The Bradfield scheme Overview
The Bradfield Scheme is a proposed plan, initially conceived by engineer John Bradfield in 1938, to divert water from the coastal rivers of North Queensland across the Great Dividing Range to the drier western and southwestern parts of the state. The goal is to improve drought resilience and provide a water supply for inland agricultural development.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
-
Water Diversion:
The scheme aims to divert water from major rivers like the Tully, Herbert, and Burdekin, which are fed by monsoon rains in North Queensland.
-
Inland Delivery:
The diverted water would be delivered to inland rivers like the Flinders and Thomson, as well as Torrens Creek, potentially recharging the Great Artesian Basin.
-
Purpose:
The initial proposal focused on providing water for stock and fodder, combatting droughts, and potentially recharging the Great Artesian Basin.
-
Variations:
Over time, variations of the scheme have been proposed, with some focusing on supplying water to the Murray–Darling Basin.
-
Technological Requirements:
The scheme would necessitate the construction of dams, tunnels, and pipelines to move the water across the Great Dividing Range.
-
Ongoing Debate:
The Bradfield Scheme has been a topic of debate for decades, with various governments and experts evaluating its feasibility and costs.
-
Studies and Assessments:
Numerous studies, including those by the CSIRO and the Local Government, Water and Volunteers, have investigated the technical, economic, and environmental implications of the scheme.
-
Uncertainty:While some studies have found that the scheme is technically feasible, others have raised concerns about its cost, potential environmental impacts, and the availability of water resources.
So where should we go from here?
In my mind we should commence connections between dams via pipelines canals and rivers; especially as regards the recent heavy rainfalls in many locations in eastern Australia where huge flooding has been the recent experience in so many communities.
The removal of the huge storage of water in dams on oureastern rivers as heavy rain fall was expected would limit the extent of the potential flooding. There have been assessments where the cost of the construction outweighs the benefits. However another project that DR Bradfield was involved in was the Sydney Harbour Bridge. While this bridge was in fact built, it was never built to the size Dr Bradield recomended as the political elite believed that not more than six trafic lanes were required, There is currently 8 traffic lanes and two train lines, while Dr Bradifield further recommended, which also included two tram lines. Today there are 4 lanes – two lanes each way in the under harbour tunnel with a new under harbour tunnel under construction. All this shows that the road access to Sydney was never overstated by Dr Bradfield, a fact when current projects are completed. Those opposing the size of his harbour bridge design are proven to be very wrong as I would also say of those opposed to his water scheme.
The biggest straiegic problem was the closing down of the construction workforce of the Public Works Department. When public works are required today we must use private contractors which will cause the project costs to become considerably more expensive. We must plan to reestablish a construction work force employed to do our public construction workforce that are needed, as required. If we did this we could commence these huge projects, If the Bradfield water scheme was established before the recent rains in 2025 we would have far less damage to the communities that experienced record flood levels. It is time for courage and to commence work and stop the excuses. The Minns’ government dropped the ball when they examined this project in 2024 at a coste of about $2m before deciding not to proceed with it. We need a new political leadership with a vision of what we can do and not what we cannot do.