# No More Dams?



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

Irrespective of any decision Peter Garrett makes today on the future of the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, we can be sure that the last dam to provide water to any large city in Australia has already been built. An approval by Garrett would involve so many restrictions and red tape as to make it not viable; and then there are always court challenges.

The very militant NIMBYs have won the war. Their latest secret weapon is a rare a**e breathing turtle, but they have many more up their sleeves.

What we can look forward to is more power hungry and expensive desalination plants and recycled sewage.

It is ironic that in one of the world's driest countries we are prevented from conserving water by so-called Conservationists


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

Garrett has knocked back the dam based on matters of "national environmental significance."


----------



## nunthewiser (11 November 2009)

Personally think most enviromental desicions are based on the size of the envelope passed.

No offense to envelope recievers.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

I wonder what will happen to the hundreds of acres the government bought on the assumption the dam would go ahead?

Won't they now have to compensate those people they forced out of their properties?

What a mess.


----------



## Putty7 (11 November 2009)

Peter Garrett was pretty quick to sell out his beliefs and jump on the Uranium bandwagon, maybe this is a way of saving face in the short term, I would have thought with the population growth rates expected for Australia in the future, Water and future water consumption would be a number one priority, still can't understand why they didn't run a pipeline from Argyle dam and Ord river catchment to the more populated areas of WA when the natural gas pipe was being laid years ago but I guess I'm not as clever as our Pollies....


----------



## noco (11 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I wonder what will happen to the hundreds of acres the government bought on the assumption the dam would go ahead?
> 
> Won't they now have to compensate those people they forced out of their properties?
> 
> What a mess.




Well Julia, isn't this the norm for Labor Party run Governments who endorse ex union hacks who have no idea how to manage the public purse.

How can the country progress without conservation of water? Desalisation Plants are costly to construct, operate and maintain. The power alone to operate these plants is enormous and of course that will increase the CO2 emissions from the coal fired power stations. I thought "green head" Garrett wants to reduce green house gases!!

Perhaps we could construct a large statue of Anna Bligh and Peter Garret on the Traverston Dam sight in memory of the the amount of money they have wasted on this project or even shift the Barcaldine dead tree of knowledge  to the dam site to remind us of the dead wood in the Labor Party.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Garrett has knocked back the dam based on matters of "national environmental significance."



Now where have I heard those words before... 

Bottom line is the decision not to build the dam directly results in increased CO2 emissions. So at least Garrett can't claim climate change as "the highest priority" when he's just given it a lower priority than stopping a dam. It's about 5kg of CO2 per kilolitre of water based on figures I have for a desal plant in SA.

What I can say though is that in terms of getting dams built, general thinking is that you need a majority Liberal government both state and federal for it to happen OR a Labor state government with a leader who isn't personally opposed to dams.

Not having any facts and figures I really can't comment on the merits or otherwise of that dam. 

I don't think we'll see major new urban water supply dams anytime soon at least for most of the major cities. But on the other hand, Tasmania did build the Meander dam not long ago (used for irrigation and hydro-electricity) and has plans for an assortment of catchment diversions and similar works as well as a quietly simmering debate about revisiting the big dams era should a carbon tax come into effect. Meanwhile Victoria has a significant new hydro scheme actually happening too.


----------



## EverNothing (11 November 2009)

In the end Garett made the right decision and I applaud him for it. 

Well done baldy. 

If damming up Mary River might potentially kill off endangered species then of course the plan should be rejected. Yes, desalination plans are expensive and a minimum of at least two will need to be built in that area of QLD but it's the ONLY logical solution left which wouldn't endanger lives. As a future Queensland taxpayer I know I would rather fork out more more money then see certain species of frogs, fish and turtles wiped out.

For the moment, rainwater harvesting and recycling with STRICT water restrictions will have to do but Queensland should have debated and brainstormed future resolutions years ago.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

I don't know enough about the pros and cons of the Traveston dam to know how much its non-construction will affect the overall water supply for SE Qld into the future.  But - undoubtedly to the displeasure of people who are fans of various obscure water creatures - I'd actually put the supply of water to human beings ahead of saving something that swims for its life, and which most people have never heard of.

Anna has been suspiciously acquiescent regarding Mr Garrett's decision and has assured us she will not be appealing against it.
I can't help having the uncharitable thought that the whole thing could be an agreed decision between the Qld government and Mr Garrett.  It's one less piece of hatred for the electorate to hold against Anna, and this decision will now leave her free to let costs blow out on as many desal plants as she likes, while she says to anyone who objects:  "well, if you'd let me build Traveston, we wouldn't need this."

Or maybe I'm just being unreasonably unkind.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

Another excellent potential water source for SE Qld is the millions of litres of pure fresh water that flows from Eli Creek on Fraser Island into the sea every day.  It would be an uncomplicated matter to put a pipeline from Fraser Island to the mainland (a very short distance).
But the greenies object to this.  (Well, of course they would.)


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2009)

EverNothing said:


> In the end Garett made the right decision and I applaud him for it.
> 
> Well done baldy.
> 
> ...



No problem with that as long as you accept that you are advocating an increase in CO2 emissions in order to achieve the no dams outcome.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that there are two environmental sides to the dams argument. One is wild rivers / species / wilderness whilst the other is CO2 emissions / climate change. One environmental outcome is gained at the expense of the other - which one is actually most important is, of course, a matter of opinion to which we are all entitled. 

There are environmental impacts from tanks too. I don't have figures but just visualise a few million of them (one per house) and consider all the materials needed to make them and fuel used to transport them. That's a lot of minerals dug up and a lot of diesel fuel burnt. They certainly aren't without impact that's for sure.

As for water restrictions, short term it seems inevitable but it's akin to relying on the emergency brake every time you want to stop the train rather than fixing the normal brakes and using them. You're _completely_ stuffed as soon as something goes wrong with no further backup measures available. Impose water restrictions under normal conditions because supply doesn't meet demand and there's nowhere left to go when drought hits, equipment fails etc. Then we end up literally running out of water altogether.

If there's one thing that's a given with dams debates it's that they keep coming back. 5, 10, 20, 30 years later the issue just keeps popping up whenever a relevant issue arises. There are people not yet born who will be hearing about this one for years to come until either a permanent alternative is built or the issue is revisited and the dam is built. 

In that context desal is a solution, but not a permanent one given the ongoing spending and impacts associated with it - plants will be built but water authorities will end up reluctant to actually operate them except in emergency situations due to the cost. Then we get a few wet years and the plant sits there doing nothing. Then it falls apart and doesn't work when needed.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

I have no sympathy with bum-breathing turtles which most people will never see (or hear) but I do have a special affection for the Queensland Lungfish since studying it in Biology classes at the Uni. and discovering how it fits into the scheme of things. I doubt that building a reservoir would further endanger this unique creature. It has been used as a NIMBY wedge.

