pipeline, page-21

The problems with a water pipleine fom the north west are huge and financial .Surprisingly enough the financial problems are not in the cost of building but are in the cost of the electricity required to pump the water This is an exert from a report on different methods of solving australias water problems including diverting rivers inland which has severe ecological problems for the areas being diverted from and pipe line transportation.
Page 1
Cart water by road and rail
Rural communities have often had to resort to
transporting water by road during dry spells to fill up
rainwater tanks and property dams. In the recent
drought, many families have used government
subsidies to call on water tankers to replenish their
domestic supply.
The proposal of transporting water by road and rail is
an expansion of the existing small scale system of
water tankers, utilising the existing road and railway
network that extensively covers Australia to move
vast quantities of water from wetter areas to dry, for
all water uses.
As our road system is far more extensive than rail, it
is assumed this would be the chief mode of transport
for an integrated water transportation system.
Australia’s rail networks comprise 40,000km of track.
Australia’s rail system currently hauls over 36% of all
domestic freight compared with 35% by road and
29% by sea. The average train could typically cart
9,000 tonnes of water. (ARA, 2001)
In the early 1980s, the Victorian Government
trialled the use of giant plastic bladders to cart water
to drought stricken towns in empty coal wagons. The
experiment was abandoned after a flooding in the
main Melbourne railway goods yard. The railways
were equipped to cart coal but not large quantities of
water. (The Age IN Infarmation, 2002)
Issues
Large scale transportation of water around Australia
would put pressure on dams and over allocated river
systems which are providing for their local area.
There are specific health requirements for carting
water which highlight the need to ensure special care
particularly with the quality of the water (for
example, NSW Health, 2002 & Vic Health, 2002).
The majority of Australians live close to our road and
rail system. Greatly expanded rail and truck
movement on roads over long distances will have
environmental and social implications.
The Australian transport sector accounts for 73.9
million tonnes of Australia’s total net greenhouse gas
emissions, representing just over 16.1% of Australia’s
total emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from the
transport sector are also the fastest growing emissions of
any sector, rising by 20.3% from 1990 levels. (AGO,
2003)
About 90% of all transport emissions come from road
transport, including cars, trucks and buses. In
contrast, rail contributes 2% of greenhouse gas
emissions from the transport sector. The dominant
energy supply utilised by road and rail transport is
diesel, a non-renewable fossil fuel. Diesel contributes
70% of road network emissions, despite only making
94 Transporting Water
A Furphy
The humble water
cart has a long his-
tory in Australian
history. The Furphy
family made water
carts during the First
World War to be
used by the
Australian army
overseas. The carts,
emblazoned with the family name, are where the
Aussie expression ‘furphy’ comes from. Legend
has it that the drivers of the carts, and the soldiers
that congregated for a drink around the carts
were gossips. Hence all rumours became
‘furphies’. The Furphy family, who reside in
Shepparton Victoria, still operate their famous
water cart. (ABC, 1998)
Cost
Environment
Water
Emergency Water on Wheels
In the height of the drought last year, Victorian
towns of Wallan, Kilmore, Broadford and
Wandong/Heathcote Junction ran out of water.
The Sunday Creek Reservoir, the towns’ water
supply, is still at 6% capacity. As a result the
towns have been carting in water since
November 2002, using idle trucks that usually
transport milk from farms in better times.
Broadford currently has five trucks carting
1.08ML, eight times daily from Seymour,
30 kilometres away. New roads and infrastructure
have had to be built to accommodate the
trucks. Residents are currently restricted to water
use inside the home only. (Healey, 2003)
TRANSPORTING WATER
(Photo courtesy Furphy Pty Ltd)
Page 2
Transporting Water 95
up 10% of all road users. (ARA, 2001). The vehicle
type with the highest average fuel use is fully laden
trucks. Energy will also be required to run the pipe
and pump system that will convey the water to the
mode of transport.
Increased truck movements would contribute
significantly to noise in urban areas, traffic
congestion, accidents, and air pollution.
Transporting water by road and rail will inevitably
mean significant increases in consumer costs of water,
to cover transport costs, road and rail maintenance,
and the cost of water.
