State and federal governments, blinded by alarmist reports falsely predicting a dry future, have done very little about flood mitigation – except perhaps from sea-level rise.
Earlier today, the small town of Theodore was evacuated as the Dawson River flooded.
The Dawson River merges with the McKenzie River, forming the Fitzroy River, which flows through Rockhampton and into Keppel Bay – a little to the south of where I now live.
For years locals have wanted the river dammed upstream of Theodore including for the development of irrigated agriculture.
Construction was to be completed in 2005, but the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Queensland Conservation Council fought the Commonwealth Government over potential downstream impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and won – and construction never started.
In 2006 the Nathan Dam was identified again as important infrastructure, this time for the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, in particular for the mining industry.
Planning for the dam, however, was again interrupted for environmental reasons, in particular the potential impact of the dam on the critically endangered Boggomoss Snail.
Initially the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts mandated a translocation trial to assess the viability of relocating the snail to an alternative habitat – then it was discovered there were many more snails and with a wider geographic range than initially thought.
I am not normally in favor of more dam building, for example, there are already enough dams within the Murray-Darling Basin. And I am against grand schemes to pipe water long distances at great expense, for example from North Queensland to the Murray Darling Basin.
However, Queensland could do with a few more dams particularly dams like the proposed Nathan Dam. The water would be used locally for mining and also to develop a local irrigated agricultural industry. At the moment much of the catchment is grazed, and that has its own environmental impact.
And I wonder if there might not be a net environmental benefit from the dam if it stops the flooding of towns like Theodore and the city of Rockhampton.
How significant are water quality impacts on a body of water, when it flows, for example, through a town like Theodore?
*********************
Related Links:
Theodore floods: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12084735
WWF wins court case against Nathan Dam: http://www.edo.org.au/edoqld/new/nathanwin.pdf
Recent planning for the Nathan Dam: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/water/infrastr_prg_works/pdf/nathan-dam-qr-aug2010.pdf
And I spoke to these notes in Sydney earlier in the year, about how we live in a land of floods as well as drought, but government was not listening: http://www.htw.com.au/Industry_Presentations/Jennifer-Marohasy-Presentation-Sydney-2010.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m all in favour of more dams having grown up in the outback where in drought years the Paroo was reduced to a trickle of gummy water
My father believed in dams and went in for large and well placed dams (choosing the location was the most important factor in a dam’s success)
Toowoomba could do with more dams; in the recent drought dam levels were reduced to about 10%; the Council website http://www.toowoombarc.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386&Itemid=52
contains this NOTE: Rainfall reports for the City of Toowoomba on radio and television don’t generally reflect the dam levels as most of the rainfall in the city drains to Oakey Creek, then onwards to the Condamine River, contributing to the Murray Darling System; it does not feed into our dams
Toowoomba can pump from Wivenhoe in emergencies now but still why not put a dam say south of the city where the major rain of recent years has fallen (according to local cabbies and they always know)
Another thing that puzzled me when the proposed Mary River Dam was rejected recently was why did the Qld Govt go to the expense of land resumption before trying to obtain Federal Government approval under the EPBC act as when that approval was not given then Qld was left with the task of reselling that land, I don’t know how that’s gone but can’t approval at all levels be given before going to all that expense
In Australia, the best soil is often in the areas of least rainfall.
The western plains are broad and very old and in many places have huge depths offine black soil. They are capable of producing wonderful crops if they had a regular supply of water.
Some of these areas that occasionally get these huge floods go without any rain again for another 3 years.
The lacking ingredient is regular water.
Without dams, these areas are a wasted resource.
I almost did not bother responding to your article here. As a quick look at the rest of your articles suggests that your “science” is borderline at best.
It has been shown that a dam in the Nathan George would NOT prevent flooding in Theodore, it would however likely make flooding worse in Taroom, upstream. I am sure if you looked into it seriously you could actually write a much better article. Leaving out facts that do not support your point of view, especially for someone claiming to be a scientist, is WRONG.
Trevor,
What is “borderline” science? On the margins of the current paradigm? Pushing forward? Challenging the consensus? Thought provoking stuff?
Great article Jennifer.
I also like what Val and Spangled have argued about using our water resources and our land resources to the best advantage. We really need some changes in attitude about water management.
Doesn’t it all boil down to what we’re actually trying to achieve Trevor?
Every action does have consequences. Inaction also has consequences.
No one would argue with the “science” that building dams will have some type of effect on the natural ladscape.
The basic concept however is that our climate and our environment is highly variable and unpredictable. Our Australian waterways can transform from little swampy puddles to raging monsters and back again in spectacular and unpredictable ways. The events of this year are a perfect example of this.
We also want to live safe and productive lives.
Shouldn’t we be working out the best ways to manage the excesses of our variable climate so that we can help to keep ourselves safe and also remain productive?
Building dams and regulating our river systems are an important part of this. There are ways to do this as well as enhance the environment. We all have to live here and we all need to learn to live with and manage what nature throws at us.
If we keep operating under the mindset of our WWF friends and our conservation friends that “dams are bad” that “our rivers are dying” and “we have to return water to the environment”, we immediately stymie ourselves and we fail to find the best solutions for everyone and every environmental asset. The accompanying mindset that “it’s never going to rain again so building dams is pointless” is also stopping us from coming up with some highly efficient and beneficial solutions.
We sometimes make mistakes but we are also capable of fixing them. We have very bright scientists and engineers who could come up with amazing solutions if they were encouraged to do so.
The biggest mistake is to do nothing at all.
I would question what WWF et al are actually trying to achieve. It appears to me that they are very good at stopping progress and that they don’t want anyone to improve or enhance any system at all.
Isn’t this a regressive attitude that will cause us to slip backwards?
Jennifer’s point about State and Federal Governments being blinded by alarmists reports is valid. It is causing them to do nothing, to blindly follow drought and shortage rules or to make stupid errors in water management such as the recent fiasco surrounding the Snowy Hydro System.
Jennifer, Good presentation to the Sydney group. One thing you could have mentioned is that the Stern report was ripped apart on both grounds of science and economics in a multi-author paper (in two parts) in World Economics Vol 7 No4 Oct-Dec 2006 pp165-232. The compliers of the Stern report had no technical background and used selected and biased input, particularly modelled data, to outline a pseudo-scientific basis for the senario assumptions in their economic calculations. Stern is supposed to be an economist. However, any student can determine that much of the economic assumptions such as a very low discount rates, lack of technical innovation in adaption costs etc are unrealistic.
The fact that Garnaut relied on Stern says a lot about his lack of technical understanding and his (doubtful) economic abilities.
Dams can be used to control flooding effects but it is necessary to have some accurate information on in flows and to consider the statistics of variations (There is an IEAust publication on that- Australian Rainfall & Runoff)). There will be dry periods and wet periods. Events can be one in five hundred years, one in a hundred, one in fifty etc. The rainfall (& runoff) in many parts of Queensland has been the highest December on record (about 120years) but not the highest for any month which is usually in the first three months of the year. As you noted the Federation drought was much worse than the drought a hundred years later which has broken in various parts in 2009 & early this year. Lots of water is running into the sea along the coast of Queensland taking sediment out to the barrier reef, which may affect short term growth.
