EDIT: split from this thread: Corruption Deciet and Lies

With respect I don't see how a nation of twenty million people needs seven fully fledged governments with overlapping juristictions.

What we do need is a national infrastructure policy, a national rail, road and air policy, an national company law and a national criminal code.

There have only been two national infrastructure projects in the whole history of this country: the Snowy Scheme and the Darwin railway.

This is pitiful given the fact that most of the rain falls in northern Australia and most of the people live in the south it is a matter of urgency that this water be dammed and diverted to where it is needed.

With seven squabbling, self-centred and jealous state governments thwarting the Commonwealth at every turn this is unlikely to be achieved.

The national government is the only one strong enough to stand up to the big corporations.

For instance one of the big WA miners extorted permission from the WA government to build thousands of miles of private railway-lines that does not connect to the national rail-grid and from which ordinary frieght and passenger services are forbidden.

To give another example a proposed Very Fast Train (speeds 150-220 kph) link between Sydney and Melbourne has been frustrated for years by intransignent state governments under the thumb of trucking and airline companies.

The States are a politicial anachronism and need to be abolished, or at very least have their powers severely curtailed.

Australia needs urgent infrastructure upgrading to cope with a future where growing shortage of oil and global warming will test us as never before.

What we do need is a national infrastructure policy, a national rail, road and air policy, an national company law and a national criminal code.

I agree that uniformity would help, and I would add libel law to that list. But that doesn't necessarily require federal control. Also, maintaining diversity and competition between states can be a good thing.

This is pitiful given the fact that most of the rain falls in northern Australia and most of the people live in the south it is a matter of urgency that this water be dammed and diverted to where it is needed.

That would be an expensive white elephant. It would be better to get people to live nearer to the water, or simply stop wasting it in the south. It would probably be more expensive, and use more energy (= greenhouse emissions) than desalination.

I also agree with you on corruption. Smaller governments are easier to buy off. But there is greater risk if we got rid of them because there would be far fewer people keeping an eye on the federal government.

Dammed and diverted?
You're joking right?  You dont want nuclear power, and yet you would totally destroy areas of the north for the benefit of those in the south?  You want to exploit one resource (water) but would ignore another.  
Some of the stuff i have read on here ............. ;D

Last time I looked building dams does not destroy areas. The amount of land they cover and the environmental damage they do is negligible.  In a continent so very short of water, and likely to get shorter as the years roll on, it would not be a white elephant but a very useful project.

With respect, it would be a lot more expensive by an order of magnitude to move millions of people to the north of the continent as well than it would be to dam few rivers and divert them southwards. Desalination plants require lotsof energy and that means coal and that means greenhouse.

The Fitzroy River in Western Australian near Broome for instance. During the wet season puts more water into the oceans than any other on earth save the Amazon. For the rest of the year it's dry--a perfect place for a dam.

Even if we want to move people north we will still have to build dams to supply the new agricultural areas, towns and cities we would have to create there.

As it is water could be pumped southwards to Perth, whose rainfall is becoming increasingly sparse and unreliable. Hydro power from the dams could power the pump-stations with plenty left over to feed into the national grid.

There are many other locatons in northern Australia that are similar. There are some that could put large quantities of water straight into the Murrray/Darling system at the cost of no more than a few billion dollars each. Once they are built they produce no greenhouse gasses at all and very little during construction. They can be used to produce Hydro-Electricity which is one of the cleanest, least greenhouse gas emitting forms of power generation ever devised.

Besides who would want to live up there in the tropics? Australia is uncomfortable enough even down south.

The sceptism this suggestion has encountered here just goes to show how unaccustomed Australians are to thinking in such terms; largely because in the past such plans have been frustrated by small-minded state governments.

The Australian States have had 150 years to produce coordinated and sensible laws on all manner of things but have wholly failed to do so.

To give a notorious example: they couldn't even be bothered building their railways on the same gauge.

It will need the Federal government to pass uniform national law codes, I'm afraid.

