By the end of the recent state election in Queensland, the Labor Party was proposing not one, but five new dams and the the Coalition a whooping eight new dams. The Wyaralong dam is being planned for a catchment just south of Brisbane and west of the Gold Coast in the Beaudesert Shire. Occasional responder at this blog Sylvia Else, has done some research, and claims even desalinated water would be cheaper than water from the Wyaralong Dam:
Hi Jennifer,
I’ve been puzzling over the proposed Wyaralong dam. Given the government’s own cost estimates and the estimated yield, and using an interest rate of 7.5% and inflation rate of 3%, I cannot get the cost of the raw, i.e.
unfiltered, water below $1 per kilolitre, even when I assume a life of 100 years for the dam. I don’t know how much it costs to filter water, but Sydney Water charges 46 cents per kilolitre less for unfiltered water, so filtering is presumably reasonably costly.
This appears to mean that bulk filtered water from Wyaralong dam will be more expensive than desalinated water. With Perth’s desalinator capital and running costs, I get a bulk water cost of $1.02 per kilolitre.
It’s true that the only place one can desalinate seawater is on the coast, but it appears that the government’s intention is that all of the water supply systems should be connected together in a network, so desalinated water could be distributed to anywhere that the Wyaralong dam could serve.
So why build the dam? It seems to make no economic sense, even if the wished for rainfall (based on the next 100 years being like the last) appears.
There was a line in the Hitch-Hikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. When asked why it was necessary to build a by-pass over the top of Arthur Dent’s house, the council official’s reply was “What do you mean, why has it got to be built? It’s a by-pass. You’ve got to build by-passes.”
May be that’s the reasoning being used here.
Regards
Sylvia Else
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I should add that I’m basing my calculations on facts given in this media release
http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=47020
Cost $400 to $500 million – I used $500.
Yield 21,000 megalitres per annum
Sylvia.
You are quite right, Sylvia. Although Wivenhoe is being depreciated over 150 years so Wyaralong could be the same.
The current wholesale price from SEQ water to Briswater is 17 cents/kl and current retail price from briswater is 94 cents/kl so the cost of distribution is 77 cents/kl. Add this to the Wyaralong wholesale price and the retail cost will be $1.80/kl.
That is, assuming that there is still a market for that water. But if every new house built in the region over the next 20 years has a decent water tank then the total water market will shrink and the profitability of the new dams will be blown to bits by insufficient sales volume.
At a price of $1.80/kl a tank makes a really good investment and the market for public water will decline even more.
Ian,
I ran the numbers again for 150 years, but as I expected it makes little difference, because the net present value of payments 100 to 150 years downstream is minimal.
Sylvia.
I have confirmed the cost and yield figures with the Department of Natural Resources and Water.
In the mean time, I’ve found other commentary supporting my notion that the water from this dam will be very expensive.
http://www.stopthewyaralongdam.org/files/wyaralongDamIssuesAndAlternatives.pdf
The figure quoted there is $1.73 per kilolitre, though the paper was based on a lower figure for the yield of 17,000 ML/year, for which my calculation would give $1.34 per kilolitre. However the paper compares the cost with that of desalination, so the $1.73 per kilolitre presumably includes filtration. Add the 46 cents per kilolitre for filtration figure that I inferred from Sydney Water’s tarrif, and the numbers are very close.
So it looks like we can leave aside all the extraneous stuff about whether the dam will deliver its claimed yield, or whether it wouldn’t be needed if people used less or recycled more.
The dam fails to pass the economic test. It is not the cheapest available solution, so it should not be built.
Dear Sylvia
Congratulations on your endeavour to calculate the delivered cost of urban water for the future. You certainly won’t find it on any of the government websites!
Ian you may well be right to look at rainwater tanks as a source of an increasing share of future urban water needs as it may be cheaper per KL (less resources used) to source future supplies from (some) urban tanks than to invest in major storages.
However as long as the current price of delivered water to urban water users bears no relationship to the future cost of supplies, irrespective of from where they are sourced, then water users are in no position to decide how they should behave.
The current practice of offering rainwater tank subsidies (somebody still has to fund the subsidies)willy nilly is hardly a solution.
Why not charge existing water users for a share of their current water use at a rate that reflects the future cost of publicly provided water supplies? Then they will be in a position to decide whether they should invest in rainwater tanks, water saving devices etc.
I shudder when I saw in the press last week that Campbell Newman believes it will be necessary for the State and/or the Federal government to subsidise the higher cost of future publicly provided water supplies.