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



> Range and distribution
> 
> The Queensland lungfish is native only to the Mary and Burnett river systems in south-eastern Queensland.[4] It has been successfully distributed to other more southerly rivers including the Brisbane, Albert, Stanley, and Coomera Rivers, and the* Enoggera Reservoir* in the past century. The Queensland lungfish has also been introduced to the Pine, Caboolture, and Condamine Rivers, but current survival and breeding success are unknown.[1] Formerly widespread, at one time there were at least seven different species of lungfish in Australia.[2]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2009)

Conservation issues aside, there are other good reasons why I am pleased theTraveston dam is not going ahead - the area is prime grazing and agricultural land, and the catchment is too shallow being two of them.  

I would prefer to see the state government give every house in south-east Qld rain water tanks and keep water restrictions in place.  We have become used to using less water, and we could all do well to be more responsible -and less profligate - with our most precious resource.  

Ruby


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> I would prefer to see the state government give every house in south-east Qld rain water tanks and keep water restrictions in place.  We have become used to using less water, and we could all do well to be more responsible -and less profligate - with our most precious resource.



Then what do we do when the next drought occurs? If water restrictions are permanent and the system is only built to cope with that level of demand, then how do we cut demand below that level when a genuine shortage (eg drought) occurs? 

Ban washing hands and brushing teeth?

I do think the fish argument is nothing more than a convenient tactic though. Here in Tas there's a very large man-made lake that is the only known habitat (anywhere) for one particular species as well as being home to another endangered species. And yep, the more extreme elements of the conservation movement would like to drain it because they don't like dams and in doing so wipe out a species or two.

The whole argument is more about in principle opposition to dams than any real concern for endangered species based on what I've seen first hand. I doubt the situation in Qld is any different.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Then what do we do when the next drought occurs? If water restrictions are permanent and the system is only built to cope with that level of demand, then how do we cut demand below that level when a genuine shortage (eg drought) occurs?
> 
> Ban washing hands and brushing teeth?




South East Queensland (SEQ) is Australia's fastest growing region. By 2031, its population is expected to grow from 2.8 million to 4.4 million people. The region covers 22,890 square kilometres, stretching 240 kilometres from Noosa in the north to the Queensland-New South Wales border in the south, and 160 kilometres west to Toowoomba.

Mr Rudd is a keen supporter of this population growth. Perhaps he should tell Garrett. For the first time in my memory we have water restrictions on the Sunshine Coast. This is because Ms Bligh has built a pipeline (at great expense) from Brisbane to tap into our dams. This will make it very difficult for the Sunshine Coast to assimilate this population growth. The Traveston Dam will be sorely missed.


----------



## pilots (12 November 2009)

It is no wonder the dam has been stopped, first we have a Turtle that breathes through its bum, next we have politician who talks through his bum. I find it very sad to see all that winter water just wasted going out to sea.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

pilots said:


> It is no wonder the dam has been stopped, first we have a Turtle that breathes through its bum, next we have politician who talks through his bum. I find it very sad to see all that winter water just wasted going out to sea.




You're right pilots. The problem with Peter Garrett is that it's a bit hard to distinguish his head from his bum.


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2009)

There is such a thing as cutting your suit to fit your cloth (or whatever the qote is).  City people connected to a water supply still use more water than they need to because up until recent times we have never had to think about conserving water, and every household installing water tanks would be good start in taking responsibility for one's water usage.   Country people relying on their own water supplies have a lot more respect for it.  

We installed two tanks at our house at the beginning of the drought.  They have never been empty, and often overflow.  At present we use the water only for the garden and washing cars, but are thinking of having the toilet and washing machine plumbed in.  There is also room for more tanks if necessary - and it is just a suburban block.  Human beings can be endlessly creative when necessity requires, and there are other avenues to explore to ensure continued fresh water supplies.

Apart from that, the overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts has been that the Traveston Crossing was a bad site for a dam.

Cheers,

Ruby


----------



## Happy (12 November 2009)

Out of all this desperation to fix water problem, somehow no politician dares to mention POPULATION CONTROL.

We have enough water for less people!


----------



## Julia (12 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> There is such a thing as cutting your suit to fit your cloth (or whatever the qote is).  City people connected to a water supply still use more water than they need to because up until recent times we have never had to think about conserving water, and every household installing water tanks would be good start in taking responsibility for one's water usage.   Country people relying on their own water supplies have a lot more respect for it.
> 
> We installed two tanks at our house at the beginning of the drought.  They have never been empty, and often overflow.  At present we use the water only for the garden and washing cars, but are thinking of having the toilet and washing machine plumbed in.  There is also room for more tanks if necessary - and it is just a suburban block.  Human beings can be endlessly creative when necessity requires, and there are other avenues to explore to ensure continued fresh water supplies.
> Ruby



I disagree, Ruby.  We're not a third world country.  We should be able to have showers of a duration greater than 3 minutes if we wish (without being silly about it).  And we should be able to enjoy our gardens without carting buckets around just so precious plants don't die.  And let kids play in sprinklers on hot days if they don't have access to a pool.

I installed three x 5000 litre tanks.  Fine, if it rains but they have been empty for months.  No rain here for more than three months.   

I'd like to see recycled water used for industry and agriculture, rather than the drinking water that presently goes there.  And efficient harvesting of storm water.  Also think the consideration of a pipeline from FNQ should not be automatically dismissed on the basis of cost.  I'd like to know how that would compare with the four desal plants Ms Bligh is currently suggesting.
There was a report on the radio yesterday that the water which ran off the dam up north (I think near Townsville) during last summer's wet season would have filled Wivanhoe several times over.



Happy said:


> Out of all this desperation to fix water problem, somehow no politician dares to mention POPULATION CONTROL.
> 
> We have enough water for less people!



Good point, Happy.   Mr Rudd is so enthusiastic about big populations which of course equal big government.


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2009)

Hey Julia!  I'm with you, not against you.   Note the last sentence in my post. However, we can't control how much rain falls or where it falls; and if it chooses *not *to fall for a lengthy time, then there is still a lot we can do to conserve water without equating to a third world country.  I agree - all the things you mentioned should be explored.

I think Anna Bligh stuffed up - as did Beattie before her - and rushed into the Traveston dam proposal *without *fully exploring the other options.  I would like the best outcome with the least disruption to the environment.

Cheers,
Ruby


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> Apart from that, the overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts has been that the Traveston Crossing was a bad site for a dam.




Ruby, I always start to worry when I hear phrases like "overwhelming opinion of the majority of experts." The Greens and the  Conservationists are very good at digging up these people.

You may be surprised to learn that the Rudd government has awarded $950 million in new consultancy contracts since winning office. These "experts" are now running the country. Our elected representatives are only told of the decisions by Rudd once they are made. No doubt this applied to the Traveston decision.

Of course Rudd doesn't hire any consultants who might have a contra view to him.


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2009)

Calliope - point taken so I will be more specific.   The experts I am referring to are engineers and geologists and other similarly qualified people.   My husband is an engineer who has worked on many large construction jobs, and for different companies.   This (he has told me) was the consensus of opinion among people qualified to know.