New infrastructure may have to be built to cope with
the increase in demand and land allocation issues will
have to be addressed. A typical single railway uses a
land reservation of 15 metres wide and costs around
$1 million per kilometre to build. In contrast a two-
lane highway needs a land reservation of 50 metres
wide and costs around $2 million per kilometre to
build (ARA, 2001). The Federal Government spent
$1.74 billion on roads in 2002-03 (Anderson, 2002).
There is potential to save costs by using rail carriages
that would otherwise return to the inland empty, to
be used as water transport. A bladder would have to
be installed in rail carriages to make them water tight
and prevent contamination of the water, and
equipment made to fill and empty the bladders.
A cost comparison estimate has been made for
transporting water from Melbourne to Shepparton, and
from Parkes to Bathurst, a distance of about 160km.
The cost by rail was just under $15/kL while the cost for
road was a little more than $15/kL. (HWA, 2003)
A final comment...
Carting water by road or rail is a very expensive way
to move water around and should be avoided.
However, in times of severe drought, it is an appro-
priate way to alleviate shortages in small towns and
on farms. For long distances, the rail network makes
far better economic sense.
It has been found that rail is three times more
energy efficient than trucks per tonne of freight
hauled (ARA, 2001).
Back o’ Bourke
“During this recent drought, water was transported
to Byrock, about 90km from Bourke in NSW, in 27kL
tankers, 5 times a fortnight to meet domestic
demand. Each load was costing $300, which is
about $11 per kilolitre for drinking water.”
Sean Rice, Director of Engineering Services,
Bourke Shire Council, April 2003.
Page 3
Many people have noticed the difference in rainfall
between the coastal areas and the inland and
wondered why some of the flow in the coastal rivers
can’t be diverted inland.
The idea is not new. In 1929, Dr John Bradfield,
noted engineer, and designer of the Sydney Harbour
Bridge, came up with a proposal to turn central
Australia into a Ghirraween, or ‘place of flowers’ as
he called it. Bradfield set off on horseback with basic
equipment through the Queensland rainforests to
map the best points for dams and diversions
(Fullerton, 2001).
Bradfield’s plan, announced to the Queensland
government in 1936, was to harness the mighty
flood-flows of the tropical rivers of North
Queensland – the Tully, Johnstone, Herbert and
Burdekin – and divert them via the Flinders,
Thomson, Cooper and a series of channels, to
irrigators inland. Leftover water would end up in
Lake Eyre, theoretically creating evaporation and
bringing rain to the arid interior. (Fullerton, 2001
and Johnston, 1997)
There have been several reviews of the Bradfield
scheme by both the Queensland Government and
the Federal Government. The reviews in 1947 and
the early 1980s found that the scheme could not
stand up to scientific or economic scrutiny – the
scheme would involve great economic and
environmental cost, but deliver little real benefit.
(NRM, 2002)
Similar schemes had been mooted for the NSW coastal
rivers, especially in times of drought. The NSW
government ordered a review in 1981 that was carried
out by consulting engineers Rankine & Hill. This
review investigated 22 coastal catchments and multiple
options for each catchment and found that while a few
were physically practical, the costs were “too high to
justify construction”. (Rankine & Hill, 1981)
The technical problem with schemes to divert the
rivers inland is in the method of transferring the
water from the coast to inland.
For a scheme to work using gravity alone, a tunnel
would need to be drilled through the Great Divide.
In the Rankine & Hill study, the length of tunnel
required ranged from just under a kilometre to 67
kilometres depending on the location. This however
reduces the size of the catchment and consequently
the runoff water available for diversion. To capture
more water, the dam or weir would need to be further
down the catchment and pumped up to the tunnel.
This however would use significant amounts of
electricity given the amount of water to be pumped
and the fact that the Great Divide is several hundreds
of metres above sea level. (Rankine & Hill, 1981)
Issues
While the government reviews of the concept of
diverting rivers inland have shown it to be
uneconomic, the environmental ramifications are
likewise prohibitive. The impacts of diversions
include impacts on the rivers from which the water is
removed, impacts on the rivers where the water has
been added and impacts on the areas where the water
is used (Hart, 1999).
The NSW Government Independent Inquiry into the
Clarence River System noted that “it is apparent that
any proposal to divert substantial quantities of water
from the Clarence would present significant risks to
the health of riverine ecosystems, and those activities
and values dependent on them” (HRC, 1999).