Background
The assessment was prepared by CSIRO for the National Water Grid Authority.
The assessment initially focused on the hydrology and technical feasibility of the historic Bradfield Scheme using contemporary information and methods to verify key assertions and to assess contrasting claims.
Subsequently modern variants were studied, including:
- the potential to use pumped pipelines and renewable energy rather than gravity diversion tunnels
- pumped pipeline and channel diversion infrastructure to the Flinders catchment
- diversion infrastructure to take water to the northern Murray-Darling Basin (MDB).
This study was made under highly optimistic agronomic and economic assumptions so that analyses could definitively answer whether such a scheme could ever be viable. The assumptions did not take into consideration the current regulatory environment or release water for environmental or cultural flows. Water released for these purposes would reduce the volume of water that could be diverted by the scheme.
What the assessment found
Although the historic and modern variants of the Bradfield Scheme were found to be technically feasible, the cost of diversion infrastructure added such a large premium to the cost of water that future crop revenues would never pay off the cost of the water storage diversion infrastructure alone. The maximum quantity of water that could physically be diverted was less than half what Bradfield identified.
Water resource development requires trade-offs. These trade-offs are more contentious with Bradfield-style schemes where water is transferred from one basin to another because the benefits accrued by one community occur at the expense of another.
The high financial losses, ecological impacts and community concerns associated with Bradfield-style schemes could potentially be mitigated by strategic development and staging of smaller resource developments situated closer to where the water is captured and to better match where future demands and opportunities are greatest.
Reports and factsheets
- Overarching factsheet PDF (487 KB) (for the assessment of both historic and modern variants of The Bradfield Scheme)
- Overarching factsheet TXT (7 KB) (for the assessment of both historic and modern variants of The Bradfield Scheme)
'An assessment of the historic Bradfield Scheme to divert water inland from north Queensland'
'An assessment of contemporary variations of the Bradfield Scheme'
CSIRO Bradfield Scheme webinar
CSIRO Bradfield Scheme webinar hosted by the Australian School of Water – 9th November 2022 - Webinar Link
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the project assess?
The desktop assessment initially focused on the hydrology and technical feasibility of the historic Bradfield Scheme using contemporary information and methods to verify key assertions and to assess contrasting claims.
The study evaluated the 1938 Scheme and a variation to the Scheme proposed by Bradfield in 1942.
Subsequently modern variants were also studied, and included:
- the potential to use pumped pipelines and renewable energy rather than gravity diversion tunnels
- pumped pipeline and channel diversion infrastructure to the Flinders catchment
- diversion infrastructure to take water to the northern Murray-Darling Basin (MDB).
What was the assessment aiming to discover?
This assessment aimed to address whether Bradfield’s design for moving water inland was technically feasible.
This study was made under highly optimistic agronomic and economic assumptions so that analyses could definitively answer whether such a scheme could ever be viable. The assumptions did not take into consideration the current regulatory environment or release of water for environmental or cultural flows. Water released for these purposes would reduce the water available that could be diverted by the scheme.
Who conducted the assessment?
The assessment was led and conducted by Australia’s national science agency CSIRO.
What were the key findings of the Assessment?
The historic and modern variants of the Bradfield Scheme were found to be technically feasible. However, the cost of diversion infrastructure added such a large premium to the cost of water that future crop revenues would never pay off the cost of the water storage diversion infrastructure alone.
The maximum quantity of water that could physically be diverted was less than half what Bradfield identified.
The high financial losses, ecological impacts and community concerns associated with Bradfield-style schemes could potentially be mitigated by strategic development and staging of smaller resource developments situated closer to where the water is captured and to better match where future demands and opportunities are greatest.
Were environmental or cultural considerations included in this study?
The assumptions did not take into consideration the current regulatory environment, or release water for environmental or cultural flows. Water released for these purposes would reduce the water available that could be diverted by the scheme.
Has this research been independently reviewed and by whom?
Yes. The research has been peer reviewed by scientists not associated with the research within CSIRO and by external technical experts within the university, public and private sectors.
CSIRO's role is to provide independent scientific advice to inform decision-making. CSIRO places great importance on the trust placed in the organisation by governments and the Australian community.
It is not CSIRO's role to advocate particular policy positions. CSIRO research is quality-controlled and peer-reviewed to ensure that its results can be repeated and verified.
How can the results be used?
The results can be used by governments, industry and the community to inform water infrastructure investment decisions.
The assessment found that diverting water long distances is not economically viable and advantages one community at the expense of another. There are opportunities to pursue smaller resource developments situated closer to where the water is captured, and to better match where future demands and opportunities are greatest.
Has the Queensland Government been involved in this research?
This CSIRO research is separate from an assessment undertaken by the Queensland Government.
Queensland appointed a Bradfield regional assessment and development panel, which was an independent expert panel led by Ross Garnaut, to investigate the viability of a modern Bradfield-like scheme, with different objectives to the CSIRO study.
The two CSIRO Bradfield assessments were completed in December 2020 and May 2021, and before the Queensland Government assessment was completed. CSIRO’s methods, approach and final reports were shared with the Queensland panel.
What is CSIRO's position on the expansion of agricultural development in northern Australia?
It is not CSIRO's role to advocate specific policy positions or development decisions. We provide science to underpin decision-making and help evaluate the likely outcomes from different policy or management decisions.
Will the results of this research be used to develop irrigated agriculture in northern Australia?
This research has been undertaken to improve the knowledge base for decision-making by governments, industry and the community. CSIRO does not make these decisions, nor does it participate in the decision-making process.
CSIRO's role is to provide independent scientific advice to inform decision-making. CSIRO places great importance on the trust placed in the organisation by governments and the Australian community. It is not CSIRO's role to advocate particular policy positions or management decisions.
Did government (Australian or state/territory) direct CSIRO's research in any way?
Funding for the Assessment was provided by the Australian Government through the National Water Grid Authority.
The scientific approaches used and the data collection and analyses were independent of Australian, state/territory or local governments and in full compliance with CSIRO's Ethics standards.