My objection is not to dams per se, but to that particular dam.

Ruby


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> Calliope - point taken so I will be more specific.   The experts I am referring to are engineers and geologists and other similarly qualified people.   My husband is an engineer who has worked on many large construction jobs, and for different companies.   This (he has told me) was the consensus of opinion among people qualified to know.
> 
> My objection is not to dams per se, but to that particular dam.
> 
> Ruby




Yes I know. However I don't think Garrett rejected Ms Bligh's experts' opinion that it *was* a suitable site for a dam. He rejected the dam because "the social and economic advantages are outweighed by environmental  considerations...the impact on threatened species." 

I don't think he was concerned about the impact on people, unlike our dear Anna who has now apologised to the locals for upsetting them. I guess to win back their hearts, she will start handing out money. (our money)


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2009)

Calliope, I absolutely agree with you about Garretts reasons for rejecting the dam!  And yes, it's all about politicians maintaining their popularity! 

Ruby


----------



## EverNothing (12 November 2009)

I'm tickled pink, quite a lot of praise for dams. Last time I checked, we moved over into the 21st century people!!! 

Megadams are the OLDEST, most OUTDATED approach to water management still existing today. The romans graduated and evolved from aqueducts due to greater technological advancements so why can't we?

You can criticize his agenda but actions speak louder than words and Minister Garrett has infact put the environment first, for once. It is his job after all. Premier Bligh had good intentions but they were ultimately short-sighted and completely reckless. The proposal was flawed from the beginning and thankfully environmental law and good science won on the day. The burden of population and development pressures will always be a thorn in the side of fresh water ecosystems, but today we've (tree huggers) delightedly won that battle. Bring on the war.

In theory, more exploration of water supply alternatives that DO NOT create significant environmental damage is vital for our future and our children's future. Bring on Williams River/Tillegra Dam - our next challenge.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> I would prefer to see the state government give every house in south-east Qld rain water tanks and keep water restrictions in place.  We have become used to using less water, and *we could all do well to be more responsible -and less profligate - with our most precious resource.*
> 
> Ruby




Excellent point Ruby. After drinking & bathing with de-salinated water for five years and understanding the precious resource, I do agree more needs to be done to reduce water waste. I know teaching is everyones responsibility so maybe the wiser ones within society will spread the word, also big industry will use water more efficiently. Not easy when dealing with human nature and the entrenched patterns.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

EverNothing said:


> Megadams are the OLDEST, most OUTDATED approach to water management still existing today. The romans graduated and evolved from aqueducts due to greater technological advancements so why can't we?




What a crock...


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2009)

EverNothing said:


> I'm tickled pink, quite a lot of praise for dams. Last time I checked, we moved over into the 21st century people!!!
> 
> Megadams are the OLDEST, most OUTDATED approach to water management still existing today. The romans graduated and evolved from aqueducts due to greater technological advancements so why can't we?
> 
> ...



The English language has also been around quite a while. Does that mean we should stop using it? The sun has been around even longer - does that mean I should stop using solar power?

Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?

I make my comments as someone who has seen rather a lot of dams - over 40 large ones - and understands quite well the impact they have. I've also seen quite a few coal mines both open cut and underground. On environmental grounds, even excluding the CO2 issue, I'd choose dams over coal any day unless it's a highly unusual circumstance. Dams for urban water and dams for hydro-electricity are nothing compared to the impact of the desal and coal-fired power that are in practice used as the alternative.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?




Smurf, I doubt that you will receive a rational reply. Being a Greenie is an easy cop-out. They grow nothing, they produce nothing, they mine nothing, they achieve nothing. All they do is criticise those who do.

They are a parasitic burden we have to carry.


----------



## JTLP (12 November 2009)

Vote 1 Julia for Prime Minister.

Seriously...why should we all have to cut back? The general population wouldn't make the slightest dent in water usage compared to industry...yet we are the ones made to place restrictions on our lives?

It's all a load if you ask me. If they were 100% serious; major pipelines would have been built rather then dotting de-sal plants around the country. We are fortunate enough to be spread across 2 climates...why not maximise these to our advantage?

Labor


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I disagree, Ruby.  We're not a third world country.  We should be able to have showers of a duration greater than 3 minutes if we wish (without being silly about it).  And we should be able to enjoy our gardens without carting buckets around just so precious plants don't die.



Fundamentally, Greens are opposed to the notion of growth and development generally. You having a hot shower is not a requirement in that context. It is a political philosophy that is effectively the opposite of capitalism - it never was just about dams or pulp mills.

The whole thing is a classic example of how to implement an agenda - NEVER tell people up front what the end goal is, instead just chip away at it bit by bit. By targetting power and water, that pretty much takes care of everything else too since they are fundamental to virtually all industry and general activity.


----------



## EverNothing (12 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Smurf, I doubt that you will receive a rational reply. Being a Greenie is an easy cop-out. They grow nothing, they produce nothing, they mine nothing, they achieve nothing. All they do is criticise those who do.
> 
> They are a parasitic burden we have to carry.




Mate, no need to generalize. I was simply adding my two .

Thanks for the warm welcome though, haha.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2009)

EverNothing said:


> Mate, no need to generalize. I was simply adding my two



I don't agree with your views but you absolutely have a right to state them and I hope (genuinely) that you continue to do so. 

If Bob Brown and John Gay (chairman of Gunns, a forestry / pulp mill company) can have rational discussions on a subject where they can't possibly agree (and they are indeed having such discussions) then I think we can remain civilised here on this forum. 

PS I can't resist adding that the control panel in my avatar, at Lake Margaret power station (Tas), is back in action today after being idle since mid-2006. Yep, the 95 year old machines are up and running again complete with a nice new 2.2 km long wooden pipeline (yes, it really is made of wood) to carry the water from the dam toward the power station.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Smurf - I'm sure you've heard of TRAVESTON being referred to as "the saucer"?
Mainly because it would have been knee-deep for a grasshopper. 
I'd be amazed if hydro was ever seriously considered there (and now it has been abandoned it seems).


----------



## EverNothing (12 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Could you be specific as to what alternative, precisely, you see as being superior to dams so that we can discuss it here?




Sure thing, dude. I personally think the funding which was earmarked for the dam should now be poured into moderately funded programs to retrofit South East Queensland with WORLD LEADING (show them Europeans how it's done) water efficiency, stormwater reuse and recycling infrastructure.

I wouldn't worry about the death of the humble mega-dams anytime soon though. The Conservation Act of 1999 (which Garrett used to help implement his decision) is used very rarely. Only during environmental emergencies.

I wouldn't worry about seeing desalination plants popping up all over the country just yet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

...


> Traveston - typical depth 1.5m - over 29 sq km of beautiful agricultural land



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244765
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=200847


----------



## Julia (12 November 2009)

EverNothing said:


> I'm tickled pink, quite a lot of praise for dams. Last time I checked, we moved over into the 21st century people!!!
> 
> Megadams are the OLDEST, most OUTDATED approach to water management still existing today. The romans graduated and evolved from aqueducts due to greater technological advancements so why can't we?