Why should water be treated any differently than (say) bread or beer? If you want the commodity than you pay for it. After all somebody has to.
Blair
Yep agreed Blair. Would be interesting if you chose to elaborate further,. eg how future pricing can factor in risk estimates (rainfall net of evaporation in dam watersheds etc). seems that correct pricing may encourage increased “commoditisation” ie more competition & distributed supply + complementary services.
NRM puts cost of the Wyaralong dam at $161M and a capacity of 104 mL, I’ve read elsewhere that the $500 million is for the construction of three new dams at Wyaralong, Glendower and Amamoor Creek and the raising of the Borumba Dam.
http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/w91.pdf
Annual yields are estimated as Glendower Dam – 21 000 ML, Wyaralong Dam – 35 000 ML, Borumba Dam Raising – 30 000 ML, Amamoor Creek Dam – 17 000 ML
Cost of water from rainwater tanks is estimated at $1,000 kL.
Dear Pinxi
The following may help answer your queries. It is based on an unpublished article I wrote lst year.
The current drought in south-east Queensland and elsewhere in Australia has prompted calls for changes in how the community, both through the efforts of individual water users and by the policies of its elected representatives viz Councils and State Government, should best manage its urban water consumption and supply.
There are two separate but related issues:
• What is the appropriate price and pricing system for urban water supplies? and
• What is the appropriate level and reliability of supply for urban water users?
Dealing firstly with the second point, it is necessary to decide at what level and at what reliability the water supply should operate. Given the reality of droughts of differing frequencies and lengths, the community must decide for different notional annual “average” per-capita water uses, how often and for how long it is prepared to institute restrictions to ensure some essential minimum water supply in the “drought” periods.
For example, on average over a ten year period, a reservoir may be able to supply the selected notional per-capita water use (in some years water goes over the spillway) but restrictions will still be required in two years out of the ten. Alternatively a larger reservoir may provide the notional average per-capita water use ten out of ten years but of course a larger reservoir will cost more. However the community may prefer a less reliable supply at a lower cost but be prepared to put up with the restrictions in the “drought” periods.
Hydrologists, engineers, economists and computer modellers etc. can provide the information needed to help the community or its representatives decide on the level and reliability of its water supply. This information will also contain the attendant water costs for each scenario.
But water users, the same as other consumers, will vary their consumption according to the price charged. So while it may be easy to decide a minimum “essential” level of water use, it is difficult, but unnecessary for the planners to determine a so called ideal i.e. “non-wasteful” per capita average water use.
All that is required is that our planners work out how much it would cost to match future water demands, based on current water charges, population growth etc. with future water supplies, for different levels of reliability. For example if this cost per kilolitre of water for an augmented water supply (at its cheapest cost whether that be more storages, recycled water, desalinization etc) at a greater reliability is (say) 30 percent higher than the current water charge then the first step is to increase the current price of water by this amount. Whether the new (higher) price should apply to all metered water consumption or say a third or a half of metered water use is up for debate.
If per capita water use remains unchanged and water reliability improves at this new price then so be it because the cost of investing in future water supplies will be met by present and future consumers and there will be no unreasonable shortages of water. However water users are more likely to react to the higher price by installing water efficient devices, or changing their consumption habits so that it becomes unnecessary to augment existing supplies. So the cost of these extra supplies is avoided. Either result is satisfactory. Of course water users will be forced to invest in these devices or forego the benefits they receive from their current consumption habits.
The current approach, i.e. not basing current water charges on the long term cost of supplying water, but encouraging water users to change their habits via community awareness programs or by moral suasion or by ill thought out rainwater subsidies will be ineffective and/or inefficient as water consumers will quite correctly base their water use, in an “average” year on the existing pricing regime.
The introduction of water meters and volumetric pricing resulted in a dramatic reduction in per capita water consumption in Brisbane as consumers were forced to decide how much they wished to spend on water at the (new) volumetric price.
Basing current prices on the (lowest) cost of provision of future water supplies will most likely lead to a reduction in water use. If not then there is no problem as users of water will pay for their water at the higher cost and receive their supply.
Blair
Any bites on my figures? Sylvia’s projections could be out by 500%
Rog,
The document you cited is earlier than the ministerial press release, and is probably only dicussing the estimate for the dam itself. There are significant other costs associated with the Wyaralong dam such as land purchases, and reconstructing part of a road that will become submerged. It seems clear enough from the ministerial statement that the $500 million is just for the Wyaralong dam project.