This illustrates the dilemma and dingbattery of environmental controls on dams. Toowoomba dams, that have been so low for years that the residents were looking at recycling their own waste water so a very expensive pipeline was built from Wivenhoe and water pumped up there at even more ratepayer’s expense, now that they have reached 35%, must start dumping this water into a very saturated stream when they need to primarily get their dams full.
They are also in dire need of more dams.
http://www.australianews.com.au/australia/queensland/darlingdowns/toowoomba/story?cityid=9901bdf5-f527-4b68-852d-149172949fd4&storyid=b305ba88-32dd-4b64-92da-444abc4514f8
Val, do you have any more up-to-date info on Toowoomba’s situation?
“Nathan Dam would have mitigated Theodore flooding”…IF the proposed dam [880GL,about half the capacity of Blowering Reservoir] had some spare capacity,which I suppose is likely in many circumstances,but this is a very big event in a month of well-above average catchment rain and a very wet six months.. Fairbairn Dam,with a capacity of some 1300GL,has been overflowing for a while now,so is playing no part in flood mitigation on the Nogoa/Fitzroy. A Nathan Dam may very well have been full in these circumstances.
Probably about 75% of the Fitzroy catchment would remain unregulatable even with the construction of Nathan. Nathan’s capture of 15% of the total Fitzroy catchment may not have much influence at times on flooding at Rockhampton: the big flood of 1988 at Rocky had relatively little input from the Dawson part of the catchment. During the bigger 1991 flood,9.3m on the gauge at Rocky, the Dawson at Theodore only reached 7.98m which is just below minor flood level and well below the town. So much of the Fitzroy flood was being fed by the catchment outside the Dawson.
In fact,this flood on the Dawson is an all-time record breaker.Levels at Theodore are currently 14.6m, a meter higher than the 1954 flood,and 1.2m above the big flood early this year. Apparently,levels above 12.2m threaten the town.
A good question would be what is the cost/benefit of a levee for Theodore,whether a Nathan dam is built or not.
Apparrently today’s Toowoomba paper says that their dams are now at a combined 58.3%.
So more rain still needed.
spangled drongo only that combined Toowoomba dam levels as at today are 59.9%
http://www.toowoombarc.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386&Itemid=52
Wivenhoe is currently 100% I think and is currently letting water go through its spillway
As to levees which Polyaulax refers to – Charleville has a flood levee which has been breached numerous times (the major problem for Charleville is Bradleys Gully which takes water from the Warrego above the levee); the point with dams is that they depending on their size reduce the inflow but I can’t imagine any levee would have protected Theodore from this inflow
The various green groups are fundamentally misanthropic; it is the other side of the coin to nature worship; nature good, human bad; the idea that working the land can be good for the wildlife is not understood or accepted by the green ideology; the idea that green policies are bad for the environment is of course anathema:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/kyoto-protocol-bad-science-bad-policy/
Val,indeed you’d need a pretty chunky levee to protect Theodore,and for a town of 300 population,the expense is probably hard to justify. Jacking up the houses would be cheaper. Looking at the aerial shots,Theodore is a planning disaster.It seems to sit barely above and right next to the river. There are only 5m between ‘first report’ river height and major flood level.
Looking at the Nathan proposal,the Terms of Reference ‘Project Justification’ makes no mention of flood mitigation being a reason for its construction,or even a dividend of it.
With a catchment of some 25,000km2 and the 880GL capacity,it’s actually a modest dam in terms of catching extreme inflows. By contrast,Wivenhoe has three times the capacity,over half as flood capture,for a catchment of 7,000km2.
And Trevor is correct to say that Taroom would experience flooding issues if Nathan was full. Full supply level is supposedly 185mAHD,which would be a minor flood at Taroom gauge.
Another record will be well broken this year BTW. Taroom already has its wettest year on record by the end of November [missing records for 1974 and 75 notwithstanding] Adding on December so far,2010 will come in at over 1600mm. The previous record wet year was 1890,with 1204mm. Mean annual rainfall for Taroom is 670mm. Last year ,it recorded little over 400mm.
“The various green groups are fundamentally misanthropic; it is the other side of the coin to nature worship; nature good, human bad;”
Exactly cohers!
And the aspect that is never admitted to is that dams invariably develop their own biodiversity, often far greater than was there originally [not to mention that which must never mentioned, the HUMAN biodiversity].
The basic long-term trend over the next 100 years is for a steady global warming, and over most of Australia we can expect to see rainfall decline.’
Barry Hunt (CSIRO)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/29/3103161.htm?section=justin
Nope, wrong again, there’s a coincidental correlation between rising temps and CO2, but it’s a fallacy. The truth of the matter, we can expect to see regular cycles of droughts and floods, infinitum.
Polyaulax, thanks for your informed opinion and the stats.
Cementafriend, thanks for the feedback on my presentation to the Herron Todd White breakfast in Sydney – and I should reference that 2 part critic in World Economics.
Debbie/Polyaulax, if flood mitigation of populated areas was the priority, where would you build a dam in the MDB?
Trevor, on what basis do you write that the Nathan dam would not have mitigated flooding?
*****
according to the local Bulletin…. there is concern that the sewerage treatments works in both Rockhampton and Gracemere could fail because of freshwater inundation…. no mention of potential impacts downstream… another 400 homes in Rockhampton could go under water….again what are the potential downstream impacts on water quality
From a govt “State of the Environment Report” 2006
Pity they wouldn’t take their own advice:
“There is no doubt that Australia has always had a highly variable climate and that Australians are still learning to adapt to it. Paleo-climate data alone show that there have been more extreme wet and dry periods than the relatively few that have been seen in only two centuries of European settlement, and that more can be expected.”
It’s worse than we thought!
There have been both wetter and drier times in the past.
And what’s the conclusion to draw from this?
MORE BLOODY DAMS!!!
Burdekin Falls Dam captures more than 80% of all silt load from the upper catchment. It is THE most effective tool for protecting the Great Barrier Reef from the two major killers of coral, fresh water, and silt. The Nathan Dam need not be empty prior to a flood to make a major contribution towards protecting the Fitzroy portion of the GBR. It is not unusual to incorporate specific flood capture capacity that is well in excess of the nominal Dam storage volume. The Wivenhoe/Somerset system can capture an extra 2 million megalitres of flood surge on top of its combined nominal storage of 1.6 million ML.
And there is little doubt that Nathan could do a similar service, with as much as an extra million Ml of temporary flood capture that can be released as the flood flow recedes.
The broader issue of more dams needs to focus on the potential of off-stream storages in Cubby style Turkey Nest systems that can only capture flood flows and do not interfere in any way with species migration or normal season river flows. This is especially important in the Bowen Basin where no suitable in-stream sites have been identified. The majority of silt load at the mouth of the Burdekin now comes from this unregulated river and this silt load is a direct consequence of the volume and velocity of flows.
The ability of water to transport sediment is in direct proportion to the square of the velocity. So take the most damaging upper half of flood flows out of this, or any other system, and you reduce sediment transport to 25%.
It is also the case that the efficiency gains from very large storages are very marginal. That is, the cost of 5 large turkey nest dams is not much more than the cost of a single large storage of the same total volume. Large in-stream dams involve diseconomies of scale, in most part from the fact that the ideal dam site is rarely in the ideal dam position.
