows between the two.

Same principle applies with any of the 6 major catchments which are not hydraulically interconnected - storages are balanced over time through changes in generation output rather than physical transfer of water. The only time this fails is if either (1) rainfall is zero or very close to it or (2) you don't have sufficient capacity installed to draw on the major storages. Other than that, it's a lot cheaper and easier to shift it via transmission lines than via canals, tunnels etc.

Snowy has a LOT more flexibility to manipulate storage levels over time than does Tas. A lot more. And that is due to the predominantly thermal system on the mainland - Snowy can run anywhere between baseload and emergency peaking use only if they choose. They thus have a lot of control over water discharge and thus storage levels.

What I'm saying is that Snowy could have held levels higher if they had wanted to. Obviously that would have been at the expense of downstream water users, but from a power generation perspective it was quite doable.

Meanwhile, still not much run-off down here. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/01/2204979.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2008)

Well we have some rain at last!

Pity about the 176 km/h winds that came with it. Trees down, a few houses wrecked, fences blown across the road, windows blown in and an outright mess all over the place. And not one but 200 power lines down (just about all fixed now). Don't think too many people would have slept too well last night with all that going on between midnight and 6am. 

Strangest one would have to be the shipping container that literally blew off the back of a truck and landed on the road, taking a light pole out in the process. It takes quite a bit of wind to blow one of those off I would think.

There was a bit of rain though and it fell in some useful places so that's good. Releases from the major storages are now quite low (and levels are rising slowly) as there's lots flowing in to the system elsewhere. Let's hope there's more rain to come, though preferably without so much wind next time.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 April 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well we have some rain at last!
> 
> Pity about the 176 km/h winds that came with it. Trees down, a few houses wrecked, fences blown across the road, windows blown in and an outright mess all over the place. And not one but 200 power lines down (just about all fixed now). Don't think too many people would have slept too well last night with all that going on between midnight and 6am.



Yeah, we get some good rain earlier in the week, and all the farmers do is complain!!! 

What was I saying about that current indicating weather patterns linking WA and TAS the other week? 

I'll see what the water is doing... learning to surf all weekend.

But the 7.30 report tonight... has done nothing for my stereotype with farmers and the SA problem. Seriously, how stupid are SA farmers?

Complain about the environmental status, feign to be "murray defenders", and when emergency plans about saving a world heritage site are mooted... nup... can't have that! Too bad about the sulfuric acid!! Screw that, we want to irrigate!!!

Farkin farmers!

The penny clearly has not dropped. Even when they are trucking in water to keep cattle alive, there are clearly absolutely no contingency plans. Clearly the farming is never going to be sustainable in the lower murray, ever. But nup... irrigation up the river should be stopped so WE can irrigate! Bloody hell... don't they even listen to what they say? Makes me so angry.

They have to either switch to other methods, or give up. There is no way they can survive. And the gutlessness of the SA government, is I believe, the reason nothing is being done from other states. And you can see why. Both farmers and government are completely deluded, aren't even tackling with reality.

Until SA farmers actualy acknowledge that most cannot continue, nothing will be done.

My respect for most Australian farmers continues to decrease. 

Cheers.


----------



## Prospector (4 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> But the 7.30 report tonight... has done nothing for my stereotype with farmers and the SA problem. Seriously, how stupid are SA farmers?
> 
> Complain about the environmental status, feign to be "murray defenders", and when emergency plans about saving a world heritage site are mooted... nup... can't have that! Too bad about the sulfuric acid!! Screw that, we want to irrigate!!!
> 
> ...




Problem is chops, that emergency relief will kill off Lakes Alexandrina and Albert forever.  There are many indigenous and local communities (who have lived and been sustained by the lakes FOREVER!) who now have no access to fresh water for drinking etc because they cannot be supplied with piped reservoir water and cannot use the River Murray.  Water is being trucked in for them.

Whether the farmers deserve to be heard is one issue, but you are simply using them as the scapegoat to say 'their problem, their stupidity who cares!  But there is a much bigger picture!  

Flooding the Lakes with saltwater will not work anyway - the River Mouth is now so small that it isnt even wide enough to flush the Coorong, let alone the Lakes.  It is a huge area. *Have you even been there recently?*  The water simply will not be able to get in and out as needed to maintain a level of water that will not produce the sulphuric fumes.  There will be an initial inpour (because the water in the Lakes is currently well below sea level) and then, it will balance, and recede.  Leaving the lakes system a swampy mess.


chops_a_must said:


> And the gutlessness of the SA government, is I believe, the reason nothing is being done from other states. And you can see why. Both farmers and government are completely deluded, aren't even tackling with reality.




Oh yeah, I hear you.  But the other Governments are too!  It is all about the votes.



chops_a_must said:


> Clearly the farming is never going to be sustainable in the lower murray, ever..




*It has been sustainable for decades, until rice and cotton!*

Did you know their water allocation in NSW/Vic isnt even measured until it hits their meter - which can mean that water is sent over open ditch irrigation channels for kilometers from the River, and no-one pays for any of the water lost in transit from River to Meter?  
*Reality is knowing that the arid areas of Australia should not be growing rice or cotton.*  And the eastern states dont give a damn who suffers as a result.


----------



## nioka (4 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Yeah, we get some good rain earlier in the week, and all the farmers do is complain!!!
> Farkin farmers!
> My respect for most Australian farmers continues to decrease.
> Cheers.




Because you EAT you are involved with agriculture. My respect for farmers continues to INCREASE. To continue to produce in the current agricultural conditions certainly demands tenacity of purpose.


----------



## Prospector (4 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> * Farming on the lower lakes has been sustainable for decades, until rice and cotton!*



Ran out of my 20 minutes to edit..... but even the Cotton Growers Federation reported that their yield was only slightly impacted on by the drought!  They continued to grow cotton, in the middle of a drought, in a desert!


----------



## robert toms (4 April 2008)

A truncated news item on the ABC about irrigators at Deniliquin,and how the reduced water allocations are affecting their town.
They have taken concerns about the government not revealing the price of its licence or water allocation purchases.
The person (from Denny) said that the family had nine farms and paid ninety thousand dollars for their water.I gather that was when they get full allocation,as the rate goes down when allocations are reduced.
Well I worked out that they are paying $6 a megalitre for this...in cities people pay about $1000 a meg.
The point is,is rice growing economic or are some farmers bludging on the rest of the population ?
There has to be some economic rationalism brought into this...should uneconomic crops be subsidised by the rest of us on the Murray?
Denny is on the Edward river..an offshoot of the Murray .
A lot of dairy farmers flood irrigate their paddocks to grow fodder for their cows..Is this econoically sound?
We should have a completely independent body to run the Murray-Darling basin..it is politics that have got us into this...and unlikely politicians will provide a solution.
Can anyone fault my figures...corrections welcomed.
I have respect for wheat farmers that have made a go of it in variable rainfall areas...especially in the mallee.


----------



## Prospector (4 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> The point is,is rice growing economic or are some farmers bludging on the rest of the population ?
> There has to be some economic rationalism brought into this...should uneconomic crops be subsidised by the rest of us on the Murray?.




This is an excellent point and one I have made before     If farmers paid for the full cost of water they need to use for crops that we dont need to grow in Australia, then most farms would vanish overnight because they are unsustainable economically.

With a caveat - we would need to have some kind of tax break for produce that we need to buy fresh, and not import cheaply from overseas.  Like dairy, fruit and vegetables.

Oh, yeah, and I guess this means if industry paid the going rate for water, then the price of beer and coke would increase hugely!


----------



## nioka (4 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> Well I worked out that they are paying $6 a megalitre for this...in cities people pay about $1000 a meg.



 This is a very misleading statement. Your water authority pays the same, or less, for water as does the farming community.The difference is the cost of the reticulation, treatment etc and includes some "creaming off" of profit by your water authority. I'm paying an annual "licence" fee for an irrigation licence which I "own" but do not use. If I use water then I will pay again for the water.
 Remember too that a farmer was encouraged to irrigate to increase productivity and in many cases invested large amounts of cash in the projects. They helped make Australia the land of milk and honey which we all enjoy.
 Can I say it again: "If you eat you are involved in agriculture."


----------



## Prospector (4 April 2008)

nioka said:


> This is a very misleading statement. Your water authority pays the same, or less, for water as does the farming community.The difference is the cost of the reticulation, treatment etc and includes some "creaming off" of profit by your water authority. I'm paying an annual "licence" fee for an irrigation licence which I "own" but do not use. If I use water then I will pay again for the water.




We must start to differentiate between the cost of providing water to necessary industry, and human consumption, to giving away to those activities that are unnecessary, or indulgent in nature.  We need to grow fruit and vegetables, and dairy within close proximity to population centres; we dont need to grow exotic crops we can source elsewhere and can be imported cheaply.

I dont really care if people have put money into installing the infrastructure for crops that don't belong where they have been planted.  That also applies to the wineries that are near the lower lakes; as well as the rice up north.

Not everyone is enjoying the land of milk and honey.


----------



## nioka (4 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> ; we dont need to grow exotic crops we can source elsewhere and can be imported cheaply..



 Australia is importing more goods than the country can afford now. We have to produce more and import less. The minerals boom wont last forever. Nor will the drought.