Doesnt destroy areas. ;D  You have no concept of what damm(n)ing a river does. Desalination doesnt have to mean coal either.

What it all adds up to is the fact that this continent cannot support the population that currently inhabits it.

Desalination does mean coal under the present regime where renewable sources of energy have not been developed and deployed.

Please enlighten me about how the creation of artificial lakes "destroys areas".  :-?

(Yes and I've heard all those overstated arguments about how the cold water kills everything and the rotting vegetation under the water causes greenhouse emissions and so forth, so you'd better have something substantial to say.)

The present Greenie revulsion towards damming rivers, perhaps stemming from the Franklin Dam affair in the 1980's, is dogmatic foolishness. They present dams as if they were leaky nuclear power-plants, whereas they are do almost no damage at all and are necessary for both cities and agriculture. They can also generate clean, green electricity.

The problem with the Franklin was that they were going to build it in the middle of a World Heritage area; a breathtakingly lovely and unique ecosystem.

I was in Tasmania at the time and opposed it and would do so again if they tried to do it today.

The harsh and desolate wastes of northern Australia possess none of these endearing characteristics. Even if a few square miles of it are submerged, who cares? There's plenty more where it came from.

The continent can support its present population if we are prepared to treat it properly, harvest water from where it falls and transfer it to where it is needed.

Otherwise not.

The amount of land they cover and the environmental damage they do is negligible.

The damage done is not proportional to the surface area covered. Rivers contain a lot of life. The greatest losses of biodiversity are occurring in freshwater ecosystems, largely as a result of sucking rivers dry.

Desalination plants require lotsof energy and that means coal and that means greenhouse.

Not as much as pumping water from the north to the south. Have you looked into the cost of these pipelines?

There are some that could put large quantities of water straight into the Murrray/Darling system at the cost of no more than a few billion dollars each.

A few billion. Is that all?

Once they are built they produce no greenhouse gasses at all and very little during construction.

Is this one of those schemes where they try to tilt the entire continent so the water flow from east to west?

They can be used to produce Hydro-Electricity which is one of the cleanest, least greenhouse gas emitting forms of power generation ever devised.

That would require a lot of tilt.

The Fitzroy River in Western Australian near Broome for instance. During the wet season puts more water into the oceans than any other on earth save the Amazon. For the rest of the year it's dry--a perfect place for a dam.

Where did you get this from? How much water does it put out?

The harsh and desolate wastes of northern Australia possess none of these endearing characteristics. Even if a few square miles of it are submerged, who cares? There's plenty more where it came from.

Nice launguage, paints a rough picture.  But have you ever been there?  What kind of idiot says that? :-?

I care for one.  Im sure you could probably find a 'few' more people who would want a wild part of our country to be protected from such damage.  The 'damage' would include a shift in the fauna of the area from its natural state.  Permanent water would change fish species, flora etc. Just because its not rainforest or coral reef doesnt mean the biodiversity it supports isnt important.  Regardless, nobody would do something that foolish.  

Pumping water from north to south?  Trust me you will be drinking your own sewage well before that.  

How about this: we move everyone from the centre out to the coast, then divert all the rivers inland so that we have a big lake.  Nobody would care would they?  Certainly would fix all those pesky native title claims.  We could bring in exotic fish species to populate the thing and the punters could fish to their hearts content.  We would probably have to turn the simpson desert into a carpark though.  On a brighter note, who would care, its the Simpson DESERT, its bloody hot, what it needs is that carpark and some nice airconditioned housing estates and maybe the new biggest shopping centre in the southern hemisphere.  Hell we could probably get our population to double if we did that. ::)

NoComment, would you mind signing up for an account?

Another problem with dams etc is that less fresh water reaches the estuaries which harms downstream fisheries. The runoff from agriculture also causes harm. This harm extends offshore. A lot of the damage to the Great Barrier Reef is attributable to agricultural runoff. What we are doing is replacing a productive source of food that requires no effort (except the harvest) and replacing it with a food source that requires intensive effort, modification of the landscape and lots of poison.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Bracks-lashes-Canberra-over-water-funds/2006/12/19/1166290529583.html

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has lashed out at the federal government for failing to come up with funding it promised for vital infrastructure projects.

