Quote:

Earth is a blue watery planet. 70% of its surface is covered by oceans of salt water, some of which are extremely deep. These oceans contain about 97% of Earth’s water. Another 2% is locked up in snow, ice caps and glaciers. That leaves just 1% of  Earth’s surface water in inland seas, lakes, rivers and dams. We have plenty of water, but not much to drink. In addition to these vast surface water supplies, water vapour is the fourth most abundant gas in the atmosphere, after nitrogen (76%), oxygen (21%) and Argon (1%). Moisture in the atmosphere varies from almost zero over deserts and ice caps up to 4% over the wet tropics. (Carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.04%). Then there are the large and unmeasured supplies of hidden underground water – “renewable” water from rain soaking into alluvial sands and gravels; artesian water in deeper permeable rocks; hydro-thermal water associated with volcanic and igneous activity; and primary water originating deep in Earth’s crust which feeds many natural springs and is sometimes discovered in unexpected places in very large quantities. With this abundance of water, why do humans ever find themselves short of fresh water? Three reasons – insufficient water is conserved when it is abundant, too much water is wasted, and power costs make desalination unattractive. The biggest water-wasters are those towns and cities which supply unlimited free or subsidised water to large and growing populations. Everything supplied “free” is wasted. Then when drought comes and water is most needed, it must be rationed. Under-priced or free water will be wasted watering lawns and golf courses so they can be mowed again, sprinkling decorative gardens, supplying fish ponds and water features, washing cars and footpaths, filling swimming pools, indulging long showers, and ignoring dripping taps and leaking pipes. If every user in every town and city were metered, and had to pay the full cost of water, it would be used much more carefully. For example, back in the 1980’s, the Central Queensland coal town of Moranbah, water was un-metered and water was supplied “free” by the coal company. But in droughts Moranbah water had to be rationed – gardens one side of the street could use water today, the other side tomorrow. Another town, Dalby, in the same climatic district was metered and self-regulated. No watering restrictions were imposed. The water consumption per resident in Dalby was half that of Moranbah (and gardens were just as good). How should we charge for water? “Charge what it costs” sends the right signals to users. Maybe each user should pay a fixed base charge for water to cover essential needs. This should be related to the capital costs of the water infrastructure. Usage above this should be charged at a variable rate which would increase as the water levels in dams dropped. This would remove the need for water restrictions and generate public support for building more dams. Lucky Australia has a “Great Artesian Basin” and many grazing properties and inland towns have relied heavily on artesian water that flows to the surface from deep bores. Again this “free” water has been badly wasted by allowing the bores to flow unchecked into open bore drains subject to heavy losses by evaporation and soakage. There is a program to case and cap these bores to reduce wastage. Some of the government funding frittered on global warming “research” and green energy gambles would be better devoted to conserving artesian waters. Some places like Perth in Western Australia with low rainfall and high evaporation rates have made good use of artificial desalination plants, but desalination is generally the last resort without abundant cheap electricity. The nuclear energy of the sun powers the greatest desalination plant on earth using mainly sea water to create all of Earth’s clouds, rain, hail and snow. Unfortunately it delivers these products in cycles of floods and droughts. Therefore dams are needed to improve water security in droughts, and to moderate the severity of floods. Water storage is an important part of the water equation which every farmer understands. There is no point allowing immense floods of fresh water to erode the land and spew into the seas – the oceans are not short of water (but offshore sea life like prawns and corals can benefit from nutrients and minerals delivered offshore in floods). When the inevitable droughts return and the dams are drained, cities are faced with severe rationing, re-treating waste water or de-salting sea water in expensive power- hungry desalination plants. Australia has immense deserts and many of our “rive rs” (including the mighty Murray-Darling) flow intermittently. Normally “creeks” flo w into “rivers”, but in the dry inland it takes two “rivers” (the Thompson and the Barcoo) to service Coopers “Creek”, and still Lake Eyre is usually dry.