Why are dams - provided they are built in appropriate places - not a good water storage facility?
The area in which I live has a dam which was raised a few years ago to cope with the increasing population.  Now that Traveston is not going ahead, the risks of impediment of inflows from the Mary River is less of a concern.
We've not had any rain here for close to four months but there is still enough water in the dam to allow for the only water restriction being "no sprinklers between 8am and 4pm".



> today we've (tree huggers) delightedly won that battle. Bring on the war.



This is exactly the impression you greenies constantly give.  That you are engaged in a philosophical war against more moderate members of our society.  It's what turns most people away from even the most potentially sensible of your suggestions.



> In theory, more exploration of water supply alternatives that DO NOT create significant environmental damage is vital for our future and our children's future. Bring on Williams River/Tillegra Dam - our next challenge.



OK, no disagreement here.  Could you explain what the above Dam refers to, where it is and how it will provide water to whom?



Smurf1976 said:


> Fundamentally, Greens are opposed to the notion of growth and development generally. You having a hot shower is not a requirement in that context. It is a political philosophy that is effectively the opposite of capitalism - it never was just about dams or pulp mills.
> 
> The whole thing is a classic example of how to implement an agenda - NEVER tell people up front what the end goal is, instead just chip away at it bit by bit. By targetting power and water, that pretty much takes care of everything else too since they are fundamental to virtually all industry and general activity.



As always, Smurf, a concise and rational summary.


----------



## Sdajii (13 November 2009)

I spent years at uni studying biology, I have worked in labs and animal houses as a biologist. I am supposed to be a hippy greeny type person given my background, but I am a bit of a black sheep among my peers in this area. I acknowledge that human progress requires species of animals and plants to go extinct, and I can't stand the idiotic hippies who stand in the way of bulldozers to save a pitiful little daisy or a tree of a common species. Conservationists can be very stupid, because they waste their efforts trying to save species which really are not important.

However, in this case, some very important species were on the line. The turtle is unusual in some ways, but only because of its genetic background. The breathing through the bum thing was hyped up, many Australian turtles breathe through that part of the body. The lungfish on the other hand is one of the most incredibly important species on the planet, not just because it is extremely unusual and looks incredibly cool, but it is a fish with a bloody lung! That makes it invaluable for medical research as well as biology/zoology. That's one species of fish we really just could not afford to lose. I would happily see 100 species of frogs, turtles, trees, orchids, etc go extinct if it meant the lungfish could survive.

Even if you ignore the conservation side of the dam, as well as the displaced people, the dam was stupid. It wasn't the best place a dam in the area could be built, and since the rainfall is low and probably will remain that way, a dam isn't going to help the situation anyway (dams tend to fill up when it rains, not just whenever they are built). It was an incredible case of stupidity for that dam to ever be proposed, and sense has prevailed in this case. The QLD government knew they could have put the dam in a better place and that a dam was probably not the best solution, but not until they were already too far along to back down without losing face. Had they done so earlier this stupid saga would have ended soon after it started rather than dragging out for years. Let's hope they learn from this mistake and take the time to make future decisions properly. Then again, they are politicians, so any sort of intelligence from them is unlikely! At least in this case we have come to a very good result.


----------



## pilots (13 November 2009)

The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.


----------



## Soft Dough (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Garrett has knocked back the dam based on matters of "national environmental significance."




Fine, as long as the greenies are happy to deal with water supply via desalination plants,  I for one don't care.


----------



## Soft Dough (13 November 2009)

pilots said:


> The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.




Please clarify, I am struggling to see your point -

Instead of using drinking water in your toilets 

would you prefer

to use toilet water to drink?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

pilots said:


> The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.




Hong Kong they use salt water for fire fighting etc (in many parts anyways)
The missus insists that stormwater runoff should be collected - and if necessary distributed in a second set of mains for "general purpose"  - that way it could be untreated. or minimal treatment 

http://www.mail-archive.com/sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org/msg16272.html


> In many part of the world the public water mains supply water which  may be technically within WHO guidelines for potability is essentially brackish.  In the Arabian Gulf this is produced by blending ground water with distilled/desalted water.  People use this for general household duties, flushing and irrigating but not drinking. Drinking water is supplied via tank trucks and is referred to as 'sweet water'
> 
> There is no possibility of marine growth as the salinity is too low and the water is taken from aquifers which are now suffering from  years of over abstraction.  While it's possible to use sweet water to  charge a sprinkler system or fire main after installation or servicing  it is very hard to keep to this fill.  Hence the primary problem being  pumps - as has been suggested there are a good range of sprinkler  valve sets and components which are intended for marine use - I  have  seen some really good kit from Tyco on production platforms in the  North Sea
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> The missus insists that stormwater runoff should be collected - and if necessary distributed in a second set of mains for "general purpose"  - that way it could be untreated. or minimal treatment




Does your missus have any suggestions on how this runoff storm water should be collected and distributed?


----------



## lasty (13 November 2009)

Interesting we have a federal enviro minister rejecting a state decision.
Politics at its best.
If you think thats bad then wait until Rudd signs the Copenhagen Treaty because ONLY the UN will have the say on how this place is run.


----------



## pilots (13 November 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Please clarify, I am struggling to see your point -
> 
> Instead of using drinking water in your toilets
> 
> ...




Every new house that is built should be made that the Grey water is collected, the shower water, and this would be used to flush the loo. Our trouble is that the water you use you are paying for, if we start to be sensible and use Grey water our local government won't make as much money from you as they do now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Sdajii said:


> 1. I spent years at uni studying biology, I have worked in labs and animal houses as a biologist.
> 
> 2. ... The turtle is unusual in some ways, but only because of its genetic background. The breathing through the bum thing was hyped up, many Australian turtles breathe through that part of the body.
> 
> 3. The lungfish on the other hand is one of the most incredibly important species on the planet, not just because it is extremely unusual and looks incredibly cool, but it is a fish with a bloody lung!




Sdajii,
I must admit the turtle bends the imagination a bit lol. 
a. Maybe their DNA could be blended into future generations of pearl fishermen or some such - would make snorkling a breeze. (ignoring the odour that is). 
b. Must be a bludy nuisance when they want to wolf-whistle to their girlfriend turtle lol. :eek3:

cheers, 2020
PS I spose whales breathe through a hole in their back , so what's the big deal.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Does your missus have any suggestions on how this runoff storm water should be collected and distributed?



she seems to think that problem will be sorted out by others. - still where there's a will ...
(But one thing I do have personal experience of ... in HK , when you do a road diversion, say in midlevels of HK island, you have a stack of services to sort out - fresh water mains, salt water mains, gas, electricity etc etc )


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...of-traveston-dam/story-e6frg71x-1225797125893



> The Labor government was right to push for the dam, especially with southeast Queensland's population set to reach 4.4 million in another 20 years. The hapless LNP opposition, however, dominated as always by the narrow interests of the Nationals' bush base, turned its back on Brisbane and opposed the dam.
> 
> What is needed, and not just in Queensland, is a new mindset. In 2004, after decades of population growth in Sydney but no new dams, former NSW premier Bob Carr ruled out the option because "it would take years to build and even longer to fill, not to mention the damage done to surrounding farmland and natural areas". Melbourne has added a million people since the Thomson reservoir was built in 1983, and the Institute of Public Affairs has calculated that desalinated water will be six times the price of water from a new dam. Desalination plants also have a heavy carbon footprint through their power use. *All in all, the Traveston decision is one of breathtaking absurdity, the cost of which will haunt southeast Queensland for a generation.*




I guess *breathtaking absurdity* sums it up. People who don't live in S.E. Queensland may disagree, but I suggest they read this editorial in full.


