This short letter sets out a straightforward problem and a practical next step. Australia receives an enormous volume of rainfall overall, yet our conventional dams-and-catchments approach captures only a tiny fraction of what falls. Colin Austin argues that the technical case for harvesting more “missed” rain is widely accepted, but adoption is stalled because no existing organisation owns the job. His proposal: a small Federal coordination group to drive a staged demonstration and scale-up nationally.
Dear Malcolm
Dear Malcolm,
Why I Am Writing
I have recently presented to the National Water Commission and to the Queensland and Victorian Governments, proposing what I believe are radical—but practical—solutions to Australia’s water crisis. This is not a complaint letter, and it is not a request for a new grand bureaucracy. It is a request for a clear next step that turns credible technical ideas into action.
The Core Water Problem
My research demonstrates that Australia receives an extremely large quantity of rainfall when averaged across the population. In other words, the issue is not simply “no water exists.” The issue is that our conventional approach to water security—large dams and traditional catchments—only harvests a very small fraction of the rain that actually falls.
Put plainly: we appear to be short of water because we fail to capture most of what arrives. A great deal of rainfall is missed by our current systems and is lost to evaporation, runoff patterns that do not feed existing storages, or simply because our infrastructure was designed for a narrower set of conditions than we now face.
Technologies That Can Harvest the Water We Miss
The core of my presentation was on technologies that would enable us to harvest rainfall that is currently “missing” from our conventional storage approach. The emphasis is not on a single silver bullet, but on practical methods that can be demonstrated, evaluated, refined, and expanded. The intent is to move from a mindset of “we must build bigger storages” to “we must harvest more of what already falls,” using smarter and more distributed techniques where appropriate.
These ideas are aimed at improving the effectiveness of water harvesting, not at replacing every existing asset. Where our current systems work well, they should continue to be used. Where they leave major gaps, we should build capability to capture and manage rainfall that otherwise does no useful work for communities, agriculture, or the environment.
What I Found When Presenting These Ideas
The validity of the technical arguments appears to be widely accepted by those I have spoken with. The core barrier is not the physics or the engineering. The barrier is the mechanics of adoption.
In simple terms, the work does not fit neatly into any one existing entity. There is agreement on the need to harvest more of the rainfall we currently miss, yet the response tends to be: “Yes, but it belongs to someone else.” The result is a drift into delay—more discussion, more reports, and a quiet assumption that progress will somehow emerge without a clear owner.
The Missing Piece: Coordination and Ownership
This is why I am proposing a small Federal Government group to coordinate adoption. The purpose of such a group would not be to duplicate technical expertise that already exists. Its purpose would be to provide the driving force to make a first phase happen, and to hold the vision for how a demonstration can become a repeatable national program.
The problem we face is familiar in innovation: when an idea spans jurisdictions, portfolios, and traditional boundaries, it can be “everyone’s interest” but “no one’s job.” A coordination group solves that by giving the work a home, creating a clear pathway from proposal to demonstration, and ensuring the outcomes are assessed in a disciplined and transparent way.
A Practical First Phase: Demonstration
There are already well-established organisations with resources and capability to implement an initial demonstration project. I have specifically referenced the C.R.C. for irrigation futures, the D.P.I. in Queensland, and the Toowoomba Council as examples of organisations that can contribute to the first phase.
The first phase should be focused, visible, and measurable. It should show what the technologies can do in practice, what the costs and constraints look like on the ground, and what policy settings might be needed to support wider adoption. A demonstration also builds confidence: it turns “interesting ideas” into operational reality and allows informed debate based on results rather than assumptions.
Two Documents, Plus A Credibility Summary
I am presenting my ideas as two separate documents. The first steps back and overviews the organisational issues—because this is where progress is currently stuck. The second focuses on the technologies, so you can see there is a firm basis for the technical proposals.
As I have not written to you before, and I am sensitive to the volume of correspondence your office receives, I am also enclosing a synopsis of my activities in technical innovation. The intent is simple: to show that this proposal is coming from a credible source with a practical track record, not from a casual commentator.
Next Steps
I would welcome your suggestions on how best to move to the next stage. My view is that a small coordinating group—paired with a disciplined demonstration—would convert broad agreement into forward motion. Australia’s water security is too important to remain trapped in a cycle of accepted ideas with no adoption pathway.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Austin
Colin Austin — © Creative Commons. Reproduction permitted for private use with source acknowledgment; commercial use requires a license.
Download “Dear Malcolm: Proposal to Help Solve Australia’s Water Crisis” (Full PDF)