----------



## robert toms (4 April 2008)

One argument that farmers use is that they produce the food that we eat...yes they sure do...but as I know it Australia produces enough food for 90 million people...most of this production is for export...if water was used more productively there would be a lot more produce for export...not the patently uneconomic crops.
The rest of us in our lives have to be ecomically viable without ,as in this case,special political decisions, to uneconomically use a vital resource.
All of these allocations should surely be subject to some economic examination....not first in best dressed.


----------



## Julia (4 April 2008)

I support Prospector's view.  So silly to be growing rice and cotton.

Nothing wrong with importing produce which can be offered to he Australian consumer at a cheaper price for a superior product than that grown here.
I remember last Spring having the choice of two lots of asparagus in the supermarkets:  one was very inferior in quality and grown locally;  the other was fresh and top quality and imported from Thailand.  It was exactly half the price of the local product.  

If a farmer may have once had a viable and sustainable business but now - for whatever reason - no longer does, then I don't think the taxpayer should be perpetuating his unprofitable business.

No different from any other business which is not viable.


----------



## Prospector (5 April 2008)

nioka said:


> Australia is importing more goods than the country can afford now. We have to produce more and import less. The minerals boom wont last forever. Nor will the drought.




Yeah, but you have to include plasma's and cars in that import figure!  Maybe we should be cutting out those luxury things and only import items that we really need?

The drought won't last forever, but the damage has been/is being done right now.  Yet this stupid agreement will do nothing for the lower lakes/Coorong for four years.  Too late.  Will all be dead by then.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2008)

nioka said:


> Remember too that a farmer was encouraged to irrigate to increase productivity and in many cases invested large amounts of cash in the projects. They helped make Australia the land of milk and honey which we all enjoy.
> Can I say it again: "If you eat you are involved in agriculture."




So what? 

Mitsubishi was encouraged to build here as well. Should they be allowed to use tax payers money indefinitely?

I dare say a lot of manufacturing money was put into the typewriting industry, why aren't they being funded to continue?



nioka said:


> Because you EAT you are involved with agriculture. My respect for farmers continues to INCREASE. To continue to produce in the current agricultural conditions certainly demands tenacity of purpose.




To continue to produce in the same manner may be determined, but it is incredibly stupid moreso. That's my beef so to speak...

I have a few farmers who come down to see me each week from Northam. A hundred years ago, their families were irrigating and grew orchards in the Avon river region. It went brackish quick smart, and salty soon after. The area then switched to grain, not ideal, but better for the time being. The land is now going salty, but the farmers in the region are looking at changing again. My clients all have native based crops now, and have protected their land at the same time as growing grain.

All I hear from the east is "how do we keep doing the same thing?" And the answer is you don't. Obviously these farmers from the Northam area are an exception, but the solution is hardly rocket surgery.

Just takes the cantankerous old bastard farmers to get out of their rut and CHANGE something, (now that's a scary word for them!). Because frankly I'm sick of it. Do we people over here have a completely different attitude to everything? I mean, we don't just bitch about things for a decade... people just "do" things. Strange word that, do. Maybe eastern staters could look it up. Probably too hard but... you know, if wind farms affect cows too much, chances are, sustainable practice is no good for the skin.



Prospector said:


> Problem is chops, that emergency relief will kill off Lakes Alexandrina and Albert forever.  There are many indigenous and local communities (who have lived and been sustained by the lakes FOREVER!) who now have no access to fresh water for drinking etc because they cannot be supplied with piped reservoir water and cannot use the River Murray.  Water is being trucked in for them.




What I saw was water being trucked in for cows. Obviously more evidence to suggest that there is no real problem.



Prospector said:


> Whether the farmers deserve to be heard is one issue, but you are simply using them as the scapegoat to say 'their problem, their stupidity who cares!  But there is a much bigger picture!




Well, they aren't a part of the solution, so they must be....?



Prospector said:


> Flooding the Lakes with saltwater will not work anyway - the River Mouth is now so small that it isnt even wide enough to flush the Coorong, let alone the Lakes.  It is a huge area. *Have you even been there recently?*  The water simply will not be able to get in and out as needed to maintain a level of water that will not produce the sulphuric fumes.  There will be an initial inpour (because the water in the Lakes is currently well below sea level) and then, it will balance, and recede.  Leaving the lakes system a swampy mess.



No I have not been, and I hope to be lucky enough to avoid SA.

It's either that or have the lakes turn into salt flats/ lakes. What do you suggest given farmers refuse to stop pulling water out?



Prospector said:


> *It has been sustainable for decades, until rice and cotton!*



I disagree. There is nowhere in Australia apart from parts of Victoria that can have sustainable dairy with conventional practice.



Prospector said:


> Did you know their water allocation in NSW/Vic isnt even measured until it hits their meter - which can mean that water is sent over open ditch irrigation channels for kilometers from the River, and no-one pays for any of the water lost in transit from River to Meter?
> *Reality is knowing that the arid areas of Australia should not be growing rice or cotton.*  And the eastern states dont give a damn who suffers as a result.




Yes I did know that. I just cannot stand the SA whinging to be honest though. I'm more interested in what actions you are taking as a consumer to change things.

Never in history has a downstream society survived without taking out the upstream civilisation. And as I've pointed out before, SA is an economic basket case. So what benefit does it provide over stopping other eastern state agriculture?

Remember South Australians, it's "up the Murray", not "across the stream".









Prospector said:


> we would need to have some kind of tax break for produce that we need to buy fresh, and not import cheaply from overseas.  Like dairy, fruit and vegetables.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and I guess this means if industry paid the going rate for water, then the price of beer and coke would increase hugely!



Um why???

And also, you do realise the price of dairy would rise exponentially don't you?


Prospector said:


> We must start to differentiate between the cost of providing water to necessary industry, and human consumption, to giving away to those activities that are unnecessary, or indulgent in nature.  We need to grow fruit and vegetables, and dairy within close proximity to population centres; we dont need to grow exotic crops we can source elsewhere and can be imported cheaply.



Again, why?

Every litre of milk you are buying means 1300L of water being pulled from the murray. It is just as bad as cotton and rice. If I was living in SA, I just would not buy milk, or buy from Victoria. That's where most of it comes from anyway. I don't see why it is so important to have a dairy farm next door. Most of the milk here is from Victoria.

Luckily here in WA, we have the Harvey collaboration, who do use water incredibly well, and have lasted their worst drought superbly. But there I go again...

I've seen lots of whinging and complaining, but no action. What are _you_ doing on the consumer side Prospector to make sure you aren't damaging the murray?

By the way, I think we are in for a very wet winter. The ocean was incredibly warm, like a spa, over the weekend, and we've had NW winds for a week straight. A lot of rain, and the ground is quite moist, which means a lot of the moist air will get over to the east I think.

Cheers.


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I'm more interested in what actions you are taking as a consumer to change things..




Our personal consumption is down 40% from last year.  We havent watered our front garden, many of the plants have died, even agapanthus which are meant to be indestructible.  We use grey water.  Water saving shower heads. etc



chops_a_must said:


> It is just as bad as cotton and rice. If I was living in SA, I just would not buy milk, or buy from Victoria. That's where most of it comes from anyway. I don't see why it is so important to have a dairy farm next door. Most of the milk here is from Victoria...




Fine, we can use milk from Victoria, but that wont help the Coorong.

It takes 100 litres of water to produce 1 BOTTLE of Beer, a kilo of rice takes 2500 litres of water, and it takes around 3 litres of water to produce 1 litre of coke.  SO of course prices will rise if they pay for the true cost of the water!



chops_a_must said:


> I've seen lots of whinging and complaining, but no action. What are _you_ doing on the consumer side Prospector to make sure you aren't damaging the murray?...




Yep, answered that one I think.

Quite obviously you dont like South Australia and take every opportunity to subtley or otherwise denigrate it.  Probably laughing at all of this.  You seem to ignore anything which you cant repudiate, but bang on about stuff that you consider to be a weak target.  If you had even bothered to read any of what I have posted, you would know that 

1.   I am extremely frustrated with the lack of infrastructure by our  Governments, and 
2.   I would be very happy to drink recycled water, and
3.   I agree that farming practice has to change

I also think your razor blade picture is in extremely poor taste.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> Our personal consumption is down 40% from last year.  We havent watered our front garden, many of the plants have died, even agapanthus which are meant to be indestructible.  We use grey water.  Water saving shower heads. etc
> 
> It takes 100 litres of water to produce 1 BOTTLE of Beer, a kilo of rice takes 2500 litres of water, and it takes around 3 litres of water to produce 1 litre of coke.  SO of course prices will rise if they pay for the true cost of the water!
> 
> ...




I don't think we've watered any garden we've had since about 95 or thereabouts... Never had a need for grey water because we haven't needed to water any of our gardens (too much growth with natives is our problem).

I'm saying that the cost for the most ordinary goods, especially SA dairy will just be massive. I don't think SA will be able to absorb the true cost of water.

I'm not laughing at the environmental situation, because first and foremost that's what I'm interested in. But SA is without a doubt the most emo state, funny given the colours associated with the state are red and black or navy blue. And that's what my jibing is in relation to.

Without a doubt, SA does the most complaining without doing anything about the situation.

