Politicians have very selective optimism and pessimism about technology. Both major parties have invested huge faith in “clean coal” technology. Labor thinks nuclear can’t possibly be cost-competitive with clean coal, John Howard (if not his ministers and backbench) seem convinced that it will be. The Greens are big on anything renewable and distributed, and don’t believe anything large, centralized, and operated by multinationals could possibly be environmentally sound. The federal Liberals seem to believe any sales brochure wafted under their nose by an American arms manufacturer. New South Wales Labor, and Victorian politicians across the political spectrum, don’t seem to believe that sewerage can be purified to drinking water standards; or, more to the point, don’t believe that they can convince the punters it’s safe.
And, finally, there’s the Nationals, who believe completely in any technology that doesn’t involve telling their electorates that they’re going to have to get by with less irrigation water.
According to the latest reports, Queensland Nationals senators are threatening to block Howard’s water plan, because of the belief that water entitlements in the upper reaches of the Murray-Darling in South-East Queensland will be targeted. Central to this is the National Party’s belief that water rights should only be bought back by the government as a last resort.
When the plan was initially mooted, the good Professor Quiggin noted that this didn’t make much sense from an economic perspective. Per his calculations, the cheapest way to return water to the river was simply to buy it back, as permanent water allocations were trading for less than what the proposed infrastructure will cost. However, that may no longer be the case: the water market in the Murrumbidgee indicates the last few trades have been pretty close to the magic figure of $2000 per megalitre (delivered per year in perpetuum) that the government is going to spend to return more water to irrigators and for the environment.
Sadly, however, it seems that the cost of the water savings promised by engineering schemes may be higher than the estimates in the water plan. Harry Clarke at Kalimna reports on a talk given by economist Alistair Watson on the plan. Aside from being policy on the run, Watson talked about the emphasis on technological fixes, and the touching faith in them:
The Plan generally reflects wishful thinking technological optimism about costs and returns.
If this turns out to be correct, we might just be back in the same situation in a few years time, spending yet more money buying out irrigators when the technological fixes have delivered less water than hoped.
New technology sometimes pans out better than hoped. Sometimes it doesn’t. But making plans based around optimistic assumptions of how one particular technology or other is going to pan out is a risky, risky business. Unless, of course, your only goal is to keep Alan Jones happy and National Party senators in the fold until the next election.
A great post Robert.
There is a tendency for those upstream to think the water is theirs. Those downstream often think it should all be let run through to them (eg Egypt). In practice it is power that counts, well, that’s apart from rationality, markets, and a messy concept called need (Adelaide).
I’m sure that the Qld Nats think they’ll get the rough end of the pineapple sooner or later. There are more voters and more seats to their south.
One problem with Howard’s ‘plan’ is that it assumes that there will be roughly the same water in the future as there was in the past. Peter Cullen keeps emphasising that they should assume that there won’t be.
Another one, and I’m not sure how important it is, is that saving seepage in the channels will not yield a straight saving in water in perpetuity. In many places apparently the seepage ends up back in the river, only years later. So part of their technical fix might mean snaffling water from the future.
It’s why someone making policy needs to know about hydrology.
Everyone:
There’s one engineering solution to all our problems that can be chucked into the rubbish-bin right now: that of bringing water from northern Australia to the south.
In engineering terms it is quite possible, of course, but to do it you really have to own the land where all the rain falls on the first place.
Given Australia’s neglectful, inappropriate defence and foreign relations over the past few decades, what gives you the idea that Australia will continue to own any of northern Australia for very much longer?
Back to the drawing-board ….. and savour your grey-water.
This is a quality post. A feature of the Howard government’s water proposals (and the self-interested clamour from the Nationals) is their very socialistic (the term is right) emphasis on what a central committee of water planners can do in terms of improved irrigation technology.
The emphasis should be on the buybacks. This is the cheapest way of getting rid of the irrigation water over-allocation issue.
Yeah Graham, we’re all at peril from the yellow menace to the north. After all, they’ve taken so much already haven’t they? Those evil, japs, or charlies, or whatever.
We must defend against these countries that can barely look after themselves – they just can’t wait to start an international war for the sake of some indefendable land, a bit of uranium and some bauxite!! Wooooo! Set loose the dogs of war!!!
That’s a silly statement, and if you thought about any of the realities involved, I have no doubt you would be uncomfortably aware of you bull-headed racism that motivates it.
