Stu's Letters Book

From Stuart Oliver 17 Gwynne Corner, Jane Brook, WA, Australia, 6056 Phone/Fax: (08) 9250 1839 Mobile: 0417 090 321 Email: stuarto@upnaway.com 17/4/2004 Dear Editor Re: Bringing Water from the North Well, it appears I stirred the pot! May I say here I am not an engineer, but I have been both a farmer (I grew up on the land) and a “city slicker”, so I don’t believe it can said that I have no knowledge of the land and environment. No doubt it is a coincidence that within a few days of your paper going to press a new and, apparently, viable plan to build a canal from the Kimberleys down has been proposed and is being “looked” at by the Government (wonders will never cease!). I suppose my detractors will also claim that these engineers know nothing about the environment and how to utilize it. If countries like Libya and Israel can turn desert into farmland with canals, why should it be so difficult for us? As for saying the Snowy Mountains Scheme was a disaster, I sincerely have to disagree. Yes, some things could have been done better, but that applies to most great and ambitious projects. On the whole, it played a huge part in feeding Australia. Hopefully, we continue to learn from our mistakes and continue to improve on what nature has given us. However, R K Hammond missed the point. I did not propose a new Snowy Mountains Scheme. I was using this to point out what can be achieved when politicians and business get together and say “we can, and will, achieve!” As for Brian Spittle’s statement that we should check with the Water Corporation . . . well, any body that proposes pumping millions of litres of saline water into Cockburn Sound does not rate very highly in my book. Those who saw the maps on the TV News will have noticed that the proposed pipeline followed the coast down. This would do nothing for the interior. A canal would have to follow the contours of the land and meander somewhat down through the midwest of the State – following the path of the floodwaters that sometimes sweep down inundating anything in their path. Too much emphasis is placed on getting water to Perth as if Perth was the be-all and end-all of development in WA. With water available along the way towns would develop to support agriculture and the associated industries that come with it. (Much as they do along the length of the Darling River in NSW.) Coastal towns could be boosted by desalination. Along the canal, perhaps forests could be developed creating a timber industry and, in turn, these may alter the climatic effects on some areas and assist in reversing the effects of salt degradation. Planning would have to go into what agriculture was permitted. Such products as cotton, which uses enormous amounts of water, should be banned (anyone having seen the enormous drain it has caused on the Darling River in NSW would agree). Graziers who have to give up land could be allocated a water allowance to develop fattening pasture for their herds. The Ord faces huge distances and transport costs to get its produce to markets, making it a beautiful, but isolated area. With this sort of development distance can be overcome. With towns in between, it would be viable to build rail links, dramatically reducing the cost of transport. This could be then extended to Darwin and link up with the Ghan providing mecca for train traveling tourists. Once one canal is built another should be started. The water in the north is currently just wasted. De-population is not, and I doubt, will ever be an option. I am a 5 th generation Australian, but clearly admit that it was post-war migration that made Australia develop to what it is today. Call me a dreamer if you like; but my dream is to see a developed State where my grandchildren and their children can grow and live within a pleasant future; not scratch around in a desert. If this means we have to pay a bit more now . . . well, so be it!