Quote:

Sensible people try to conserve water when it is abundant, but every dam proposal soon attracts fierce and organised opposition. This means that most of Australia’s dams were completed decades ago - Warragamba NSW 1960, Eungella Qld 1969, Ord River WA 1971, Beardmore Qld 1972, Fairbairn Qld 1972, Snowy River Vic-NSW 1974, Gordon Tasmania 1974, Hinze Qld 1976, North Pine Qld 1976, Fred Haigh Qld 1978, Wivenhoe Qld 1984, Thompson WA 1984, Burdekin Qld 1987, Barambah Qld 1988.

Full article http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/build-more-dams.pdf

From Viv Forbes.

Its usually because the storage of water comes with consequences. See the recent fight over the Needles Gap dam near Cowra, lee.

I am surprised that we don't have a North-South pipeline to bring
the tropical monsoon rains from the North of Australia to the dry South.

Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted.
It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:04pm:

Its usually because the storage of water comes with consequences. See the recent fight over the Needles Gap dam near Cowra, lee.

Of course it has consequences. What has to be determined is which is more important. A blanket no to every proposal is not going to achieve anything.

And that is how the Greenies see it. They don't want dams. But I am sure they do want water.

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:51pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:04pm: Its usually because the storage of water comes with consequences. See the recent fight over the Needles Gap dam near Cowra, lee. Of course it has consequences. What has to be determined is which is more important. A blanket no to every proposal is not going to achieve anything. And that is how the Greenies see it. They don't want dams. But I am sure they do want water.

Not having your water leak out through limestone would be more important.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:11pm:

I am surprised that we don't have a North-South pipeline to bring the tropical monsoon rains from the North of Australia to the dry South. Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full.

Every time it rains in the dry regions politicians say 'problem solved'.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:11pm:

Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full.

"Over 60% of Australia’s total surface water runoff occurs north of the Tropic of Capricorn. A 2014 CSIRO review indicates that this could potentially support up to 1.4 million hectares of irrigated land, increasing Australia’s irrigated area by 50%."

https://theconversation.com/damming-northern-australia-we-need-to-learn-hard-lessons-from-the-south-53885

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:52pm:

Not having your water leak out through limestone would be more important.

Australia doesn't have engineers?

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:59pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:52pm: Not having your water leak out through limestone would be more important. Australia doesn't have engineers?

To plug holes you need to know where they are. That was the issue with the Needles Gap dam, it was going to be in a limestone karst. There was no guarantee as to where the water would end up. Plus flooding a cave system and fossil site.

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:11pm: Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full. "Over 60% of Australia’s total surface water runoff occurs north of the Tropic of Capricorn. A 2014 CSIRO review indicates that this could potentially support up to 1.4 million hectares of irrigated land, increasing Australia’s irrigated area by 50%." https://theconversation.com/damming-northern-australia-we-need-to-learn-hard-lessons-from-the-south-53885

Thanks Lee,
so our problem is not a lack of water -
it's just that we haven't put in the infrastructure to use what we do have - in abundance.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 2:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:11pm: I am surprised that we don't have a North-South pipeline to bring the tropical monsoon rains from the North of Australia to the dry South. Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full. Every time it rains in the dry regions politicians say 'problem solved'.

Not one Prime Minister in our entire history
has promised us a North/South pipeline.

Make it from stainless steel pipe &
our water problems could be ended forever.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 3:01pm:

That was the issue with the Needles Gap dam, it was going to be in a limestone karst. There was no guarantee as to where the water would end up. Plus flooding a cave system and fossil site.

As I said. Consequences. Does Australia want more people than the available water allows? Or does it want to limit population to what is currently sustainable?

Rockhampton City Council is either debating the merits or in the process of the initial stages of building some kind of weir north of the town. A few years back, some politician, Dominic Doblo, proposed the idea of having a dam built just north of the city, and used to prevent the excessive flooding of Rockhampton. I don't know if Doblo said it, but someone suggested using the flood waters to be treated and sent inland to rural areas where they could store the water for their own periods of drought.

Doblo's idea was rejected based on the cost and unfeasibility of the concept.

Building dams might seem like a solution to the future droughts. But if there is no rainfall of considerable significance, you are just going to see the dams go dry. I remember living out at Emerald during a drought. I cried as a child seeing Fairbarn Dam basically empty. Even as a toddler, I knew the significance of no water at the dam.

