I’ve just received a glossy leaflet from the State Election Liberal candidate for South Perth. In it he promises, if elected, that he will be, “Renewing the Swan and Canning Rivers�.

Now there’s a bold election promise if ever there was one!!

Personally, I’m quite happy with the existing Swan & Canning Rivers, and don’t see any need to get new ones.

I think renewing his proof reader would be a better move.

WA Liberals want to make a whole new river:


This time, water would be brought from the Fitzroy River to the southwest, a distance of 2,500 kilometres.

The latest proposal involves a canal 3,700 kilometres long as it'd go around the coast.

But no one yet knows how much it'd cost the taxpayer.

WA Liberal leader promises to bring water from Kimberley to Perth


Responding to reports the proposal to build a 3,700km canal from the Kimberly to Perth to ferry water to the state capital could cost as much as $10 billion, Mr Brown said taxpayers could end up footing the bill.

"Put it another way, who ... would commit to buying a house unseen, untested and not knowing the cost of the house you were buying?" Mr Brown told reporters.

"It would be reckless and irresponsible for you or your family to do such a thing, and that is what Colin Barnett is saying to the people of WA."

After the architects of ambitious project Tenix stuck by their original costing of $2 billion to construct the canal, the Australian Water Association (AWA) said a cost of $10 billion was more realistic."

Canal could send WA broke: minister

Hi Scossie
I've also heard the term "renewing" in this context; must be one of those strange phrases we need to get used to, but it still sounds funny. Regarding the Swan and Canning Rivers, they need a certain amount of cleaning up due to fertilisers leaching into the river system but perhaps the use of fertilisers by individuals should be addressed itself.
The environmental problems relating to Perth are diverse and action needs to be taken quickly regarding the amount of acid sulphates in the soils; there's also problems with taking water from underground due to high mineral concentrations etc. and depleting the water table but I don't think this canal from the Kimberleys is the answer; we'll just end up wrecking that area and it will cost a fortune. If you compare Perth to somewhere like Dubai, you will be amazed at the lack of water recycling that goes on here.
I'm only just beginning to understand all this as I'm fairly new to Perth, but my overall feeling is that the city is developing too quickly, without serious thought being given to the environment.
Larissa

What about the evaporative loss? Wouldn't it be better just to have a big fat pipe? Or is this more than just a water supply?

A veritable trough. Tenix stands by canal costings

Would be interesting to compare the energy efficiency relative to reverse osmosis desalination of seawater.

It gets a cover or something.
I would think a pipe would be easier too.
It's all over the papers and tv at the moment, the pipe was discussed as well.

Government is already, or will be soon I think, building a desalination plant.


Anyway, this new rivers thing is a different subject, thanks for the info Larissa, I was as confused as Scossie!

Someone definetly has to happen with Perth.... first of all I suggest a better crackdown on people watering their lawns more than twice a week, and during the day!!!!! Geez, even the councils and businesses I see doing that!
I don't buy that some neighbourhoods are only watering twice a week, it's way to green for that!

Exactly! Why on earth are people obsessed with lawns in Perth I dont know.
As a horticulturist I always try to encourage people to grow either natives, succulents or exotics which thrive better and are more cost effect than roses, hydrangeas etc....

People ought to be fined for watering grassed verges as well which is crazy.

Basicaly building a pipe that far is extremely expensive and the canal would be covered as Simone said. Also with it going along the coast would therefore provide water for many country towns and agriculter. The amount that has been said that would come out from up north is only 2% each year which they figure would not do any serious damage to the environment up there. We need water, its simple as that and we will need to pay for it. People water lawns etc is not really the problem as big business and agriculture are the ones that use the magority of our water. If it costs 2, 5 or 10 billion it doesnt really matter as it needs to be done. Someone needs to have the balls to just "do it"

Ah yes, the price. I'm surprised water rates are so low here, when you think about how scarce it is!
It's quite a bit higher in Holland, and I wouldn't mind paying a bit more here.

Covered is good. It just seemed to me (without thinking much about it) that digging a long trench and lining it properly would cost a lot more than stringing a whole lot of pipe sections together, both in building costs and in maintenance. But I'm no structural engineer or whatever. (OTOH I wouldn't necessarily expect them to choose the cheaper or more sensible option, as there could easily be heavy political influences.)

Although the initial construction cost for the Canal will be high, over the long term it will be more cost effective than a Desalination Plant at Kwinana.

Cheapest (and leakiest) is an unlined trench. Next (less leaky) is concrete lined. Next covered - less evaporation. Next pipelines need more power per volume of water moved.

All been done before in the SA / Vic / NSW Riverina. Federal election pledge to spent $ 1.6 G to reduce irrigation leakage and evaporation.

Could be - got a ref?

Got to agree with this. Our water rates are something ridiculously low like $40 for 6 months. So basically, there is not much of a deterrent to economise.

Perhaps if rates were two or three times more this would make people think a little bit more about their usage.

And how about banning English-style gardens as well - plainly not sustainable for a climate such as Perth.

Where's CY O'Connor when you need him eh?