----------



## Sdajii (13 November 2009)

The only breathtaking absurdity was the selection of the site. A better site exists to build a dam, with better geological properties and without significant species in it. If a dam is needed, build a dam, but do it properly rather than making a crap dam in an important site. With rainfall as it is, a new dam might turn out to be useless anyway, just sitting around mostly empty. Desalination is drought proof, so your 4.4 million people will have water to drink even if it doesn't rain.

Breathtaking stupidity is allowing politicians and economists to be making these decisions rather than the scientists who understand the situation. Here, a pig-headed politician naively believed that "building a dam equals more available water!" because once upon a time rainfall was constant and the best dam sites were unused. This is no longer the case, so dams aren't necessarily the best option, even if you completely ignore conservation or human rights.


----------



## Soft Dough (13 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Every new house that is built should be made that the Grey water is collected, the shower water, and this would be used to flush the loo. Our trouble is that the water you use you are paying for, if we start to be sensible and use Grey water our local government won't make as much money from you as they do now.




100% agree.

But then again that is what happens when 

1. Your federal government is run by a bunch of fools ( ETS anyone? )

2. You have tiers of government who cost shift.

I work in Health, and you would be astonished as to the federal / state shift of cost.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

Sdajii said:


> With rainfall as it is, a new dam might turn out to be useless anyway, just sitting around mostly empty. Desalination is drought proof, so your 4.4 million people will have water to drink even if it doesn't rain.




You obviously didn't read the editorial as I suggested.



> In August 2007, Brisbane's supply fell to 16.7 per cent, when former premier Peter Beattie warned John Howard that health and hygiene were at risk. *But had the Traveston Dam existed, rainfall would have filled it four times from 2003 to 2007.*




Sure, desalination is drought proof. The water is also several times more costly to  produce than water from a dam, and has a huge carbon footprint, but I guess the carbon Greenies and the endangered species Greenies don't speak to each other.

We have a desalination plant down the Gold Coast which cost $1.5 billion. It is a white elephant. And now that the NIMBYs know they hold all the cards, obtaining sites to build more may prove impossible. The barricades are going up already.

I don't know where you come from, but as a resident of S.E. Qld, the decision to scrub the dam is very disquieting.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

Calliope, what's the problem with the desal plant at the Gold Coast?


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Calliope, what's the problem with the desal plant at the Gold Coast?




Courier Mail 9 Nov;



> FEARS the $1.2 billion Gold Coast desalination plant was rushed, compromising its quality, have been raised by officials overseeing the troubled project.
> 
> The Tugun plant, meant to be a showpiece of the State Government's $9 billion water grid, has been plagued by problems including rusting pipes, cracking concrete, faulty valves and leaching of contaminants from a rubbish dump.
> 
> The Government is refusing to take delivery of the facility until next June because of serious faults that have delayed the handover by 18 months.




The locals are not happy Julia. They claim it is a noisy eyesore. Any attempt to replicate it up our way will be fiercely resisted. If Anna wants one so badly let her site it on the Brisbane River near Parliament House.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 November 2009)

Any thoughts on turning the rivers back into the centre, as Joh Bjelke Petersen suggested.

It all just flows away after the rain and if we kept it we could populate the western side of the Great dividing Range.

At least in NSW. It might affect the reef if we did it in Queensland.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Any thoughts on turning the rivers back into the centre, as Joh Bjelke Petersen suggested.



:topic
gg, as Joh used to say
"you can lead a horse to drink , but you can't make him water"  
Trouble with Joh was, you never knew if it was wit or dementia 
probably half and half - i.e.

half-wit , and half dimentia


----------



## Sdajii (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> You obviously didn't read the editorial as I suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the laugh 

As comical as it is to talk about what would have happened if the dam had been completed at the start of 2003 as though that was a realistic option, we of all people should understand the concept of 2020hindsight. Approving a dam in 2009 and having it completed a considerable amount of time after that does not allow us to capture the rain that fell years before the dam's proposal! 

It's like saying "Gee, back when the SP of company X was increasing at an absurd rate well above its true value it would have been great to buy! If I bought some 10 years ago I'd have made heaps of money by now! Gee, I should buy some today!" and then saying "Oh, you're an idiot, can't see see how much the share price has gone up! This is such a terrible shame!" when the proposal to buy is knocked back.

It seems rather daft to say "Gee, the amount of rain we are getting is decreasing, so let's build a dam based on the amount of rain we used to get" rather than "Gee, rainfall is decreasing, maybe we should find a drought proof solution to our water problem". At the very least, given the situation, surely you can concede that there is merit to the ideas of alternative water strategies rather than the traditional method which relies on reliable rainfall. Dams only work when it rains. The fact that we have having problems with a drought means we have less rain. The outlook is apparently for an increase in the severity of the drought.

As I said, even if a dam was (or is) the best solution, the site being proposed was not the best option, whether or not you care about conservation.

Incidentally, I too lived in SE QLD (Brisbane) for a while. I left in 2007, quite honestly, because Brisbane was such a backwards place.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

Sdajii said:


> Thanks for the laugh
> Incidentally, I too lived in SE QLD (Brisbane) for a while. I left in 2007, quite honestly, because Brisbane was such a backwards place.




Now I know what you are on about. SE Qld is certainly no place for a superior being like you. You will not be missed.


----------



## bunyip (13 November 2009)

Ruby is on the right track.....put rainwater tanks on every house, with government subsiding the cost.
Tanks wouldn't entirely solve the water shortage but they'd certainly relieve it. It's surprising how little rain it takes to fill a tank. And it's surprising how many times it rains, even during a drought.

And free up natural water supplies that are tied up by the bloody greenies. Julia makes a good point about the abundance of fresh water on Fraser Island. Just a small portion of that water piped to the mainland would go a long way towards supplying the water needs of south east Queensland. 
And it could be done without upsetting the eco system on Fraser Island and in the surrounding ocean.

I'm in the fortunate position of having unlimited water at my place...36,000 litre rainwater tank which is never less than about 80% full. And a bore of 11,000 lite per hour capacity, with  water of excellent drinking quality. In fact we usually drink bore water in preference to rainwater.
Our garden is 1.7 acres and we can water it to our hearts content. In hot dry weather our sprinklers run day and night until the entire garden gets a good soaking.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Sdajii said:


> Thanks for the laugh



...
hey Sdajii
there's no place for scientists in SE Qld apparently


----------



## bunyip (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> You're right pilots. The problem with Peter Garrett is that it's a bit hard to distinguish his head from his bum.




