I’ve been reading a lot of commentary about the so-called ‘resurrection’ of the ‘Bradfield Scheme’ today. Here are a few thoughts on the matter from me (thread 🧵...) 
In terms of our ability to improve and maintain quality of life in Australia, water management is at the very top of the list of areas in which we can have a significant and relatively short-term positive impact. So ALL proposals put forward should be given serious consideration.
The idea of watering inland Australia has become part of the Australian psyche. Maybe not for you personally, but there are many thousands of Australians who feel strongly that we should explore the options in greater detail than we have in the past.
The name “Bradfield Scheme” is much more of a “brand” than actual “plan”. None of the proposals being put forward really resemble that proposed by John Bradfield. But people connect with that name, so it is arrogated widely.
Where the water of any “Bradfield Scheme” will go depends who you ask. Victorian politicians talk about benefits for Victoria, NSW politicians have it going to the Darling River, Queensland politicians have it all staying in Queensland. Bradfield had it going to Lake Eyre.
To just write-off all possibility of positive outcomes from such a vaguely articulated plan is to engage in nothing less than a closed-minded culture war. People should at least wait for an explicit project proposal before criticising a project they can’t fully describe.
The most recent, serious and publically articulated, proposal was from the QLD Beattie Government in 2007. That was the “Burdekin to Wivenhoe Dam” scheme and was properly costed. Construction was estimated at $7b-$14b (in 2007 $), but the real kicker was the operational costs.
Operational costs were determined to be $5k-$10k /ML if in continuous use; 255k-$480k/ML if used as an emergency measure. Alternative water supply options were much cheaper (e.g. seawater desal at $2.5-$3.5k/ML), which is why it wasn’t built.
If this water is expected to be purchased for agriculture, it will likely need to be at least an order of magnitude cheaper to have willing customers. So there’s a big economic challenge there, worthy of a great economic mind like Ross Garnaut.
Perhaps the review will find no viable project. If assessed thoroughly & transparently, that will confirm that our attention should be elsewhere. More likely, it will identify a number of individual components of such a scheme that have merit and will be pursued for construction.
Despite it all, many people have decided to love the “Bradfield Scheme” and others to hate it. IMO, a more open-minded, rational approach, focused on science, engineering, economics and environmental and social outcomes should prevail. I encourage everyone to wait for the report.