I'm not going to continue to comment on things I don't know enough about. The lakes for example, I don't have a suggestion because I don't know how they work. However, superficially, having dairy farms draw from them is not only completely stupid, it is an automatic no no. Yet it's something you are implicitly stating should be kept going.

SA people have to be smarter than that if they want some credibility in the argument...

Yes I know you have been banging on about the SA government, but it's tiresome when all I'm hearing is the lake farmers are purer than driven snow, and most SA farmers for that matter, and all the blame goes to farmers up the stream. And it's simply not the case. Until things are cleaned up in your own state, and I don't think you have been critical enough of SA farmers apart from water pricing, you can hardly ask farmers from other states to clean up either.

Like I keep saying, until SA gets serious about its farmers, it has absolutely zero leverage in the debate. And that's going to take consumer pressure from ordinary people like yourself to bring about that change.

Because at the moment, everyone is hoping the status quo can go on. It has been implied by yourself in terms of the lake farmers. And that's simply not going to be acceptable... not least because the lower levels of the murray are clearly beginning to salt up... which will only work backwards up the river...

Cheers.


----------



## robert toms (8 April 2008)

The Murray  as I see it...the current situation is from lack of inflows or drought,combined with over allocation of water.
The current allocations are geared to bumper water inflow years.
SA takes about a sixth of the water out of the Murray-Darling as Victoria and roughly a tenth that of NSW.
SA stopped giving out new water licences in the early nineteen seventies,no other state did this...they kept giving out new licences  until the last few years.
With the water over allocated ,the environmental flows are virtually non-existent at the moment.The environment always comes a distant last.
The lower lakes in SA only get water at the end of the river system..at the moment flows down the Murray have ceased.
The number of dairy farmers that take water out of the Murray in SA are very few in comparison to Victoria.
What the water wars are always over is that people upstream are grabbing more than their share.
One area in NSW exceeded their cap (overall allocation) last year by more than Adelaide uses from the Murray in a year.(I read that last week but could not trace down the article again)
I have lived in the three states mentioned ,in irrigation areas,and we had better have water police to regulate and enforce water allocations and use.
What a mess.. and no effective national plan to solve the problem.
Pray for a few good years of rain in the catchment areas !


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> There is nowhere in Australia apart from parts of Victoria that can have sustainable dairy with conventional practice.



Tasmania also has quite a few cows. To my understanding they aren't causing any problems.

That said, it would be environmentally destructive to be sending milk from Tas or Vic to SA, WA etc. Powdered form with local rehydration might stack up better.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> By the way, I think we are in for a very wet winter. The ocean was incredibly warm, like a spa, over the weekend, and we've had NW winds for a week straight. A lot of rain, and the ground is quite moist, which means a lot of the moist air will get over to the east I think.



Not sure about wet but quite a few seem to be expecting a cold one again this year. Not sure how scientifically valid those predictions are though.


----------



## The Once-ler (8 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> There is nowhere in Australia apart from parts of Victoria that can have sustainable dairy with conventional practice.
> 
> Cheers.




Yeah, that is a load of crap.

You need to get out more chops. There are millions of acres along the East coast of Australia with a summer dominant metre plus rainfall that is perfect for dairying. Southern parts or WA with a dry summer, they depend on irrigation to get through the summer. Not so further north. Wake up mate.

And that razor blade picture was an absolute disgrace.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 April 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Without a doubt, SA does the most complaining without doing anything about the situation.
> 
> , and all the blame goes to farmers up the stream. .



Dare you to say that in a pub in Murraybridge (or further south) chops 

It's pretty easy (I'd have thought) - the blokes who are struggling at the end of the line are gonna ask that the water is shared a bit more equally yes?

(and that goes for the health of the river as well


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2008)

Just give SA an entitlement to x% of the Murray's TOTAL inflows and let them decide what to do with it.

Whole thing looks like bullying to me. Cut the water off, mess up SA industry and then say SA is a basket case dependent on the other states. 

Yes there are problems with the way it's used in SA. But irrigating in Qld has the same effect on water flowing out of the Murray's mouth as irrigating in SA. BOTH are at fault.


----------



## nioka (8 April 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> Yeah, that is a load of crap.
> 
> You need to get out more chops. There are millions of acres along the East coast of Australia with a summer dominant metre plus rainfall that is perfect for dairying. Southern parts or WA with a dry summer, they depend on irrigation to get through the summer. Not so further north. Wake up mate.
> 
> And that razor blade picture was an absolute disgrace.




Agree.But:
 There were plenty of dairy farms in this area a few years back. Very few had or needed irrigation. The only problem was they could not compete with the southern and western irrigation farms. Most have gone over to beef and crops. If you don't want irrigated pastures then be prepared to pay a lot more for milk and milk products. I believe we need more dams with regulated flow and some movement of water east to west and from North Qld. (When I say that locally I get as much flack as I do when I suggest it is time to start Whaling again.)


----------



## robert toms (9 April 2008)

The political approach of the SA government has been to do what is possible.
That is to secure X percentage of allocation.
The undoing of over allocation is almost impossible...so SA is trying to do what is possible.
As to dairy farming,if they are productive and can pass an economic or "worthwhile" test incomparison to other activities in irrigations areas....of course they should remain.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 April 2008)

These photos were taken about 4 hours ago. Lake Pedder and Lake Gordon which collectively form the storage and part of the catchment for Gordon power station (Tas). 

Pedder is 1.18m below full (normal mimimum level of -1.5m for aesthetic reasons can be dropped lower in emergencies), Gordon is 39.93m below full (14% full).


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 May 2008)

The drought might be over in some parts of the country, but certainly not in Tas. Photo is of Lake Echo and was taken 27-04-2008.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 August 2008)

Well....

Parts of this weekend's Avon Descent have been taken out due to our river being too full!!!

Good stuff.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 August 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Well....
> 
> Parts of this weekend's Avon Descent have been taken out due to our river being too full!!!
> 
> Good stuff.




Is it still live on TV...the Avon Descent?

Perth...the quintessential Aussie country town.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 August 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Is it still live on TV...the Avon Descent?
> 
> Perth...the quintessential Aussie country town.



It's never been live AFAIK.

Perhaps Extracts Weir once was. But that is pretty cool.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> It's never been live AFAIK.
> 
> Perhaps Extracts Weir once was. But that is pretty cool.



I once crewed for some power boat guys. The bits I recall were pretty insane, a recommended weekend. 



> Perth...the quintessential Aussie country town.




It's so sad... that was once true. But those days, regrettably, are gone.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 August 2008)

Heard on the news yesterday that despite a bit of rain in the past few weeks, Tassie is still in the "worst drought ever".


----------



## Prospector (2 August 2008)

Twice now, the view from our lower lakes property has featured on the front page of 'The Australian' showing how bad the situation is now.  And on Friday, Brendan Nelson held a press conference there.  A few years ago we bought a property at Clayton Bay, a community of about 200 people, on the Lower Lakes; in the last 12 months Clayton Bay is starring in the media for all the wrong reasons.  Who would have thought!  We dont even have a postal delivery there; yet Howard, Rudd and now Brendan Nelson have held press conferences there in the last 9 months!  Crikeys, we didn't even have mains water until 3 months ago, (because our water became unfit for human consumption!) and we still dont have a sewer system yet.

One thing that is really Pi**ing me off right now is that Rudd has latched onto this as evidence of global warming!  It is NOT ABOUT Global warming, but River MISMANAGEMENT and this, coupled with a drought, has meant no water.  And I am really pi**ed off with our state pollies who keep saying 'we cant make it rain" - well, it did rain, and the equivalent of 45 days worth of Adelaide's water consumption went straight out to sea because we don't manage the rain we do get.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> I once crewed for some power boat guys. The bits I recall were pretty insane, a recommended weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> It's so sad... that was once true. But those days, regrettably, are gone.



It's been a life time goal of mine to do it. Looks like a heap of fun... plus an excuse for a massive piss up...


----------



## robert toms (3 August 2008)

I see that an irrigator Tandou ...TAN on ASX... is not growing cotton this season by the Menindie lakes.Instead they are selling their 10000 megs of carryover water on the market.See their asx announcements.
It is some system where there is not enough water for longtime family irrigators and yet this company can sell their allowance on the market.
Where does this water come from ?Who is deprived so that these late arrivals can sell water ?Water that they tell us is not in the system.
Some mess that state governments have got us into.
I will hazard a guess that they got their water licences for bugger all as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2008)

robert toms said:


> I will hazard a guess that they got their water licences for bugger all as well.



like BHPB getting their artesian water (Olympic Dam, Roxby Downs)  for zilch


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2008)

Greg Hunt would have to be the most idiotic and irrelevant politician out there (imo anyway) - it is clearly "mischievous" to compare anyone with Saddam 

PS What did the Libs do in 10 years ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/06/2326442.htm?section=justin



> Senator Wong likened to Saddam Hussein
> Posted 26 minutes ago
> 
> The Federal Opposition's environment spokesman has compared Water Minister Penny Wong to Saddam Hussein, saying she and the Federal Government have condemned South Australia's Lower Lakes region to death.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2008)

Prospector said:


> One thing that is really Pi**ing me off right now is that Rudd has latched onto this as evidence of global warming!  It is NOT ABOUT Global warming, but River MISMANAGEMENT and this, coupled with a drought, has meant no water.  And I am really pi**ed off with our state pollies who keep saying 'we cant make it rain" - well, it did rain, and the equivalent of 45 days worth of Adelaide's water consumption went straight out to sea because we don't manage the rain we do get.