Victoria is seeking a contribution from Canberra for a $268 million "goldfields superpipe" linking central Victorian towns with the Murray-Goulburn system.

The state government is putting $101 million into the project, local water authorities will put in $52 million, with the remainder, $115 million, expected to come from Canberra.

I think I heard Rudd today saying that if the ALP got in at the next election, he would ensure more Federal funds went into our infrastructure and water.  Hopefully though he won't alienate the environmental parties.

But this is something Howard should have done years ago - instead of stashing $40 billion into the Pollies super slush fund for foreign investment.

Australia needs investment by Australians - and our rivers desperately some major joint funding from the Coalition and the ALP if we're going to last longer than 5 years.

Quote:

The damage done is not proportional to the surface area covered. Rivers contain a lot of life. The greatest losses of biodiversity are occurring in freshwater ecosystems, largely as a result of sucking rivers dry.

Which is precisely why it would be a good idea to divert water from north Queensland down into the Murrray/Darling to increase maintain its biodiverity. It's dying now.

On a more general level the rivers that empty into the Arafura Sea and the Pacific Ocean and the Carpentaria are very short. There really isn't much there. The advantages of diversion to both humans and wildlife in the interior are enormous.

Dams obstruct water flow only while they are filling up. After that the flow returns to normal. Australian flora and fauna are well adapted to seasonal water shortage and should be able to cope very well.


Quote:

Not as much as pumping water from the north to the south. Have you looked into the cost of these pipelines?

I have not costed them, but I'm sure they'd be a small fraction of the cost of say road maintainance in Sydney and Melbourne, or for that matter national credit card debt, or our dysfunctional education system.

There would be no trouble borrowing the necessary funds from the Superannuation Funds. They are always looking for 'nuts and bolts' projects to invest in as they are a lot more secure than the stock market. The problem has never been shortage of money so much as shortage of imagination and the jealousy of small minded State governments.


Quote:

Nice launguage, paints a rough picture.  But have you ever been there?  What kind of idiot says that? Huh

It is a rough place one of the driest and most inhospitable on earth. I have seen plenty of desert and semi-desert Australian bush and its no Lothlorien, not even a Franklin river. And there's a lot of it. The amount of land affected will be miniscule and for the most part temporary.


Quote:

I care for one.  Im sure you could probably find a 'few' more people who would want a wild part of our country to be protected from such damage.  The 'damage' would include a shift in the fauna of the area from its natural state.  Permanent water would change fish species, flora etc. Just because its not rainforest or coral reef doesnt mean the biodiversity it supports isnt important.  Regardless, nobody would do something that foolish.

The engineering projects broached here would not do extensive damage to any eco-system as a whole, and would open up new vistas for other richer eco-systems to develop. I have no objection to using nature and adapting it to our purposes, what I object to is abusing nature and laying the land waste.

Most of this has already been done by private enterprise. The environmental impact of all of the projects here mooted would be insignificant compared to dividing the land up into cattle properties and overstocking by a factor of between three and ten, as was the blithe and ignorant practice of past generations.

State-directed projects could have written into their charter that they would do everything in their power to preserve the environment.  

We need to keep a sense of proportion. The impact of a few dams is as nothing beside a coal powerplant, a steel mill or a chemical factory, yet we are willing to tolerated those in our midst, or at least not do without the benefits they bring.

And perhaps those who feel sorry for the wildlife (of whom I am definitely one) reflect on the carnage inflicted on them by our highway system every day of every year. Compared to this dams and pipelines are benign.


Quote:

How about this: we move everyone from the centre out to the coast, then divert all the rivers inland so that we have a big lake...   Hell we could probably get our population to double if we did that.

Your plan is most practicable and attractive. As and alternative we could use nuclear demolition charges to open up an inlet in Spencer's Gulf to let the sea in. Soon after we could use even stronger nuclear charges to knock a hole in the Owen-Stanley Range in PNG to give Australia greater access to the tropical monsoons.  That's the ticket.  ;) I'm glad your seeing things my way. Just kidding.

