News 
 State News 
 Niche 
 General 
 Plan reignites calls for northern pipeline 

Plan reignites calls for northern pipeline

09 Dec, 2011 02:00 AM
LAST week's release of the draft Murray Darling Plan has reignited a long-standing dream for many to transport significant amounts of water from northern Australia to the south.

T. Bowring & Associates chief executive officer Terry Bowring, New South Wales, says the Federal Government could spend $3.7b to install a 600-kilometre lined canal from north-east Queensland to the Warrego River and into the Darling River.

He says this would divert about one third of the 12,000 gigalitres of mean annual flows to the sea from the Burdekin and Herbert rivers, resulting in about 3500gL after evaporation for use in the MDB each year.

Acknowledging its expense - although his other option is a full-length canal system travelling 2000km to the River Murray - Mr Bowring claims it could be paid back in 20 years by selling the water.

He said city water users could be charged more than irrigators - "a common practice in America".

Mr Bowring also said pumping stations that would run at a yearly cost of $35 million for the 600km canal could benefit from advances in solar energy creation that would reduce costs into the future.

"To maximise opportunities to expand agriculture, we need to be looking at the potential to store and transfer large volumes of water from our northern high-rainfall areas to southern regions where a temperate climate suits a wider range of agriculture," he said.

Water Industry Alliance chief executive Andy Roberts says similar projects proposed in the past have usually been considered infeasible because of capital costs and the expenses involved in pumping large volumes of water from north to south.

"But that doesn't necessarily mean there never could be a project of this type," he said.

"Given the potential benefits that are suggested - environmental, social and economical - it may be worth this project being checked in greater detail to see if it meets the many other criteria that would be required by the very large amount of potential stakeholders."

University of Adelaide-Environment Institute professor Mike Young said he was familiar with this scheme and others like it, but such proposals had not stacked up under government assessments in the past.

"One needs to work out what is lost from the opportunity to use the water up north, and the impact that schemes like this have on marine ecosystems and fisheries," Prof Young said.

Land Access and Management Services operations director Peter Rayner says his own company's project could add an extra 4000gL of water to the basin each year through a 1800km pipeline from the Western Australia's north-west.

He said it would divert water from the Ord River and pipe it across to the Adelaide-Darwin rail line in the Northern Territory, following the line south before detouring south-east to the Murray Darling system.

"From a financial and engineering perspective, we believe it is both feasible and realistic - all it needs is agreement from the major interest groups to throw their collective support behind the proposal to take it to the next level," Mr Rayner said.

"It might well turn out to be a 'pipedream' - we don't believe so - but until it is thoroughly investigated and explored, no one can accurately say whether it is or isn't."

Mr Rayner is collaborating with SA independent MP Geoff Brock who is mustering support for the pipeline at a political level.

*Full report in Stock Journal, December 8 issue, 2011.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
No-one who has ever promoted this sort of scheme has ever explained why a farmer in the SE is more deserving of Burdekin water than farmers in the Burdekin itself.

There is one simple and inescapable economic fact of life that completely undermines the viability of such projects. For any price paid for Burdekin water by a southern farmer, a local Burdekin farmer can pay a whole lot more.

So whether a 600km lined canal can actually pay its way or not is totally fatuous nonsense. All current and future Burdekin farmers are in the same market and can pay more for the same water.

Posted by Ian Mott, 9/12/2011 9:10:30 AM, on Stock Journal
And Mr Bowring might like to explain why water should be sent all the way to the "temperate" south to grow rice when it is clearly a crop that is more suited to the tropics?

And while the cost of the canal might be covered by the price of water, he makes no mention of the cost of raising the Burdekin Falls Dam, nor of the pumping costs that he recognises will be needed. This added cost certainly improves the economics of shade cloth in the tropics.

Posted by Ian Mott, 9/12/2011 11:52:13 AM, on Stock Journal
The fact is that huge volumes of water are released from the Wivenhoe Dam straight out to sea so why not transfer it into the MDB.

More water is needed in the system and for the viability of the system water transfer must occur.

The NBN is being built with no cost analysis and yet water which is life must be allowed to go to waste.

Vision is what is needed to grow this nation and while we have narrow minded self centred people stopping every thing we will go backwards.

Jobs and wealth is created by taking bold steps and spending money for the future, we need to act now.

Posted by jcv, 11/12/2011 12:15:39 PM, on Stock Journal
JCV, why pump Wivenhoe water at great expense over the range to the MDB when the farmers at Gatton and the rest of the Brisbane valley have to make do with ground water?

Brisbane City Council spent $40 million on a water treatment plant to take about $30/megalitre worth of valuable nitrogen out of waste water so they could dump it in Moreton Bay. That $30 worth of fertiliser would have covered the cost of pumping it to farmers up in the valley but the leftard urban morons would rather wear a cost than deliver a self funded benefit to farmers.

Posted by Ian Mott, 12/12/2011 10:38:23 AM, on Stock Journal
To produce more over produced crops at lower prices .Wait for another 3 billion people and then it might be profitable .
Posted by THE FARMER, 13/12/2011 10:41:15 AM, on Stock Journal

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock Journal







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...