There are better places to invest than in dams

MANY letters published by the Bulletin spruik the benefits of expending enormous amounts of taxpayer money and borrowings on dams.

The letter of January 23 quotes a figure of $1.5 billion to raise the Burdekin Fall Dam over 14m. If the figure is correct (these projects seem always to creep up and never down) then the interest repayments at an assumed low 4 per cent would be $60,000,000 per annum (interest only). It would take new farms using this water at least two years to get to profitability. These farms if inland will suffer additional transportation costs that their Burdekin delta competitors do not.

As we have seen from the Murray-darling plan in this drought, formerly profitable rice and cotton cannot compete for water with tree crops like almonds owned by corporations with deep pockets. If 200 average size cotton farmers did eventuate then they would have to donate $300,000 profits tax every year to the Federal Government who then would have to give it to the State Government to pay just the interest on its $1.5 billion loan. It is also likely that state borrowings could at some point tip over into the next credit rating and interest payments would be more than 4 per cent. Dams get trotted out by politicians every time there is a drought. Droughts are becoming more severe and more frequent.

Solar panels make more economic sense than debt burdened dams by paying for the investment in less than 10 years. Within five years it is likely that battery storage will make more economic sense than dams also. Existing Burdekin farmers use a lot of electricity. Sugar prices have not got a pulse. There are better places to spend borrowed money than dams.

GLENN WHITE, Kelso.