A more dispersed system of artificial lakes and wetlands is also a more environmentally secure and robust assemblage of habitats than a single big one. All water storages serve a critical function as dry season refugia that enhance the restocking of riverine systems after drought. And the more there are, and the more evenly they are spread, the better they perform this restoration function.
I agree with Jen on the folly of shifting water all over the country when the water can be put to better use in its own catchment. Transport infrastructure has a cost and any use of water that doesn’t involve that cost will always be a more efficient use of that water.
But I do not share her view that the MDB has enough dams already. If the Murray mouth can be kept wide open, and the health of the Coorong can be improved and maintained with directly injected sea water, then there is no logical or ecological reason to let a single drop of fresh water go over the Barrages. That water, an estimated annual average 5 million megalitres, can be put to much higher and better use elsewhere in the Basin. There is also a lot of very shallow, inefficient natural storages in the Basin where a portion of their water would be better diverted to more efficient man made storages.
And it should also be remembered that environmental river flows are the best suited for recycling. Instead of 8000Ml flowing out to sea each day, a single volume of 8000ML can be pumped back upstream each day to flow down again 365 days a year. Instead of a total loss of 2,920 GL of constant flow, the same ecological service can be delivered by 8 GL that is recycled 365 times a year. And the higher the price of water rises, the further it can be pumped for less than the price a farmer would pay for it.
And it is replicable. If a megalitre of water is worth $300 and a megalitre can be pumped 200km upstream for $270, then a recycling operation can make a 10% profit on every megalitre of environmental flow they can divert to other users. And if the distance between a river mouth and the major upstream storage is 2000km then it will only take 10 sets of 200km recycling units, and a total of 80,000 megalitres to maintain the health of the entire regulated river length and free up 2840 GL for more productive uses. And all that is needed is the requisite pumps, pipes and a 8 GL storage capacity at each end of a recycling unit.
We haven’t even begun to get our heads around the economic and ecological potential of our catchments.
Hi Jennifer,
Maybe a little bit of “Devils Advocacy” from you here.
First, I certainly agree that the Nathan dam should have been built years ago. Also that piping large volumes of water long distances is and likely always will be uneconomic and all present suggestions along these lines should be loudly rejected.
However have to take issue with some other statements.
Dams of the size and and placements in Australia have little impact on flood flows.
This is simple because once a dam is built the operational authority has to prudently maintain water volumes to supply basic stream flows to maintain stock, town and domestic requirements through likely drought times.
Because most droughts go from very dry periods to a year or two of average or above average rainfall, dams are usually particially replenished to 50% or above before we have the first flood rains.
After long droughts we often get several floods in a short time, resulting in storages being full when major run-off occurs.
We are seeing this over much of Australia at present and his has been the situation in many of our dams for the last two years.
Hence once we have a flood situation there is little capacity within dams for flood mitagation.
More importantly the volumes of water that flow down all of our river valleys during floods are many, many times the capacity of any of our dams even if they were empty at the time, which they never are.
Flood mitagation is never the reason for building a dam.
It needs to be recognised that all of the Dams of any consequence built in Australia, including the Snowy Scheme, were built in a very short period, that is between 1913 and 1965.
A period of only 50 odd years.
All of the water supply problems that have been apparent during the recent drought are directly related to this fact.
That while our population has more than doubled we have spent No money on water conservation.
If as a Nation we had not wasted taxpayer money on desalination plants and buying water licenses we could have had several much cheaper and far more practical options in several new dams.
It is quite ironic that I was on a trip through the rivers of the northern MD Basin in the last few days when I was forced to return from the Culgoa because of flooding.
The amount of water I witnessed, all of which will ultimately flow into the Darling and thence the Murray was sufficient to fill several huge dams, which we do not have.
Which brings me to my most important objection.
“I am not normally in favour of more dam building as there are enoough in the MDB already.”
Jennifer, the total storage within the entire Basin, including the Snowy Scheme is just under 29M megalitres.
This storage has to support the domestic and industrial needs of ove 2 M people and now augument the needs of Melbourne as well.
It also has to meet the needs of all irrigation within the Basin.
There is huge scope for further water conservation within the MDB which would be to the everlasting advantage of the environment and future generations of Australians.
Because of the present debate and the ongoing negotiations with Politicians I do not wish to name sites of likely dam sizes at this stage but total extra storage of over 7M megalitres is very feasable and practical in the immediate future.
We must accept that every time we build a dam or weir we increase the area of permanent water habitat for all aquatic species.
Dams do not destroy rivers or creeks, they allow modern man to improve the situation for all species reliant on stream flow.
The other fact that needs to be understood is that flood flows are unknown to water Authorities.
They are a very conservative guess and well below actual volumes.
As an example of water that could be used for future storage, let’s look at flows past Gogeldrie weir on the Murrumbidgee since the first of August.
(Gogeldrie Weir is the last diversionary weir on the Murrunbidgee, other than an old weir at Hay that does not divert much water.)
During the time since the first of August both Blowering Dam (1.6M megs.) and Burrinjuck Dam (1.03M megs.) have filled and overflown.
All of the natural wetlands and creeks that run for several hundred mile across the Riverina plains have filled to overflowing and there has still been sufficient water flow past Gogeldrie Weir to fill both Burrinjuck and Blowering dams from empty, several times over.
All of this water along with the continuing flood flows from the Darling system, the now flooding Lachlan and the huge floods fron N.E and central Victoria have flowed to the sea to waste.
The opportunity for extra storage capacity within the MDB is huge.
But we need a change of attitudes and some Politicians capable of vision and the courage to stand up to radical and uninformed environmentalists.
Pikey.
Jen, my first move would be to explore the feasibility of raising Burrinjuck by a few metres,and ditto Hume and even Burrendong. A few metres extra would not steal too much production land and would buy a significant volume increase,given surface areas at current dam full. A small dam on the Murrumbidgee immediately above Burrinjuck could have some mitigating value,and would be relatively deep and narrow,reducing land loss,but it would not capture the Goodradigbee and Yass Rivers of course.
My real suggestion would be to where possible improve town infrastructure to handle floods.
The more one looks at the siting of dams in the MDB,the more you realise that a pretty good job has been done…with the glaring exception of poor old Split Rock! All the best sites are taken,and the also-rans are pretty weak,weaker now than they were because of the increase in productive value of remaining river flats. The cost of building a dam at Gundagai,a ‘natural’ dam site,would be thousands of hectares of the best riverside land along the Tumut,Murrumbidgee,Muttama and Jugiong…it just could not be justified against the cost of a once-in twenty/fifty year event.
Populated areas are better prepared than ever to deal with flooding. We have levee systems and better forecasting and monitoring. We have zoning and construction standards built from experience and excellent information systems. Most people who die in floods now are not caught by surprise,they are taking unnecessary risks. Do we really need more dams in the MDB to specifically mitigate flooding of towns? Only a small part of Wagga was inundated,and as AFAIK,most towns along the Murray had little physical damage to houses.
The main cost of flooding is lost crops,farm infrastructure and rural and urban worktime. The existing dam system has boosted productivity while reducing nuisance flooding that may have carried off crops,pumps and fencing more often in the past. That is a big plus that should not be overlooked. No doubt many larger floods have been downsized by the existing system,also a plus,shorter lower events give crops a better chance of standing up again…..but the biggest events will always get away. This has been an exceptional year. If Burrinjuck had not been there,I’d wager the Murrumbidgee flood would have been higher and faster-more destructive,because daily rainfall totals were extreme.