I do agree about the futility of reversing water, but I would be more inclined to cite those engineering reasons you cited (along with environmental), rather than our evil, imperialist, slanty-eyed Fu Manchu neighbours to the north.
Patrickg:
The comment I made related to harsh economic, military and geopolitical realties of 2007. Much as you may wish it to be otherwise, “race” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my comment. So you can tidy up your old-fashioned ever-so-clever sneers and put them away where you found them ….. then take yourself off to a library or roam through the internet to find out how rapidly some of the major players in our hemisphere have developed in the last quarter century or so …… somehow, I think you’ll be discomforted finding out.
The only silliness here is in making grandiose plans to use water that may not necessarily belong to us when the time comes to put such glorious schemes – “pipedreams” – into operation.
[b.t.w. You implied that I was a bull-headed racist. Ooops! You don't know me personally .....so .... can I offer you a few tissues to remove the egg you've splattered all over your own face?
L-O-L]
Brian: “There is a tendency for those upstream to think the water is theirs.”
That’s quite a sharp aphorism right there; it sort of belongs in Bartlett’s. It’s got a certain ring of metaphoric truth to it. Good one.
j_p_z, I’ve been thinking of a post on the general principles of water rights. I have a story about a poor bloke in California who couldn’t dam the water on his own farm. He lived in the hills and demonstrated that the water wouldn’t flow down the stream to where the other people wanted it. That made no difference. So he tried to sink a bore over a thousand feet down and had terrible difficulty getting permission to do so.
Of course the Colorado River is a good example of just about all the difficulties you could imagine.
Graham, if you honestly think Australia has a border or strategic defence issue to worry about, you must be living on another planet.
Regardless of what the internet says, your comment displays no understanding of international relations or strategy.
It doesn’t matter how big Indonesia, China, whatever yellow menace you care to posit gets, northern Australia is not going to be invaded, bought etc.
The reasons for this are manifold, ranging from the sanctions an act of war would bring, the casualities; economic, social, and demographic, to the fact that, as I have already said, the land is basically un-defendable and there is nothing there.
If, however, you think the evil nips are going to steal the land from right under our noses, I urge you to educate yourself by taking a look at this map.
It details the types of land use in the Northern Territory. Note the overwhelming amount of crown, freehold and indigenous land ownership. This land isn’t for sale, Graham, only for rent, and ever will be.
You’re right dude, I did imply you are a racist – what you said certainly stinks of it. I don’t know you, so presumably you’re making reference to the colour of your skin or something by arguing that I’ve got it all wrong. If this is the case, I don’t really see the relevance. The colour of your skin doesn’t, sadly, preclude anyone from being racist.
Patrickg, you did indeed say
:-0 oh dear, oh dear, you should have checked first …… how many eggs to you have left to put all over your face?
There’s nothing new in your happy delusions; they’ve been seen before “We don’t have a thing to worry about with those Japanese, they’re only short little men with buck-teeth who hiss at each other. They all wear glasses and can’t see in the dark. All they can make are celluloid dolls and cheap goods” [or words to that effect - about November 1941, I think].
All I did was make a practical comment on minimizing one of the risks to the future reliability of water supply for south-eastern Australia …… and you jumped in with irrelevant and abusive posts based on so-called “anti-racist” screeching from back in the ‘Seventies. I’m not going to waste any more of my time on your nonsense.
I am happy to discuss with anyone how to plan for securing long-term reliable supplies of water.
Sheesh, Graham, way to address my arguments.
Patrickg:
Before any sensible discussion of securing long-term reliable sources of water for south-eastern Australia can begin, two points deserve to be borne in mind:
[1] Native Title exists solely because the Commonwealth Of Australia says it exists and continues to have the power to ensure it remains in existence …… a matter that can be very abruptly changed with a few well-placed airstrikes and 152mm artillery barrages followed by drawing new lines and words on the maps.
[2] Nations and corporations [such as the East India Company] have always readily gone to war to conquer territory, to dominate strategic routes and to gain control of resources in the face of tremendous risks – be those risks casualties, loss of treasure or international condemnation. Not nice ….. but that’s the way the world works.
Australia has a wealth of unexploited resources [including water in northern Australia], a vacillating and weak government, puny defences and a tiny and docile population …. a situation that has, ever before in history, led inexorably to foreign intervention. Why wouldn’t any vigorous country or corporation want to hop in for their chop before Australia is “carved up like a melon” by everyone else?
Now …. about that apology for slandering me as a so-called “racist” …….