Dams won’t solve the problems of flooding

Dildo Faggins says:

06:51am | 07/01/11

Dams are good, Greenies are bad. There ban should be on more Greenies and culling of existing ones as they are rapacious pests.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:29am | 07/01/11

Very well said indeed , Grow up .  What we are reading here highlights the stupidity of a vote for the Greens . This mentality within our legislative processes is frightening .

The article amounts to a Green attack on the Coalition and in no way adds constructively to the debate on conserving our most precious asset.

Of course we need more dams , correctly sited , environmentally sound and subject to flood mitigation studies. This country can no longer afford to have the Green shackles attatched to our legislative processes.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:57am | 07/01/11

And to say that the idea of dams can be ‘‘shot down on economic grounds’’ whilst we build desalination plants is one-eyed in the extreme. Desalination plants pollute, damage eco-systems and produce water at approximately the same cost per litre as scotch, whilst using enough coal-fired electricity to light up a medium sized city. 
 
Dams store FREE water, for use when we need it. Dams require minimal maintenance in comparison to desalination plants. Dam construction creates jobs for Australians and keeps taxpayers’ money in Australia (The Spanish built our last two desalination plants, I believe, certainly the one in SA). 
 
All politicians are liars, but the Greens raise the art to new levels.

Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

10:26am | 07/01/11

Author fails to recognise the fine line between an environmentally worthwhile wetland and a mosquito infested low value environmental swamp…Like farmers making water cuts so do the environmentalists..it’s called environomics

Nigel says:

01:05pm | 07/01/11

In addition to the above comments, we should also remember Dams provide a great GREEN and Renewable source for Base Load power. Conversely the Desalination plants use Power (coal fired) and pollute the localised coast.
The issue isn’t flood prevention. The issue is harvesting one of our most valuable resources, Water.

Which option do you prefer Ruchira?

Jane says:

01:40pm | 07/01/11

Tony of poorakistan - absolutely SPOT ON.

The addiction of Labor to Greens preferences and therefore their ridiculous ‘no new dams’ policies over the last decade has been utter MADNESS.
Labor have had a decade at least to prepare for when it DID rain…and did nothing other than pray for rain then steal water from elsewhere with ‘pipes’ and finally panic and over-react with massive $ desal plants.

They justified their incompetent inaction and later desal overkill with ‘climate change’ as the convenient scapegoat. They brainwashed the masses that it would never rain again. How completely WRONG they were.

Labor has been an EPIC FAIL where water and it’s management has been concerned….and this clueless author as an enabler is just as guilty for peddling the propaganda that resulted in such failure.

Don says:

02:05pm | 07/01/11

the Nationals were one half of a governing coalition for a decade. Since the 1920’s the Country party / Nationals have been the voice of primary producers in parliament, primary producers being the people most affected by flood and drought. Why havent people like Barnaby Joyce and his predecessors done something about water management yet?. Why wait till you are in oppositoin to start whinging?

Jane says:

02:57pm | 07/01/11

Hey Don - they have when needed….but Green preferenced LABOR have been in charge for the last decade at STATE level that has been responsible ..beholden to those Green ‘no new dam’ policies ( and other looney tunes stuff as well) The water problems culminating over that decade have been exascerbated and unprecedented because of the ‘halt’ of any action for over that decade as needed.

Labor States spent the decade praying for rain and DOING NOTHING when new dams would have helped when there WAS rain….and there HAS been rain. Gippsland Victoria flooded 4 times in 18months while Victoria was in ‘drought’. Several other ‘floodings’ occured over that period ....all ran away wasted.

The States should have made preparation for when it WOULD rain..they had 10 years to do so…but they were too busy convincing (brainwashing) us with AGW propaganda that it wouldn’t rain again to justify their own inaction and incompetence…..and then when it became too late and the masses demanded solutions…pretended that they were the puffed up true saviours with expensive, extravagent and uneccessary desals.

How smart is that. Let’s let it all run away out to sea..then re-capture it, spend a motza in $ taking out the salt that has now polluted it ( never mind the c02 involved or ongoing costs and pollution) and then bring it back. Madness…<read total incompetence>

Ruchira says:

02:59pm | 07/01/11

Dear reader,

My main point of concern in the story was about proposing dams as a possible solution to the Murray-Darling crisis while using the floods as a discussion starter.

Its interesting you raise the point about cities dying of thirst while turtles have plenty of water. Clearly, in our collective memory, that has not been the case ever, at-least in Australia. For which we are all very thankful.

Floods are a once in two decades phenomenon in Australia; the costs associated with building a series of dams during a brief wet spell cannot be justified.

Our rainfall is expected to change, and so too will our attitudes and actions towards rivers. eg. Most Victorians live in the region including Geelong, Ballarat, Melbourne and the Latrobe Valley. The CSIRO estimates that in this region rainfall may be reduced and evaporation increased, leading to a drop in river flows of between 7 per cent and 64 per cent over the next 50 years.

Building more dams would be a 20th-century response to 21st-century problems. We need solutions that restore rivers system, create wealth from conservation and stimulate innovation.

Look at the United States where the cycle of building dams and then abandoning them has already been visited at great costs to the environment which sustains the economy, not to mention tax payers money.

Regards
Ruchira

June Bug says:

03:57pm | 07/01/11

Jane

You are wrong!  In WA it was the Labor Government who instigated the first and second delsalination plants.  Desalination may only be part of any future water supply but they did it.

Damnthematrix says:

04:53pm | 07/01/11

Australia is one of the worst places in the world for dams.  it’s too flat.  And it’s so hot, often the evaporation rate is greater than the rainfall.  In a previous life, I worked as a trainee engineer on dams in QLD.  They are all relatively shallow, and dry up quite quickly in the event of even a small drought.  Especially now we have a huge population sucking on the teat for ever more water.

What’s more, ALL the best dam sites have already been used up.  All we have left now are the dregs, like the Travesty Dam.  What a dumb idea that was….  rejected way back in 1970 as a useless site, and nothing changed over the ensuing forty years.

Fact of the matter is, we are fast approaching Limits to Growth.  Capitalism is running out of money, oil, coal, and water.  I firmly believe growth is finished, this is as good as it gets.  Instead of dams, we need visionary planning, and we need to get a whole lot smarter about the way we do everything, not least using water.  Time to chuck out old thinking.