Motty and Pikey,
Right on!
SEQ Water are in the latter stages of the Hinze upgrade and the Wyaralong but when you see all these incredible flows going down to the sea in silt you realise how much wealthier we would all be [ecologically as well as economically] if the money spent on dumb desal had been spent on dams.
Polyaulax,
Raising existing dams if possible always make the most sense except where there are good sites presenting opportunities that may never come again, and those need to be grabbed with both hands.
For instance if the Northern Rivers don’t do something about dams soon I fear that that area [which will have a high residential rate in the not too distant future] will be lost for all time. It may already be too late.
spangles
I’m with you on that and a reminder (once again) of the paleo flood around 1750 in the mdb. Further downstream it was as deep as the Danube. It can happen again.
eg,
I forgot to mention that it’s some of the most reliable water in Australia, too. No need to dam mainstream.
val,
something to make you homesick from the great Henry L:
It was a week from Christmas-time,
As near as I remember,
And half a year since, in the rear,
We’d left the Darling timber.
The track was hot and more than drear;
The day dragged out for ever;
But now we knew that we were near
Our camp – the Paroo River
With blighted eyes and blistered feet,
With stomachs out of order,
Half-mad with flies and dust and heat
We’d crossed the Queensland border.
I longed to hear a stream go by
And see the circles quiver;
I longed to lay me down and die
That night on Paroo River.
O/T, but it all gets down to this:
AGW, Maxwell or Planck?
Claes Johnson censored!
http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/132165.html
thanks for that Spangled Drongo and I think Banjo wrote one asking ‘where is that blasted river”
it’s a long way from the ‘hottest decade everrrrr’
as to which see the latest pronouncements from CSIRO’s David Hunt
http://catallaxyfiles.com/
and my response
Fortuitously Dr. Don J. Easterbrook has a guest post today on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#more-30425
his point is to answer the question of ‘which is the hottest year on record’, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia.
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
but thanks for the memories of the great Henry L
Yep, that evidence of AGW is every where [like chicken man]!
HOT, COLD, WET or DRY!
You can’t escape!
Mottie and Pikey and others, very interesting stuff but can anyone help me out?
I’ve tried for a couple of months to get the raw year by year record of rainfall and runoff for the MDB ( 1895 to 2009} from the MDBA, but so far no luck.
The BOM shows the 1900 to 2009 record to be an average of 489mm/ year while MDBA claim the 1895 to 2009 record to be 457mm, so who’s right?
As I’ve said here before the driest 10 year period according to the BOM record is 402mm 1935 to 1944, not ( as often stated ) 2000 to 2009– 421mm.
I know that rainfall and runoff are different things but I would like to ask Stewart Franks a few questions about the history of both components.
Ian Mott,
In spite of some sharp words with you a while back, I find the ideas you propose here are downright exciting. You’re describing an Australia where love of bush and acquisition of real (not paper) wealth come together. Only kind of Oz I want to live in.
I’m with Spangled,
Motty and Pikey, right on!
We can do so much better if we change our attitude to water conservation and realise that we need to do more of it, not try and close down or mess up what we’ve already done.
There are plenty of places in the MDB to do further conservation works. Both Motty and Pikey would know of these places. There are even maps available from Library archives that show the best sites for further water conservation works. Upgrading existing dams as Poly mentions is also an excellent option.
It wouldn’t hurt if SA did some just for a start. They want more water but they aren’t contribute much in the form of usable storage or usable diversion.
If we want our production capabilities and our way of life to prosper then we need to conserve more water.
If done well, dams can in fact help to mitigate flooding, especially by using diversion, drainage and puming systems.
The main reason for building dams is to store water in times of excess so that we can better manage the inevitable times of shortage. Our climate has always and will always yo-yo from one extreme to the other. Building storages and regulating water play a huge part in keeping us safe and prosperous and we also get to mainain excellent wetlands and habitats for native fauna and flora.
Has anyone noticed how many of the Ramsar listed sites are actually man made wetlands or at least altered by man? Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?
getting back to Toowoomba I’ve just heard on the news that Wivenhoe is 120% full and it’s releasing it’s flood storage downstream adding to the floods downstream
I must say that the State and Fed Govt’s have been badly served by the alarmist brigade including their scientific advisers (the CSIRO and BOM) whom they turned into propogandists for their cause
what sort of conflict is that?
the desalination plant build in Qld because the weather would be drier is currently decommissioned as it costs more to run it than rely on rainwater
and I think the same thing is happening in Victoria
and Gillard has still not toured the flood ravaged regions which is a bit embarrassing to say the least
I am a bit angry I’ll give you that and I’ve left a comment on ABC The Drum Unleashed about the worst 10 political and media blunders in 2010 (which hasn’t been published) but I think Aust has been badly served by the left leaning media not questioning the Govt; where’s investigative journalism when you need it
val, I think you might be thinking of this last verse:
“But where,” said I, ” ‘s the blooming stream?’
And he replied, ‘we’re at it!”
I stood awhile, as in a dream,
“Great Scott!” I cried, “is that it?
Why, that is some old bridle-track!”
He chuckled, “Well, I never!
It’s plain you’ve never been Out Back –
This is the Paroo River!”
yes, that’s it spangled drongo thanks for that made me laugh
and at that time I can assure there was no irrigation going on at the Paroo River except stock and wildlife drinking!
I don’t know what the city dwellers expect inland rivers to look like during a drought; it’s clear they’ve never lived in the outback
and by the way thanks to Jennifer and to all the independent scientists and Jennifer I echo cementafriends comments; I did read your links and I congratulate you; and all the other independent scientists who urged practical solutions like dams rather than getting on the global warming gravy train
“the desalination plant build in Qld because the weather would be drier is currently decommissioned as it costs more to run it than rely on rainwater
and I think the same thing is happening in Victoria”
The Qld plant is costing us $600,000 PER DAY! doing nothing except rusting away and the VIC plant will cost around FIVE TIMES that much.
That’s based on only 15% pa of actual cost [$1.2 bil] for interest on capital plus amortisation over 30 years [if it should last so long]. Management and maintenance costs extra.
These small ticket items put a little pressure on our water rates.
Pikey,
Most of what you say makes sense but a major point of disagreement is that about data and design. I mentioned the IEAust (The Institution of Engineers Australia) publication “Australian Rainfall and Runoff”. The following are some of the sections of Volume One
Book I Introduction (includes the subsection 1.2 Review of Fundamental Issues in Flood Estimation)
Book II Design Rainfall Considerations
Book III Choice of Flood Estimation Methods and Design Standards
Book IV Estimation of Design Peak Discharges
Book V Estimation of Design Flood Hydrographs
Book VI Estimation of Large and Extreme Floods
Book VII Aspects of Hydraulics Calculations
Book VIII Urban Stormwater Management
Volume Two has the rainfall and runoff data for all the major catchment and Urban areas in Australia.
The problem is that various planning committees and authorities are run by public servants with input from environmentalists and scientists who have no engineering knowledge. The committees and authorities should be lead by Professional Engineers who comply with the IEAust code of Ethics.
