While I agree with the commentsof the writer about the costs of the water in cities, please spare a thought for the country consumer - a minority group. We people on farms have always had to install our own collection systems, electric pressure pumps etc. so do know the real cost of water. We have never had the luxury of reticulated water. Fourteen years ago we installed two new, 14,000ltre iron rainwater tanks on our house. Last November one of these tanks rusted and broke under pressure and lost its water supply. I ordered a new poly tank, but was told it would be months before it could be supplied, due to all the urban people with reticulated water now ordering and installing rainwater tanks to supplement their water supplies. They will often receive a Council incentive of a discount on the cost of their non-essential tank. I won't! I am still waiting both for rain and another water tank. In the meantime I'm buying water, delivered in road tanker to my one remaining tank, at a cost of $140.00 per 14,000ltres. I'm watching my one remaining tank with increasing alarm as I see rust spots developing. Will it last until the new tank is delivered? If it doesn't how will I then be able to store water, even if I pay to have it delivered? Why can't priority be given in the supply of tanks to the people who have always needed to use them?

In Sydney, the cost of rainwater is $1.25/KL compared with $4/KL estimated by the government.

$1.25/KL is achieved if rainwater is collected from every roof and used in replacement of mains drinking water.

Sydney’s rainfall in 2006 of 993MM was 20% below the mean annual rainfall (1217MM).

$1.25/KL is based on Sydney continuing to receive 80% of its mean annual rainfall for 30 years, which will provide an average separate house with at least 75KL of rainwater each year.

All house downpipes can be connected to four interconnected rainwater tanks enabling water harvesting from the whole roof area.

The cost of supplying four 670 litre rainwater tanks, pressure pump, automatic switching valve (to maintain continuity of water supply), associated plumbing items, plumbing and electrical installation, is $2000. Estimated operating cost over 30 years is $800, mainly for three 3 additional pressure pumps.

85% of houses in NSW are located within 50KM of the coast (25% within 3km) and receive reliable rainfall.

In 2006, Badgerys Creek, 50KM west of Sydney, received 60% (483MM) of its mean annual rainfall (789MM). A house in Badgerys Creek would have obtained 48KL of rainwater in 2006. At 80% mean annual rainfall, the average yield would be 67KL/year at a cost of $1.40/KL. (Although Sydney’s mean annual rainfall is much higher than Badgerys Creek, there are also significantly larger losses, due to extreme rainfall events.)

The average turnover rate of housing is seven years and there are 1.7 million separate houses in NSW. It can be a requirement that every building must detain rainwater for a period of time before allowing it to enter the stormwater system. The requirement can apply at point of sale of all property, thereby providing the demand to underpin the significant investment that will be required in rainwater tank manufacturing capability and installation services.

Greg Cameron

Raindrops are falling on my roof ... but are they mine?

The NSW government confirms that a person may install a rainwater tank on their property, and connect the service line from the rainwater tank to the mains drinking water service, in accordance with the applicable NSW legislation.

But who owns the water that falls on a person’s roof?

Under section 392 of the NSW Water Management Act 2000, “The rights to the control, use and flow of all water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground are the state’s water rights.”

Is a person’s roof considered by the government to be the surface of the ground?

Does the government consider that the rights to the control, use and flow of water that falls on a person’s roof are the state’s water rights?

Can the government impose an entitlement regime for a person’s use of water that falls on that person’s roof, as claimed by the National Water Commission?

If so, what are the government’s powers, and when does it intend to use them?

Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement says, “In Australia, water is vested in governments.”

Is water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW vested in the government?

If not, is water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW the property of that person, as it is in Victoria?

Under the Metropolitan Water Plan for Sydney, the government rejected rainwater tanks as a water supply option because of excessive cost.

The Cabinet Office advised that the government’s cost estimate of $4/KL was based on generally-accepted high level costings, without detailed quotes being sought from suppliers and service providers, and was considered to be robust for purposes of a hypothetical scenario involving one-third of detached dwellings in central and northern Sydney (about 665,000).

Will the government re-consider its estimate of rainwater cost (it is $1.25/KL), and its position on ownership?

Greg Cameron

Brad successfully makes the case for pricing scarce resources for the good of the majority.

However, Brad makes the usual mistake of yet again clubbing the public majority and would enforce pecuniary penalties on 'excessive' usage mistakenly thinking this a solution to a complex challenge.

It is known that suburban water use accounts for around 9% of total usage, the vast majority going to the production of agriculture.

If Brad is correct in saying that two thirds is used indoors then we wish to penalise equivalent of 6% to save perhaps say 1%. Whilst all savings are important, this solution would in my view, seem little more than enriching the private water industry.

Rembrandt,

With Sydney in mind, the agricultural water is west of the mountains. Can we pump it over?
Or do we shift people to it.
All water is not the same product, its location determines its usefullness and at current retail price of $1 per tonne do you really think we could pump it far, realising that the $1 also has to cover distribution, maintainance, payment collection.

Get real.

What bothers me with utilities (gas, water and electricity) are the service connection/availability fees. In Sydney, even if I do not turn on a tap, or flush a toilet, I still must pay nearly $100 each quarter; so I do not feel as obliged to save water as I would if the fee scheme were purely usage based. After looking at Sydney Water’s 2006 Annual Report, I estimated it costs $1.77 to provide each kilolitre of water, so the current charges are not too cheap at all. I think a variable usage only charge that covers the fixed costs of supply and disposal would give us more incentive not to waste water.