All ad hominem attacks and sarcasm aside Australia is a harsh and barren place and will need to be substantially modified if we are to thrive here in any numbers. We have already done this in a thoughtless, uncaring and destructive way. Lets continue in a thoughtful, caring and creative way.

None of the creatures in the Murray/Darling would object in the slightest to having more water in their river. None of the animals in WA would mind at all if water was piped to them from the Fitzroy. For one thing we would stop overusing the meagre amounts of water in the local rivers and allow them to flow even more freely.

I realize this is fairly heretical stuff but something along these lines will be necessary in the medium to long term future. Desal plants are very greenhouse-nasty and dump a lot of very, very salty water into the sea nearby to the detriment of the local marine creatures.

If you are prepared to accept that as the the price of living in Australia then I don't see what the problem is with collecting and diverting fresh water from the north to the south.

Unless we wish to pack our bags and return to Eurasia (and its a little late for that) we will have to do something substantial fairly soon.

MacSporan you really need to look into the cost of this. I guarantee you it would cost more and pollute more than other measures like recycling, reducing waste and even desalination. If a grand scheme like this did make sense our pollies would be drooling all over it.


Quote:

I have not costed them, but I'm sure they'd be a small fraction of the cost of say road maintainance in Sydney and Melbourne, or for that matter national credit card debt, or our dysfunctional education system.

I'm sure it costs less than going to the moon too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea.


Quote:

Which is precisely why it would be a good idea to divert water from north Queensland down into the Murrray/Darling to increase maintain its biodiverity. It's dying now.

That would just move the problem somewhere else. Plus it would introduce more feral species.


Quote:

After that the flow returns to normal.

No it doesn't. The whole point of a dam is to extract more water.


Quote:

It is a rough place one of the driest and most inhospitable on earth.

Yet this is where you want to take the water from? You do realise we have wet lush areas north of the deserts don't you?


Quote:

The engineering projects broached here would not do extensive damage to any eco-system as a whole, and would open up new vistas for other richer eco-systems to develop.

Richer by whose standards? We have never managed to make an ecosystem more diverse by interfering with it.


Quote:

The environmental impact of all of the projects here mooted would be insignificant compared to dividing the land up into cattle properties and overstocking by a factor of between three and ten, as was the blithe and ignorant practice of past generations.

Even if true that doesn't make it a good idea. Ditto the next two paragraphs.

Thanks for your interest.


Quote:

If a grand scheme like this did make sense our pollies would be drooling all over it.

Alas no. Most politicians are unimaginative, small-minded and concerned only with winning the next election. Most are probably unaware of the potential.


Quote:

Yet this is where you want to take the water from? You do realise we have wet lush areas north of the deserts don't you?

I don't intend to take so much water that we reduce northern Australia to a desert. That would be an abominable desecration. I just think it would be a good idea to harvest the some monsoon water that flows straight back out into the sea and send it south where it will be useful to man and beast.

Cheers!  

They don't have to think it up themselves. There are plenty of people willing to share their crazy ideas. Actually, a few premiers and PM's have suggested this sort of thing. They all got knocked back when reality (price) set in. Sorry I can't come up with names at the moment. I heard about it when I was a kid and was also enthralled with the idea.

Well I'm not longer a kid and I think it would be at least worth doing a serious feasibility study before we start poisoning the sea with desal or drinking our own sewerage.

It is certainly to my mind an attractive and inspiring idea.

One thing is for sure: we can't keep on going the way we have done.

The free market approach to land management and the environment has failed.

It's time for the State to take charge and the only one  competent to do so is the Federal government.

The most important thing to realize is that we can take control of our own destiny and make something of our own country in our own time.

We don't have to be a third rate copy of whatever great white power rules the northern hemisphere and follow them down the road to ruin.

Australia can be a unique and valuable civilisation and member of the world community in and of it's own right.

If we want to.

How does desal poison the sea?