In Queensland there is a Professional Engineers Act (which applies to all including the State) which makes it illegal for not-registered persons to provide an engineering service (ie opinion or advice) which includes design or construction of structures, and engineering data such as runoff.
It is very likely that the PE Act has been breached many times by persons from CSIRO, Universities, and Departments of Commonwealth and State governments.
Scientists clearly do not understand engineering technology, mathematics (including statistics and probablities), economics, cost estimations, or risk estimations. The PE Act is meant to protect the public from incompetents and poor advice but it can not do that if Government ministers choose to play politics and accept or seek out advice from incompetents.
val,
How many miles wide would the Paroo be today?
I used to be a Diamantina drover when I was young and silly [now I’m old and silly] and the Diamantina at the junction with Farrar’s Creek just upstream of Birdsville gets to be 100 kilometers wide when it floods.
But like the Paroo, nothing when it’s dry.
Cematafriend I was aware of what you say ‘In Queensland there is a Professional Engineers Act (which applies to all including the State) which makes it illegal for not-registered persons to provide an engineering service (ie opinion or advice) which includes design or construction of structures, and engineering data such as runoff’ and I’m wondering how that affected the joint BOM CSIRO paper
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/py5t.pdf
which does refer to run off
I know there’s a number of references to run off in the other 2 reports mentioned in this article http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-retreat-from-global-warming-data-by.html
just wondering
To be fair to the Queensland government- and generally they are as inept as they come-,while one could confidently predict that a rainy season or two would return with La Nina,no one could/can say exactly when,where and how much rain will come with them. This is as wet a system as 73-74,and it could double up as El Gordo hopes.
SE Qld has got a great combo of top 10 percentile and bang on target rainfalls,and the pendulum has swung so far the other way that Wivenhoe managers are being extremely cautious and keeping plenty of head-room in the flood reserve. They probably have little choice as the mean wettest months of the new year lie ahead..but it does seem like a waste considering the run of dry years. Even Moogerah Dam is now overflowing,something not seen I think since February 1991 [correct me BAM]
However,in the long term,with Australia’s population growth from within and without increasing strongly,the absence of population policy,and SE Qld being a target for an extra million people in 15-20 years, I think the desal will be in use more often than not. Water managers need to provide certainty,and projects take years to come to fruition while demand rises at up to 5GL every year.
This is the sort of crap our darling ABC were spouting at every chance and all the bleeding hearts and politicians were wetting themselves over particularly the Greens and Labor:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1783187.htm
The CSIRO and BoM were not denying it either as it helped sell their AGW stories so they are very much responsible for the many living cost increases the battlers are only now starting to confront.
They could have done something about the madness at the time if they had wanted to.
In answer to various scribes.
Neville,
The information you are seeking, is from a practical point of view irrevelent.
The MDB is a huge area (14% of mainland Australia.)
What is important is that in all of the valleys of the MDB we have records of huge disparity of flows over differing spans of time.
It is this variability that gives modern man with the advantage of engineering expertise the opportunity to make this whole area a better place than that provided by Nature.
That is better for all species relient on its continuing survival.
Poly,
In relation to your thoughts regarding dams and displacement of those within there bounds.
We need to change what has been 30 years of misinformation and anti-dams sentiment that has become accepted.
Whenever an Autority (usually for basic domsetic and commercial water needs) has proposed a new dam; all discussion and reporting has been about why the Dam should not be built.
There is always a threatened species involved and always huge losses to those in its precincts.
The construction of Dams will always involve the disruption to some people, but the ongoing benifits for the whole community are so compelling that as a Nation we can afford to adequately compensate those displaced with value for their property and generous displacement payout that makes them happy to move.
The cost of this compared to the overall cost of the Dam and the ongoing advantage to the wider community is miniscule.
Secondly the amount of area involved is also very small and while river flat country is fertile and productive it is no where near as valuable as or as reliable a producer as modern flood plain irrigation property that would be developed from the extra water saved.
While increasing the wall heights of existing Dams may have some value in certain areas it is not the whole answer.
If I can use the Murrumbidgee valley as an example and what I am contemplating it is replecated in most of the other valleys in the MDB.
We have Burrinjuck Dam that was built almost 100 years ago and resulted in the developmeny of the MIA and later the CIA with the extra water from the Snowy.
There is no storage below Burrinjuck and Blowering on the Tumut.
However there are at least 12 major creeks that flow from the foothills of the Great Divide into the Murrumbidgee below these Dams.
It is these creeks that provide most of the water that floods the Murrumbidgee Valley.
On most of these creeks there is some irrigation when they are flowing and none when they are not.
These facts present huge practical problems for water supply authorities in the MIA and CIA.
Why?
Because it takes up to 6 or 7 days for water released from Burrinjuck or Blowering to reach a farm at the end of the Main Canal (92 miles long) west of Griffith; if a farmer has stopped irrigating because of a thunder storm ( a common occurrance,) then all water in transit flows to waste.
The problem is compounded when the farmer again orders water when it becomes hot and dry again.
Water Authorities have no near use available water.
Authorities have to over compensate for likely requirements.
If we were serious about improving the situation and mitigating the damage of flooding as well, here is what is necessary and my long held dream.
We build smaller dams on all of the creeks below Burrinjuck Dam.
We equip each of them with an Hydro Power plant.
We build simple rock retainment dams on the smaller streams.
These structures simple restrict water flow at times of flood run-off and slowly release it as floods recede.
They even out stream flow.
The permanent dams then release water to irrigators along these creek valleys in dry times when it is presently not available.
We can make all of these presently unreliable creeks permanent.
We desperately need serious storage around Wagga and Narrandera to conserve what is presently wasted and to put available water closer to the end user.
It is not true to say that these storages are not practical because of evaporation.
Never lose sight of the fact that in the chain of life there is no link more important than the link of evaporation.
As an example:
If we build a low level weir east of Narrandera that only stores 400,000 megalitres of water.
In a season like this it would be quickly filled.
Assuming next two years were hot and dry.
This water storage would likely lose around 80,000 megs to evaportaion.
However the State would sell around 200,000 megs of water for profit.
The deeper storages would have 200,000 megs more water left in storage for dryer times.
The new wetland would still have 120,000 megs of pristine aquatic habitat.
Water Management could save water when farmers decided because of changed conditions to not buy water.
The alternative, which is the present situation is that all of the 400,000 megs runs to the sea to waste.
In general comment.
As a Nation we did a wonderful and recurring good with water conservation and irrigation for the fifty odd years up to around 1970.
Since that time we have been overcome by a ruthless irrational environmental lobby that has emasculated our sence of purpose and our previous common sense to do great things for our Nation and the good of future generations.
Water and power are the two most basic requirements of modern life and they are in many ways connected.
Sadly we have neglected both and are now paying very, very dearly for this lapse into environmental lunacy.
We can and must do much better.
Pikey.
Pikey,
I can understand your anguish.
The point I was making about raising dam spillways was that it is politically painless [free of green obfuscation] and you can double or treble volumes without extra resumptions and get very good value for money but I see your point with the creeks below the Burrinjuck and the distances involved.
We can only pray for a change of heart with the authorities after the floods or a change of govt.
