It has always amazed me that if you decide NOT to tap into the power supply running past your front door, you don't have to pay for the service. Same with gas. Both are truly "user pay" systems, yet the same cannot be said for water. If a reticulated town water supply runs past a vacant block of land, the owner of that land has to pay the service fee each year, a fee I might add, that continually rises.
Currently, people off the reticulated system have gone to a lot of expense to ensure they have an adequate water supply. That expense increases over time due to the necessary maintenance requirements. The water utilities must be wringing their hands in anticipation of how much money they could steal should they convince State and Federal Governments that rain falling from the sky onto roofs actually belongs to them.

People claiming subsidies on rain water tanks should be very wary. It requires the filling out of paperwork to claim the subsidy, so sometime down the track it's not beyond reason that the Government comes knocking on your door to extract a yearly fee. People will then quickly realise that providing your own tank is a waste of finances for little return and the utility company will have it's desire for more income realised as more people go back to relying on the reticulated supply.

Bit like the lies Government told about registering firearms. "We only want you to register your guns just so we know how many there are." Yeah! Right! And once they knew where they were, they stepped in under the guise of a massacre and effectively disarmed the country.
Same with your water tank. Once you claim the subsidy, next step is paying for water which should rightfully belong to the home owner.

I don't doubt that if Malcolm Turnbull and his mates can see a way of turning a dollar from water they will be quick to grasp the opportunity.

Malcolm hasn't said anything about air being too cheap, has he? Because the next finding could be that the government 'owns' the air we breathe in addition to the water we drink.

Why is this listed under 'Law and Liberties' when it should be listed under 'Advertising' (with a fear factor for good measure).

Maybe off topic but a couple of points (that refer to the article):

If you can get lots of water from a rainwater tank and reduce the per kl cost you probably don't need one.

Is interest factored into the costing? I looked at installing a tank then decided that the several thousands of dollars was better used being paid off my mortgage (let alone invested in resource shares). The opportunity cost of these watery equivalents of bloke's sheds can be very high and rarely makes it into per kl costings. I guess that given some men like things size matters too.

My contribution is a question ; Can I lay out poly sheet say 1000 meters square on a hillside diverting rainwater to Tanks above ground ?
It's my hill , my poly sheet , my Tanks , my Water ?

I'm wondering what liability governments (or their departments) accept when they claim ownership of water. If my property suffers damage because of their water is the state liable for the damage?

As for the idea of smaller tanks at each downpipe I working towards a similar approach at my place. I'm putting in 200L tanks at each each downpipe and intend to plumb them back to a larger common tank eventually.

R0bert

Just following on from what PeterJH has said, I very much doubt the economics for the householder and the government from installing water tanks. This is notwithstanding our decision to put in a 7,000L tank with a pump for garden use.

The first and obvious problem is that government will not permit the profits of the water commissions to fall and in fact in the interests of profit they will be aiming to maintain lower water use and crank up water taxes post-drought.

Secondly, the tanks being installed by most householders are too small to last for the drier months that are normal to the climate cycle in most areas where they are being approved. A three thousand litre tank is only good for 2-3 hours continuous pumping with a small pump.

Operating a water pump is not as cheap as 'town' water and pumps are frequently 'on, off' if plumbed to house plumbing - where the installation costs alone are prohibitive. This is why governments must regulate to force installation in new homes. Water tanks and connection to certain plumbing fittings add substantially to the cost of new housing.

Few householders will be prepared to do the regular maintenance required for water tanks because these are back-up systems only.

Overall, water will not be cheaper for householders regardless of whether they have tanks or not, but those who install tanks will usually be much more out of pocket.

However for bureaucrats and politicians, tanks have been a useful diversion to take attention away from the reprehensible lack of planning and squandering of water taxes over many years and by both sides of government. I suspect that most householders are aware of this and are insulted by the accusing finger pointed at them for allegedly wasting water.