I'd expect the feasibility studies have already been done.

The NSW government has invited companies to submit 'expressions of interest' in building a desalination plant.

SEQ to get referendum on recycled water: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1165390401

They are preparing to build a pipeline from Noosa to Brisbane: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Work-underway-on-Sunshine-Coast-pipeline/2007/01/08/1168104892943.html

Just got a rates bill in the mail and had a close look at it. Water is billed separately. It had gone down 25% - probably due to switching to greywater in the garden.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/gardening/water.html

This was a pretty good result, and the house is below average on all measures of water consumption. But it certainly wouldn't be justified on cost alone, as there are some expenses and you have to move the hose every day. At $1 per kilolitre (1000 litres, or a 1m cube), the cost for the 88 day period was less than a carton of beer, and less than the cost of the water connection. It was only a small fraction of the total rates bill. To me this is sending a mixed message. On the one hand, the council is saying there is a drought and a big water shortage. On the other hand they are still giving the water away for almost nothing. A 25% reduction is not going to solve the drought, it will just buy us a bit more time, which may or may not get us through. What we should have is a variable rate on the cost of water, so they can increase it when there is a drought. Our rivers, estuaries and waterways should not always be at the bottom of the pile when it comes to sharing out water.

I can't believe the QLD government is doing this right now - trying to suck even more water out of the Murray to grow cotton.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Canberra-worried-about-Qld-water-sale/2007/01/10/1168105022601.html

The federal government has ordered an investigation into a Queensland plan to siphon huge volumes of water from the parched Murray-Darling system for agriculture.

The Queensland government wants to sell eight billion litres of water a year from the Warrego River catchment, a tributary of the Darling, beginning with two auctions in March.

The water would be used to irrigate farmlands including cotton and cattle properties.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Recycled-water-for-40000-Vic-houses/2007/01/15/1168709656925.html

More than 40,000 new houses in Melbourne's outer south-east will be connected to Victoria's first mandatory water recycling scheme, state Water Minister John Thwaites says.

Under changes to planning laws, water authorities must fit a "dual pipe" system to all new houses to supply class-A non-drinking water for toilet-flushing and outdoor use.

This would cut by a third the amount of drinking-quality water used in each home, Mr Thwaites said.

Purple taps, pipes, hoses and meters will be used to supply recycled water to houses.

So how much is this going to cost, and will the end users be charged for it? Are they actually going to build green power plants, or are they just going to divert green power from elsewhere and blame other electricity users for any new coal fired plants that are built. Talk about spin! They are going to increase our electricity consumption, not build more wind farms to compensate, then claim it is green powered.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Desalination-not-a-climate-gamble-govt/2007/01/19/1169095942804.html

NSW Water Utilities Minister David Campbell has reiterated the government's promise that the Kurnell plant would be fully green-powered.

Mr Campbell denied the decision, which rests on the prospect of rain next week, was an arbitrary gamble of more than one billion dollars.

"Government's made it clear that the desalination plant is the insurance policy, it's the last resort," Mr Campbell told ABC Radio.

"In the interim there's been a great deal of investment by the government and others in recycling infrastructure, in stormwater harvesting, government encouraged rebates for stormwater, the rainwater tanks and water-efficient washing machines.

A Sydney Water report into the 500 megalitre plant suggests it would require almost one million megawatt hours - the equivalent of all remaining green power currently available in Australia.

Looks like they are NOT going to build new green power plants to run it:

"The advice that I have is that there is absolute capacity in the system to have green power to run the desalination plant, should it be built," he said.

The NSW Greens have called for the reintroduction of level four water restrictions in place of the desalination plant.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/NSW-to-go-ahead-with-desalination-plant/2007/01/18/1169095917031.html

The controversial desalination plant proposed for Sydney's south to combat record low dam levels may go ahead before the March state elections, the NSW government says.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Water-bureaucracy-too-complicated-Rudd/2007/01/22/1169330803799.html

Australia needs a unified body to streamline water programs, says Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

He says the current water bureaucracy is the most complicated in the western world.