Prospector
I disagree
some call it GW (cause) - some call it climate change (symptom) - whichever, it is lack of rain in this case that is the main problem (surely you'd agree).  Sure as hell there is damn all water available in the tradional storage dams to keep the river healthy.

Managemnt of the problem? - well someone will miss out at the moment when there isn't enough to go round.  And at the moment they are (allegegedly) forced to give priority to (storage for) long term water supply for populated areas like Adealide. 

PS I'm amazed that Melbourne takes water from the Murray with a straight face.  They must have alternatives surely?


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2008)

This is supposed to be the wet season down here in Tassie. And it was - briefly. Now it's back to dry again despite everything being thrown at it in terms of trying to make it rain (some success there but not enough).

Overall the water storage situation is roughly the same as at this time last year - 21.4% - but the downwards trend now versus a rising trend 12 months ago is a worry.


----------



## Prospector (6 August 2008)

2020, I dont agree that the main cause of the lower lakes drying up is the drought.  The drought simply brought forward a disaster in waiting.  All of us are guilty of taking the Murray-Darling system for granted; and this means none of the Governments have much bothered with the infrastructure needed to stop our reliance on it; costly but invisible things like rainwater capture, replenishing aquifers, and instead focussed on things like watering the desert (namely Hay Plains - Hay plains was never meant to be green!)

We dont have a rainfall problem in Australia, we have a water management one.  Neither Rann (SA Premier) nor Rudd created this problem, they have simply done nothing to fix it.  The RAMSAR site (which is 20 metres from our shack) no longer exists.  

The way the states are failing to come together to solve this problem, and in fact, are creating real barriers makes me really question the Australian ethos of helping your mate.  It is now all for one and none for all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2008)

prospector - sorry
didn't mean to suggest that Sth Aus wasn't getting the rough end of the pineapple here.  

I think the truth is probably in the middle (as usual) - bad prior management, and also the drought. 

Will your mate Xenophon get some changes ? turn it around? - time will tell.  

PS I apologise for using Queensland terminology in the first sentence there  - goes to the origins of the problem yes?


----------



## Prospector (7 August 2008)

At the moment, as soon as there is 600 gigalitres confused reaching Lake Meningee, (in the eastern states somewhere) then water is released to go down the lower Murray.  Except, the irrigators are channeling the water before it gets there, so it never reaches that magical mark.  They do this by operating sluice gates and pooling the water.  And other water is being kept for people who bought a licence previously, but because of the drought, were not able to get it until this year.  Except, many of these people dont even want the water, but are simply trading in Water Licences, much like you do with shares!

Xenophon has his heart in the right place, and will get plenty of media attention through his stunts, and will cause many Public Servants to hate him because he keeps asking questions, but until Australia can think 'big picture' about water he wont actually achieve anything.  The eastern states really couldnt give a rats what is happening in SA; the Victorian Premier is hated here.


----------



## bassmanpete (7 August 2008)

> We dont have a rainfall problem in Australia




We certainly do in Victoria, and have for the last 12 years.



> the Victorian Premier is hated here.




He is here too


----------



## Prospector (7 August 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> We certainly do in Victoria, and have for the last 12 years.
> 
> 
> 
> He is here too




Ah, well there is some hope then?  Seriously though, if Victoria captured the rain that fell through wetland management and used recycled water, would Victoria really still have a problem?  

In SA, we have the highest uptake of rainwater tanks in Australia.  Maybe we are doing it better than the rest of Australia then?  Crikeys, if that is the case then heaven help Australia, SA is hardly a great benchmark.  The tanks wont help the Murray though.  Today, we have our water Minister Maywald saying that in 5 years time she hopes the Murray mouth will be clean and pristine whilst Ms Wong has stated that she cannot save the Mouth.  Great, our 'experts' are at polar opposites.  Thanks Labor!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

Prospector said:


> At the moment, as soon as there is 600 gigalitres confused reaching Lake Meningee, (in the eastern states somewhere) then water is released to go down the lower Murray.  Except, the irrigators are channeling the water before it gets there, so it never reaches that magical mark.  ....
> 
> Xenophon has his heart in the right place, .... the Victorian Premier is hated here.




Just thinking aloud
Seems safe to assume that Menindee (110 km from Broken Hill) is currently enjoying birdlife revival (at the expense of Alexandrina) 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/New-South-Wales/Menindee/2005/02/17/1108500197639.html


> Menindee is a tiny settlement of 980 people. The countryside is flat and arid and barely supports grazing, although Menindee itself is surrounded by citrus orchards and vegetable cultivation. If desert and fruit-growing sound incompatible, then one has to remember that Menindee is also surrounded by some 20 lakes fed by the Darling River. It is a weird experience to drive through land which is so marginal that you wonder whether it ever rains and to suddenly come across vast freshwater lakes full of dead trees and surrounded by sand, saltbush and inhospitable red soils




1GL = I think of it as the volume under the deck of the Sydney Harbour Bridge - 50m high x 50m wide x 500m span between springing points of the arch - minus the bits of the arch under the deck  - is approx 1GL. 

600GL? - well if you extrude that shape from South Head to Parramatta (approx 23km)..
 you get about 560GL which = 1 sydharb. (I believe that's right).  So 600GL is a bit more than one Sydney Harbour. 

If Xenophon can't do it (with the power he will hold for the next year or two) then no one can 

And I must research more about options for dams to supply Melbourne with water ( other than the Murray  ) - (( no doubt Smurf has some ideas. - hint, lol I continue to pick his incredibly knowledgeable brain ))


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

Interesting article:-

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080619-Political-courage-runs-dry-over-water.html
Alan Kohler writes: Thursday, 19 June 2008



> Kohler: Political courage runs dry over water
> Australia’s water problem seems to be quite beyond the nation’s politicians.
> 
> They’re usually fine with schemes that involve picking a winner from competing interest groups and distributing abundant cash, but when it comes to dealing with a chronic scarcity and saying NO, paralysis sets in.
> ...






> *Yesterday I moderated a panel discussion on water at the Australian Institute of Company Directors* that included Professor Mike Young from Adelaide University’s school of earth and environmental sciences, Alan Cornell, the chairman of Yarra Valley Water, and David Karpin, chairman of Warrnambool Cheese & Butter and deputy chairman of Racing Victoria.
> *The consensus was that the price of water in the cities needs to at least double, probably triple.*
> 
> Currently, according to Alan Cornell, *businesses pay $1.10 per kilolitre and individuals pay $1.76. He says the price should be at least $3, *which he gets by adding a profit margin *to the $2.50 per kL cost  (capital plus running costs) of desalinated water from the proposed plant at Warragul*.




$2.50 per kL cost = $ 2500 per GL (volume under the deck of Sydney Harbour Bridge) = the cost of desal water, (call it $3.00 to add a profit margin) - which Alan Cornell argues should be the basis of water pricing 



> But he would say that, I suppose, since Yarra Valley Water might be the beneficiary of a big increase in the water price, unless it was all done through taxes. But price is always a better way to deal with shortage than rationing.
> 
> Bringing the flexibility of a decent price mechanism to water would allow a higher price to be placed on water guarantees for those who really need it.
> 
> ...




"We only find out about the true state of the water emergency through a leak"


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And I must research more about options for dams to supply Melbourne with water ( other than the Murray  ) - (( no doubt Smurf has some ideas. - hint, lol I continue to pick his incredibly knowledgeable brain ))



Two easy options that I'm aware of are:

Reconnect Tarago reservoir to the system (with a new treatment plant). about 21 GL per year additional supply to Melbourne.

Also some work could be done with a new pipeline at O'Shannassy reservoir to get about 22 GL extra from that source.

So 43 GL is available pretty easily and no new dams needed. That takes the total supply from 566 GL to 609 GL, a 7.6% increase.


----------



## Prospector (9 August 2008)

It has been raining heavily in Adelaide; the worst thing is that because we dont do a good job of harvesting rainwater here, it is all going out to sea.  They reckon about 70 days of water needs for the whole of Adelaide have just been lost!  We dont have a rainfall problem we have a rain management problem.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Two easy options that I'm aware of are:
> Tarago reservoir ,
> O'Shannassy reservoir..



thanks Smurf (more reading required  )



Prospector said:


> It has been raining heavily in Adelaide; the worst thing is that because we dont do a good job of harvesting rainwater here, it is all going out to sea.  They reckon about 70 days of water needs for the whole of Adelaide have just been lost!  We dont have a rainfall problem we have a rain management problem.



Prospector, on a similar topic ,  my wife keeps insisting that stormwater runoff should be collected - but the experts keep saying that stormwater is more expensive than salt water to purify, due to chance of oil, and variability of impurities etc - 

can't say it makes sense to me, but that's what they say


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Prospector, on a similar topic ,  my wife keeps insisting that stormwater runoff should be collected - but the experts keep saying that stormwater is more expensive than salt water to purify, due to chance of oil, and variability of impurities etc -
> 
> can't say it makes sense to me, but that's what they say



Either way you're starting with polluted water (salt, oil, chemicals, even a bit of asbestos) and having to remove those nasties to make it OK to drink. I'm no expert on these processes but I'd expect that if you don't have to deal with oil then that would make things easier, hence the apparent preference for salt water.

