City people realy are slow. We have been using raining water tanks to provide drinking water for decades. Including on Government housing it's only the bottled water set in cities that have issues. Some of the cleanest drink water in the world and they drink bottled stuff.

What about decreasing building block sizes? Blocks are shrinking as developers cram more people into every scrap of land they can get their hands on. Houses are now built boundary to boundary. Families need room in the house, with as little garden area as possible.

There is no room for rainwater tanks of any practical size.

I have a villa house, slap bang against the house of the neighbour on one side, and 1 metre from the boundary on the other side - just enough to get the wheely bin out to the front. The rear of the house is entirely glass. There is nowhere I could find room for even a 'skinny' tank, which would be dry in the summer time, anyway.

As an ex-employer of the my state's water authority, I've heard all the theories about rainwater tanks, and they are all impractical. And there is no way I would drink untreated rainwater.

Little of the average 250 to 300 kilolitres (water seems to be measured in litres by some people to make it sound more when they are pushing their "saving" theories) used annually by the average household is drinking water.

As rule of thumb, 1kilolitre (1,000 litres) is used by each person per week for personal use. At 52 weeks annually this is 52 kilolitres, which makes the 4.5 kilolitre tank mentioned in Greg's website pretty mickey mouse, particularly in SA where it rains only in winter.

Right..... and when the various governmental water selling bodies determine that the water savings are working and the cash flow reduces there will be a tax on water tanks comparable to the lost government revenue.

Since there is a big push for 2 levels of water piping in homes and business buildings why don't the various water boards just suck up a bunch of sea water and pipe it around. This would address a significant issue not revealed by tank proponents - when there is a drought and the dam levels are low there is no rainwater for tanks either.

Greg,

No worries mate. Just sit back over the next 5-15 years and watch your company fly. Your product is a winner, it is a no brainer practical solution and will be imlpemented just like a safety switch with new contracts for sale, and in new homes as the energy efficiency rating ups and ups.

You dont need partner or shareholder do you!

Kenny, i agree totally, i was brought up on the stuff. Even a rusty tin tank with sludge and sediment on the bottom can produce good water, nowadays with the new tanks we are laughing. i said to myself i would never buy water out of a bottle ever, but i did, only overseas though.

Greg, meet some developers and builders and position your product and the jobs done, if you havent already. Very exciting, especially coming form your target industry and watching the changes around us.

You are only part right, Leigh, but your numbers don't add up to the reported data. Average Brisbane household use is 0.7kl/day and the average household is 2.7 people per household. My household has 5 people (including a teenage daughter) and we only use 0.5kl/day or only on tenth of the 1.0kl that you suggest is used by each person per day.

We could drop that another 25% by using small tanks to divert shower water for use in the toilet. And that would be only 1/13th of your example. A 13,500 litre tank will make our house fully self sufficient in 9 out of 10 years.

I was raised on tank water and you could say that one of the major distinctions between urban people and country people is that country people think their tank water tastes like nectar of the gods while urban people think their chemically treated heavy water is of "high standard".

It is ONLY the urban water industry that is claiming that tank water is unsafe. There is no medical evidence to back up this fear campaign. Indeed, there is a much greater incidence of stomach bugs from food left too long in refrigerators than there is from bugs in tank water.

But apparently the urban water monopolists are of the view that urban people are to stupid to take care of a water tank, something much more simple and low risk than a refrigerator or barbecue plate.

I am confused.

The underlying cause of the problem with water availability is the excessive and rapid growth of human population, with each person demanding and extracting an excessive quantity of water from the eco-system - whether through retention at a house tank, a local dam or town/city supply. That retained water of course has not become part of the run-off, thus starving creeks, swamps and rivers of their sustainable flow requirements.

The solution proffered here is to give people MORE storage, thus encouraging them to use more water - the tank water first and then the town supply. It seems the problem this solution solves is 'how do I make more money for my tank company?' However the problem we need to address is 'how does humanity demand a smaller portion of the natural resources it shares with all other species?'.

I would have thought the solution would be for there to be fewer people, each demanding less water.

Am I the only one who sees things this way?