I cannot see where you’ve got your figure for Wyaralong’s yield from.
Rog, the $1,000/kl cost quote for water tanks is the typical deliberate misrepresentation by the public sector water mafia. The cost of a 1000 litre tank, if plumbing etc is included, may be $1,000 but a 13,000L tank is only $2,000 all up. So the capital cost can vary from $1,000/kl for the stupid and the departmentally challenged, down to below $150/kl for the rest of us.
When this latter figure is divided by the appropriate discount rate at 6% over the 30 year life of the tank (ie. 13.8) the annual cost of this storage capacity is only $10.80. And as this tank, in Brisbane, will fill up an average of 12 times a year, each captured kl will cost only 90 cents each.
But as with all things in life, there is the capacity for all suburban “Freddies” to snatch mediocrity and failure from the jaws of success and even common sense. They can piss around with a smaller tank and end up with a limited supply of tank water that costs as much as, or even more than, the new, expensive water from the water mafia that will still comprise the bulk of their water supply.
It seems you can lead a bozo to water but you can’t make him think.
Sylvia, perhaps you should read the article that you youreself offered, from the NRM fact sheet
“The preliminary estimate of cost of the Wyaralong Dam and a downstream control weir is approximately $161 million.”
The yield is from a PPT from USC
http://tinyurl.com/rrasj
I believe that substantial land purchases have already been made
Another source;
The Wyaralong Dam is estimated to cost $149 million while the Cedar Grove Weir is expected to cost $12 million.
(Source: SEQ Infrastructure Plan, April 2005, p 28)
I cant see how the cost has jumped to $500M except that it has been misreported as being the cost for one dam not the whole lot for SE QLD.
Rog, the link to the NRM fact sheet was provided by Jennifer, not by me. The figure there is described as a preliminary estimate for the construction of the dam and downstream weir. It may well not have included other costs associated with the project.
The ministerial release says “The State Government today announced that a new dam would be built at Wyaralong near Beaudesert at a cost of approximately $400 to $500 million.”
I have sought further clarification on this, with particular reference to the implied cost of the water. If I get a response (I’m not holding my breath), I’ll post something further.
thanks Blair. Unfortunately, pricing for the future cost of water requires time scale thinking that exceeds the typically short-term political focus. Regardless of the mechanism, highly visible metering (quick feedback on usage) is definitely key.
Re: industry – there’s general talk of expected worsening of fresh water shortages around the world. I can imagine that using future costs as a basis for water charges (or other incentives) to encourage increased process efficiencies could lead to comparatively less water intensive exports that have an advantage in international trade (assuming scarcity & increased water costs) & could also help to improve security in some countries/regions by helping water-starved populations to meet basic needs (eg by providing cereals). Care to comment?
Dear Sylvia and Rog
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any public information from governments re the costs of future water supplies whether the supplies are from desalination, new water storages, recycling etc. They have the information but it may prove politically embarrassing to release it.
Dear Pinxi
Pricing water or any other resource at its long-term marginal cost is not a new concept among resource economists. Unfortunately supply of urban and irrigation water has generally been the province of governments and I have never been able to see any evidence of efficient water pricing in the past or present.
Of course if future water supplies can be sourced at a cost similar to current prices then there is no outcry. However all the “cheaper” sources in SE Qld have already been tapped; in a situation where future water consumption at current water prices is increasing due to increased population and life style changes, coupled with greater climate variability, then demand exceeds supply and non-price rationing results.
Pricing water at its long term (higher) cost forces existing water users to make any changes now and perhaps avoid the need for future public storages etc. It may well be cheaper for households to look at rainwater tanks.
If they don’t change their current habits at the new price then again there is no problem and the new supplies can be sourced at their full cost.
What often stuffs the system is the practice of governments subsidising water prices thus ensuring a need for further increases in water supplies!
Blair
Blair,
I suppose there’s always Freedom of Information, though whether I want to spend my hard-earned on that when I don’t even live in QLD (I’m in NSW) is another matter.
What really gets to me is that as far as urban water is concerned, this is all a storm in a tea cup. We know that essentially limitless quantities of water are available by desalination, so that puts a cap on the price of water. While it would represent an increase on current prices, it really doesn’t amount to much in the scheme of things. Between $1 and $2 per family per week is all it would take. Few people would notice the difference.