Jane says:

05:18pm | 07/01/11

Hey June..Hullo??? .that’s my whole point - it was LABOR that instigated/resorted to costly desal plants…in Vic, Qld and NSW too -because they did nothing else!!!...slaves to Greens ‘no new dams’ policies.

Bernard says:

06:58pm | 07/01/11

Humans are a disease…. like a cancer or fleas on a dog that eventually make their host anemic and kill it….  the whole planet should have a 1 child policy…  then there would not be such a huge strain on the planet and on such limited water resources….

Gregg says:

08:30pm | 07/01/11

Dear Ruchira,
I’m even more flabbergasted than with your article for with
” Our rainfall is expected to change, and so too will our attitudes and actions towards rivers. eg. Most Victorians live in the region including Geelong, Ballarat, Melbourne and the Latrobe Valley. The CSIRO estimates that in this region rainfall may be reduced and evaporation increased, leading to a drop in river flows of between 7 per cent and 64 per cent over the next 50 years. “
It is not so much that you are putting so much faith in what may be expected for the future by some as may be predicted by the CSIRO or any other organisation you may care to name nor that you want to talk about just Victorians but if flows are to drop we need to do whatever is needed to maximise our natural water capture as well as managing use.
The greater Melbourne region btw gets most of its water from other than the Murray, there already being an extensive water reservoir network to the east of Melbourne into Gippsland and a visit to the dam areas will have you seeing that the environment is hardly looking poorly done by.
Getting back to the Murray and its headwaters, even without whatever the global warmist/climate change theorists believe what is in store for us in the next century, I would think we would be far better off looking at the next ten centuries and beyond and if we just look back at the past century with little records to predate that, we will find that our rainfall in Australia has been sporadically cyclical with many drought periods and also times of more abundant rains.
About the end of WW2 Australia had a population of somewhere around 5M and do you think we would be providing drinking, agricultural and industry water without all the storages of the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electricity Scheme, the Hume Dam, the Thompson , the Dartmouth, Warragamba and the numerous dams dotted around coastal hinterlands from Victoria up into Queensland.
It is only just on two years gone that we had the 45C+ temps of when we had the disastrous Victorian bushfires, a few weeks later people in the region experienced near freeezing temperatures overnight and just recently we had summer snowfalls in the SE high country.
Yes, our weather has always been sporadic and it will likely continue to be so and that is all the more reason to make sure we have capacity to store as much water as possible for the times when it is pouring.
There is nothing just twentieth century about that and what Dams is the US abandoning btw.
I do know that a couple of desalination plants were put into mothballs because of the running costs.
Re :” My main point of concern in the story was about proposing dams as a possible solution to the Murray-Darling crisis while using the floods as a discussion starter. ” and that could be considered rather limp wristed for why not use the Queensland flooding as discussion starter for have you heard of the twoofer or whatever proverb you care for in knocking off two of something at once?
The inland Queensland plains are vast and very flat but there are answers to help with flooding of major centres, the housing and crops, too much water causing massive destruction of food for us as well as the livlihoods of many farmers.
The rivers of eastern inland Queenland also feed through to the Darling river and thus the Murray and a bit of thinking might even be able to see some channelling further south to pick up the Murrumbidgee and thus feed the Murray further upstream, all healthy for the rivers and us too because the farmers will have more regulated water supplies with which to grow food for feeding us.
” Floods are a once in two decades phenomenon in Australia; the costs associated with building a series of dams during a brief wet spell cannot be justified. “
I’m not too sure on where you get that once in two decades information from for there will have been more than five major flood events in the past century and if we use your approach we would never have any greater storages and so what do we do with an increasing population and less predictable rainfall??????

.

acotrel says:

07:11pm | 08/01/11

If Ttony Abbott supports it, I must oppose and obstruct it!  Sadly I think he might be right on this one - makes a big change! Let’s form a committee and pay lots of academics to do a study? I’d start by studying the Diamantina!  How much would the job pay?

Freeman says:

08:34am | 07/01/11

You won’t get any solution from the greens or their like minded cousins in their idealistic associations, just excuses why we should do nothing and criticism of the Libs.
It’s dissapointing that such groups will so willingly use to lies in their bid to con the public. I’ve lttle doubt that the author would oppose any solution put forward by the opposition.

Eye roller says:

10:42am | 07/01/11

I’ll help you out here Ruchira, I’m surprised your extensive education has not included the word:
MITIGATE;
v.tr.
To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate. See Synonyms at relieve.
v.intr.
To become milder.

Happy to help in your quest for education! No payment necessary.

Howard Jones says:

02:22pm | 07/01/11

Reply to Don,the Country Party have been going downhill since Blackjack McEwan.But the constituents can’t see that.That says a lot!!

Steve Putnam says:

07:29pm | 08/01/11

Then why was the idiot senator named using the floods as a photo opportunity? Where would he build these wonderful flood mitigating dams of his? And why during the nearly 12 years his party was in power did they not address problem if so much could be achieved instead (for instance) of building a useless rail link between Adelaide and Darwin?

Justy says:

08:44am | 07/01/11

They don’t…..Greenies will make up all sorts of nonsense to tell you why,Yellow green frogs,wombats etc will all be eliminated if we build dams.Its about time we stopped listening to these power hungry dictators and get rid of the green machine.

RT says:

08:56am | 07/01/11

Good question. The only thing I can see would be the use of carbon fuels to filter and pump the water from the dam to the consumer. A fairly minor consideration in the scheme of things. I guess there would be greenhouse outputs in the construction phase, too.

DanieL says:

09:53am | 07/01/11

That’s what I thought RT. It just doesn’t stack up as a valid consideration. I thought I must be missing something. Perhaps Ruchira could expand or validate her claim. She must be reading this.

Ruchira?

Roja says:

02:24pm | 07/01/11

The amount of power required to provide tap water globally is 2-3% of the total power the world consumes.  Which is quite a lot really.  Far more than most people expect, but water pressure doesn’t come from gravity - it comes from power hungry turbines. 

As for dams being a solution to mitigating floods - is the suggestion that these dams are to be kept entirely empty in case of a flood?  If not the mitigation factor would be practically useless.  The times you would need to deal with flood waters would be the times when it near to capacity and would need to release the water.  Don’t know if you noticed, there are dams in place that haven’t mitigated anything.

