BRADFIELD SCHEME

WE SEE arguments about water within the Murray Darling river system.

The demand for water in this river system sees too many peaks and troughs which creates a shortfall to one or the other with conflict between farmers and conservationists.

This does not need to happen if a scheme like that proposed by Bradfield many years ago was to be taken up.

The river flow would be more balanced so water movement remained constant.

Maybe two dams in conjunction with several weirs would be base requirement, along with channels to divert water from one river system to another. I can hear it now - the cost is too much.

I would therefore ask what is the cost of the transport of fodder and its cost along with the need to transport cattle to areas of agistment. Also, what is the cost of losing a number of small businesses, population and employment to name just a few that has to be carried along with loss of tax etc.

Let us see some figures as to these costs and the cost of a project like this, etc. The scheme could be started by using the army engineers and surveyors to locate the best sites for the infrastructure outlined.

During the early phase of development, small irrigation areas could provide stock fodder to counter drought-affected areas. The job opportunities created as the project got under way would see benefit to all levels through the community.

Not only do we need stability in water flow south of the NSW border we need stability in beef production, jobs, business, prosperity, incomes and medical services in western Queensland and western New South Wales.

A project like the Snowy is an ongoing one for many years and the cost is spread out. All that is needed is for members of parliament on all sides to accept that we would see benefits like the Snowy Mountain Scheme gave the nation and get it under way. BILL MARTIN, Wyreema