LOL....Indeed it is, Calliope - indeed it is - he has about the same amount of brains in both!


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ruby is on the right track.....put rainwater tanks on every house, with government subsiding the cost.
> Tanks wouldn't entirely solve the water shortage but they'd certainly relieve it. It's surprising how little rain it takes to fill a tank. And it's surprising how many times it rains, even during a drought.



 Good points. Practical solution involving everyone.



> And free up natural water supplies that are tied up by the bloody greenies. Julia makes a good point about the abundance of fresh water on Fraser Island. Just a small portion of that water piped to the mainland would go a long way towards supplying the water needs of south east Queensland.
> And it could be done without upsetting the eco system on Fraser Island and in the surrounding ocean.



 Bad points. The natural beauty of Fraser Island need not be further destroyed. Have to draw a line in the sand there.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ...
> hey Sdajii
> there's no place for scientists in SE Qld apparently




He told us he was a biologist. There was no mention that he was also an expert in Surface-Water Hydrology and rainfall patterns. I hope they can use his scientific expertise wherever he is now. Our loss is their gain.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Good points. Practical solution involving everyone.
> 
> Bad points. The natural beauty of Fraser Island need not be further destroyed. Have to draw a line in the sand there.




That's a bit silly.  Why would it compromise the beauty of Fraser Island to put an undersea pipeline from the outlet at Eli Creek over to the mainland?
You'd never see the damn thing.  You'd still have all the freshwater lakes and everything else just as it always has been on the Island itself.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2009)

Julia said:


> That's a bit silly.  Why would it compromise the beauty of Fraser Island to put an undersea pipeline from the outlet at Eli Creek over to the mainland?
> You'd never see the damn thing.  You'd still have all the freshwater lakes and everything else just as it always has been on the Island itself.



Julia, this is the thinking we have to leave behind. Sucking megalitres of water from a spring is a short term solution and will not last forever. 
The whole fresh water usage system may need a complete overhaul. Do better with what we have is my belief.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

The water just pours into the open sea.  It doesn't recirculate back to where it came from!!

"Do better with what we have"?   When the population is going to quadruple in the foreseeable future?   Get a grip.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> He told us he was a biologist. There was no mention that he was also an expert in Surface-Water Hydrology and rainfall patterns. I hope they can use his scientific expertise wherever he is now. Our loss is their gain.



since we're splitting hairs, what's your expertise Calliope?


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> since we're splitting hairs, what's your expertise Calliope?




Picking phonies.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2009)

Julia said:


> The water just pours into the open sea.  It doesn't recirculate back to where it came from!!
> 
> "Do better with what we have"?   When the population is going to quadruple in the foreseeable future?   Get a grip.



Sorry Julia but if Homo Stupid wants to increase numbers beyond what the environment will support then I have no pity nor solution. Consuming everything thing in their path like a slow moving plague of locusts. Leaving behind a desolate wasteland strewn with carcasses from the gluttonous feed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Picking phonies.




snap


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> ... Consuming everything thing in their path like a slow moving plague of locusts...



great post wys,   
what we need is an intelligent independently minded lemming - and maybe observe what it does ..


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sorry Julia but if Homo Stupid wants to increase numbers beyond what the environment will support then I have no pity nor solution. Consuming everything thing in their path like a slow moving plague of locusts. Leaving behind a desolate wasteland strewn with carcasses from the gluttonous feed.




:topic An interesting philosophy Wysiwyg. I suppose you are one of a small minority who can look the GW alarmists in the eye and say "bring it on, we deserve it."


----------



## Gamblor (14 November 2009)

I say we need all the dams we can build and we should also take as much water from other areas as we can. To hell with the consequences, I should be able to wash my cars and have showers for as long as I want.

Can I join the Calliope, noco, julia club now? Or do I need to be more self-centered?


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Can I join the Calliope, noco, julia club now? Or do I need to be more self-centered?




No, you will need to be less self-centred; a little to the right of centre and you will slot in nicely.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Can I join the Calliope, noco, julia club now? Or do I need to be more self-centered?



and you need to have a rose garden that is far more important than some farmer's livelihood.
I guess that means you'd be rose-scented as well as self-centred?


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Julia, this is the thinking we have to leave behind. Sucking megalitres of water from a spring is a short term solution and will not last forever.
> The whole fresh water usage system may need a complete overhaul. Do better with what we have is my belief.




Wys......
You didn't answer Julia's question, which was _'Why would it compromise the beauty of Fraser Island to put an undersea pipeline from the outlet at Eli Creek over to the mainland?'_
You say 'do better with what we have'.
I agree. And a good example of  doing better with what we have would be to utilise a small portion of the fresh water from Fraser Island, providing it can be done with little impact on Fraser's ecosystem and the surrounding ocean, and providing it can be done without compromising the natural beauty of the island.

It makes sense to utilise our natural resources - BUT, only if we do so in a responsible manner.
It's disgraceful how some of the river systems in NSW, and the ecosystems that depend on them, have been destroyed  by excessive water harvesting for irrigation and electricity purposes. That's environmentally irresponsible behaviour of the worst kind.
But a small portion of Fraser Island's fresh water resource could be utilised without any such disastrous consequences.
Water tanks on every house would be a great help towards relieving the water shortage, but they can only do so much. 
A prolonged dry spell would see water tanks run dry.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Wys......
> You didn't answer Julia's question, which was _'Why would it compromise the beauty of Fraser Island to put an undersea pipeline from the outlet at Eli Creek over to the mainland?'_



What about the path across Fraser Island to the water. The bee line would need to be wide enough for the pipe laying of diameter unknown. Maybe chainsaws and bulldozer for this. Then the infrastructure at the take off point. All this concrete, steel, plastics, rubber etc. are there permanently. Even after the last drop from  source has gone. Natural wonders are places where man shall go to observe and shall be preserved for eternity.

If not for the environmental groups and government "intelligence" we would have stripped the island bare by now.

note ... it may be the run-off to ocean you are thinking of capturing?


----------



## Julia (14 November 2009)

Julia said:


> The water just pours into the open sea.  It doesn't recirculate back to where it came from!!
> 
> .






Wysiwyg said:


> note ... it may be the run-off to ocean you are thinking of capturing?



Yes, of course it is.  No one has ever considered bulldozers and other such dramatic intervention as you have suggested.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2009)

Gamblor said:


> I say we need all the dams we can build and we should also take as much water from other areas as we can. To hell with the consequences, I should be able to wash my cars and have showers for as long as I want.
> 
> Can I join the Calliope, noco, julia club now? Or do I need to be more self-centered?



It's by invitation only, Gamblor.

Do you have any practical suggestions for supplying water to the projected increased population, or is it your preference to just sit on the sidelines and snipe at anyone who is attempting to canvass other options?