Sounds to me like like half arsed ill-informed allegations up against a water conservationist with a great deal of education in the area.  I’ll take the tertiary qualifications over the arm chair experts thanks.

Rob says:

02:49pm | 07/01/11

Roja I hate to burst your bubble but most drinking water is indeed gravity fed otherwise the main water lines would constantly pressurise and blow when too many taps were turned off.    I see your point when it comes to dams not always being able to be filled from flood water but in the constant drought/flood cycle we have they could take some of the pressure off and i still haven’t heard a valid argument against dams for storage during drought times.  Armchair expert i may be but I do work in Water Treatment and have some idea about catchments and civil flows etc.
To those worried about turtles and frogs it may be news to you but they can swim and predominately live in water, so would thrive in a dam if i’m not mistaken??

CarolineM says:

03:27pm | 07/01/11

Through the rotting of drowned vegetation.

Roja says:

03:37pm | 07/01/11

Fair enough Bob, will accept your point.  Still living in Adelaide we need to get the water from the Murray to the city - that only happens thanks to a hell of a lot of power being used to pump it here.  As for the gravity fed aspect, the end user may be gravity fed but the water needs to be processed and pumped into place which still requires power in very large quantities for large populations.  Where these dams would be built would in no way be close to where it is needed, so likewise they would not be that environmentally friendly.

Still my main issue here is that everyone is jumping on the “the dams aren’t for flood prevention” line - in which case I wonder why was Barnaby standing in front of his flood ravaged town extolling that exact fact.  He is hardly talking about ensuring long term water supplies when his town is half under water.  He has every right to be emotional all things considered, but our decision as a nation should be made calmly and rationally.

Tripper Smurf says:

09:24pm | 08/01/11

Another reason why they should just close down the hole that is known as Adelaide…. its environmentally unsound!

TimB says:

07:02am | 07/01/11

No no no.

Everytime Flannery predicts something moronic like that we end up with floods. It’s kinda like an Aussie version of the Gore effect.

Perhaps he should actually predict floods. Then we’ll see what happens.

ime says:

11:47am | 07/01/11

its okay biff on a recent interview with the ABC science programme flim flannery beleives the god gaia will rise from the earth in the next 100 years and right all our enviromental wrongs.! enough said

Bobster says:

01:40pm | 07/01/11

ime, you lot have an amazing ability to miss the point.

There is absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, that the planet is very capable of absorbing all we have to throw at it. I don’t think you’ll find too many scientists who’ll disagree with that.

To quote the late, great, George Carlin; “The planet isn’t going anywhere, we are.”

So they planet will be fine, nature will right itself and all will be well. Humans, however, may struggle for a little while coming to terms with that new paradigm.

Then you and TimB can tell us all how you were right all along and point to the continued existence of a blue rock somewhere near the sun as proof.

Of course, it won’t matter than the population has reduced by several billion as they probably had it coming anyway.

TimB says:

02:47pm | 07/01/11

Bobster, seems that you’re the one that misses the point.

If you think that Flannery’s claim that Australia should have been out of water by now due to global warming doesn’t deserve the ridicule it’s getting, there’s something wrong with your ability to understand logic.

Flannery has been proven to be a serial alarmist. He was wrong. We were right. And we’re all still here to laugh at his stupidity.

Bobster says:

04:01pm | 07/01/11

All is well in the world then. Do away with fuel-efficiency, clear-fell the Amazon and continue boiling the ocean. Tim Flannery exaggerated, so clearly your point is proven.

Semantic arguments don’t validate facts, TimB, but don’t let that stop you.

TimB says:

04:59pm | 07/01/11

He didn’t just exaggerate Bobster. He was flat out wrong. So were the guys who predicted that snow would be rare in Europe & NA right before two consecutive years of winter blizzards.
More to the point, the models that all your global warming predictions are based off, cant even predict the past based on known data. They’re clearly flawed.

I’m not saying go on an anti-eviromental rampage like your snide comment seems to suggest. I’m saying don’t go into a blind panic and spend billions of dollars on a problem that only exists in the minds of a group of “the end is nigh!” quacks and a flawed set of predictions.

But I digress. The point of this paticular corner of the thread was that Flannery is a clueless idiot with no credibility, in relation to a specfic prediction he made, disproven by these floods.

You want to go round on AGW, we’ll do it another time, but don’t you come in and tell us we “missed the point” when we wern’t even talking about AGW.

Bobster says:

10:20am | 08/01/11

I’m familiar with your argument TimB and as usual it’s pointless, flacid semantics.

You’ve built so many straw men over this issue I’m surprised you haven’t attracted a fine from the RFS. It;s dangerous to leave that much flammable material laying around at this time of year.

Steve Putnam says:

07:12pm | 08/01/11

So you are going to follow Joyce’s line and show yourself to be a double fool?

Wanna see it in context says:

10:47am | 09/01/11

Tim
Where is the reference to the specfic prediction Flannery the “clueless idiot with “no credibility” made?
.

Gregg says:

09:49am | 08/01/11

And what of 2051 and 2111 Bobby!!!!! and beyond of course!

rufus says:

08:00am | 07/01/11

Joyce’s plan would to build more dams would lead to more over-extraction and damage to the lower reaches of rivers.

TimB says:

08:56am | 07/01/11

@ Rufus- You do realise dams can release water into the lower reaches when needed right?

Of course if there’s a drought and there are no dams then there will be no water to release .

rufus says:

09:47am | 07/01/11

Yes TimB, of course, drought or flood, it’s always that simple and absolute.

TimB says:

10:14am | 07/01/11

Rufus, I have no idea what you’re trying to say, or what point you’re trying to make.

Dams help give control over waterflows in times of flood and drought *and* everything in between.

No Dams= no control whatsoever and we’re at the mercy of the weather at all times.

Bob says:

10:50am | 07/01/11

@TimB - I have no problems with dams….I do have a problem with “control over water flows”. As a South Australian I have seen Queensland, NSW and Victoria hoarding water during the recent drought which has seen the Murray flowing back on itself at its mouth - not even reaching the sea. Therre would have to be some serious negations to ensure the dams were not seen as “our water” by the States in which they are situated, leaving the river to continue to fight for it’s survival as in the past.

rufus says:

11:14am | 07/01/11

Thanks, Bob, another way of putting my original point, which TimB is now trying to be disingenuous about.

