So Much wasted water flowed thru the country with floods last year!!.

Submitted: Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 20:56
ThreadID: 99988 Views:2188 Replies:12 FollowUps:15
This Thread has been Archived
If only it could be stored in the bushfire prone areas.

getting volumes of water to fire would be a great assett.


Cheers Axle.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - MUZBRY(Vic) - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 21:27

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 21:27
Gday Axle
We arn't allowed to build dams anymore , the greens have to much power. I agree fully that we should be creating water retention in areas that it can be done. That creates work for people and water for when it is needed. Back many years ago, a politician suggested that we should be joining the coastal rivers with the inland rivers so when it floods up north, we in the south and west of the eastern states get some benefit instead of letting the water run into the ocean.
Rant over

Muzbry
Great place to be Mt Blue Rag 27/12/2012

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 502562

Follow Up By: Axle - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 21:40

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 21:40
Muzbry , WE can see it why can't the pollies, Or are we just smart!..lol.

Axle.
0
FollowupID: 779049

Follow Up By: mfewster - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:16

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:16
Muzbry, there have been numerous studies done on the joining the rivers scheme and they just didn't come out as feasible. There are limits to how far you can economically move water, especially when you have to pump[ it back over hills, deal with evaporation etc.
0
FollowupID: 779075

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:57

Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:57
That's what they told CY O’Connor before he comitted hary kary.
0
FollowupID: 779263

Reply By: Member - John and Val - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:13

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:13
Hmmm...its the floods that give the river systems a good flush out, to get rid of accumulated salt, sediments, nutrients. Big floods spread right out over the flood plain recharging the aquifers, filling billabongs, clearing channels.

WE turned around one eastern flowing river (Snowy) and what a legacy of salinity we got in the irrigation areas - as has happened in just about every irrigation project anywhere in the world. Water running unimpeded through rivers and out to sea definitely has a purpose and does not go to waste.

Cheers,

Val.
J and V
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 502565

Follow Up By: Axle - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:22

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:22
Agree val, But i think there's been excess water go thru the system at times,surely some of it could be harvested somewhere ?


Cheers Axle.


0
FollowupID: 779052

Follow Up By: Member - John and Val - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:51

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 22:51
That's what happened with the Snowy scheme and all the other dams and weirs that were built post WWII. And what happened - massive over-allocation of water rights (often for political pork barrelling) so we end up with the almighty mess that the Murray Darling Basin is now. The current version of the MDB plan is only the most recent in a long string of plans, none of which have ever really got off the ground. Im not holding my breath for the current one to work either.

IMHO we still dont really understand how the whole water system works, particularly wrt aquifers and how they are connected to rivers. History shows that when we start to meddle with environmental things that we dont fully understand we end up making a botch of it. Have a look at the Aral Sea and the once Fertile Crescent (the cradle of civilisation) between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers...and the increasing salinisation of the Nile since the headwaters have been dammed - and damned.

Cheers,

Val
J and V
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 779060

Follow Up By: Rockape - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 05:20

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 05:20
Just a piece of info.

In the 18 hundreds the prospect of damming and irrigating from the Murray came up. It was rejected because they knew back then about the rises in salinity. Well later on they went on to do it and you can see the disaster that caused.

One of the big problems is we become greedy, and when we have the water we use it for cropping, spreading it across the land and leaching salt from it. Well that is ok if we do it the correct way, but we always seem to want more and more until we destroy what we were trying to create in the first place.

A couple of dams that do work are the Ord and the Burdekin, as you can see by my signature the Burdekin regularly floods and cleans out the river. They are not at all like that sewer drain called the Murray. Someone will say, but we have had big floods in the drain, if they do have a thing about what it was like a couple of years back.

Axle, fly over properties and see all the dams on them with no more than 5 mile between. Add all those dams up and you can see how much water is held back.