Think of how a set of major infrastructure projects could transform the Australian economy and with a vision transform Australia. It is ideal for this sort of Terraforming projects.

More dams means we are in control of the water flow. The most important substance on the planet (beyond air) and wars will be fought over it soon.

Also they could be used to provide clean power.

As to the money, that is what governments are there for. Instead of borrowing to just pay debt and poor past decisions. Borrow to invest in the future with a long term plan to pay it back. Hell ask us all for 5% extra tax for such projects or bonds we can invest in. If you have a bond you don't pay for the benefit when delivered.

Hell, Dubai, in the middle of the desert can engineer the future... why cann't we. We are smart enough but lack the will to do big things. Diggging up the place to sell to China is not going to cut it.

Our standard of living, once the envy of the world is dropping relatively every year.

Time to think long term and build. Time for australia to return to the smart and lucky country.... Time to not be victims of our environment. With the climate changing, we need to take control of our future and that needs a vission and leadership, the 2 things we lack right now.

More dams, more redirection of water flow... bloody good idea.

Edit: NB and the greenies can go to hell when they cry.. the wetlands need to be preserved. They will adapt... as we tranform the landscape.

Super Nova wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 4:39pm:

Think of how a set of major infrastructure projects could transform the Australian economy and with a vision transform Australia. It is ideal for this sort of Terraforming projects. More dams means we are in control of the water flow. The most important substance on the planet (beyond air) and wars will be fought over it soon. Also they could be used to provide clean power. As to the money, that is what governments are there for. Instead of borrowing to just pay debt and poor past decisions. Borrow to invest in the future with a long term plan to pay it back. Hell ask us all for 5% extra tax for such projects or bonds we can invest in. If you have a bond you don't pay for the benefit when delivered. Hell, Dubai, in the middle of the desert can engineer the future... why cann't we. We are smart enough but lack the will to do big things. Diggging up the place to sell to China is not going to cut it. Our standard of living, once the envy of the world is dropping relatively every year. Time to think long term and build. Time for australia to return to the smart and lucky country.... Time to not be victims of our environment. With the climate changing, we need to take control of our future and that needs a vission and leadership, the 2 things we lack right now. More dams, more redirection of water flow... bloody good idea. Edit: NB and the greenies can go to hell when they cry.. the wetlands need to be preserved. They will adapt... as we tranform the landscape.

That's why light weights like Turnbull don't cut it.

We need a PM with vision.

Super Nova wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 4:39pm:

Think of how a set of major infrastructure projects could transform the Australian economy and with a vision transform Australia. It is ideal for this sort of Terraforming projects. More dams means we are in control of the water flow. The most important substance on the planet (beyond air) and wars will be fought over it soon. Also they could be used to provide clean power.

Super Nova, awesome... But you are not going to see successful dams until it rains heavily. We could have another 100 dams all over the centre of the country. But unless the local governments can divert flowing rivers into them, or the rain comes down plentiful, you will just have the same problems. Unless you have the ability to make rain to soak the interior of the country (as well as enhancing east coast interior rainfall), we will see dry dams. If the rainfall was more consistent, we would have seen more dams built in the interior. However, the engineers don't bother with areas where it does not rain.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 18^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Super Nova wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 4:39pm: Think of how a set of major infrastructure projects could transform the Australian economy and with a vision transform Australia. It is ideal for this sort of Terraforming projects. More dams means we are in control of the water flow. The most important substance on the planet (beyond air) and wars will be fought over it soon. Also they could be used to provide clean power. Super Nova, awesome... But you are not going to see successful dams until it rains heavily. We could have another 100 dams all over the centre of the country. But unless the local governments can divert flowing rivers into them, or the rain comes down plentiful, you will just have the same problems. Unless you have the ability to make rain to soak the interior of the country (as well as enhancing east coast interior rainfall), we will see dry dams. If the rainfall was more consistent, we would have seen more dams built in the interior. However, the engineers don't bother with areas where it does not rain.

Never mind the quality, feel the width.

