Ludwig the proposal is one possibility that could prove to be a model. Here is the thinking in another form.

We cannot depend on governments to hold their nerve on sustainability. However, we can get windows of opportunity when governments, who are the only ones who can set this in motion, decide that sustainability is a good idea and act upon it. In that "window" of opportunity we build systems in specific areas that will be "sustainable" systems. The idea is to put a non economic goal into an economic system in such a way that the economic system will continue and will enhance the non economic objective. In the water case it is the transfer of income from mains consumption to recycling infrastructure.

The key is control of the purse strings. We give control over money to a board that is elected by many people who have demonstrated by their actions that they wish to act in a manner that fosters sustainability - hence the rewards for reducing use (i.e. these people have gone against the idea of more use being better).

While governments can always change the system, once it is in place it becomes very very difficult to change. Ask anyone who tries to change any system - for example this proposal:)

We don't solve the whole problem in one go but we solve it in bits. This week it could be water. Next week it could be public transport. Next week it could be health. Next week it could be population growth and the following week green house gases. (I am sanguine about population growth because I think our existing economic system has economic rewards for people not to have children compared to those who have children predicated on society gets "richer")

The model presented for water may or may not work but the only way to find out is for some government somewhere to give it a go. If it does work then we may have a methodology for building sustainable systems or whatever other non economic goal we decide on.

Fickle, I would have thought that an excellent window of opportunity for building sustainable systems has opened, with alarm over stressed water supplies in our major cities across the country. But the powers that be just continue cramming in more people…. and telling everyone that they have to use less. I think this is really ominous. It indicates to me that we are going to have to have a full-blown disaster before we collectively wake up to ourselves.

I can’t see that inserting non-economic goals into an economic system that is fundamentally predicated on rapid growth will achieve much. We have that sort of thing now to a fair degree. Arguably, the various initiatives that would be good aspects of sustainability are bad within the growth paradigm, because they actually facilitate more people being squeezed in under the same resources and supply lines. Water recycling, or recycling in general is a prime example.

“The key is control of the purse strings.”

And for as long as the money-minded what’s-in-it-for-me-in-the-short-term mob have the power, the purse strings are going to predominantly geared towards short-term profit.

I don’t think the incremental approach will work. The overall thinking has to change first. While there may be potential leaders out there who could promote this change, they would be quickly terminated if the big business lobby thought that they were even starting to become effective.

I never liked Keating much, but his ‘the recession we had to have’ statement was based on the premise that growth was unsustainable. Well, the same applies in the bigger picture – we are apparently going to have to have an almighty recession, which pulls apart the fabric of our society, before we grow a brain.

Sorry but I think we are so fundamentally hooked into the Easter Island syndrome, that we will just have wear the consequences when they come – about 2012 I reckon.

This is my first contribution and reading the incendiary nature of some of the comments by seasoned antagonists I intend to tread very warily lest I cop a serve too.

The following condensed extract on the subject taken from my web site covers my perception of the position here on the Gold Coast.

RECYCLED WATER
Recycled water is not the most favourite of subjects and whoever coined the phrase “toilet to tap” has a lot to answer for but that is exactly what it is, recycled sewerage, some of which would/could have passed through other humans numerous times before it reached our taps. If there was no other choice but to use it as drinking water then it would have to be accepted for that purpose but only with the most stringent measures in force.

Unfortunately I, and no doubt many others, would find it difficult to have complete faith in those measures being carried out without any possibility of a breakdown in the treatment process or human error creeping in. If a mistake is made and it follows the normal process of being discovered, vigorously denied by "officialdom" and finally admitted, it is usually followed by.“We will take whatever step are necessary to ensure that this can never happen again”, which I find to be of little comfort after the event.

The proposal to increase the volume of water in the Hinze Dam by piping/pumping recycled water into it would be unwise, even if it would be diluted by the water already in the dam as was surprisingly claimed by someone.

Fortunately such an extreme measure would not be necessary if we harvest the rainwater as suggested. There could even be a case for storing recycled water in the new reservoirs since they will be used for purposes outside of the home. However, I believe that we should rather be directing all our efforts toward persuading industry, commerce and farming to switch to recycled water wherever possible and also increase its use by GCCC and others in the irrigation of parks and gardens, golf courses, plant nurseries etc.

Welcome hyetal.

Unfortunately, the powers that be will make every suggestion except limits to population growth and hence limits to the ever-increasing demand for water. Everything in the absence of this is at best tail-chasing, if not outright facilitation of continued rapid growth [see second para of my last post].

This can’t be more obvious than in places like the Gold and Sunshine Coasts.

If we want sustainability for cities with our present or even a reduced population we have to accept permanent water restrictions because less rain is falling in the catchments of the our major cities. The alternatives are to build more dams, divert water from other catchments, to spend money on recycling or to go into desalination.

Water recycling happens today in many places in Australia but it costs money and someone has to pay for it.

All of Canberra's effluent is recycled into the Murrumbidgee and is drunk by the good folks in Adelaide. The capital cost of Canberra sewerage treatment plant was paid for from Federal Government funds not by the citizens of Canberra and I suspect the running costs are subsidised by Federal Funds.

Sydney Olympic Park with about 10000 residents gets 94% of its water from recycling and storm water. The 6% from mains supply is used for drinking and other internal household use. Olympic Park non mains water costs $2 a kiloliter compared to $1.20 for water from the mains. The capital cost of Olympic Park was covered as part of the cost of the Olympics.

The capital cost of a household tank is of the order of $50 per kilolitre and is paid for by the householder.

If we don't want water restrictions and we want sustainability through recycling it is going to cost more. The article makes a suggestion on one way to get money for sustainability from the users of mains water in a politically acceptable way.

Unless I have misunderstood, Fickle Pickle you seem to have access to a line of very inexpensive rainwater tanks at $150 for a 3000 litre capacity and $250 for 5000 litres (BG) No doubt you intended that to read “$500 per kilolitre which would equate to $1500 and $2500 respectively.

Taking that a stage further my own calculations concerning the cost of a rainwater tank are admittedly a little out of date but I still stand by the conclusion that, after factoring in most if not all of the capital and on-going costs, the resulting cost of each kilolitre (1000 litres) of water drawn from the tank would be in the order of $14 per kilolitre. This has to be stacked up against the actual cost of the water in the tank which would range from nil in the case of rainwater falling on the roof to say $1 per kilolitre when supplied from the mains. (which also fell free of charge but chose the dam and its catchment area to land on)

If you log on to my web site via the logo below you will find a section on rainwater tanks but I urge you to read it in context with the rest of the web site. The site also addresses some of the other points you raised and I would welcome any comments through this forum.