Regarding the two Melbourne dams I posted about before, I'm not sure what the present status of those is but their redevelopment was an option a few years ago - not sure if it's being done now?


----------



## chops_a_must (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Prospector, on a similar topic ,  my wife keeps insisting that stormwater runoff should be collected - but the experts keep saying that stormwater is more expensive than salt water to purify, due to chance of oil, and variability of impurities etc -
> 
> can't say it makes sense to me, but that's what they say



Easy.

You put a lot of it into designated treatment wetlands.

It then gets filtered there, if it is done correctly, and can be used to improve the refresh rates of the underground water systems.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Easy.
> 
> You put a lot of it into designated treatment wetlands.
> 
> It then gets filtered there, if it is done correctly, and can be used to improve the refresh rates of the underground water systems.



There's a smelter (ferro alloys) in Tas that's been putting its industrial waste water into a man-made wetlands (very rectangular shape but they did try to make it as "natural" as possible) for 15 - 20 years. It's working fine so far and to my understanding the water that flows out (into the sea) is very high quality.


----------



## Prospector (10 August 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Easy.
> 
> You put a lot of it into designated treatment wetlands.
> 
> It then gets filtered there, if it is done correctly, and can be used to improve the refresh rates of the underground water systems.




That is exactly what I am saying we should do.  All of this can be done by building up the wetlands and replenishing the aquifers and is what many Councils are doing already.

Chops, what on earth has SA done to make you hate it so much. I can understand you dont like the state, but seriously I think your avatar sucks to be honest, almost like you have a personal vendetta.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 August 2008)

Prospector said:


> ... but seriously I think your avatar sucks to be honest, almost like you have a personal vendetta.



he's just envious that SA has all the good looking girls prospector


----------



## Prospector (14 August 2008)

I think maybe I have some hope - our Mr X(Xenophon) has pledged to save the Lower Murray, and Mr Rudd needs his vote to pass reforms like the Alcopop tax and Petrol Watch.  Mr X has said 'No water No Vote' and he WILL stick to it, unlike other Pollies.  Go Mr X!

Today I was walking to an appointment to a Government Building and was almost run over by a Government vehicle.  I was walking on the green of course.  Then I noticed a stream of black suits, and men with curly things hanging out of their ears.  Yep, you guessed, Mr Rudd was walking from his hotel to the Adelaide Town Hall for a Cabinet meeting.  I was heading to the same place, so continued to follow him.  I got to within three feet of him as he decided to stop for a piccy shoot with the lovely Ms G; and with my Iphone at the ready, took the attached picture.  Made me realise that security is a myth - they had the Town Hall in lock down for three days prior, yet I could take this picture and no-one even question me.  I think Rudd is looking in my direction though, and not where everyone else is.  Oops, is that a knock on my front door.........

(PS, I dont know who the ring-ins are!)


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2008)

The drought is still going strong down here in Tassie...

All of the past 10 months have been below average run-off, continuing the drought that began nearly 11 years ago.

Hydro storages are now at the lowest ever level for this time of year, winter being the wet season in Tas. Present storage level is 22.4%.

If we get a repeat of last year's conditions from now on then that will drop to about 12% next Autumn, a rather drastic situation (to put it mildly). That would be the lowest level on record for any time of year - and the Hydro's records go back to 1916.


----------



## Julia (2 September 2008)

Thanks for telling us about this Smurf.  I don't think it ever occurs to anyone on the mainland that parts of Tassie can be so dry.   Hope the summer brings you a heap of rain.


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 October 2008)

Ho-hum. Back here again, am I?

With the snow season kaput and very little runoff left from the melt, Hume Dam will be lucky to start summer with 35% capacity and Dartmouth would do well to get 25%.

Here we go again with the Big Water Squeeeeeze.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 October 2008)

It's been raining! No floods, but anything is better than nothing. The Hydro's total storage is now up to 29.9% which isn't good but with a bit of luck from this point on it's enough.

That said, farms and non-Hydro water storages in the eastern part of Tas are essentially stuffed apart from the Hobart urban area.

The general expectation seems to be that we're in for a horror year in terms of fire given how dry it is. That's the bit that really worries me.


----------



## Prospector (12 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The general expectation seems to be that we're in for a horror year in terms of fire given how dry it is. That's the bit that really worries me.




Hey Smurf, that's the thing with this bushfire risk.  In South Australia, when we have had a good winter rain, (ummm, maybe 10 years ago!) the CFS tell us that we are at risk of more bushfires in summer because their has been a lot of growth and so lots of fuel to burn.

When we have had a poor winter rain (as has been the case for so long now!) they say we are at increased fire risk because everything is so dry. 

So really, whatever happens, we are always at risk.

We are due for the mother of all bush fires here in Adelaide; we haven't had a big one for some time, and each April we think, well, we missed it again this year.  And can't think why we escaped!  Especially this year when we had two weeks straight of temperatures on 40c in March.  That killed us.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2008)

Prospector said:


> Hey Smurf, that's the thing with this bushfire risk.  In South Australia, when we have had a good winter rain, (ummm, maybe 10 years ago!) the CFS tell us that we are at risk of more bushfires in summer because their has been a lot of growth and so lots of fuel to burn.



In Tassie it's very dry overall (in the eastern parts) but we did get a bit of rain in September. So, very dry soils etc but the September rain will have given the grasses etc an opportunity to grow. Overall that's the worst possible combination - maximum fuel and it's dry.

Some good news elsewhere though. Cloud seeding in the Snowy seems to be working. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/14/2390294.htm?section=australia


----------



## Boggo (14 October 2008)

I overheard part of an item on the radio in the car today, something about someone either ringing a radio station or writing to a newspaper.

Basically from what I could gather the complaint was that with daylight saving we now have an extra hour of daylight and this cannot be good for the drought as it is drying everything out even more, suggestion apparently was that we should have an hour less of daylight !!!!!

Amazing !

(Person involved was probably related to the one in the US who rang a radio station in Georgia (USA) and said that she saw on TV where the Russians were invading Georgia and she was annoyed that Bush was not doing anything about it)


----------



## Boggo (16 October 2008)

Found it.
They are out there


----------



## Whiskers (8 November 2008)

Nice little rain system just moving across SE Qld. 

Just starting to get a bit dry again after the good winter rain. 

Looks like it'll be a nice timely top up.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2008)

Just as I clicked onto your post, Whiskers, it has started to pour with rain here.  Hallelujah!  So very much needed.


----------



## chops_a_must (9 November 2008)

Julia said:


> Just as I clicked onto your post, Whiskers, it has started to pour with rain here.  Hallelujah!  So very much needed.




We've had a very wintry last week.

Must be very bitter sweet for those in the wheatbelt right now because they do not want rain now at all.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 November 2008)

We are getting quite a serious storm right now.

A lot of hail, the biggest I've seen in a while. The windows are copping a pounding.

The wheat farmers are going to be mighty pissed off...


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 November 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> We are getting quite a serious storm right now.
> 
> A lot of hail, the biggest I've seen in a while. The windows are copping a pounding.
> 
> *The wheat farmers are going to be mighty pissed off...*





Same-o here Chops. 40+ mils around much of Northern / Central Vic over the last few days. Good for growing a massive "crop" of Patterson's Curse if that's your fancy! 

Forget wheat and canola - some genetic genius should come up with a way of converting Patto's into a valuable crop.

Then there's SE QLD.

WOW! What a downpour overnight - could be more evening storm cells on the way later. Cripes! PLEASE Lord, send some to WODONGA (only a puny 9 mils overnight - Hume rapidly depleting once more as the allocations get underway & Dart stady but LOW).

Ho-hum.

Have a good day, Chops.


aj


PS: Just had a look at the figures for one of my old posting bases - R.A.A.F. Amberley near Ipswich, QLD.

270 odd mils so far this month, with a long term average for Nov of 78!!!! Paddle, boys!


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 November 2008)

Here's another doozy -

Alice Springs AP has had 155 mils in the 20 days of November to today!!!

That is a whopping 5.7 x their average Nov rainfall of 27 mils!

The Springs of Alice will certainly get a topping up....


----------



## Temjin (20 November 2008)

Bloody storm isn't hitting the dams properly, need another 40% increase in combined dam level to call this "drought" is over. Of course i don't want to wish for more rains in that area since alot of families have lost everything, but for the sake for the rest of Brisbane residents, we still need more rain near the dams to generate a significant run out. (and misses other suburbs hehe)


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 November 2008)

Raining steadily here in Hobart.

Funny thing this drought and economic cycle. Last time the economy fell in a hole (early 1990's) we were also in trouble with lack of water in the Hydro dams. Then the economy went to hell and it started raining. Storage went from 22% in 1991 to 86% by 1997. Maybe in for a repeat? The low this time was 17% earlier this year and it's 29% now. 

It's an interesting cycle. Dams get low then the economy goes bust. I'd have to check the dates of recessions but I'm pretty sure the cycle has happend a few times before as well.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...It's an interesting cycle. Dams get low then the economy goes bust.