Your reference to Campbell Newman illustrates the problem. These people net to get a grip, and look at the real numbers in context.
Sylvia.
Dear Sylvia
While desalinated water may represent the cheapest source of publicly supplied water and indeed it is a limitless source of water, I have yet to see the cost per KL of this water delivered to the water user. In Brisbane the current price of water through the meter is 93 cents per KL. So I would like to see the cost of desalinated water at the water meter (allowing for any pumping, storage, treatment costs etc.)
Ian Mott’s calculations for a sensibly designed rainwater tank (not these piddly 3000L tanks presently being heavily subsidized)) shows a cost at the meter similar to the current water price but I suspect with the small housing blocks, units etc domestic rainwater tanks still will not supply the region’s future increases in water use.
I don’t think it is asking too much of our elected representatives to publish the costs on a delivered -to -the -user basis associated with the various sources of future water. Then water users can make informed decisions about their water use behaviour. But as I allued to early I don’t think I ever will.
Blair
See “The Great Water Debacle” by yours truly at http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4806
For a detailed examination of how the existing measures to require water tanks for each new dwelling in SEQ will produce a contraction in public water demand over the next 20 years.
This will continue to the point where the economics of the existing dams will be compromised, let alone cover the cost of the new infrastructure.
And any minor increase in the mains water price will accelerate this trend. Get ready for some very serious, and expensive, white elephants.
The notion that mains water delivered today should be priced at the cost of delivering it in future is breathtaking in its total lack of grounding in economic reality.
The upper limit to any capacity to raise prices in a competetive market is defined by the lowest cost competitor/supplier. And that lowest cost competitor is “everyman” with his own roof and own tank.
And any spruikers for desalination company shares had better take a very good look at their professional indemnity insurance before they start talking up the scope for price increases.
Further info on costings, these figs cost dams, infrastructure etc, as these have been around for a while without comment you could assume that they are acceptable.
http://www.oum.qld.gov.au/docs/SEQIPP/SEQIPP_PART_B7.pdf
Dear Ian
“The notion that mains water delivered today should be priced at the cost of delivering it in future is breathtaking in its total lack of grounding in economic reality.
The upper limit to any capacity to raise prices in a competetive market is defined by the lowest cost competitor/supplier. And that lowest cost competitor is “everyman” with his own roof and own tank”
Obviously Ian I have not expressed my view clearly enough.
Brisbane water supplies are metered and domestic users pay 93 cents per KL for each KL used. Presently at that price demand exceeds supply and in the future demand will also exceed supply hence the current practice of non-price rationing via water restrictions and the plans for mega public investments in water supply.
Average water consumption,in the absence of non-price rationing is around 750KL per household. If current and future supplies at that price amount to (say) 500KL per household then households face a shortfall at the current price of 250KL per household or a shortage of 33 percent. If it costs in the future from the cheapest source of publicly supplied water (say) $1.50 per KL then the solution is to charge “average” water users for any water use above 500KL per household at $1.50 per KL. Of course I am talking in averages but using past Council records it should not be too difficult to determine previous household water use and adjust the cutoff figure where the higher price will apply.
If “average” water users know that they face a water charge per KL above 500KL of $1.50 per KL then they have quite a few options and one of these is to use in your words “the lowest cost competitor, namely the rainwater tank”. Because water is metered then the household using the rainwater tank avoids the stepped price of $1.50 per KL for supplies above 500KL and if all households, to avoid the higher price, invest in rainwater tanks then the need for the(higher priced) public water is avoided. All the households will pay above the charge for 500KL is the costs of supply from their rainwater tanks. Other options include investing (at a cost) in water saving devices etc.
But the history of public pricing of water does not make one believe that economic rationality enters the equation and so I suspect we will end up with the current pricing practice with a few subsidies thrown in.
Blair
Blair
I can’t find anything resembling a break-down of tap-water costs in Queensland. However, we know that there are some costs of providing the bulk water from storage schemes, and some in filtering the water. The remaining cost is the distribution cost. If Brisbane water prices reflect the true costs, then I would venture to suggest that distribution comes in at no more than 60 cents/kilolitre. That puts an upper limit on the price of desalinated water in the tap at about $1.60.
Ian Mot’s pricings for the large scale rainwater tanks are believable (though I think a touch optimistic) for houses where installation is straight foward. If extra construction work is required form a level base for the tank, than I suspect that pushes the price up considerably.