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 1:34pm:

Quote: The biggest water-wasters are those towns and cities which supply unlimited free or subsidised water to large and growing populations. Everything supplied “free” is wasted. Then when drought comes and water is most needed, it must be rationed. Under-priced or free water will be wasted watering lawns and golf courses so they can be mowed again, sprinkling decorative gardens, supplying fish ponds and water features, washing cars and footpaths, filling swimming pools, indulging long showers, and ignoring dripping taps and leaking pipes. If every user in every town and city were metered, and had to pay the full cost of water, it would be used much more carefully. For example, back in the 1980’s, the Central Queensland coal town of Moranbah, water was un-metered and water was supplied “free” by the coal company. But in droughts Moranbah water had to be rationed – gardens one side of the street could use water today, the other side tomorrow. Another town, Dalby, in the same climatic district was metered and self-regulated. No watering restrictions were imposed. The water consumption per resident in Dalby was half that of Moranbah (and gardens were just as good). How should we charge for water? “Charge what it costs” sends the right signals to users. Maybe each user should pay a fixed base charge for water to cover essential needs. This should be related to the capital costs of the water infrastructure. Usage above this should be charged at a variable rate which would increase as the water levels in dams dropped. This would remove the need for water restrictions and generate public support for building more dams. Lucky Australia has a “Great Artesian Basin” and many grazing properties and inland towns have relied heavily on artesian water that flows to the surface from deep bores. Again this “free” water has been badly wasted by allowing the bores to flow unchecked into open bore drains subject to heavy losses by evaporation and soakage. There is a program to case and cap these bores to reduce wastage. Some of the government funding frittered on global warming “research” and green energy gambles would be better devoted to conserving artesian waters.

The price should reflect the marginal cost of supply.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 3:07pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:11pm: I am surprised that we don't have a North-South pipeline to bring the tropical monsoon rains from the North of Australia to the dry South. Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full. Every time it rains in the dry regions politicians say 'problem solved'. Not one Prime Minister in our entire history has promised us a North/South pipeline. Make it from stainless steel pipe & our water problems could be ended forever.

Good idea fantastic project would love to work on it... :)

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 11:13am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 3:07pm: Unforgiven wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 2:11pm: I am surprised that we don't have a North-South pipeline to bring the tropical monsoon rains from the North of Australia to the dry South. Most of that rain water just washes out to sea & is wasted. It bet it equals dozens of Sydney harbor's full. Every time it rains in the dry regions politicians say 'problem solved'. Not one Prime Minister in our entire history has promised us a North/South pipeline. Make it from stainless steel pipe & our water problems could be ended forever. Good idea fantastic project would love to work on it... :)

Good - it's been talked about for over a century - I think -
but no one has ever done it.

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 17th, 2018 at 3:01pm: That was the issue with the Needles Gap dam, it was going to be in a limestone karst. There was no guarantee as to where the water would end up. Plus flooding a cave system and fossil site. As I said. Consequences. Does Australia want more people than the available water allows? Or does it want to limit population to what is currently sustainable?

So you're happy destroying things then. Why cant we instead more efficiently use the water we have?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 4:16pm:

So you're happy destroying things then. Why cant we instead more efficiently use the water we have?

So you think using water efficiently will overcome population growth? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No new dams since 1988. Population rise 3.6 million. More efficient water use or not?

Projected population 2050 - ~33.5 million. Even more efficient water use?

Enough rain falls in the Tully/Bellenden Kerr/Babinda area each year to supply all of Australia. Just pipe it to where ever it's needed

The problem with the pipe dreams is.

In the case of WA anyway with talk of pumping water from the Ord.

Its cheaper and easier to desalinate.

lee wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 4:34pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 19th, 2018 at 4:16pm: So you're happy destroying things then. Why cant we instead more efficiently use the water we have? So you think using water efficiently will overcome population growth? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D No new dams since 1988. Population rise 3.6 million. More efficient water use or not? Projected population 2050 - ~33.5 million. Even more efficient water use?

What I'm trying to say is that currently the water we have at the moment is used so poorly its a waste. Saying lets just build new dams doesnt change that.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 11:06am:

What I'm trying to say is that currently the water we have at the moment is used so poorly its a waste. Saying lets just build new dams doesnt change that.