Dam!


----------



## Whiskers (20 November 2008)

Looks like the storms are starting to build again today for SE Qld.

Looks like they're coming a bit further north and a bit more RED building in them too. Gotta fill them dams sooner or later... at least flood the Mary so they can't build the Traverston Dam. 

*Watchout Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay for a bit of wild weather this arvo*.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 November 2008)

Doyle and Flannery on ABC TV - on at the moment .
Two men in a tinnie ( see it on iview on the weekend probably)

downstream of Cubbie ...  "In the last 111 years there have been 101 floods ... ands none in the last 7 years " 

Many blaming the irrigation "upstream"
"and everyone is dirty on Qld."

Lol - ( I like these blokes and their humour) 
Re Mitchell's Fort south of Bourke
"It's like a bit of history John"
"yep - a VERY little bit lol"


----------



## Green08 (27 November 2008)

In New England (NSW) last week it was deluge from Monday to Friday.


----------



## Prospector (28 November 2008)

We have had 35ml in 3 MONTHS!


----------



## prawn_86 (28 November 2008)

Prospector said:


> We have had 35ml in 3 MONTHS!




Yet its still been cold ****e weather for that 3 months. I want some warm weather!


----------



## chops_a_must (28 November 2008)

Prospector said:


> We have had 35ml in 3 MONTHS!




Just another reason Perth is better than that hole Prospector. :



> WEST[ern]  Australia's unseasonal weather is set to continue with forecasters predicting a wet, cool summer.
> 
> Perth has recorded the wettest and coldest November in 17 years - the seventh-wettest on record - and the trend is set to continue.
> 
> WA Bureau of Meteorology senior meteorologist Glenn Cook said a warm Indian Ocean and several high-level troughs -- or low-atmospheric pressure systems -- had produced the wintry weather Perth has experienced during the past few weeks.


----------



## Prospector (28 November 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Just another reason Perth is better than that hole Prospector. :




Ignoring the offence in your post Chops   that is the weird thing - we just aren't getting Perth's rain like we used to.  The bloody Bureau keeps predicting not just showers, but actually rain - but then nothing!

Why do you hate SA so much, you have never explained that! Victoria, New South Wales I can understand


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 November 2008)

Prospector said:


> Ignoring the offence in your post Chops   that is the weird thing - we just aren't getting Perth's rain like we used to.  The bloody Bureau keeps predicting not just showers, but actually rain - but then nothing!
> 
> Why do you hate SA so much, you have never explained that! Victoria, New South Wales I can understand



As has often been said in Tas, "hope we don't end up like WA!". 

That's a reference to the abrupt and seemingly permanent huge decline in rainfall in SW WA after the mid-1970's. If you look at a chart, it's as though rainfall crashed and never recovered.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2008)

Prospector said:


> ... Why do you hate SA so much, you have never explained that!




Hi Prospector, 
It's bound to be something easy to explain - most irrationality is easily explained lol.   His mother probly dropped him on his head when she holidayed in Adelaide once


----------



## CoffeeKing (29 November 2008)

Plenty of stormy weather at "The Gap" in Brissbane last week
different contrast to the Pilbara... strange seeing hail...

This is'nt about the weather just curious if they still have the old red tram
near the casino in Adelaide that sold the best PIE FLOATER I have ever tasted

Much better than the one from the pie tram in Newcastle (NSW)


----------



## noirua (29 November 2008)

Prospector said:


> We have had 35ml in 3 MONTHS!



If you bring in some proper Indian rain dancers, those from the wild west, the rain will fall steadily.
They salute the rain gods by praying and dancing. (wait patiently until the proper dance starts).


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2008)

First it was the drought giving me ridiculous power bills and expensive food.

Now it's the rain cutting my income. I was supposed to be working outside (paid) right now but it's been cancelled due to rain. Smurf's quite happy to get wet, but it's not safe to do that sort of work in the rain etc so it's cancelled. 

It's seems that whoever is running this weather is trying to send me broke. :

Not to worry though. I'm off outside to put up more Christmas lights. Maybe the heat given off from those will warm the place up a bit? Only another 1500 or so lights to go so nearly there. I might get wet, but at least it's not windy which is a nice change from recent weather.


----------



## Prospector (29 November 2008)

CoffeeKing said:


> This is'nt about the weather just curious if they still have the old red tram
> near the casino in Adelaide that sold the best PIE FLOATER I have ever tasted
> 
> Much better than the one from the pie tram in Newcastle (NSW)




I think it has gone, and the only place selling the true floater is in North Adelaide know, within walking distance of Adelaide Oval (Test Match) so it should be busy later on.  Wonder if Roy will be at the Cathedral pub after the match, like last year according my kids.


----------



## noirua (30 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> First it was the drought giving me ridiculous power bills and expensive food.
> 
> Now it's the rain cutting my income. I was supposed to be working outside (paid) right now but it's been cancelled due to rain. Smurf's quite happy to get wet, but it's not safe to do that sort of work in the rain etc so it's cancelled.
> 
> ...



Don't switch the lights on until December 1st as you will have bad luck for all of 2009 if you do.


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 January 2009)

noirua said:


> Don't switch the lights on until December 1st as *you will have bad luck for all of 2009 if you do*.




_*click*_

:angry: So, it was SMURF who caused this World Financial Crisis mess! :angry:

LOL

Back to the Worst Drought Ever topic...

It's hot here in Wodonga. Again. Damned hot :angry: Next 4 days predicted 40, 41, 42, 42.

Hume dam is sinking fast at around -0.2% per day. Leaves about 3 months till empty if Dartmouth isn't drawn down (which it will be shortly for sure).

If anyone needs a link to the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority's website with cool live river data and interactive maps, here 'tis. Check out the inflow graphs for 2008-09.  http://www.mdba.gov.au/water/river_info/weekly_reports  Looking REAL sick...

http://www.mdba.gov.au/water/river_info

chiz,


aj


----------



## Prospector (27 January 2009)

43 degrees here today, and 41 tomorrow and Thursday then cooling down to 38! And dry, so dry.  And our stupid bloody Rann Government suggests people turn off the air-conditioner!


----------



## prawn_86 (27 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> 43 degrees here today, and 41 tomorrow and Thursday then cooling down to 38! And dry, so dry.  And our stupid bloody Rann Government suggests people turn off the air-conditioner!




Finally some proper summer weather 

Might have to go back and go skiing and wakeboarding in the home town for a week


----------



## Prospector (27 January 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Finally some proper summer weather
> 
> Might have to go back and go skiing and wakeboarding in the home town for a week




So are you suggesting there is actually water in the River Murray in SA?  And watch out for submerged (and not so submerged) debris - it has become way more dangerous now the water level is so low.


----------



## prawn_86 (27 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> So are you suggesting there is actually water in the River Murray in SA?  And watch out for submerged (and not so submerged) debris - it has become way more dangerous now the water level is so low.




Its fine in the Riverland, because they are holding all the water back with the locks. The river is actually crystal clear up there, as there is virtually no flow, so all the sediment has settled, meaning you can see your feet when your swimming!

It might not be there for much longer so might as well make use of the river now...


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> 43 degrees here today, and 41 tomorrow and Thursday then cooling down to 38! And dry, so dry.  And our stupid bloody Rann Government suggests people turn off the air-conditioner!




I wonder.

Have all Stupid Bloody Rann's gummint ministers voluntarily unplugged THEIR thundering aircons in their palatial mansions in response to their leader's call?

Lemme guess..... 

Oh, I get it! _"Do as we say, not as we ourselves are loathe to do..."_ Enough to make you weep with tears of cynicism, really!


----------



## Prospector (27 January 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> I wonder.
> 
> Have all Stupid Bloody Rann's gummint ministers voluntarily unplugged THEIR thundering aircons in their palatial mansions in response to their leader's call?
> 
> ...




Check out this link.  
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24968648-5006301,00.html

And now they are saying they sent out the press release to tell people to save money


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> Check out this link.
> http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24968648-5006301,00.html
> 
> And now they are saying they sent out the press release to tell people to save money




Hahaha! ROFLMAO.

It's your choice. _"Your money ... or your life!"_  

PS: I still see no evidence that Gummint ministers THEMSELVES are offering to walk their talk...


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> 43 degrees here today, and 41 tomorrow and Thursday then cooling down to 38! And dry, so dry.  And our stupid bloody Rann Government suggests people turn off the air-conditioner!



It's certainly very hot in SA and Vic the next few days! 

Regarding the air-conditioner, well that depends on the power supply.

In short, demand is extremely high in Vic and SA. In both states, peak demand (tomorrow) and available local generation (including the part of the Snowy considered to be in Vic) are about in balance. 

So there's enough power as long as not too many things go wrong. However, both NSW and Tas are able to put additional electricity into Vic so in practice there's more than enough as long as nothing unexpected happens (eg a fire burns the lines down etc). And Vic can put power into SA - more than is likely to be needed.

So overall there is certainly high demand but it's so far, so good as far as generation is concerned. A few issues yes, it could be better, but it's good enough unless there are some big failures - always a possibility on any day.