Bobster says:

12:00pm | 07/01/11

Dams really are a fantastic cure all.

Well they would be, if it wasn’t for that pesky seepage and evaporation that has a horrible habit of rendering them useless during droughts.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

The Observer says:

12:24pm | 07/01/11

Right on Bob
The issue is always going to be upstream .
Sideshow Barnaby is only doing what he was elected to do, represent the people of East BumFork Qld. He doesn’t give a toss about anybody downstream or the rest of Australia for that matter. He only cares about the clearfelling “farmers”, same as sideshow Katter.

As an aside, do you know that the Israelis control all the water that flows to Palestine? The conflict there is as much about water as it is about land.

TimB says:

01:20pm | 07/01/11

Bob that’s a good point, and it stand to reason that it should be made sure that the upriver states can’t play games like that. I’m assuming that’s what the MDBA is all about.
Despite my complete lack of faith in the competency of the current Federal Government, I agree that any dams should be controlled at a federal level to prevent state vs state bickering.

PS. Rufus, the “point” you tried to make didn’t resemble what Bob said at all. It’s hard to be disingenious about a point that was never made. Learn to communicate better.

Gregg says:

01:44pm | 07/01/11

@ Bob,
As for the water flowing back on itself, there’s a report in government archives recording the very first boating down the Murray explorers [ another boatie you could say ] findings about 1840 or thereabouts and even then without dams, weirs, irrigation and a much more massive population being watered and fed the first pleasant outlook on sighting a fine body of water at the river mouth was that the water was sweet to palate.
That latter tasting did not linger longa though as the next morning his taste buds were recording something more salty and brackish.

That was not because they had sailed out into the western entrance to Bass Straight but simply because plenty of seawater was in Lake Alexandrina and had always no doubt been there.
In the wisdom of the 1930s, not that they were necessarily related with Cane Toad importer supporters of the same era, bless their hearts not one little bit, the Goolwa Barrages as they are known were constructed - http://www.murrayriver.com.au/river-towns/barrages/ more worthy for their day than the toads will ever be but as a well known Senator of his time once said of a fair alliance ” it seemed a good idea at the time “

The explosion in population and agriculture within Australia post WW2 was probably not too much to the fore of their thinking as was hoping to stop the salination of the Murray fresh water that ran freely enough when there was not drought conditions prevailing.

For sure, there needs to be acknowledgement of the ammount of water needed to adequately service the lower reaches of the Murray and there are claims for water useage in the region to be highly efficient, something that should be strived for everywhere.
Part of the efficiency needs to be recognising that just as in recent times, Dorothea Mackellar is not far off the mark in having penned a very apt description of Australia the driest continent.
There are always going to be limitation with dam building on plains country, the evaporation losses enormous throughout summer but it probably just means we need to be a bit smarter and whereas the Snowy Mountains have had valleys to dam, perhaps the valleys have to be created by forming massive open cut style holes as part of or adjacent to river beds that are often dry, syphoning and windmills able to replenish rivers in lower rainfall times and all may benefit.

And No Rufus, you were just digging another kind of hole for yourself!

RT says:

08:04am | 07/01/11

scaper, reporting again from there-are-no-environmental-concerns-whatsoever fantasyland.

scaper... says:

08:18am | 07/01/11

Can you elaborate on your vacant comment, RT? I’ll understand if you can’t.

RT says:

08:53am | 07/01/11

I think the comment stands up pretty well without elaboration, scaper. I like to be succinct.

scaper... says:

09:35am | 07/01/11

Ok then, your succinctness still looks like vacancy to me.

Can you then provide me with evidence that any dam built in Australia has caused serious environmental damage?

Oh, for your information, I was prominent in the prevention of the Traveston Dam. Not because of environmental concerns that could have been overcome but because of dam wall engineering and the water holding integrity of a saucer dam on an alluvial floodplain.

RT says:

09:51am | 07/01/11

The evidence is out there, scaper, and you can look for yourself. Unless of course you don’t want to, then I’ll understand. Like I said, I like to be succinct. But does the term ‘fish ladders’ mean anything to you?

scaper... says:

10:37am | 07/01/11

Why should I play your silly game when you can neither answer one question or produce any evidence to back up your vacant position?

Music time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHhB9zV_rQ

RT says:

11:12am | 07/01/11

You don’t have to play any silly games, scaper, but that doesn’t seem to stop you doing so on some blog somewhere and often. Just as long as you don’t think you’re fooling anyone.

scaper... says:

11:32am | 07/01/11

Ah, a sock puppet as I suspected. No time for such odious creatures. See ya!

Bobster says:

12:07pm | 07/01/11

“This is all about the lower lakes that have been re-engineered from estuarine to fresh and if the barriers were knocked down the health of the lower lakes would be restored but the refusal, especially of the Greens shows their rank hypocrisy!”

What’s worse, rank hypocrisy or rank ignorance?

The lower lakes were engineered into freshwater for the sake of irrigators.

There’s a strong section of horribly communistic greenies that want to see the lakes returned to salt water.

Unfortunately for them, that all get’s complicated by another sect of socialist environmentalists, masquerading as salt of the earth, little battler, (probably) war-hero farmers, who are against the idea of turning hundreds of kilometres worth of irrigation water saline.

Troll Detector says:

12:26pm | 07/01/11

scaper’s a troll, don’t feed him

RT says:

12:43pm | 07/01/11

Suits me if you want to ignore my future gibes, scaper. That’s even less time I’ll need to spend briefly pointing out the fundamental flaw in your position. Something tells me however that your resolve will be weak.

Damnthematrix says:

04:55pm | 07/01/11

For a hydro dam to work properly, it needs to be at least 50m high.  You point me to just one site suitable for this…..

Aitch B says:

07:50am | 07/01/11

@nosthow

Again nothing more from you other than an Abbott/Liberal bashing exercise. For Christ’s sake contribute something to the debate or shut the **** up!!

Try espousing your beloved ALP’s position on the MDB for a change. As far as I can see it’s nothing more than talkfest after talkfest and no plan of action.