RA.
0
FollowupID: 779071

Follow Up By: mfewster - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:08

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:08
Just so John and Val and Rockape. All that water is a regular hobby horse for the usual shockjocks to berate politicians. At first the argument looks appealing but our scientific community and even oir pollies have learnt to be wary on this one. Salinity in Australia is a massive problem that makes big inland dams and agriculture projects very dubious. A better approach might be to do whatever we can to augment and protect the existing underground aquifers and storage basins that generally hold water below the salt zone.
Which of course is why farmers and Greens are very concerned about "fracking" technology. We just don't know enough about it's long term consequences for our artesian areas.
0
FollowupID: 779074

Reply By: SDG - Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 23:36

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 at 23:36
And now on the news tonight, it mentioned that 75% (Ithink that was the number) is now border line drought.
AnswerID: 502570

Reply By: mylestom - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 07:40

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 07:40
The idea for the Bradford? Scheme was that five percent of the outflow of the Clarence River during flood, was to be piped overland to the headwaters of the Condamine River to help recharge the Murray/Darling system. But again we have these NIMBY saying it NSW water and cant go into Qld to be returned via the system to NSW etc.

We allow to much water(During Floods) to just go to sea. Then it is no use, or do you think that de-salination plants are the answer. Why let the water go away and then try and reprocess it, at extreme costs.

Again we have the problem, in large population areas, with lots of buildings etc and the water, instead of going into the ground. Heads off from building via pipelines etc to again just go to sea. Where are all the old creeks(Now concrete culverts, or just drains).

We can't go back, we have to look forward. Too much of this NIMBY syndrome and no thought that with growing population, we will need food and water. Now we have foreign investment buying up the farm and future production for shipment overseas.

Most Aussie farmers are getting older, younger generations are heading for the big smoke. The problem is down the track, more restrictions of the smaller farmer, farms become unviable and they get bought up in a bigger block.
Good farming land on the Darling Downs converted to coal mines. LNG Fracking messing up the underground water, the results will come back to haunt us.

Glad I got out of farming. For dollars invested, the return and work, just didn't justify a proper return.

Fire, Flood, Drought, that is Australia, we have to learn to live and maintain in those conditions.

AnswerID: 502583

Follow Up By: Nickywoop - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:21

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:21
Excuse my ignorance, but what is NIMBY ?

Nick
0
FollowupID: 779080

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:28

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:28
Not In My Back Yard
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 779081

Follow Up By: mfewster - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:28

Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:28
Re Nimby. the sooner we get rid of State governments in Australia, the better. Remember when the Howard government tried to get some efficient water planning planning for the Murray Darling by establishing a National Authority? The Qld government (Lab) sold off a fortune in water rights just before takeover date which meant the Fed government needs to pay out $ to buy the rights back again. State against State, Commonwealth v State(s), all the parties play the same game on different issues. Huge amounts of $ are wasted in High Court appeals and we get ineffective, short term laws as policies are watered down (pun intentional) and compromises made. I don't care which party gets to govern in Canberra, but they ought to be able to make effective laws for the whole of Australia and then be judged by the people at election time. As a nation we are hamstrung by State Governments.
0
FollowupID: 779265

Reply By: snow - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:56

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 08:56
Farming, by and large it would seem is a lifestyle choice.

All political and green BS aside, just because flood water is not captured and used for human consumption does not necessarily mean that it is "wasted". These outflows are essential for many marine species among other things. The flow-on effects (no pun intended) as we have seen with the MDB can be considerable to say the least.
AnswerID: 502586

Reply By: david s27 - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:01

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:01
It is a part of the systerm ...... We need to enjoy this spectacular events for what they are and not try and stuff up the systerm?.....
AnswerID: 502588

Reply By: Grant L - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:36

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:36
Hi Axle,
I hear what your saying, but remember our first settlers wanted to be able to transport goods up and down our rivers, so they cleaned them out just like European rivers, hence no more blockages to cause billabongs to form and store water, loss of water table as rivers were now drains. There is a fellow in NSW who I believe understands this better than most and suggests that the Murray - Darling basin plan is also floored so were are we really going?

Grant
AnswerID: 502592

Follow Up By: Member - Joe F (WA) - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 13:17

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 13:17
G'day Axle and good people


Talking about excess water ~ the inland Pilbara has plenty of excess/surplus water ~ Apparently !!


Miners are pumping all the excess water out from under their mining operations ( fact) ~ in reality they are draining the sub terranian aquifer so the iron ore deposit can be exploited, but it's Okay folks, they are going to replenish/recharge the Aquifer after the mine closes in about 40 years from now.



Then these clever thinkers are going to capture annual surface water for the preceding twenty years then pump this surface water back into the ground at a rate of 40,000 kilolitres per day and all will be good again !!!