So I'd be running the air-conditioner quite happily without much concern, just aware that there's a small risk that enough things go wrong to cause problems. But you don't go to work 2 hours early just in case the bus breaks down and by the same logic there's no reason to be switching things off just in case a power station breaks down.


----------



## Prospector (28 January 2009)

44 freaking degrees here today.  41 tomorrow, 41 friday. Hell.  Lowest temp overnight last night, 34 degrees.  Opened the front door at 7am and it was like an oven.

Late yesterday a conductor at Port Adelaide broke down and caused a fire at Adelaide Brighton Cement.  Poor people at Port Adelaide and surrounds had no power for a few hours.  How we can escape this without a major bushfire will be a miracle.  The last couple of fires have been caused by angle grinders, but there have also been I think over 200 fires started since November last year by fire bugs.  One day they will be charged with murder.  Why they dont get charged with arson is beyond me!


----------



## Trevor_S (28 January 2009)

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/01/28/35415_hpnews.html



> TOWNSVILLE is seeing a return to the wet season of old, experiencing the largest amount of January rainfall in 10 years – and there's even more wet weather on the way.




I also see the Burdekin Dam is flowing over the spillway again, (as well as our own two Dam's here) like last year and the year before.  Last year the Burdekin Dam was flowing over over the top of the spillway at the volume of Sydney Harbour every day 

Not sure if the "predictions" that with climate change, temperate sub tropical climates (south of about Rockhampton) will get hotter and tropical areas will stay about the same and get more rain are coming true but I wish this rain would STOP already !


----------



## Prospector (28 January 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> but I wish this rain would STOP already !




I cant ever imagine being able to say that.


----------



## Aussiejeff (28 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> I cant ever imagine being able to say that.




What's r-a-i-n?

Is it nice?


----------



## classer (28 January 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/01/28/35415_hpnews.html
> 
> 
> 
> but I wish this rain would STOP already !




Just arrived in Townsville from North Victoria. After 9 years of below average seasons I'm out jumping in puddles


----------



## Prospector (28 January 2009)

So it is currently 44C (111F) and it is only 12.15; our peak temperature hits at around 3.30 - 4pm.  At what temperature does everything just kind of explode?


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> So it is currently 44C (111F) and it is only 12.15; our peak temperature hits at around 3.30 - 4pm.  At what temperature does everything just kind of explode?



It might give that record of 47 point something a shake.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> So it is currently 44C (111F) and it is only 12.15; our peak temperature hits at around 3.30 - 4pm.  At what temperature does everything just kind of explode?




Its actually hotter in Adel than the Riverland today (by 2 degrees). But one time up there, we threw a thermometer on the sand on a day like this and it cracked from the heat 

You know its hot when the tar is bubbling up through the road. Love it!


----------



## Prospector (28 January 2009)

drsmith said:


> It might give that record of 47 point something a shake.




I do remember 45; that was in the seventies, and the speakers in my then boyfriend's car melted....


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2009)

Last xmas (2007) it was 47 about three days straight where we were camping.

Check the travel forum for some pics


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2009)

Prospector said:


> I do remember 45; that was in the seventies, and the speakers in my then boyfriend's car melted....



Found it. 46.1 in January 1939.

http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cach...st+ever+temperature"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

It could give that a very nasty shake.


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 April 2009)

Here's a chart I created today showing Hume Dam levels since 1997.

You have to beg the question why the Authority's haven't got a release limit of down to say, 20%? Following the big top-up in 2000 would have been an opportune time to plan for that and help guarantee a reasonable backup level in the case of extended periods of reduced rainfall IMO.

If they had used that limit over the past 6 years or so, we wouldn't now be facing less than 3% (again) by as early as end of next week. Of course, this would have meant some pain for irrigators with reduced allocations. 

Would that have been "too much to bear"? Would the Authority be legally liable to foot the bill for allocations it does not meet?


----------



## Happy (1 April 2009)

I just have a thought that we should desalinate water as crazy and pump it to any dry area.

Why one might ask?

Well, because we expect sea level to rise 1, 5 or even 10 metres in this century alone, on top of that sea water is getting diluted and sea currents apparently seem to be closely related to salt content.

This way we could prevent or reduce 2 disasters in one.


----------



## derty (1 April 2009)

Happy said:


> I just have a thought that we should desalinate water as crazy and pump it to any dry area.
> 
> Why one might ask?
> 
> ...



This is probably one of those ideas that is easier said than put into practice Happy. The volume of the ocean is immense when compared to the volume of fresh water on land. I don't think desal plants would be able to lower the sea levels noticeably and where are you going to get he energy to run these the plants? Also the rivers run back to the sea. 

Though, if you are really serious, you might want to head down to you local beach with a straw and make a start  :


----------



## Happy (1 April 2009)

derty said:


> Though, if you are really serious, you might want to head down to you local beach with a straw and make a start  :




No kidding, I took few bottles of water for my garden patch with celery.
Used it diluted as celery need salt, (and you don't have to take it with grain of salt )


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Here's a chart I created today showing Hume Dam levels since 1997.
> 
> You have to beg the question why the Authority's haven't got a release limit of down to say, 20%? Following the big top-up in 2000 would have been an opportune time to plan for that and help guarantee a reasonable backup level in the case of extended periods of reduced rainfall IMO.
> 
> ...



There's a 100% level there in 2000 that was presumably associated with spill, the ulitmate sin in water storage management since it's total waste.

Ideally you want to never have storage at zero and you never want it completely full either. If either event occurs then either (1) the storage is too small relative to inflows or (2) management is deficient in that the storage was maintained at a level that is too high to avoid spill. Looking at the chart, the storage doesn't really seem big enough but there's Dartmouth and the Snowy upstream which does offset that to a significant extent.

You'd have to look at combined Dartmouth, Hume and Snowy scheme storages to get an accurate picture of the overall situation. Ideally you'd want to have the one entity controlling the whole lot as well which unfortunately isn't the case - there's no guarantee that Snowy release will be timed to suit conditions at Hume to maximise overall resource efficiency.

Looking at another very large water storage scheme, Hydro Tasmania, here's some figures:

Lowest on record: 14% in 1968

Highest on record: 100% in 1976 due to several years of very high rainfall.

Following the 1976 event, the third Miena dam at Great Lake (the largest system storage) was raised to increase capacity of that storage by about one third so as to avoid future 100% storage incidents. That was completed in 1983 amidst severe drought after which storage stood at 30% and has never filled to its new capacity (and in theory never will).

Also in late 1977 the Gordon scheme, which comprises about 30% of total system storage, commenced operation.

Storage remained in the 30 - 50% range through the 1980's before dipping to 22% in 1990 and 1991. Those figures are somewhat "artificial" due to the use of oil-fired generation to maintain storage levels, particularly during the 89-90 and 90-91 Summers. Without that, total storage would have been around 5% by 1991.

Storage increased from 22% in 1991 to 86% by late 1997. Rainfall was high, demand fell nearly 7% from 1991 to 1996 due to the general economic recession and two new schemes had come online in 1992 and 1994. Apart from a test run, there was no non-hydro generation during this period.

Since 1997 storage declined at first slowly and then more rapidly as load increased above system capacity and rainfall declined. Non-hydro generation was minimised (at the expense of depleting water storages more rapidly given the load situation) until gas became available in late 2002, the idea being to subsequently recover storages through maximum use of gas-fired generation which is far cheaper than oil. Then the drought arrived and thus far there has been no real recovery of storage, presently at about 25%, despite heavy running of gas-fired generation.

Weekly data for the headwater storages is publicly available here. http://www.hydro.com.au/storages/storage summary.xls

Simplified system map (omits inflows downstream of the headwater storages) and current % storage levels are here, updated weekly. http://www.hydro.com.au/storages/storage.pdf

Note that these figures exclude all non-headwater storages (there's a lot...) and also Lake Margaret which was decommissioned in 2006 (to be recommissioned later in 2009 when the replacement pipe is completed).


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> I do remember 45; that was in the seventies, and the speakers in my then boyfriend's car melted....




This made me crack up.... Oh Adelaide indeed... 

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-murray-has-done-a-nile-oh-widowed-adelaide-20090419-abeo.html


----------



## Prospector (20 April 2009)

Well thats a pretty crap article. Why do people in Victoria have such a chip on their shoulder and feel the need to write such articles?  Like Melbourne's Lord Mayor.  Maybe a dry river is better than a sewer river like the Yarra.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2009)

I found it rather amusing.



> I thrill at the thought of a man wearing a pink safari suit slapping the face of a fundamentalist hillbilly with a gauntlet. And the idea of Joh and Donny going mano e mano with parliamentary maces for the honour of their states and control of the swirling brown megalitres excites me beyond telling.


----------



## Prospector (20 April 2009)

Shame it wasnt a pink safari suit though!  Still, never let facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2009)

Perhaps he confused it with the shorts.

http://www.history.sa.gov.au/history/object of the month.htm.html


----------



## Aussiejeff (23 April 2009)

Hooray! A new interactive website to play wid!

http://www.mdba.gov.au/water/waterinstorage/southern/uppermurray#

Check out the .pdf at bottom of page.

Victorian sector is in appalling shape. Look at all those water balance deficit figures!! Yikes!

Also, 68GL left in Hume (2%), of which 30GL is unuseable. So, 1% left, folks. 

