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).