Thanks for the commonsense people; dams are an iconic marker for the AGW/Green ideology of putting nature first; however all the conversation has been about water storage; of the ‘renewables’ hydro has the only proven track record and in fact provides about 10% of California’s power. In Australia it provides much less, other than in Tasmania:
http://terrycardwellsblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/principal-power-stations-in-australia.html
But Pikey my point is that the latest basin plan is based on the fact that we now have less rainfall and runoff/ inflows than at any time over the last 100 odd years.
They base this calculation on their records, but you seem to think that those records don’t mean much, but it’s all we have to go on.
Afterall this will effect 2 million Aussies plus towns and farmers etc so I’m afraid I can’t agree we can be so cavalier.
My point is their records don’t seem to agree between MDBA, CSIRO and BOM so therefore we have to take issue with them as best we can.
In other words if you are debating on this subject you have to agree or disagree with the proposition and your assessment must be based on some sort of historical record of available water supply over the last 100+ years.
I’m sure that rainfall in the MDBA has definitely increased over the last 100 years and I can’t understand why the runoff/ inflow has become such a problem.
Neville
Landuse change has had dramatic effect on runoff, see my notes as per the following link: http://www.htw.com.au/Industry_Presentations/Jennifer-Marohasy-Presentation-Sydney-2010.pdf
El Gordo
Luke asked I forward some charts to you… but the email address is bouncing. if you email me at jennifermarohasy at jennifermarohasy.com i will onforward stuff from Luke
Spangled
You should have email i onforwarded from Luke.
spangled drongo I think the Paroo is experiencing only minor flooding at the moment; here are some photos from the Paroos big flood this year the end of Oct flood
http://www.aapone.com.au/search.aspx?search=%22PAROO+RIVER+FLOOD%22&field=ObjectName&Gallery=QUEENSLAND+FLOODS%26(IMPORTDATE%3E20100302)
you must have had some exciting times as a Diamatina drover; be nice if you could work out a post on those times
by the way did the good people of SA ever start on the Wellington weir which was so urgent in 1996 – in the ABC link above
Whether land use has an impact on macro-climate features is an emerging point; David Stockwell looked at it during the Watts tour:
http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
And there has been some research on the subject:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml
A recent Pielke paper looks at how land use can produce variations of rainfall and proposes new analytic tools to predict the extent of such influence:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/r-323.pdf
Some quotes from the Pielke paper are particularly relevant to the recent flooding and the failure of AGW predictions:
“1. The magnitude of the spatial redistribution of land surface latent and sensible heating (e.g., see Chase et al. 2000; Pielke et al. 2002). The change in these fluxes into the atmosphere will result in the alteration of a wide variety of climate variables including the locations of major weather features. For example, Takata et al. (2009) demonstrated the major effect of land use change during the period 1700-1850 on the Asian monsoon. As land cover change accelerated after 1850 and continues into the future, LULCC promises to continue to alter the surface pattern of sensible and latent heat input to the atmosphere.
2. The magnitude of the spatial redistribution of precipitation and moisture convergence (e.g., Pielke and Chase 2003). In response to LULCC, the boundaries of regions of wet and dry climates can change, thereby affecting the likelihood for floods and drought. This redistribution can occur not only from the alterations in the patterns of surface sensible and latent heat, but also due to changes in surface albedo and aerodynamic roughness (e.g., see Pitman et al. 2004; Nair et al. 2007).
3. The normalized gradient of regional radiative heating changes. Since it is the horizontal gradient of layer-averaged temperatures that force wind circulations, the alteration in these temperatures from any human climate forcing will necessarily alter these circulations. In the evaluation of the human climate effect from aerosols, for example, Matsui and Pielke (2006) found that, in terms of the gradient of atmospheric radiative heating, the role of human inputs was 60 times greater than the role of the human increase in the well-mixed greenhouse gases. Thus, this aerosol effect has a much more significant role on the climate than is inferred when using global average metrics. We anticipate a similar large effect from LULCC. Feddema et al. (2005), for example, have shown that global averages mask the impacts on regional temperature and precipitation changes. The above climate metrics can be monitored using observed data within model calculations such as completed by Matsui and Pielke (2006) for aerosols, as well as by using reanalyses products, such as performed by Chase et al (2000) with respect to the spatial pattern of lower tropospheric heating and cooling. They should also be calculated as part of future IPCC and other climate assessment multi-decadal climate model simulations.”
It is a pity, indeed a scandal that so much resource has been wasted on the AGW fraud when real human impacts on the environment have been ignored.
totally agree Cohenite – the UN, the IPCC, the alarmists who earn money from alarmism – all have a great deal to answer for but they’ll never be held accountable in my view
I would like Australia to secede (don’t know if that’s the right word) from the UN but doubt that will ever happen either
Jennifer thanks for that paper and I’m sure your ideas on inflow reductions are probably soundly based.
But I’m also sure the warmists would insist that rainfall in autumn and winter has decreased and increased summer rain would produce lower inflows because of a dryer cachment during the hotter months, plus higher evaporation rates.
Figure 8 in the paper says it all as far as I’m concerned, the annual rainfall anomaly ( MDB )shows an 11 year running average line that stays below the line for the first 50 years and then stays above the line for most of the next 50 years. Chalk and cheese.
But we still have these people telling the Australian public that the MDB is in a mess and recieving less rainfall.
Val, I read the CSIRO-BOM report and your article some time ago.
I recall that only one of the three CSIRO-BOM report lead authors has engineering qualifications but he was not registered in Queensland. The report contains some untrue data assessment which would not/should not have been made by a competent professional engineer, for example the federation drought is ignored and there is no mention of probabilities in determination of rainfall intensities and durations which can affect runoff. Further, it appears that the runoffs and streamflow comments are based on models rather than actual measurements. No information is provided about the models and the assumptions. I regard the report absolutely useless.
My knowledge of legal matters is very limited. The lead authors of the CSIRO-BOM report certainly give opinions on past runoff information and make predictions about the future, They could well have breached the PE Act because they are not registered or competent. Runoff and streamflows are engineering data required for the design of dams, bridges and drainage channels.
Neville
for an enlightened contrarian view on evaporation in summer, you might read Stewart Franks in Geophysical Research Letters vol 36, ‘on the recent warming in the murray darling basin: land surface interactions misunderstood’.
email me if you would like a copy/pdf
Cemetafriend thank you for those enlightened comments. In regard to what you say ‘it appears that the runoffs and streamflow comments are based on models rather than actual measurements. No information is provided about the models and the assumptions’ it might be worth asking BOM/CSIRO how the calculations of runoffs and streamflow were arrived at; I understand from Jennifer the figures are based on computer modelling and as the point of the article was temperatures not much attention was paid to that but you are right – it’s an important factor and has to date remained unexplained
I wonder if David Stockwell from Niche Modelling would be able to give some input; http://landshape.org/enm/
David’s latest article is on the floods in Emerald and it’s written today – he’s on the spot
the opening paras:
Right now I am in Emerald, Qld., Australia with choppers droning constantly overhead in the middle of a flood event, having spent the last few days bagging sand for friends’ houses. I have been through this a few times now, having grown up in country areas.
I want to document how poorly BoM modeling has served the community during this event. No flood risk was projected initially.