_It is getting on the nose, the lower down it goes,
with lots of chlorination smell as well...._

We have been using a small electric distiller for ages to clean it up for drinking. Works fine but the black, stinking sludge left behind after a dozen distillation runs is *frightening* .


----------



## Prospector (23 April 2009)

At last it is raining in Adelaide and we may get 50mls in the next three days, which is more than double what we have had since January 1.  Hopefully it will pass through to Victoria.

Folklore says that if it is raining on Anzac Day then we are in for a good winter.  Usually heralds the start of the Autumn rains.  I think last year it was actually hot!  Bad luck for the diggers but we so need the rain....


----------



## PeterJ (23 April 2009)

Hi Prospector
I am also enjoying this steady rain we are having atm
Hopefully Mother Nature will provide us with enough 
for the year

we all know we will die of thirst otherwise 

Peter


----------



## Prospector (23 April 2009)

PeterJ said:


> Hi Prospector
> I am also enjoying this steady rain we are having atm
> Hopefully Mother Nature will provide us with enough
> for the year
> ...



I am betting Mikey is down on his knees praying for it.  Why oh why dont they recycle storm water - that is more than enough for Adelaides water needs.  As if the River Murray isnt full of storm water anyway?  And what do they think the reservoir run off's are - stormwater!


----------



## MrBurns (23 April 2009)

Errrrrr................sorry I thought this thread was about sex.....


----------



## PeterJ (23 April 2009)

Mr Burns .. of course it is

at least we know what they have been doing in Parliament House
for the last few years apart from ruining this state financially

a rain dance !

well it worked today

Peter


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Errrrrr................sorry I thought this thread was about sex.....



Use your imagination.

A growing cumulonimbus cloud can be considered an erection of convection.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 November 2015)

6 years later and the drought seems to be back at least here in Tasmania.

It has been dry for a while now but people are starting to notice it seems. Quite a few stories in the papers this week about farmers running into trouble with no rain, statistics saying we've just had the driest October on record (that's official BOM data) and September was very dry too. The outlook is for November to be dry as well.

Looking at actual rainfall, Launceston had a ridiculously low 1mm last month. Not much better elsewhere, with most of the state getting no more than 20% of normal rainfall (and only a few places got slightly more).

Impacts thus far seem to be limited to farmers without access to irrigation and home gardens although various irrigation water storages are running a lot lower than would normally be the case (since we've completely missed the normally wet months during which they'd refill) such that the impacts could spread more widely in due course. Needless to say, bushfires maybe a problem this Summer if the low rainfall and warmer than usual temperatures continue.

Not sure how the other states are going although my understanding is that the lack of rain particularly in October was reasonably widespread.


----------



## sptrawler (3 November 2015)

It's certainly dry in Perth, dams at 28%, which is an indication of low inflows not demand.


----------



## basilio (4 November 2015)

And summer  is still a month away ...! 

This could get very ugly by March 2016


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2015)

It rained all day in Hobart today but most of Tas missed out and is now getting ridiculously dry. As it says in the paper today, the farms are "pretty well buggered". It seems that the crops are so bad that it's not worth the time and cost to harvest them so things aren't good on the land.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...ops-setting-seed/story-fnj4f7k1-1227605985915

I'm not certain about the situation in other states but I have the impression that Tas is being hit by the drought harder than most parts of the country. October, normally the wettest month of the year, and practically no rain across most of the state. Even the notoriously wet West Coast is dry now.


----------



## Craton (12 November 2015)

Drought, or more accurately, the lack of water is something us bushies constantly face and more often than not, have to live with.

Level 2 restrictions started started 1 Oct here with water tasting like the soup from the bottom of a yabbie bucket. Local water board's reverse osmosis unit "should" be ready by years end.

Water and the lack thereof has been a bone of contention since the Line of Lode was first discovered and its still a huge bloody stuff up. How in the hell can the lakes (Menindee Lakes) go from 117% capacity (due to flooding) to virtually bone dry in a couple of years is beyond belief and is inexcusable.

Gross mismanagement by our "authorities" yet again and the people are left to suffer, yet again. My pet hate, stupidity at the highest level. Fancy releasing water above what is needed and then again when we need it most. This defies logic, and speaking of defying logic, I certainly scratch my head with this restriction.

In addition, Level 2 water restrictions prohibit: - Construction activities utilising water.

Will this issue ever be sorted out? I highly doubt it.

http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/the-last-drop-of-water-in-broken-hill

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...es-continue-as-tougher-water-restrict/6739800


----------



## basilio (13 November 2015)

Bloody scary isn't it ? 

If we are in this very serious situation in the middle of November where will be after four very hot summer months ?


----------



## basilio (13 November 2015)

After reading the story on Broken Hills water supply I wonder what the situation is/will be with a range of other cities. Dubbo comes to mind for a start. 

I think the Government needs to very quickly come to terms with the possibility that many country towns could be in very serious trouble before the end of summer and probably longer term.

It would be one thing to tackle one-three towns water supply problems.  But if the number becomes much bigger the costs, engineering capacities and time lines could be problematical.


----------



## Craton (13 November 2015)

basilio, due to blue-green algae Menindee, which is on the Darling River is already having water carted in.

Speaking of engineering costs. In Broken Hill there are two main water storages both near dry. We have been screaming out for years to have these storages desilted, especially the main one Stephen's Creek reservoir. Neither have been desilted for over 40yrs so instead of deep storage which minimizes evaporation, these are now just shallow ponds. The cost is in the 100's of mill's hence the political will is not there.

From our local fishwrapper: http://bdtruth.com.au/main/news/article/7881-Forget-bores-and-desilt-reservoirs.html

The push for bore water at Menindee Lakes goes on but the silence is deafening on the quality. Anyone who's dug down a few inches at any of the lakes will know how black and putrid and on-the-nose the decaying matter is. So, if this in going on in my neck of the woods, I shudder to think how our whole nation will fare.

Although we've had many a drought, none have been as bad as one old bloke's memory. He reckoned that the Murray was a series of ponds back in the late 1940's, that he used to drove cattle across the empty river bed in many places from the base of the Snowies and way down into Sth Aust. Reckons we don't know what a drought is and we've never had a drought like that one since.

I know that's around the time of the Snowy and Menindee Lakes schemes but geez, the mind boggles.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2018)

The drought would seem to be back and widespread, affecting most of the country.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/median/monthly/0

Also the temperature outlooks are for warmer than average conditions mostly so that means more evaporation = not good for farmers.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/temperature/maximum/median/monthly/0

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/temperature/minimum/median/monthly/0


----------



## Country Lad (31 July 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> The drought would seem to be back and widespread, affecting most of the country.




We are recently back from a 3 month trip north and western Qld.  Areas around Julia Creek, Kynuna, Winton, Boulia are the worst we have seen it and we have spent time in previous years volunteering on outback properties doing it tough.  Virtual dust bowls at the moment.  Many of the remote towns are just surviving and thanking the many grey nomads travelling through and spending some money in the towns.


----------



## basilio (18 August 2018)

0:28
A grazier has shared drone footage of her herd surrounding a water tanker. The farmer, Amber Lea, told the Mercury: 'The tanker and trough was the only source of water for the cattle. We were carting 100,000 litres of water every day for their survival, often having to drive 50 to 70km one way to get water for them.'

And we are still in mid winter..


----------



## Tisme (19 August 2018)

basilio said:


> 0:28
> A grazier has shared drone footage of her herd surrounding a water tanker. The farmer, Amber Lea, told the Mercury: 'The tanker and trough was the only source of water for the cattle. We were carting 100,000 litres of water every day for their survival, often having to drive 50 to 70km one way to get water for them.'
> 
> And we are still in mid winter..





Are Burrabogie Livestock and Contracting the farmers or stockwork contractors?

Sputnik International reported the same article and citing the drought the worst in 400 years ..... Vasco da Gama's family station perhaps?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 October 2019)

50% of the population of the USA and 99% of the rural population relies on groundwater for their water supplies.

Instead of building more or bigger dams, why not develop the groundwater option first ?


----------



## macca (17 October 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> 50% of the population of the USA and 99% of the rural population relies on groundwater for their water supplies.
> 
> Instead of building more or bigger dams, why not develop the groundwater option first ?




This has been done in many places  but unfortunately, when the bores were originally drilled early last century the water was allowed to flow freely when it surfaced naturally (as it was under pressure) and has depleted the aquifer.

There is still an enormous amount of water under there if pumped and most of the bores have officially been capped and piped but there is a limit to what is there.

In WA they are starting to realise that they are sucking it out quicker than it is going in and they will have a problem eventually


----------



## sptrawler (17 October 2019)

macca said:


> In WA they are starting to realise that they are sucking it out quicker than it is going in and they will have a problem eventually




The W.A water authority have been monitoring and implementing a lot of changes, to mitigate the draw down on the Gnangara mound, over recent times.
http://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/9539/112061.pdf


----------



## SirRumpole (18 October 2019)

The mystery of the filling dams.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...w-private-dams-filled-murray-darling/11617320


----------



## SirRumpole (23 October 2019)

Good news for Tenterfield, strikes bore water.

https://www.tenterfieldstar.com.au/story/6451329/hallelujah-tenterfield-finds-another-water-source/


----------