Do you disagree with Abbott’s and Joyce’s suggestions? If so, what would you suggest? If not, then why not achnowledge it rather than continue your boring, midless anti-Liberal garbage?

Come on, fella…... I dare ya!!

And if you think your use of “Nossy” is cute, think again.

Tom says:

08:26am | 07/01/11

Shovelling concrete does not make you an expert on water use. Or are you trolling?

CJ Morgan says:

08:59am | 07/01/11

Whar rufus said. 

@ Tom, how does rufus’ eminently sensible post constitute “trolling”?  It seems to me that all the “greenie” bashing comments I’ve read so far fit the definition of trolling far better than rufus’ rational and sustainable suggestions.

Environmental damage to the MDB and other river systems has clearly been shown to be caused by over-allocation and inefficient use of allocated water.  We shouldn’t be considering any more dams until we’ve fixed those fundamental problems.

rufus says:

09:02am | 07/01/11

I helped build the dams. I saw what happened to the rivers and their ecology afterwards. I didn’t say I’m an expert, just relating some first-hand experience. On one dam I worked on, the Tallawa Dam on the Shoalhaven, the biggest flood in decades occurred a couple of years after the dam was built. The Dam did zip to mitigate the flooding, but levees built since have.

Tom says:

05:33pm | 07/01/11

Dubbo just had a flood but most experts considered that Burrendong Dam saved the town from a complete drowning.

I will take your word that Tallawa Dam on the Shoalhaven did zip for that flood. Is yours the only opinion there or it possible that someone out there argues that the Tallawa Dam on the Shoalhaven may have mitigated an even worse catastrophe?

No-one is saying that floods will be prevented by dams. However logic says that they can help. Levy banks and dams are not mutually exclusive.

@CJ Morgan, efficient use of water allocations seems to me a side issue to flood mitigation? I could be convinced that it is a drought issue, but when everything is 6 foot under water? Your assertion seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, hence my troll reference.

Gregg says:

07:23pm | 07/01/11

So rufys, exactly which dams did you work on for there are many and I’ve not actually been working at the sites but I have been back to many reservoirs around Australia and you could not ask for some more pristine settings whether there is small to moderate flow or a heavy flow downstream.
Controlling flows not only provides for storage, can generate environmental power but also with regulated release will help to maintain a healthy river whilst minimising erosion.

Whatever says:

11:48am | 07/01/11

Not strange at all, but rather gives her more credibility. What is your background? Armchair Oprah fan that loves to troll? Go back to watching day time dribble Abbott fanboy

Ben81 says:

12:20pm | 07/01/11

“Whatever” - no, it implies that she’ll oppose dams for ideological reasons no matter what, anytime anywhere.  That’s not too much of a stretch is it?  Your childish response kind of shows that you’ll also defend any position that you think fits a convenient political ideology over anything else, what’s that you said about credibility?

TimB says:

08:44am | 07/01/11

Notshow I asked you back then to show me where the Nationals were blocking dam construction. You didn’t.

Now considering Barnaby has called for more dams to built, ie. a point of view completely at odds with the blocking of dams, I’m more inclined to assume you didn’t show me because you couldn’t.

Joyce’s view to capture water for future use and to help reduce and mitigate future flood effects is a good one. Calling it a “girlie” whinge is moronic.

Turk says:

09:15am | 07/01/11

Wow. Just, wow.

Gregg says:

01:52pm | 07/01/11

I reckon Lostie that you had better starting knocking over your 2013 store of JW for it seems you have had the previous two years stock in just a week this year already.
Have you considered some moonshine?

RT says:

09:59am | 07/01/11

Is Barnaby Joyce right, Wendy?

rufus says:

11:22am | 07/01/11

I’m a green-aligned person. When will the head explosion be?

rufus says:

10:05am | 07/01/11

Small farm dams, OG, I guess so. Large dams for agriculture on major rivers - not when the water is used for crops like cotton and rice not suited to a dry climate, not when so much irrigation water is lost through inefficient channels, not when it’s contributing to farm land salinity, and not when it’s denying necessary environmental flows to lower reaches. Farming will continue to suffer in droughts unless true dry climate practices are more widely used.

TimB says:

10:26am | 07/01/11

Dave this was the same point nosthow tried to make. It was news to me (not being from Queensland) so I asked for some links. Unfortunately he didn’t respond.

I now ask the same from you. Can you please provide the links for me? My google searches have turned up the cancellation of the Traveston Crossing Dam, but as far as I can tell that was canned by Peter Garrett under influence from the Greens.

If the Nationals were blocking dams, then yes they deserve to be castigated. But I need you to show me the sources please.

scaper... says:

11:26am | 07/01/11

TimB, I can enlighten you on the Traveston travesty.

The Greens had absolutely nothing to do with the dam not proceeding. In fact they supported it behind closed doors in exchange for the Wild Rivers legislation which is another story in itself.

The people of the Mary Valley were subject to an intimidation campaign by the Bligh government that has not been seen in our history since Federation!

They employed an army of security guards and would have ceremonial bulldozing of houses in Kandanga nicely spaced in time to wear the locals down and it worked. The incidence of marriage breakdowns, major depression and yes, suicides became more prevalent.

The site in itself was not a location for dam building. When full the deepest point would have been six metres and the dam bed was an alluvial flood plain. The dam wall in itself would have been a floating structure as the bedrock to key into was too deep in the alluvial sands and gravels to be effective in engineering.

There was a proposal to extend the Borumba Dam wall upstream to create a super dam with a hydro electric facility built into the release valves to maintain natural flows to the Mary that would have powered 28,000 homes at least but the Bligh government would not even listen.

Garrett had no jurisdiction whatsoever as far as the engineering is concerned so he went with what he could, the affected species. The credit for stopping this stupidity goes to the people of the valley that as Australians had to endure the abject intimidation by a government that purports to work for the peoples’ interests, Truss, Hunt, Joyce and too many other individuals to name. It was a pleasure to attend their victory shindig to share in their relief and their new found belief that people power can still prevail!

