The idea that water from the Ord River in the Kimberley might be pumped to the Eastern States to save the Murray Darling river system may have excited many.
But Ernie Bridge has heard it all before.
The former WA Water Minister and the founder of the Watering Australia Foundation (WAF), was far from confident about the idea, noting it would be cheaper and easier to pump the water to Perth.
"But that idea continues to face massive bureaucratic opposition," he said.
So how did the Murray River concept surface?
"I was asked to go to Canberra a year ago to have discussions with Queensland MP Bob Katter and SA parliamentarian Geoff Brock," Mr Bridge said.
"Bob has been a long term supporter of the WAF and northern development and the news the Federal Government was going to spend $10 billion buying water allocations from Murray River farmers provided the catalyst.
"Bob and Geoff felt if the government was prepared to spend $10b to provide water to flush the Murray, then using the money to build a pipeline from the Kimberley would provide the same help for the river without slashing production from the Riverland district.
"And building a gas pipeline in conjunction with a water pipeline added to the idea.
"It was something I had tried to interest the Pilbara miners in doing when I first mooted the Kimberley pipeline plan.
"But the government of the day wasn't even remotely interested, saying its only goal was to mine iron ore, not transport gas."
On the surface, the idea of spending $10b on diverting water to the Murray River sounds fine.
So should it be supported?
"Right idea, wrong river," Ernie said.
"The Clarence River in northern NSW has more than enough water to spare for the job (to flush the Murray).
"Water from the Clarence could be diverted into the Darling River and then it would flow into the Murray, giving the desired result at a far lower cost than the Ord option.
"The water bureaucrats in WA have fought tooth and nail to stop water being pumped south to the Perth metropolitan area and I guess they would fight just as hard to stop water going to the Murray".
So why has the opposition to the Kimberley pipeline been so fierce? Was it the cost that put the so-called water bureaucrats off?
"Depending on the route chosen, the original proposal would have seen the pipe being built for between $1.5b and $3b," Ernie said. "I think the citizens of Perth would have voted it a good investment,.
"After all they have spent more than that on desalination plants.
"I have always believed the role of a government is to supply the water needed, not to devise rationing schemes as proposed by the bureaucrats.
"But it's not a purely WA response, as the people who are in charge of the Murray have the same mindset, believing the interests of farmers are less important than the welfare of a couple of green frogs and a dozen wombats."
Will moving water from the north stay forever in the too-hard basket?
"There are three aspects to the problem," Ernie aid. "Engineering, finance and politics.
"The engineering is simple, the economics solvable, but politics remains the killer.
"A part of the political battle is simpler if the water stays in the one State, while native title issues within WA do not present any insolvable problems.
"A combination of delay and inflation has demonstrated how cheap the pipeline option could have been if there had been the political will to proceed.
"The bureaucrats and the politicians both seem to have an inability to look at the big picture, with the time until the next election being seen as long-term in their eyes.
As a Kimberley local, Ernie believes that the Ord water should be retained for expansion of the Ord scheme, with the Fitzroy being used to provide water for the Perth area.
"WA has large areas of top quality soil that could be irrigated with water pumped from the Fitzroy, while using the Clarence would allow the retention of valuable irrigated land in the Riverland.
"But I don't see any prospect of success for the concept of pumping Kimberley water into the Murray, as the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats are too keen on the soft option.
"Particularly given the numbers in Federal Parliament, a few words from the professional conservationists will see the scheme disappear."
So, will it remain insolvable?
"No," Ernie said. "More inquiries are needed along with politicians with a will to do it."
Email a friend