I have also questioned whether it is reasonable to ignore the cost of the land on which the tank sits. If one does not intend to install a tank, then there is a saving to be made by using a smaller plot of land.
I am also concerned about the implications of having a large number of people treating the municipal water system as a supply of last resort. That is, that they’ll only buy water from the municipal system when their own tanks run dry. This would require a large capacity in the municipal system that is most of the time not generating income. Since using the system that way pushes the cost up, households who derive most of their water from rainwater tanks should have to pay a significant premium for the privilege of being allow to use the municipal supply only when rainwater is scarce.
It would be a brave politician indeed who tried to explain that to the electorate.
Motty I’m surprised if you don’t realise that your assumptions are implicit in Blair’s proposition. I too have wondered, although with less certainty than you, if the rush for tanks might produce excess supply – particularly as the decision to instal private tanks isn’t just based on economic rationalism, there are an assortment of motivations. Hence I referred above to the commoditisation of water supplies. Despite privatisation, the traditional infrastructure models still dominate our mindsets and economic planning, so govts find it hard to consider the impact of decentralised supplies of utilities.
Dear Sylvia, Pinxi et al
The news from Premier Beattie this afternoon is that, after allowing for inflation, future charges for water will remain the same as at present; reason so that low-income water users will not be worse off.
So I guess in the words of my favourite singer-songwriter, Neil Young, “we’re all just pissin’ in the wind”
Blair
I have found this document
http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/water_infrastructure/pdf/long_term_solution.pdf
On page 65 there is a table relating to Wyaralong dam. In the table it shows a preliminary cost estimate of $170 million, and a cost assumed by the NRMW of $500 million. There is a foot note that explains “Major factor causing the large increase in costs is a revised estimate of road relocations – optimisation of the
design is to occur, giving consideration road relocations and yields.”
I don’t see how it’s now possible to avoid the conclusion that the $500 price tag really is just for the Wyaralong dam project, and that the bulk raw water cost really is in excess of $1 per kilolitre.
Dear Jennifer and bloggers,
I am an affected landholder at Wyaralong, currently writing a PhD thesis on resource management issues and co-author of the document referred to by Sylvia, Wyaralong Dam: Issues and Alternatives.
As landholders at Wyaralong, (it is my family’s property the dam is named after)we have had communication with DNRM staff since the dam was first proposed in 2005. I found it wryly amusing to read and follow the above debate about correct figures for yield and costs.
Basically, all of you are right, yet at the same time all of you are wrong. This is becasue the figures quoted by the government in various documents and press releases have changed each time.
The report, “A Long term future” I have heard was thrown together days before the final announcement on 4 July and refers to information from the GHD report, a desktop analysis of data from 1990. This is the only data the DNRM had on Wyaralong as they had not been anywhere near the site since the weekend before 4 July.
The $400-500M fihure is the latest for costs, which are said to include Cedar grove Weir, relocation of the road, water treatment, as well as land purchases.
The state owns 36% of land surrounding the Wyaralong dam. At the current prposed water level, almost none of this land is in the inundantion area of the dam. I am currently working on a map to illustrate this which will be posted on our website.
The yeild of 21000 ML INCLUDES 5000ML in Cedar Grove weir. For our report we used yield for Wyaralong dam alone, which is 17000ML.
Water quality in the Teviot is notoriously poor (salinity, pollutants and Boonah township’s effluent)and the costs of water treatment are expected to increase.
Another point for consideration in the costs of water issue, is distributional equity. The water from Wyaralong does not directly service Brisbane consumers. The water is for urban and industrial use in the lOgan, Beaudesert and Gold Coast Shires.
We calculated that at the current pricing of water, which Peter Beattie assures us will not rise, this amounts to $3500-$4000 subsidy by the State per household. This would buy a good sized tank, or a community storage facility. We are no economists though, so if someone would like to clarify this, go ahead.
We calculated this using the 104 000Ml capcity and an average water use of 300L/day/household.
I hope this clears up some points of contention and opens the way for more constructive dialogue.
If the $400-500 million includes the (capital) cost of the water treatment plant, then that obviously invalidates my claim about the unfiltered water price. It puts the filtered water price above $1 per kilolitre instead. How much above would depend on the operating costs of both the dam and the treatment plant, about which I currently have no information.
It bothers me that governments are still willing to use the historical 100 year rainfall figures as the basis for calculating yields. At the very least there is a significant risk that we’re experiencing climate change rather than (or as well as) a drought, and since his represents a risk that the asset will not perform as well as predicted, it should be reflected somewhere in the costing (pushing it up).