In my opinion, anyone that wants to deride politicians that did their job and support Bligh and her jackboot tactics to purposefully destroy peoples’ lives are not worth spitting on.

fairsfair says:

11:42am | 07/01/11

It was the lung fish and the illustrious Peter Garret who stopped Traviston from an environmental perspective. It was a stoopid proposal as it was planned for the wrong area and was going to ruin many lives and industry (hence the coalition and Barnaby’s interest - he lives just inland from the area). Thanks captain Bligh. Oh and she gladly gave up on it when it rained. They were fight fight fight and then it rained - oh well, that isn’t a problem now lets move on and sell off QLD assets etc etc. Back slaps allround.

You may also care to read up on the fact that Wivenhoe (built to mitigate flood waters following 70s Bne floods) was never intended as drinking water supply and it was one of two dams planned (coincidentally I think the second was to be on the Mary river (further up from Traviston Crossign) and this was prior to the area being developed). Wivenhoe was built by Sir Joh and I read somewhere that one up and coming politician (then at a state level) by the name of Kevin Rudd put a stop to it because it “wasn’t needed”. It is now relied upon as Hinze and Summerset were quickly too small. Fast forward 30 years, SEQ dams at 15% and they panic and try and force Traviston, build the Tugun desal plant and that disaster that was the water grid. Epic Fail to the power of three. But it rained, so nobody talks about it now.

Bottom line is - all political parties seek to keep the immediate peace. Bandaid solution, quick fix. Nobody thinks about the future. When they do they pick the wrong battles (yes we will have an NBN, but it appears we will have to develop a way to change our bio stucture allowing us to drink sea water). When someone suggests something they are cried down. Barnaby Joice is in the thick of the flood area (he lives in St George), he has the right to criticise and QLD govt as he is litterally watching his neighbours and constituents go under. He is also from the land. He knows that within a couple of years they will probably all be in drought again. Which is a sad truth of living on the land. We have it sweet in the towns and cities. Restrictions are in place to regulate and we can blame someone else. If you live off tank water or a small system of inadequate dams and you run out - what are your options then?

Barnaby is a champ. If you took your cynical glasses off and actually listened to what he says rather than immediately judge him as an idiot. “his lot” had over a decade to do what? This is a state issue, not federal. Goss, Beattie, Blight - they have been manning the sinking ship for quite a while now Dave. They are just lucky NSW state labor exists, because if it didnt’ the spotlight would be on them.

TimB says:

01:29pm | 07/01/11

Thanks Scaper & Fairsfair.

So just so I can summarise my understanding, at least as it pertains to Joyce’s stance (the other issues raised by Traveston will be analysed another day):

Joyce/QLD Nationals = In favour of dams. Just not in favour of them in the wrong place.

Right?

Seems like a fairly reasonable stance on the face of things. Wish the ““lulz Barnaby is an idiot” crowd didn’t constantly paint everything in black and white.

scaper... says:

07:27pm | 07/01/11

TimB, correct.

Check out these links and you will see what has not been mentioned anywhere. We will start with this one.

http://www.nativefish.asn.au/ozrivers.html

You will see if you observe that for the lack of full explanation that rivers 25, 24 and 22 flow into 23. The Fitzroy that has flooded Rockhampton.

Now click on this link and navigate to these rivers.

http://www.sunwater.com.au/__data/waterstorage/water_store.htm

Only one dam in the second biggest catchment area in Australia at the upper reaches of the Isaac! This is criminal but the MSM won’t even highlight the fact. No side of the trough can plead innocence in this.

Nafe says:

01:40pm | 07/01/11

All Mentioned are Federal Politicians, Water security is a State Issue under the Australian Constitution.

But thanks for playing.

sikko says:

01:07pm | 07/01/11

Thanks for providing the luddites opinion mikko.

fairsfair says:

04:54pm | 07/01/11

thanks wazza. that is worth a read.

ZSRenn says:

12:39pm | 07/01/11

And why did they do that?

The green machine convinced them that this was global warming and the days of rains and floods were over

RT says:

11:19am | 07/01/11

That’s actually true - it was built with floodgates for that purpose. Dams can mitigate floods if designed this way.

Bobster says:

11:19am | 10/01/11

Dams can only mitigate floods if they’re empty, but, of course, they won’t be empty, because if they don’t trap every drop when it first starts to fall, you’ll all scream from the rooftops about your empty, white elephant bloody dams.

Of course, when the rain doesn’t stop and the full dams become a liability and have done conspicuously little mitigating, you’ll all scream from the rooftops because the bloody dam was filled when the water should clearly have been left to run.

It would all be a wonderful idea if we could predict rainfall with 100% accuracy, but if we could do that we wouldn’t have a problem in the first place now, would we?

Howard Jones says:

02:34pm | 07/01/11

Goodonya kap,It’s donkey’s like Barnaby that kept the Libs out this time,Malcom T-in the water port folio> Libs in

Step up says:

01:29pm | 07/01/11

Green Troll more like it!

acker says:

12:02pm | 07/01/11

@Barney On Google Earth.. St George, Queensland (28-02 S 148-34 E) is 203 metres above sea level.. Surat about 120 km North is 259 metres and Roma another 80 km North is 320 metres that is hardly flat ! How about looking at the geography before labelling people rednecks for having a common sense perspective

acker says:

12:25pm | 07/01/11

http://www.envlaw.com.au/nathandam4.pdf
Nathan Dam has been through numerous proposals was stopped in 2002 in court for environmental concerns , time for this to be re-tested in court
http://www.envlaw.com.au/nathan.html

Gregg says:

02:10pm | 07/01/11

@ Barney,
There has certainly been some heckling Barnie but most people are just agape at the totally anti dam view.
Sure the country out west is flat though not quite as flat as you may feel as Acker has indicated.
And the Snowy Mountains and other dams have usually been developed in valleys of one sort or another, that being the ideal case.

All that means is we may have to use a little more ingenuity and do a bit more in the way of earthworks and create the valley or a huge open cut storage, massive deep trench feeding channels that themselves can be storages and with a high depth to width ratio, evaporation will be minimised.

While maximising storage, minimising evaporation and mitigating floods, compared to the ammount of water that goes all over the flood plains there’s still going to be plenty of water to soak into the plains and then evaporate.

There are many locations in Australia where pioneers built right by river banks for obvious reasons and towns and cities have just grown without any thought other than the woe is us when a flood comes.
Many of those towns should have relocations done and trench/dams excavations could create town pads of whatever metres above the plain are necessary.
And sure with a growing population, irrigators will be wanting more water to produce food other than for introducing more efficient irrigation to minimise evaporation losses.

