207
the australian farmer
ity albeit three-quarters of a century later. They argued that improved water supply to the agricul- tural sector could mean , Australia producing not just four times more food and fibre that we can consume ourselves but perhaps even 20 times that amount. The idea of simply channelling water from Northern Australia, where it is abundant, to south- ern areas of the country that need it seems logical enough and technically feasible – at least in theory. This possible solution is, however, affected by a number of converging forces and therefore caus- ing enormous complexity – social, technological, environmental, economic, and political. Hence, easier said than done. Has anyone ever considered measuring the actual potential of a water transfer strategy, be- ginning with the question of “how much surplus
Luscombe put forward the proposition of what a country of a mere seven or so million people able to put that huge an effort into the war should be capable of doing with the opportunities afforded by this vast island continent. He suggested our number one priority is water supply to the inland – such as dams and channels, similar to the Snowy River Scheme that was eventually constructed be- tween 1949 and 1974. In my humble opinion, credit should go to Bar- naby Joyce and Tony Abbott, who as then Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister of the country, later had a similar vision called the “Hundred Dams Project” in 2013. They realised that with much of our wealth being generated by farmers, regional Australia’s water security was a great opportunity to enlarge and grow the sector. The idea was to turn Bradfield and Luscombe’s dreams into real-
L.H. Luscombe’s map showing his dream, 82 years ago, of a vast inland sea. Wouldn’t it be great to build up our water storage and to refill the Great Australian Artesian Basin every year, instead of once every 6 years?
Powered by FlippingBook