Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Here is a review from the Department of the Environment
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/te...s/wateruse.pdf Which says amongst other things: "The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible. As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost $3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80 from desalination " I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable authority. If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this: http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied. The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable such views are to the debate. David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Here is a review from the Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/te...s/wateruse.pdf Which says amongst other things: "The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible. As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost $3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80 from desalination " I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable authority. If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this: http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied. The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable such views are to the debate. David The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"Jonno" wrote in message u... The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. Which powers? How are they holding people to ransom? Why? David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message u... The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. Which powers? The government and corporate bodies How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? He asks the same type of questions. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"Jonno" wrote in message ... David Hare-Scott wrote: "Jonno" wrote in message u... The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. Which powers? The government and corporate bodies How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more expensive? Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? I am sure. He asks the same type of questions. Thankyou. I think. David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Jonno wrote:
The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and provide cheap water. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Jonno wrote:
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Who pays excessively for water? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message ... David Hare-Scott wrote: "Jonno" wrote in message u... The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. Which powers? The government and corporate bodies How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more expensive? I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is all around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind for their own purposes dont "see" it. Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? I am sure. He asks the same type of questions. Thankyou. I think. David Do you work for the government perhaps? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote: The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it is panning out. You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and provide cheap water. Dont even think about privatisation fixing it. They will tie you down and screw you until you are handing over the family jewels. Whatever you perceive them to be. Privatization only serves to do this. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote: How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Who pays excessively for water? You will. Just wait... Another government watcher? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
Jonno wrote:
Terryc wrote: Jonno wrote: How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Who pays excessively for water? You will. Just wait... Another government watcher? It seems so as you're only replying during work hours........ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"Jonno" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote: How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? Not HE is most definitley not! He asks the same type of questions. I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message David Hare-Scott wrote: How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? Not HE is most definitley not! He asks the same type of questions. I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!! Thats not a problem. It only explains some arguments. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"Jonno" wrote in message
Which powers? The government and corporate bodies How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for water. Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be horrified. I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as bits need replacing. I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past. And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off the grid. Why? Think about it.... To make money... Are you sure youre not Farm1? I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a "discussion" which is what these groups are for. He asks the same type of questions. I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"Jonno" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote: Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more expensive? I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is all around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind for their own purposes dont "see" it. Yeh gads! Now that is a politician type resposne if ever I saw one! "Trust me, I'm a newsgroup poster!" You are presenting an opinion and if you aren't prepared to give your reasoning for your claims then what you say isn't worth your time to type it or our time spent reading it. And to issue insults if you are asked to back up your cliams is just plain silly. Weren't you the one to send in a post not so long ago saying that people should not believe gardening myths but do some research to find out if the gardening advice was just an old wives tale or was based on science? You are being asked for the science and are expecting us to believe the old wives tale simply because you said it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TRIAD OF INFAMY Or, the 3 replies from West Australia Premier ColinBarnett to Australia Mining Pioneeer Jean-Paul Turcaud SENT AS ACONFIDENTIAL NOTE TO THE SILENT MAJORITY | Australia | |||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia | Australia | |||
food for thought | Edible Gardening | |||
Food for thought? | United Kingdom | |||
Food For Thought | Australia |