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> What about the path across Fraser Island to the water. The bee line would need to be wide enough for the pipe laying of diameter unknown. Maybe chainsaws and bulldozer for this. Then the infrastructure at the take off point. All this concrete, steel, plastics, rubber etc. are there permanently. Even after the last drop from  source has gone. Natural wonders are places where man shall go to observe and shall be preserved for eternity.



If the water is already flowing down a river and into the sea then there's absolutely no possibility that putting it into a pipe instead will somehow use it all up. If it's going to run out then it's going to run out anyway since it's already flowing down the river.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Smurf - I'm sure you've heard of TRAVESTON being referred to as "the saucer"?
> Mainly because it would have been knee-deep for a grasshopper.
> I'd be amazed if hydro was ever seriously considered there (and now it has been abandoned it seems).



I don't have a lot of info on that particular dam, I'm commenting in terms of dams in general. But based on the info that I do have, it will require about 750 GWh of electricity to produce an equivalent volume of water via desal.

In terms of renewable energy, that power is more than the entire output of the two significant non-pumped storage (which don't generate net energy) hydro schemes Qld has. Or you could say it's 15% of the output of the entire Snowy hydro scheme. Or in terms of CO2 emissions it's equivalent to burning 326 million litres of petrol a year.

So it's not massive but it's certainly significant in terms of CO2 emissions from the desal alternative. That dam was, to my knowledge, effectively the single largest energy saving project ever proposed in Australia.

All that said, if the claims about are a flooded (29 km²) and depth (1.5 m) are correct then it's not what I'd call an ideal dam site. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have provided 150 GL of water per annum, but as a dam I'd have to say that it doesn't seem an overly good one.

Are there not other sites that could be developed either on that river or on somewhere else? 

Or if the claims about leakage are correct (possible although I'm somewhat doubtful) then how about simply pumping water from the river instead of damming it? Once you take evaporation and any leakage into account from a dam you could still extract significant volumes purely by pumping assuming the river does have flow most of the time. Technically that's very easy and, as long as we're not talking about taking _all_ the water out, need not have an overly great environmental impact.


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

That proves it. He does talk through his a*se.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion


----------



## bunyip (14 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If the water is already flowing down a river and into the sea then there's absolutely no possibility that putting it into a pipe instead will somehow use it all up. If it's going to run out then it's going to run out anyway since it's already flowing down the river.




Absolutely correct.....the creeks on Fraser Island have been flowing into the ocean for thousands of years. 
Anyone whose visited the island will be aware of the huge volume of fresh water they discharge into the ocean every day.
A small portion of the water diverted into a pipeline wouldn't pose any threat to the creek.

I commend Wys for his commitment to environmental protection, but his thinking shows the lack of balance common to greenies.

I don't like to see environments destroyed either, but I'm all in favour of utilising natural resources if it can be done with minimal impact on the environment.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

I have given some thought to the question recently raised by Mrs Hindsight (via 2020) about why we don't collect and distribute storm water run-off. I have come up with a solution which I am sure even Peter Garrett would approve.

It is so simple. You pick the lowest lying suburb in the city, dam any escape routes, and divert all the storm water into this bowl. Of course you would need a separate reticulation system for this sub-prime water. Kev's infrastructure stimulus will provide the money.

The beauty of it is that it will not affect any endangered species. We wouldn't even call it a dam...just *wetlands.* Endangered species would flock there.

The locals will not like it, but they are not an endangered species. They are probably lower socio-economic anyway. Rich, influential people live on high ground. And they are the drivers in NIMBY protests.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have given some thought to the question recently raised by Mrs Hindsight (via 2020) about why we don't collect and distribute storm water run-off. I have come up with a solution which I am sure even Peter Garrett would approve.
> 
> It is so simple. You pick the lowest lying suburb in the city, dam any escape routes, and divert all the storm water into this bowl. Of course you would need a separate reticulation system for this sub-prime water. Kev's infrastructure stimulus will provide the money.
> 
> ...




An excellent plan, Calliope....good to see a man with vision!

We could solve the crime problem in 'The Valley' in Brisbane, and store some water at the same time....kill two birds with the one stone.

And anyone who's in the habit of heading down to 'The Valley' for a drink after work could still do so - in fact they could drink all they wanted and it wouldn't cost them a cent!


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

I can see you are on the ball bunyip, All The Valley bottom feeders could become boat people and sail up the river to the leafy suburbs where their re-settlement would, no doubt, give the locals a warm inner glow.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2009)

Harnessing water from a new source such as Fraser Island or elswhere where there is an abundance is good in prinicpal but in practice the demand would also have to be much more tightly managed than it has been to date. This is where we have failed with the Murray/Darling basin.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Calliope and Bunyip:  clearly you are both individuals with wisdom and initiative.

I propose to send a letter to Anna, cc to Mr Garrett, suggesting you be employed to advise both governments on water management.

Would you care to nominate an acceptable salary level, or perhaps you'd prefer to keep the provision of your expertise to payment on a 'per consultation' basis?

Bear in mind that there will be a small commission deducted for my personal services as your agent.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Calliope and Bunyip:  clearly you are both individuals with wisdom and initiative.
> 
> I propose to send a letter to Anna, cc to Mr Garrett, suggesting you be employed to advise both governments on water management.
> 
> ...




Well Julia - I'm sure Calliope has his own ideas, but I'd suggest that a couple of top consultants like him and myself could reasonably expect to command salaries in the order of half a million dollars a year. I'm more than happy to give you 10% in agents fees if you can get us on the government payroll.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> It is so simple. You pick the lowest lying suburb in the city, dam any escape routes, and divert all the storm water into this bowl. Of course you would need a separate reticulation system for this sub-prime water. Kev's infrastructure stimulus will provide the money.




More practical would be connecting all storm water drains that run into the river and pumping the water to a treatment plant. This would also solve the problem of plastics entering the aquatic system.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> More practical would be connecting all storm water drains that run into the river and pumping the water to a treatment plant. This would also solve the problem of plastics entering the aquatic system.




That sounds sensible.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

drsmith said:


> Harnessing water from a new source such as Fraser Island or elswhere where there is an abundance is good in prinicpal but in practice the demand would also have to be much more tightly managed than it has been to date. This is where we have failed with the Murray/Darling basin.




Yes of course....the Murray/Darling has been a disaster in environmental mismanagement - any new project on Fraser Island or anywhere else would need to be planned with reference to the lessons learned from past mistakes.

I grew up on a rural property that straddled the Condamine River in Queensland, which is one of the rivers comprising the Murray/Darling system. 
During my childhood my Dad irrigated 60 acres of lucerne from the Condamine. By the time I was a teenager, our small irrigation project was impossible due to hundreds of large scale cotton growers further upstream having been granted water harvesting licenses from the river.
Every time there was a half way decent flow in the Condamine, the cotton boys would turn on their massive flood-lifter pumps to fill their storage dams.  
Entire ecosystems further downstream were destroyed because they no longer got regular water.
One such ecosystem was the 30 acre natural billabong on our property. During my childhood it was filled by floodwaters from the Condamine once a year or so on average. It was home to thousands of ducks and hundreds of pelicans, swans, and an assortment of other waterfowl.
By the time I reached my teenage years this billabong was almost permanently dry.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> I grew up on a rural property that straddled the Condamine River in Queensland, which is one of the rivers comprising the Murray/Darling system.
> During my childhood my Dad irrigated 60 acres of lucerne from the Condamine.