(and worryingly for BOM modelling predictions as he says):
The BoM predictions started at 3.5m at the spillway on the 27th, kept rising daily as the water rose, then paniced and overshot by 0.5m on the final day.
A known amount of rain fell on a known terrain. It can’t be that hard.
David’s bio is on http://landshape.org/enm/about-the-author/
Val,I’m afraid Dr Stockwell has got some of his information wrong. His timeline is incorrect,which may explain why the flood/evacuation advisories were timed as they were.
He claims that “the main rain fell on Xmas day in the catchment,4-6” [100-150mm]. This is incorrect. On Xmas day most stations upstream of Fairbairn Dam recorded under 10mm for the day. However, cumulative catchment totals for the 23rd and 24th were in the range 25-75mm.
More importantly,the period 18th to 20th December inclusive saw totals of 50-110mm in the Nogoa above Fairbairn, and on Carnarvon Tableland. These falls,and those of 23-24th, primed the catchment for bigger falls on the 26th [generally under 40mm,with some totals up to 80mm] and particularly the 27th,which saw truly massive totals in the upper Nogoa.
On the 27th,rain totals of up to 200-300mm fell in the upper Nogoa and on Carnarvon. These caused big,fast rises on the Nogoa,which had been drifting down to below minor flood level at Craigmore gauge upstream of Fairbairn, From the 27th the river rose nine metres over the next 48 hours to nearly 18m at 8.30am yesterday. Rainfalls were also significant on the 28th,with totals up to 45mm.
The councils advisory of 11am on the 27th was obviously put together earlier that morning before the huge falls of that day,as river levels were steady and/or falling. Things changed by the evening.
The second advisory,early on the 28th-not the 29th as DrS has indicated-,suggested that on 31/12 the river would reach 300mm above the 2008 flood which would make it around 15.7m.
The third,on the 30th, upped the estimate to 16.2m. It looks like the peak will be close to that total,with Fairbairn not yet peaked at 19.40 local time.
BOMs flood advisories had to be revised dramatically and quickly after the totals for the 27th emerged. Emerald gauge has so far reached 15.95m…so I think the final advisory is not a bad estimate,so far only 25cm out.
I think DrS should revise his post.
Sorry,my error..the second advisory WAS early on the 29th,but was misdated the 28th below the header on the advisory. Makes little difference to the story.
My take is that it is a little unkind to accuse BOM modelling of serving the Emerald community poorly when the picture on the Nogoa is more complex than Dr S suggests,and resources were undoubtedly stretched given record flooding and widely varying individual peaks on scores of significant streams elsewhere in the Fitzroy catchment,in the Burnett,and on the Darling Downs.
I also appreciate that Dr S is somewhat in the middle of it himself.
Just doing my rainfall data summaries as at 9 am 31/12/2010, for the year [the decade, the century etc] and in spite of the very wet year we’ve just had, the yearly totals are around the same as the big flood in 1893 but about 1,000 mm [40 inches] less than the similar flood of 1974.
Jen and Luke,
Thanks for that info you sent.
Happy New Year to you all!!!
Yeah, good on you Spangles; leave the rainfall, we’ve now got Poly to do the numbers, and go and have a beer.
Why is the only appeal for the Qld flood victims the Premiers Appeal; although it’s proposed to be managed by the Red Cross my preference is to donate through the Red Cross not the Qld Premier partiularly when I am non impressed by the Fed and State Govt’s donation of $1 m each particularly when the Labor Govt spent $31 m on polling before the last election
My question is where are the charities appealing for donations; are bushfire victims more appealing than flood victims; I recall at the time of the Black Sat fires there were also flood victims in Qld and I recall a lot of money was raised in Qld
Charities appealing would be much more effective than a premier who is not popular
Can anyone tell me the answer to that question – how do I energise the charities
Please leave a supportive comment on Dr Stockwell’s blog
http://landshape.org/enm/emerald-floods/
he’s in Emerald
I’m miffed about the flood victims appeal; at the time of the Black Sat fires Red Cross and other charities were accepting donations and currently the only appeal I’ve seen is the Premiers Appeal (okay I know the Red Cross is admin’ing it but I’d rather donate to the Red Cross rather than to a Premier for whom I don’t have much admiration.) I’ve e mailed the Red Cross; there was good coverage on the ch 7 news tonight and the victims are stiff lipped but don’t know what the ABC will show; my gripe is that the charities should be launching appeals not the State Govt and I am appalled at the miserliness of the amt offered by the State and Fed Govts; I’ve passed that on to the Red Cross; I recall at the time of the Black Sat fires I donated through the Red Cross and Qld was also suffering flood damage at that time but the Black Sat victims got the majority of the appeal funds and now I think it’s Qld’s turn – hopefully the Red Cross will come to the party; I think they are much more photogenic than the PM and State Premier
Anyway please offer support to the people of Emerald through Dr Stockwell’s blog
Val,
I just donated to the premiers appeal directly to reduce the generation of requests when you go through a charity however you are right, the Sally Army etc ought to be pushing this barrow.
Maybe they have not realised the potential yet. It is not like charities to miss such an oportunity.
The other reason I sent the money to Anna was to try to avoid the “overhead” of charities, hoping that 100% of govt funds would end up where it did the most good.
I have no evidence though, to believe this will happen.
Val,
I’m not a supporter of the Bligh govt either but remember that govt money is our money and “we” will be funding all the road and infrastructure repairs anyway which is the greater part of the cost.
As Luke will soon tell us, we will also be footing the bill for farmers “flood relief” so these “Govt Donations” are really just political gestures. But they do get the ball rolling.
Probably they will mainly assist people who didn’t have flood insurance.
I have been down at farm for past 2 days, its actually dry. Robert, I can’t even recall what our sharp words were about so if you don’t remind me then it is all in the past.
Pikey, my brother was always returning water to the ditch when a shower came over too soon after he had irrigated. The additional water was counter productive so he would often end up pumping the entire volume of the rainfall back into the system but NEVER got any credit for it. Many irrigators end up doing the same thing but there is no mechanism for recording it, let alone giving them full credit for the volume, either for physical volume or the cash. And end user storage would certainly help.
Happy New Year to Everyone.
Let’s hope that in 2011 we see the triumpth of truth, reason, common sense and practicle policy over the irrational sensationalised nonsense that seems to have been accepted in recent times.
Ian, throughout the Irrigation Areas there exists a complex network of gravity drainage channels. These channels transport the water that inevitabley flows off irrigated land for varying reasons but mostly following rainfall.
The State water Authorities resell this water to irrigators further down the system.
Most large private irrigation enterprises recycle run-off water on property and thereby create further wetlands and reuse this water via high volume, low lift pumps.
It was the construction of these systems where I spent a lot of my working life.
It is a mostly unknown fact that down most of the valleys of the MDB water is reused several times, obviously in diminishing amounts. All the while increasing the area of wetland and increasing evaporation and likely rainfall further east. (Not proveable, because we have no records for a lengthy period prior to the advent of broad acre irrigation.)
It is these darinages systems with there incorporated storage basins that are some of the pristine and permanent water habitat that has been developed by man as part of our water conservation and irrigation systems.
Environmentalists and sadly many Politicians can not or do not wish to see and acknowledge this fact.
(see my article “From Uninhabitable to Unimaginable.”)
