Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... "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. " Hmm... water prices have risen a fair bit since the 1980s, same with oil. It may not have made economic sense to build such a scheme in 1982. But with the price of water increasing exponentially since the 80s, such an engineering scheme would be economically viable today. |
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 |