Mr Rudd said states and territories are dealing with five separate agencies when applying for funding for water projects.

I live in the Northwest of WA.We had a metre of rain here last year mostly in the first 3 months.All the dams here are full but the rest of the state is suffering.The sweeping rains in the south have eased the situation for a while but is an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed.The pollies say that a trench or pipeline is unviable and desalination is the way to go.I think that is crap as desalination uses energy and has an effect on the ozone layer whereas tidal surges should be enough to power the pumps that push that water through a pipeline,if not help out with solar power.There are so many options available but the pollies need to make their masters happy and use every money draining practice before retirering with fat super payouts. >:(

It wouldn't surprise me if desal used less energy than pumping water that far. Of course, there are probably a lot of cheaper options that desal.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/companies-to-have-no-say-on-water-price/2007/01/31/1169919398774.html

Private companies will profit from running Queensland's major water infrastructure but will have no say in water pricing, the government says.

Deputy Premier and Infrastructure Minister Anna Bligh said private companies with expertise in operating water infrastructure would be contracted to provide the "most cost effective" solution for taxpayers.

But all infrastructure would remain the property of the government, which would have full control of it and water pricing, she said.

"I would think that most people would understand that there are some things the private sector does better than the public," Ms Bligh said.

"If they can have a profit margin with a more efficient operation, I don't think that's going to surprise anybody."

She said water prices would rise but this was because of outlays for new infrastructure, not because of private contracts.

Ms Bligh said the Queensland Water Commission was investigating water pricing and would report to the government in February. Details would be released in the June budget.

Sewerage Water... what's the big deal? http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171638533

SEQ to get referendum on recycled water  http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1165390401


Cathryn O'Sullivan
Environmental Engineering
University of Queensland

Environmental Engineering will running the Sustainability Seminar
Series again this semester. The first presentation will be on the 27th
Fed at 1pm. Details are below. Please forward this notice to anyone
who may be interested. All are welcome.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SUSTAINABILITY SEMINAR SERIES

Speaker: Prof Jurg Keller.
Director Advanced Wastewater Management Centre, and Professor Chemical
Engineering UQ

Title: Water recycling and Sustainability: Do they really mix?

SE Queensland is currently building one of the largest water recycling
systems worldwide, including indirect potable reuse. But how
sustainable is this solution to the water crisis? Is there really a
water crisis at all?

These and other questions will be addressed in this seminar, and
everyone is invited to raise their questions during or after the
seminar.

Chemical Engineering Seminar Room (Building 74 Room 206)
Tuesday 27th February 1pm.


Future Speakers in the Series:

Dr Joe da Costa, Chemical Engineering UQ.
Title: "Inorganic Membranes for Clean Energy Delivery"
Date: Tuesday 20th March, 1pm.

Prof Chris Moran, Mining and Minerals Processing Engineering UQ.
Title: "Why be sustainable if the world is about to end?"
Date: To be advised

Prof Ling Li, Environmental Engineering UQ.
Title:  "Engineering and environmental problems in China today"
Date: Tuesday 22nd May, 1pm.

Queries:
Cathryn O'Sullivan
cathryno@cheque.uq.edu.au

I see 2 separate issues:
1) is this current drought natural as compared to history - and have we done something that may have caused it  - and could we do something constructive to alleviate it?
2) will handing water to the federal gov do anything but re-allocate existing supplies? This is not a market in the economic sense - water cannot be taken from QLD and sold into Sydney.

On point 1, I have noticed in flying from Sydney to Perth just what a desert NSW has become. The desert in SA has more trees than NSW it would seem. Have we broken the precipitation cycle by poor farming practices? Perhaps we need to take a long term outlook and turn these areas back into bush - or forestry of some sort. The pollies are all for big-budget grand solutions - what about a big budget set of very small solutions that would create a long-term resource?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-water-bores-banned-in-southern-Qld/2007/05/10/1178390441315.html

The Queensland government has banned new water bores in parts of the state's drought-hit south.