So you have researched this, written a paper and had it published?

lee wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 11:06am: What I'm trying to say is that currently the water we have at the moment is used so poorly its a waste. Saying lets just build new dams doesnt change that. So you have researched this, written a paper and had it published?

Have you done the same for your hypothesis?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 11:35am:

Have you done the same for your hypothesis?

Nope. But let's look at the facts.

Australia is a dry continent. Many peer-reviewed papers say so.

Australia's population is increasing faster than what was projected. Peer-reviewed papers support this also.

So no need for me to reinvent the wheel.

There is water waste - not denied.

People are lazy they always waste water. A  2 minute shower turns to  3-4 minute shower. A flush of the toilet after a tinkle.

More people will waste more water.

But you believe that that waste can be totally constrained by people using less. I guess that's why we have desalination plants.

lee wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 2:31pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 11:35am: Have you done the same for your hypothesis? Nope. But let's look at the facts. Australia is a dry continent. Many peer-reviewed papers say so. Australia's population is increasing faster than what was projected. Peer-reviewed papers support this also. So no need for me to reinvent the wheel. There is water waste - not denied. People are lazy they always waste water. A  2 minute shower turns to  3-4 minute shower. A flush of the toilet after a tinkle. More people will waste more water. But you believe that that waste can be totally constrained by people using less. I guess that's why we have desalination plants.

I'm not saying using less. Using more efficiently. E.g. we don't do enough water recycling in this country.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 2:55pm:

I'm not saying using less. Using more efficiently.

So using more efficiently is not using less?


Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 2:55pm:

E.g. we don't do enough water recycling in this country.

Agree. We also do not have the infrastructure; or do you envisage this to be purely on a household basis?

lee wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 2:55pm: I'm not saying using less. Using more efficiently. So using more efficiently is not using less? Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 2:55pm: E.g. we don't do enough water recycling in this country. Agree. We also do not have the infrastructure; or do you envisage this to be purely on a household basis?

Not necessarily. Just use the same as we use now, just get more bang for our buck. And there have been plans to do water recycling in towns ( I recall Toowoomba as an example) but its voted down almost every time bvecause of the perceptions behind it.


Let me be clear here, I'm not saying no new dams, I'm just saying new dams is only part of a multfactorial answer to the problem.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying no new dams, I'm just saying new dams is only part of a multfactorial answer to the problem.

Unfortunately the greenies will mount campaign after campaign against dams. They prefer pristine environment, whatever that means, to dams. Pristine environments have changed over time. Some man made and some nature provided.

lee wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 5:43pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 5:40pm: Let me be clear here, I'm not saying no new dams, I'm just saying new dams is only part of a multfactorial answer to the problem. Unfortunately the greenies will mount campaign after campaign against dams. They prefer pristine environment, whatever that means, to dams. Pristine environments have changed over time. Some man made and some nature provided.

Well I'm thinking in the instance I am interested in, the reason I was against the Needles Gap dam in NSW was the killing of a cave system and potential destruction of fossils. Against that, was the lack of a true business case from the dam builders

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 5:48pm:

Well I'm thinking in the instance I am interested in, the reason I was against the Needles Gap dam in NSW was the killing of a cave system and potential destruction of fossils.

Being fossilised wouldn't they only still be fossilised?

lee wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 5:48pm: Well I'm thinking in the instance I am interested in, the reason I was against the Needles Gap dam in NSW was the killing of a cave system and potential destruction of fossils. Being fossilised wouldn't they only still be fossilised?

No.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 8:38am:

lee wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 6:12pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 5:48pm: Well I'm thinking in the instance I am interested in, the reason I was against the Needles Gap dam in NSW was the killing of a cave system and potential destruction of fossils. Being fossilised wouldn't they only still be fossilised? No.

Must bring new meaning to fossilised.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 8:38am: lee wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 6:12pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 20th, 2018 at 5:48pm: Well I'm thinking in the instance I am interested in, the reason I was against the Needles Gap dam in NSW was the killing of a cave system and potential destruction of fossils. Being fossilised wouldn't they only still be fossilised? No. Must bring new meaning to fossilised.