And you think the Snowy river scheme was a mistake?


The WA pollies love this idea ?


For those folk out there that insist that I have an axe to grind regarding todays mining practises, please tell me how smart this dewatering scheme actually is, bare in mind they actually have a crystal ball.


Safe travels :

0
FollowupID: 779103

Follow Up By: Rockape - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 16:37

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 16:37
Joe,
they certainly either use bulk water or waste it and seem to be able to go over their quota constantly without anything happening.

The sub terrain basin is being lowered big time all round Australia by mining. At least the SA. government told BHPBilliton at Roxbury to go get their extra water elsewhere.

Scary stuff, if by accident they stuff up a basin with coal seam gas that basin is gone for a long, long time and may never recover. Guess they will be really careful like Exxon and BP.

RA.
0
FollowupID: 779115

Reply By: GimmeeIsolation - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 14:19

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 14:19
I think its frightening that people believe that water going to the ocean is wasted water.
Where will the fish and crustaceans breed before going back to the Sea.
All those cigarette butts too would have nowhere to go if they were not washed out the Ocean that the dirty picks chuck out the car windows at the lights.
Get some primary school books from the grandkids or library because you're sure missing a link or have a kangaroo in the top paddock.
AnswerID: 502607

Reply By: Bushranger1 - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 15:57

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 15:57
Sorry Axle but that statedment is as ridiculous as the one I heard a few years ago.
"No Australian river should run to the sea" Talk about completely ruining some ecosystems.

Firstly much of the beach sand is replaced by rivers bringing down silts.
Secondly you may build some dams but they may be situated a huge distance from the fires.
Thirdly. Who will pay for them?

Just my thoughts.
Cheers
Stu
AnswerID: 502614

Follow Up By: Axle - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 17:24

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 17:24
Good Job everyone has a opinion, Stu.... Daming up rivers wasn't really what i was thinking, but no worries, people like to get their own take on things around here and then run with it, even if its not relevant to the original post


Cheers Axle




0
FollowupID: 779122

Follow Up By: Bushranger1 - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 18:01

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 18:01
Fair enough then Axle. I guess quite a few of us thought you meant we need to dam some of our precious rivers.

Maybe you meant water tanks then? Actually up here in the hills where I live some of the roads have concrete water tanks for firefighting.
They are usually next to the road near bends where there is a flat area to place them & a spot for fire trucks to stop & fill up.

Cheers
Stu
0
FollowupID: 779126

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 16:42

Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 16:42
How do you plan on storing all this lovely water in 'bushfire' prone areas ? What happens when the dams we build are full and then overflow causing floods as per the Wivenhoe in Qld , time to let nature take its own course ,,,
AnswerID: 502617

Reply By: Barry 2 - Wednesday, Jan 16, 2013 at 23:47

Wednesday, Jan 16, 2013 at 23:47
Hi Axle
I feel sorry for you posting your thoughts and coping all that cr*p.
To my way of thinking you were not in any way saying we need dams or any other bloody thing that posters said. " KEY WORDS PEOPLE " - " IF ONLY " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My interpretation of what you simply said " Isn't it a shame that we can't harvest the excess water " for Bush fires !!!!! And I agree !
Pity that everyone has to jump on there band wagons and bag you for something you never said - No wonder so many people are scared to ask a question or make a comment on this site !!!
Instead why don't posters take a " DEEP " breath and " READ " and " TAKE NOTE " of what the Original Poster actually said.
Then we may get some " Constructive Dialogue " happening to solve the problem at hand.

Happy days - Everyone

Barry - Southern Cross Dreaming.
AnswerID: 502752

Follow Up By: Axle - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 19:56

Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 19:56
Thanks Barry,....Your right mate,.. But from early days i learnt that if you haven't got broad shoulders it can be a devastating place mentally...lol....but when someone replys and are on the same wave lenght its good to exchange thoughts....everyone is a know all' on this site, always been like it always will be!,alot of good people have turned their back on this site over the years, and a lot of good people have joined, so on it goes a revolving barrel of knowledge of some discription, not a bad Business actually!

Cheers Axle.
0
FollowupID: 779331

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:59

Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:59
This is a few years old now but it is great entertainment and still holds true.



It is well worth watching both parts.
AnswerID: 502757

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)