Another thing that does not appear to have been incorporated into the cost is the value of the land already owned by the government that is to be dedicated to the dam. If the dam were not built then the land could conceivably be sold, so it should not be regarded as worthless for costing purposes.
Sylvia.
I’ve just come across this blog and find it refreshing that most of the posts are constructive, rather than comfrontational, especially when the topic has political, vested interest, and ethical dimensions.
It has concerned me for some time that in the talk of desalination as the future long-term source of the nation’s water, no one seems to have addressed the (very likely) prospect of steeply escalating energy costs with the imminent onset of the peak oil catastrophe. There is an unquantifiable, but potentially enormous, added energy cost to be factored into the calculations.
Of course, we may not need any more water if peak oil leads to the anticipated collapse of the industrial world. No more water hungry fossil fuel power plants, mines or manufacturing – there should be lots to drink!
But if we must boil sea water, can it be done with solar?
It seems as though there hasn’t been a lot of conversation on this blog lately but since the dam seems to be progressing I thought it may be worth continuing the discussion. I agree with Murray in regards to energy costs of desal, they are very susceptible to the current market and who knowswhat the future costs associated with desalination are.
Irrespective of this I find it disnconcerting that the argument is based on economics, I thought that the environment in recent years is having an increasing role in determining what society should do in response to any demand (water, electricity, energy etc.). In this regard any dam infrastucture has a very small carbon footprint compared to desalination of saline water over the lifetime time of the water supply.
It appears to me that now the dam has been built and we didn’t directly correlate the cost of water to it’s quiet opening that all discussion has died down.
But I have been researching the dam and it’s ‘worth’ and in doing so spent some amount of time considering the full environmental costs of the options? This goes beyond the economics of what we may or may not pay for clean reliable drinking water to our doorstep. In doing so I have also been looking at what is considered ‘limitless’ supply from desalination, which pumps then a ‘limitless’ supply of brine solution back into the marine environment … what cost it that? or is it considered that as it does not hit our hip pocket directly we don’t really care about those things?
As for the cost to build such a dam as Wyaralong …
“The dam project on the Teviot Brook also involved construction of the Bromelton Offstream Storage facility and Cedar Grove weir. The A$348m project was built by Queensland Water Infrastructure (QWI).” [sourced after the fact of building on water-technology.net]
and as for yield …
“When operated in conjunction with the Cedar Grove weir, the Wyaralong dam can hold up to 103,000 million litres at full capacity. It will supply 26,000 million litres of additional water to South East Queensland (SEQ) every year.”
The only question now for the dam is why and when will it be connected into the grid? I would assume the real answer to that, regardless of economics, is ‘when we need it’. Even if for now, it’s only current use is ‘to float a boat’. What value do you place on additional recreational activities in a region?
For an area that was already devastated and contaminated by historically poor agricultural practices, mass tree clearing and weeds invasion causing the existing water quality up and down stream to be extremely poor (such that an extensive weed management plan had been put in place). Environmentally there are arguments for both sides. To build or not to build. But I ask … if we did not build, do we wait until there is absolutely no suitable land left due to urban sprawl before we stockpile some surface water catchments because it would be cheaper per kL now? I am also curious that if engineers/economists etc. don’t use the 100 years of historical information, what would you suggest to use for economical evaluations for any construction projects?
The $348m spend included quite extensive revegetation and other environmental impact mitigation measures being put into place. Would you suggest that to keep the build price down that ‘like’ projects don’t bother to do this, so that the average cost per kL can be more palatable?
With respect to the remaining landowners on non-government purchased land who were directly affected … although no money is enough to replace what money can’t buy, but there would have been large costs there also. Would you reduce these costs instead?
Not trying to be confrontational but for researching purposes I am curious. On a blog concerned with the natural environment very little beyond the economics has been considered in this particular case.
Hi Nat
I posted the letter from Sylvia because that’s what I do… post information from people that is interesting and relevant and in particular information that is unlikely to be published anywhere else.
If you have lots of information on the new dam — and you seem to — and how its construction has made a positive overall impact to what was a degraded environment etcetera why not send me something to post at this blog…
your comment above is unlikely to be seen by many people other than me because it is on a very old thread… and I only read it because it was caught in the ‘pending’ folder because you haven’t posted here before and every new commentator has to have their email and name approved before their very first comment goes live.
new posts have an audience of several thousand.