All a long view perspective needed and some massive undertakings just like the Snowy but in a different way and how much better a country could we have!
A lot better than being with Fred, Wilbur and Betty Barney for we’ve moved on from the stone age.

Bananabender says:

02:28pm | 07/01/11

The Murray River rarely made it to the sea until the weirs were built after WW1. Most of the time it disappeared into the SA desert.

The flow of the Murray Darling system is massively variable. In flood years it has about 10,000 times as much water as in drought years.

Markus says:

02:43pm | 07/01/11

“So you build new dams on the same rivers, and the new dams only fill when the floods come. How often is that, and how do you justify the cost of a dam that will only fill once in maybe 15 or 30 years?”

At the simplest level, if the cost of building and maintaining a dam for 15 years is less than the cost of rebuilding entire towns or cities every 15 years due to flood damage, then the cost is already justified right there.

CarolineM says:

03:56pm | 07/01/11

@ acker. You’ve obviously never been out in the Roma - Surat - St George area. Sure, there is a (slight) gradient. But there aren’t any HILLS. You can’t plonk a dam on a plain and expect it to store water!!
Nathan dam was canned because while the are hills, they aren’t very high. A dam built there would be very shallow and lose too much to evaporation to be economically efficient. ie. irrigators wouldn’t be prepared (or even financially able) to pay the full cost of the water it wold make available.

acker says:

04:24pm | 07/01/11

@Caroline M ..FYI ..I lived in Dirranbandi for 3 years and regularly picked my kids up in Roma..but please don’t let that stand in the way of your distortion of the truth, nor GoogleEarth which I referred to in my earlier post, you obviously know better champ

CarolineM says:

04:44pm | 07/01/11

@ Acker. OK - so where would you put a dam in that area?
2 dams proposed for the Condamine river between Chinchilla and Weribone in the last 15 years or so, were canned as unviable - ie too expensive for the amount of water they would yield. So, where IS there a realistic and viable site?

ZSRenn says:

12:13pm | 07/01/11

As a footnote:

After reading the other comments on the Punch I think Ruchira is going to need a double decafe low fat soy milk latte, a vegan roll and a good cry this afternoon.

Ruchira says:

04:42pm | 07/01/11

Hi,

You have raised some important points here, but i’d like to point out that your conclusions are mis-placed.

This article was in response to Senator Joyce’s opinion piece in which the floods were used as a lead into discussing the unfeasible proposal of building more dams while delaying the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

And, since you are concerned about the benefits Large dams bring to impoverished Indians, to start a fact based discussion on your comment “Campaigning against the building of Dams for Hydro Electrical production which would give millions of impoverished Indians electricity for the first time” I would like to point out this news story from last week: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Villagers-start—non-violent—protest-against-dam-project/734084/

Why are all these villagers protesting, and why has this project not materialized for 70 years?

More and more evidence is on the table about dams exacerbating the condition of the “impoverished” rather than benefiting them.

In Australia we take for granted the good environment we still have. Green policies are seen as backwards. That is ironic.

its time to take a closer look at the facts.

Regards,
Ruchira

ZSRenn says:

12:28pm | 07/01/11

Do not feed the troll!

Ruchira says:

04:01pm | 07/01/11

Dear poa,

The impacts, costs and benefits of dams have been documented and studied world-wide. Large dams tend to generate adverse environmental (reduced flow, threaten fish and other river biodiversity, bring in invasive species) and social impacts (displacement and marginalisation of populations in the river basin).

My concerns with Senator Joyce’s article was about using the floods as a platform to suggest dams as a solution for the Murray-Darling crisis. The Murray-Darling crisis has been creating by over-extraction of water for irrigation over decades. And, everyone agrees that the only solution is reducing the over-extraction to levels which are sustainable for the river. Senator Joyce himself supported the Water Act in 2007, which would pave the way for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which would set this balance right so that the river can survive in the long term and sustain regional communities.

I have sufficient reasons to believe all credible scientists (which includes the CSIRO) that the Murray-Darling Basin will witness a 10% reduction in water in the next few decades.

When we build a house, we build it for last for a while. Likewise, when we invest in regional development, we take credible scientific modelling of climactic conditions as well as economic trends into account before planning.

From both of these points of view, large dams do not come across as a sustainable solution.

Ruchira

poa says:

02:17pm | 08/01/11

Note you chose not to publish my answer to your “Credible science” bit.
Quite pathetic really. If the science of AGW (not “climate change”) is so secure why then did Climategate expose the dodgy data and selective mess of peer review.?
Why do you censor so carefully dissenting views?
Isn’t it because AGW is on such shaky ground recently…as the world cools (possibly due to reduced solar activity??) Good science doesn’t need such censorship and protection from scrutiny.
Another for your list of credible scientists who you won’t acknowledge…Prof Jarowowski (Poland)..facinating.
Pity the AGW Industry of which you are so obviously a part is disintegrating…apart from those that have to pay for it.
They think its great.
poa….B.App.Sci

Harry Newman says:

10:11am | 10/01/11

Hey folks Jane does come up with a sensible insight. Let’s all go out and have a nice beer on this one. Maybe a Carlton “draught” or preferably a Boags “draught”!
Looks like a very sensible Aussie solution to me. And I can fully understand how Jane’s grandfather could walk on water with a few “draughts” in him. Ripper.

acker says:

04:46pm | 07/01/11

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/wetlandinfo/resources/static/images/GeographicalSearch/large_NRM-18.jpg

So much for your vast plains theory

bananabender says:

06:06pm | 07/01/11

You may not be aware that the entire Sunraysia District was desert until irrigation was introduced

The lower lakes are entirely artificial. They were created by damming estuaries in the 1920s.
The lower Murray simply stopped flowing during droughts. Charles Sturt mentioned that the Murray stopped more than 100km from the sea.

The only reason the Murray now flows regularly is because weirs store floodwaters and release them over a period of years. Prior to these weirs the Murray alternated between a floodplain and a creek.

Labor Ruined NSW says:

06:12pm | 07/01/11

Are, here we clearly have a Tim Flannery follower who believes in the weird scientific religion of Gaia. Thomas, do you think that the world is a living, breathing organism who has toiletry needs like we humans do?