More about eroded rather than fossilsed.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 1:16pm:

More about eroded rather than fossilsed.

Very confusing. They are fossilised or they are eroded?

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 2:24pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 1:16pm: More about eroded rather than fossilsed. Very confusing. They are fossilised or they are eroded?

No its not, if you actually comprehended. If the dam is built, the fossils would be damaged through erosive action and silting.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 4:13pm:

No its not, if you actually comprehended. If the dam is built, the fossils would be damaged through erosive action and silting.

May be damaged by erosion. It depends on water flow. As well as the composition of the fossil base.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 4:13pm: No its not, if you actually comprehended. If the dam is built, the fossils would be damaged through erosive action and silting. May be damaged by erosion. It depends on water flow. As well as the composition of the fossil base.

Indeed, coupled with the fact that there was a signifcant karst system indicate a good reason fort not putting the dam where it was.

So would water flow down into the cave system or leach up from ground level within the system?

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 4:45pm:

So would water flow down into the cave system or leach up from ground level within the system?

Both, Cliefden caves have a thermal spring. The problem would be that karst systems are like icebergs, what we know of is not the full extent of the system. Even a well-known caving area like Jenolan is having new caves and new passages of existing caves being found all the time.

So there was no real way to know for certain what the water from the dam would do, it may well have drained through unknown caves past the dam and so the dam would have proved useless.


This was coupled woith the comments from the guy controlling water in the region plus the federal MP for the area. It was according to them only a couple of small caves full of mud, when at the moemtn we know of 97 separate caves in the area, the longest being about 3 km in length of explored passage.

Sounds like a great place to go cave diving.

By destroying the cave. Caves need running water to function. We'd be artificially stopping the water from running. Build the dam elsewhere.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

By destroying the cave. Caves need running water to function. We'd be artificially stopping the water from running. Build the dam elsewhere.

NIMBYism is alive and well.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:28pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 8:50pm: By destroying the cave. Caves need running water to function. We'd be artificially stopping the water from running. Build the dam elsewhere. NIMBYism is alive and well.

Its not in my backyard, I just don't like the concept of damage of a fragile environment just cause people need water. Learn to be more efficient,

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:35pm:

Its not in my backyard, I just don't like the concept of damage of a fragile environment just cause people need water. Learn to be more efficient,

Yes. Don't bother looking elsewhere; someone else will raise objections.

lee wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 9:35pm: Its not in my backyard, I just don't like the concept of damage of a fragile environment just cause people need water. Learn to be more efficient, Yes. Don't bother looking elsewhere; someone else will raise objections.

Your backyard for instance?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:59pm:

Your backyard for instance?

Wow. You really do know the requirements for a dam; don't you. /sarc

lee wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2018 at 1:29pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 21st, 2018 at 9:59pm: Your backyard for instance? Wow. You really do know the requirements for a dam; don't you. /sarc

INdeed.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2018 at 4:03pm:

INdeed.

yep. but to put your heart to rest -

There are no nearby hills suitable for damming. There is a river bed but the surrounding country varies by less than 50 metres in height for hundreds of kilometres.

Just a flood plain.

lee wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2018 at 4:18pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 22nd, 2018 at 4:03pm: INdeed. yep. but to put your heart to rest - There are no nearby hills suitable for damming. There is a river bed but the surrounding country varies by less than 50 metres in height for hundreds of kilometres. Just a flood plain.

sounds like the now defunct Traveston damn In QLD ;) ;)

In a nutshell - I like this one

https://pics.me.me/wesendrobots-to-mars-tolookfor-water-when-we-cant-even-figureout-17781683.png

yup ;)

Super Nova wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2018 at 8:16pm:

In a nutshell - I like this one https://pics.me.me/wesendrobots-to-mars-tolookfor-water-when-we-cant-even-figureout-17781683.png

That's true -
we should have had a North/South pipeline to bring all the
enormous quantity of rain water that is wasted in
the North of our country to the dry south.

No Govt. has ever promised it but it's been talked about for 100 years.