Just to reiterate some facts on run-off and flows.
All charts showing river flows for more than 45 years ago, are at best a guess arrived at from rainfall figures.
We did not have river guages of any accuracy or number before the 1960s.
As can be witnessed in the present floods, once water flows over the river banks we have NO idea of the volume passing down the valley.
It is a best a guess and usually far below the real amount. Recognition of these facts demonstrate the futility of trying to stop floods with a dam.
It is not possible.
Cohers,
Just a note on hydro power.
I haven’t looked it up lately but I think you will find that Snowy Hydro still supplies about 8% of the power to the eastern Grid.
Would be glad for someone to check this.
In relation to the MDBA paper which is obviously giving some people here a headache.
This document is one of the most useless and misleading reports to ever come out of Canberra.
It is what you get when a new Bureaucracy is created with nothing to do and has to come up with a reason for its very existence.
This document used as a starting point what it needed to justify its existense and then set about writing 260 pages of motherhood statements and sweeping assumptions that are baseless.
None of the so-called facts in this document can be substantiated by real data.
Those responsible for this paper totally discarded the history of the MDB. Refused to pay any attention to the geography or the records that are available and chose to rely on models using future assumptions.
All involved in the production of the MDBA paper should immediately be on the very end of the unemployment line.
I advise all here to totally discard most of what it contains as it is misleading at best and fraudlent at worst.
The Water Act of 2007 is sadly a clasic case of the Government, identifying a problem that doesn’t exist, incorrectly diagonising it and then creating a giant and expensive bureaucracy to fix the non-existing problem.
It is the worst piece of legislation since Federation.
All the best.
Pikey.
Polyaulax, your view on the future use of desal water is common but illinformed. Every new house in SEQ must have a mandatory water tank. But it is not widely understood that a very large portion of new dwelling construction is for the replacement of older houses that have either fallen down or have been demolished to make way for other uses like commercial space etc. And this means that the total number of houses without water tanks is set for sustained decline.
In SEQ the minimum 5000 litre tank will refill at least 15 times each year, and the more water is taken from it, the greater it’s capacity to capture more water. It is trite but true that empty tanks can capture more water than full ones. The average installation is larger than 5000 Litres. So while water tanks won’t deliver all the water required by additions to the housing stock, the combination of partial supply by new and replacement house tanks will remove all the growth in water demand.
Combine this with the existing recycling infrastructure and the long term trend is for reduced total demand from existing storage infrastructure and increased redundancy of the desal plant. And this is before any new technologies kick in.
Desal might have had a slim chance of being economic if they had;
1. Put the damned thing on barges so it could be moved from drought area to drought area to keep it operating at high output for a greater part of each year, and
2. Put the damned thing close to a river mouth (with a high portion of urban run-off) so it is merely desalinating brackish water instead of full sea water. Halve the salt content of input water and the cost of the fresh water produced is substantially less than half the cost of the same water from sea water, and
3. Identify last resort locations where, in the absence of demand from any other places due to absence of drought, the desal plant could be moved to supply additional irrigation water (especially if mixed with recycled effluent) for sale on the spot market for opportunity crops.
The major determinant in the cost, volume, profit relationship for high cost infrastructure is output volume and percentage operating time. Employing all three options above can reduce overhead costs to well below the energy cost per unit. Operating at close to 100%, ie 24/7, then the price of water produced declines towards the direct (variable) costs of energy and labour.
But it is now a matter of public record that the Qld water authorities did not have a single engineer that was capable of determining what level of brackishness would be required as Desal feed water to ensure that the water produced was the same price as existing supplies from storages. It is actually gross negligence and a serious breach of Senior Executive Service dilligence, care and attention in respect of public assets.
spangled drongo
I heard tonight that the present flood in Rockhampton described as one of ‘biblical proportions’.
I wonder how high the floods in Rockie were in 1890 with nearly 2100mm for the year, of which 1400mm fell in the first 3 months.
I see they are quoting 1918 as the highest flood peak in Rockhampton (just over 10m) but 1893 and 1886 were also high (1954 and 1991 seem similar to this one).
Anyone have a reference?
Ian George,
According to the BoM 10.11 in 1918 but there are bound to be higher, unrecorded floods.
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/fitzroy/fitzroy.shtml
Thanks for the reference, sd.
Spangled thanks for those comments
Ian I put a link last night on David Stockwell’s blog to an article written by a Rockhampton resident
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/queensland-australia-flood-disaster-central-rockhampton/
There’s a close up of the flood marker showing three dates being the markers for the 1991, 1954 and the 1918 Floods at the top marker
Tony (the author) says the earlier predicted peak was going to be 8.4 metres for Tuesday Jan 04. That level has already been reached and the new level is expected to be 9.4 metres, making this close to the second largest flood in recorded history, with only the peak of 1918 higher. However that peak of 1918 was long before the huge dam went in near Emerald, upstream, so in all probability, this will be in fact the worst flood in recorded history for this area. That level of 9.4 puts it the same as for the major flood of 1954 and just higher than for the most recent major flood in 1991.
That article was posted yesterday and I have no doubt Tony will write further
val,
“However that peak of 1918 was long before the huge dam went in near Emerald, upstream, so in all probability, this will be in fact the worst flood in recorded history for this area.”
Their claim for this doesn’t take into account that the Fairbairn was already full and overflowing considerably before this lot of rain so, in effect, probably had no bearing on restricting any of this last flow.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/qld/content/2010/09/s3026125.htm
Val,
Thanks for the link to TonyfromAus, regarding the flooding in the Fitzroy.
There is some useful background information and great photos.
Gee, we really are SO short of water in Australia.
Just at a guess it looks like the Fitzroy in one of the pictures could be flowwing at well over 240,000 megs per day.
In the not too distant future you can bet this area will be short of water and our Polies will again be demanding everyone use less water.
Always mitagation before conservation.
Pikey.
Totally agree Pikey; sad isn’t it – mitigation before conservation
Started to wonder today do politicians really owe ‘due diligence’ to their electorate like other professionals such as accountants; lawyers, who businesses hire to advise them; I’ve read John Howard’s book or at least started to recently and he’s always talking about the national interest; but the current batch seem to be just wanting to keep their head above water; eg spending $31M on polling before the last election and the current Foreign Minister floating aimlessly around the world giving money hither and thither
I haven’t been able to find a ‘due diligence’ or lack of against any politician; why is that so; is a politician’s only duty to his party to get elected; surely there must be a duty to the electorate?
Don’t know; but if not then it’s sad isn’t it
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/the-rockhampton-flood-crisis-the-fitzroy-river-barrage/
Tony’s next article from Rockhampton;
Hi Val,
I am just about finished John Howards book and found it very enjoyable for an avid Poly watcher.
Below is the link to an article by Barnaby Joyce in todays SMH.
It would appear that we are finally getting through that there is a better way with water than the lack of action for the last couple of decades.
We have a long way to go but Barnaby’s change of direction is a promising start.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/and-not-a-stop-to-think-as-government-ignores-water-20110102-19cza.html
I expect a greeny backlash to this sentiment.
Pikey.
Pikey thanks for that link to Barnaby’s article; I left a supportive comment and hope you did too;
Noting what you had to say above about the MDA plan I hope you would address that particularly in any comment you do make