Anybody reading this, google gaia and read all about these kooks. And people are worried about Tony Abbotts catholic faith.

Labor Ruined NSW says:

07:17pm | 07/01/11

Trust us, we’re scientists. PLEASE! I have seen the peer review process in full swing at the University of East Anglia . Only peer’s who supported the articles were allowed to review them. And as for India and Bangladesh being able to support such huge populations, I beg to differ. These are two of the most impoverished nations on earth.

Maybe, Tim you should campaign to have all the dams in Australia ripped up if it is such good practice in other nations.

Mikko says:

07:59pm | 07/01/11

@ Tim, yeah, are the Yanks are about to remove the Hoover Dam so their mid-west can revert to the dust-bowl it was during the Great Depression and they can return to fertile desert flood plains which could be great for growing cactus?  Is that a No? And Mark, yes of course it’s all News Ltd’s fault that a growing number of sensible Australians who didn’t come down in the last shower actually think dams might do a better job at providing for the future food and water needs of a growing nation than water tanks and rain dances to appease Gaia or whatever it takes to make it rain.
You guys who quote science are a hoot, like the bloke who said salinity in the MDB was due to salt water evaporation where it meets the sea, coming back down in rain. I think my grandkids in primary school would know salt doesn’t evaporate into the rain clouds, or we’d be doomed all along the coast.

Tim says:

10:04pm | 07/01/11

@ mikko and labour ruined - So if you can’t believe scientists, who do you two clowns believe?
 
@ labour ruined - I’m not saying rip out dams, the best option would be to enlarge existing dams in mountain areas, if deemed necessary.  Most of australia is flat so new dams = tonnes of evaporaration, flooding of productive land and toxic algal blooms, great carp habitat…etc.  Read about Lake Mokoan in Australia, which was recently decommissioned for that reason.

Gregg says:

08:21pm | 08/01/11

Hi Tim,
And whilst facts are great, basics of life are also something we ought to keep considering too.
And sure, I agree that as for our coastal floodplains, particularly the relatively narrow strip between the great divide and the east coast, it is criminally negligent for developments to continue on some of our richest farmlands, the Gold Coast and the strip up to Brisbane and north being prime examples.
The Chinese in building the three gorges dam recognised the value of all the excretia, rotted vegetation and soils fines that the Yangtze carried along as fertiliser - even a little demo of it all being put in a blender to show what the silt was.
The three gorges dam has silting sluice gates at the base of the dam wall and hopefully they will be operated often if not continually and they have some good agitation upstream and might eventually have to deploy floating dredgers.
But our western governments/development money aside, we do have some basic differences to contend with.
First of all we do not sit adjacent to the Himalayas and have the weather/river water flows of China or the subcontinent and not even anywhere near that of the US with their great lakes and N-S rivers fed by NH higher latitude and altitude snow falls.
And then aside from a few eatwardly flowing relatively short rivers, our major river system of the Darling/Murrumbidgee/Goulburn/ Murray and their tributaries do not have nuch in the way of alpine force to begin with and creation of that silt fertiliser in a big way, nor do they flow fast enough to carry it any long distance and they certainly do not feed to alluvial plains.

So how does Bangladesh fair for its water? and though I haven’t looked at it, I expect they would be no better off than their populous neighbour and have a look at India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_India and it does not look so good, bloody terrible in fact.
Yes, with the Himalayas and their climate, you could expect they would be sodden enough to have had a good water table situation but how long is it going to last.
Not one of their cities has what can be described as a permanaent water supply.

My point being, that whilst we can read all the facts we like put together by scientists, we need to also look at the basics behind the facts to see if what happens elsewhere is even halfway applicable here in this driest of continents where all that rich soil is more often moved by wind storms than with floods/rivers not always moving at a great rate of knots.

So yes, we should be very open minded and openminded enough to assess whether we would be better off demolishing dams and relying on groundwater.
What do you reckon the answer would be?

Diamantina Dick says:

08:53pm | 07/01/11

If “imbiciles were not allowed to frustrate…” and the Howard Government had been re-elected you would have both an ETS and a far more advanced MDB plan by now. Just saying.

Labor Ruined NSW says:

08:18am | 08/01/11

Speaking of pea-brains, are you trying to suggest that this flood event is a result of AGW? If you are then I think we all know who the pea-brain is.

This country has been flooding for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with extra heat in the earths climate systems. It is NORMAL unlike some of the freak, Greenie, Lefties who frequent these forums.

Dear Mark, with our ever increasing population how do you seriously think we can feed all these people if we don’t irrigate and farm more land. Frankly, I am more concerned about the half-witted ABC crowd. You guys cheer on the Government propaganda channel like good socialists.

Dirty greeny scientist says:

12:58pm | 08/01/11

You really have no idea Colin.  This year has been one of the highest rainfall years on record and the inlet into Mokoan was too small to have any significant effect on reducing floods.  If Mokoan was still in use, Benalla would have suffered the same floods in 2010. Furthermore, lakes have to have no water in them to act as flood mitigation, which means they’re not much use for farmers for irrigation.

Gregg says:

08:46pm | 08/01/11

Well Dirty Greeney Scientist, how about putting some more thought into it?
. rebuild the wall
. excavate a bigger inlet
. have a controlled discharge so the lake can be run between minimum and maximum levels so it can not just have a mitigation effect no matter how small it is but also store some water for release when desired.
What is so non Greeney and anti-environmental about that approach?

rooster1 says:

07:55am | 12/01/11

What? Gaby luft “Greenies have come up with countless better & more affordable solutions over the years” All ive seen over the past 30 yrs is green policy locking up valuable farmland by stealth &denial; of just property compensation,decimating local fishing industries via no fish zones, annual summer National Park & state forests fireballs via no burn policies, local town’s Timber jobs decimated via tree hugging bans, loss of new infrastructure projects via NIMBY syndrome…Now all these products are IMPORTED , so the greens have a local fuzzy feeling & the wealth and so called carbon footprint &  go overseas ...brilliant
The older generations did what they did for a reason…to learn from the past while the greens choose to ignore it ....Stereotypes? Stereotypical statements are the forefront of the greens as well