I too was raised on the Condamine but much further up towards it's source. Anybody today who owned 60 acres of irrigated lucerne on the river flat would be a rich man indeed.

The smell of lucerne hay is something you never forget. I remember using the pitchfork when I was a small boy, and occasionally forking up a black snake with the hay.


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I too was raised on the Condamine but much further up towards it's source. Anybody today who owned 60 acres of irrigated lucerne on the river flat would be a rich man indeed.
> 
> The smell of lucerne hay is something you never forget. I remember using the pitchfork when I was a small boy, and occasionally forking up a black snake with the hay.




Ah....so you must have been from the Killarney, Warwick, Allora region? 

Our place was down towards Chinchilla.

Snakes.....yes indeed - I had many a close call with the red-bellied black snakes that were prolific in the lucerne and around the swamps and billabongs. 
Good thing they weren't particularly aggressive or I would have been taken out a dozen times over. 
Had more than one snake-bitten dog over the years.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ah....so you must have been from the Killarney, Warwick, Allora region?
> 
> Our place was down towards Chinchilla.
> 
> ...




Killarney. There were willow trees all down the river, but now they have all been eradicated. They were obstructing the flow. As kids we used to have wonderful times swimming in the shaded pools under the willows. There was always plenty of work to be done but we managed to fit in a lot of fun and our parents never worried about what we were up to..and we all survived. Those were the days.

What we need now is regular cyclonic weather to get all the rivers in flood again and restore the Darling river system to it's former glory. And ban cotton growing. It is so polluting. Did you know that in the state of Mississippi they pay cotton farmers *not to grow *cotton?


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Killarney. There were willow trees all down the river, but now they have all been eradicated. They were obstructing the flow. As kids we used to have wonderful times swimming in the shaded pools under the willows. There was always plenty of work to be done but we managed to fit in a lot of fun and our parents never worried about what we were up to..and we all survived. Those were the days.
> 
> What we need now is regular cyclonic weather to get all the rivers in flood again and restore the Darling river system to it's former glory. And ban cotton growing. It is so polluting. Did you know that in the state of Mississippi they pay cotton farmers *not to grow *cotton?




Yeh, growing up in the bush and swimming in creeks and rivers and billabongs, and hunting and fishing and all the other things that country kids get up to.....those were the days.
All you born and bred city slickers, eat your hearts out at the idyllic childhoods that Calliope and I had!

Fortunately sanity prevailed when the damn cotton growers wanted to open up the channel country in Western QLD to cotton growing. It would have been a crying shame to see the water from the Cooper used for growing cotton instead of being allowed to feed the natural channels that make the channel country some of the best cattle country in Australia.
Slowly but surely we're learning not to interfere too much with our environment. But I still think we need to employ some balanced thinking and develop minimal environmental impact projects such as utilising some of the fresh water on Fraser Island.

No, I wasn't aware that in Mississippi they pay the farmers not to grow cotton. Can't see it happening here.


----------



## Whiskers (15 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> More practical would be connecting all storm water drains that run into the river and pumping the water to a treatment plant. This would also solve the problem of plastics entering the aquatic system.




The principle is similar to what smart farmers have been doing to recycle runoff.

Better still, have a mini hydro pumping scheme powered by flood waters in selected fast flowing water courses to connect to the storm water run-off and send some of it back to the existing dams.

If it was designed into an integrated pipe grid the running costs would be negligable compared to existing pumping systems.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Whiskers said:


> The principle is similar to what smart farmers have been doing to recycle runoff.
> 
> Better still, have a mini hydro pumping scheme powered by flood waters in selected fast flowing water courses to connect to the storm water run-off and send some of it back to the existing dams.
> 
> If it was designed into an integrated pipe grid the running costs would be negligable compared to existing pumping systems.



So why haven't our politicians and all the experts they pay to consult on this subject not considered this option?  It sounds ridiculously simple and cost effective once the initial infrastructure was built.


----------



## Whiskers (15 November 2009)

Julia said:


> So why haven't our politicians and all the experts they pay to consult on this subject not considered this option?  It sounds ridiculously simple and cost effective once the initial infrastructure was built.




Reflecting on my experience with politicans (often agents for businesses) and engineers etc in Civil Construction, maybe with a bit of a cynicism, I'd say it doesn't provide anywhere near as much revenue for designers, consultants etc as the big dam proposals.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> More practical would be connecting all storm water drains that run into the river and pumping the water to a treatment plant. This would also solve the problem of plastics entering the aquatic system.



If you're going to use heavily contaminated storm water to produce drinking quality water then why not just use sea water instead? 

Storm water contains everything from illegally dumped chemicals, sewage, cigarette butts, soil, oil, petrol and so on. 

In terms of safety etc, let's just say it's safe to swim in the ocean (salt water) but there's a good reason why councils errect signs telling you to keep well away from storm water outfalls as the water isn't safe for human contact without extensive treatment.

Why not just use salt water instead of trying to clean up storm water?


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you're going to use heavily contaminated storm water to produce drinking quality water then why not just use sea water instead?
> 
> *Storm water contains everything from illegally dumped chemicals, sewage, cigarette butts, soil, oil, petrol and so on. *
> 
> ...




Thanks for the reminder of how filthy, careless and irresponsible people are! This being the case it would not be a good idea. Another problem without a solution.


----------



## Julia (16 November 2009)

Smurf, would the storm water be too contaminated to be used with minimal processing for e.g. separate system for garden watering, house/car washing, filling pools etc?

I suppose the expense of setting up a whole separate system to households would be unrealistically high.

Do you have any idea of the comparative costs of recycled water versus desalinated?


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Thanks for the reminder of how filthy, careless and irresponsible people are! This being the case it would not be a good idea. Another problem without a solution.




Exactly. I'm surprised that you even commented on my ridiculous send-up of such an impractical suggestion.


----------



## Whiskers (16 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Exactly. I'm surprised that you even commented on my ridiculous send-up of such an impractical suggestion.




Really, it's not that rediculous.

If the storm water runoff and all its contaminates go straight into the rivers or ocean, some of it invariably evaporates into the atmosphere and falls in rain in the dam catchments later anyway. Some finds it's way into the food chain via fish and other marine products that we eat. 

Re costs, desalination is generally more expensive than recycling for the simple reason that you have to remove pretty much the same contaminates in varying degrees, plus salt.

Most of us have heard about the acid rain deforestation problems in Europe. 

The bigger issue should consider the benifits of recycling 'urban' runoff to minimise polution problems as opposed to just relocating or dispursing it.


----------

