Thread: WHEN THE RIVERS RUN DRY.....

The problem with diversion of coastal rivers to run inland is they would screw up the coastal rivers and environment, but have dubious benefits inland.

The rivers in Australia only run intermittently and any sort of diversion or storage upstream will eventually destroy the wetlands and the estuarine environments via low water flows or pollution from irrigation.
Leave our rivers alone and use other alternative energies.
The water management on the Murray is a bloody joke, So not a good idea to bugger up our other river systems.

For the last hundred and fifty years these schemes have appeared every few years, usually when, as at present there is a drought. They almost always are created by city based dreamers, equipped with small scale maps.

There are several serious problems with any such scheme.

1. Probably kills most of them right off - cost. Moving water across the divide involves either long distance tunnelling or long distance pumping. Both are incredibly expensive ways to move water in large quantities. Worth noting that the Snowy scheme makes use of the highest and steepest spot along the dividing range, leading to short tunnels, and gradients sufficient for realistic hydropower, as well as the ability to build relatively cheap storage dams.

2. Loss of water due to evaporation. Nearly all the inland rivers have very low gradients, so water moves slowly. This together with relatively high temperatures, leads to high evaporation losses. Cuts into the economics of the whole scheme.

3. Environmental effects. The Snowy scheme has been forced to return substantial amounts of water back to the coast - and if it were being designed today, would have to return a lot more, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

I know of 1 plan, bought up from time to time, to turn the Gulf Rivers inland or across the Range.
Also some plans to dam them? This 1 amuses me, it's kind of flat around here.

Now, at the moment an awful lot of nice fresh water is flowing out these rivers into the Gulf & to stand on the banks of the Nicholson & watch it you do think what a waste.

But, if these rivers didn't do this there would be less prawns, less Barra, our water table would drop & who knows what would happen to the Great Artesian Basin?

We have stuffed up enough I think.

SWMBO reckons every new or renovated house (no matter where it is) should have to have a rain water tank. The bigger the house or more bedrooms then the bigger the tank.

Sounds like a better idea than trying to turn rivers around.

Jonesfam

Originally Posted by jonesfam

I know of 1 plan, bought up from time to time, to turn the Gulf Rivers inland or across the Range.
Also some plans to dam them? This 1 amuses me, it's kind of flat around here.

Now, at the moment an awful lot of nice fresh water is flowing out these rivers into the Gulf & to stand on the banks of the Nicholson & watch it you do think what a waste.

But, if these rivers didn't do this there would be less prawns, less Barra, our water table would drop & who knows what would happen to the Great Artesian Basin?

We have stuffed up enough I think.

SWMBO reckons every new or renovated house (no matter where it is) should have to have a rain water tank. The bigger the house or more bedrooms then the bigger the tank.

Sounds like a better idea than trying to turn rivers around.

Jonesfam

The maps would have to be redrawn. We would have an island up and down, Tassie to the south and Doner Island north.

Exactly. The Gulf rivers carry a lot of water, but diverting that south would involve vast earthworks or tunnels running hundreds of kilometres or huge pumps and hundreds of kilometres of large diameter pipes.

And you raise another point. The upper reaches of the inland rivers lose a lot of water through their bed. Guess where this goes. Right! Into the artesian basin aquifers, and we really don't want to mess with that, although I seem to remember some schemes to pump water from coastal rivers to injection wells into these aquifers. Again, once you start to work numbers, the costs get ridiculous.

But the benefits outweigh costs long term.

SWMBO reckons every new or renovated house (no matter where it is) should have to have a rain water tank. The bigger the house or more bedrooms then the bigger the tank.

Doesn't that happen in other states?

It is certainly the law in NSW.
Not bigger for bigger but a minimum of AFAIR 5000Litres with a ball valve to maintain the level from town water if it gets low.
many houses run the toilets from the tank although I don't think it is law.
Regards Philip A