Queensland Water Minister Craig Wallace said the ban, which takes effect immediately, was needed to help protect underground aquifers which are under stress in the Toowoomba area and Brisbane's south and west.

How do they know when bores are under stress?  From what I gather in NSW they just drain them until they are empty - never mind the potential collateral damage to  property or the old established trees that die.  

Our council is going to start draining our borewater this month - and they are requesting inspections of houses to see what sort of damage it is causing - shifting foundations etc.  

Once an aquafer is drained - there is no guarantee that they will refill at any particular time - if ever.  When the last bore is drained and Australia's east coast becomes a desert, what will we do for water if the drought continues?

According to this site, desalination costs $0.8 to $2.1 /kL (wholesale) for 'brackish water'. Desalinating seawater costs 3 to 5 times that much. Then you have to add on distribution and disposal costs.

http://www.crcsalinity.com.au/newsletter/SeaNews/dpap0102.htm

For comparison, I think I am paying $1/kL 'retail'. Note that there are still farms using water that would otherwise be available to cities now considering desalination. So effectively you would be using one of the most expensive options available then tipping the water onto the ground.

Suppose the price of water suddenly went up by a factor of 5 or 10 (a lot more for farmers I think). Would we still need new plants?

---

In response to Sylvia Else on OLO:

If water were to be priced at its marginal cost, that being the cost of desalination, then the water companies (which are proxies for governments) would be receiving incomes far in excess of their costs. The consumers would quite rightly take exception to that.

I wouldn't. I think it is a good idea. It is a good way to raise revenue. Charging anything less is irrational. I personally think they should charge more so that they can retore some more natural flows to rivers. Matching the price to marginal cost or marginal value is not just an 'abstract' outcome of a theoretical free market. It is a rational choice for an provider or consumer considering their only the price and their own interests. Like I said, would you produce something for $2 and sell it for 1$? Should we expect the government to do something equally stupid?

The correct approach to pricing in such a situation is to determine a price that allows supply (rising with price), to match demand (reducing with price) without artificial constraints on consumption, such as water usage restrictions.

The only sensible way to do this is to match marginal cost to price. It does give you a price that allows supply to match demand.

---

In other words, it's actually too expensive to run all the time, but even more expensive to turn off, so they'll just ahve it running slowly. The cost - an extra $2 per week, corresponds to two tonnes (2 cubic meters) of water per week. The house I am in currently pays about $2 per week in total. That's a pretty expensive insurance policy.

Desalination plant 'an insurance policy'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Desalination-plant-an-insurance-policy/2007/09/17/1189881384673.html

The $50 million Sydney consumers will pay every year for the city's proposed desalination plant is not dissimilar to an insurance policy, Water Utilities Minister Nathan Rees says.

Details of the operating contract of the plant, which the state government made public on Sunday, reveal "fixed costs" will be levied on Sydney Water by the plant's operator, Blue Water Consortium, regardless of whether the water was needed.

"Now the engineering advice to us at this stage is that the plan would be to have the plant operating, we'll turn it on all the time, operating at different levels of intensity according to requirements."

The plant had to be kept ticking over because the membranes that removed the salt deteriorated more rapidly if there was a turn on, turn off regime, Mr Rees said.

Mr Rees has said the details of the payments were commercial in confidence, but he confirmed that Sydneysiders would pay an extra $2 a week for their water.

---

Surely water should cost more here. In what way does allowing other users to purchase water 'distort' the market? Trying to stop them from doing so would distort the market.

Murray Valley growers to sue over water

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Murray-Valley-growers-to-sue-over-water/2007/09/18/1189881496453.html

Murray Valley farmers have voted to mount a class action against the federal and state governments for failing to provide them with enough water.

But Victorian premier John Brumby says they do not have a strong case.

The case is expected to centre on an alleged mismanagement of irrigation water by federal and state governments.

Mr Cirillo said a large part of the problem was the water market system and the ability of non-growers to trade in it, thereby distorting it.

"Water's reached an unsustainable level, to buy it at $1,000 a megalitre," Mr Cirillo said.