Perseus

The incidence of disease results from the interaction of vector and host. So one faulty tank in a densely populated area can potentially be of greater risk than thousands of unpopulated and mosquito infested hectares of old growth forest.

I agree with Ian Mott - there is no drought in SEQ.

So why should people be required to be tighter and tighter with water usage? One overriding reason – because there is a very rapidly increasing number of water-users, drawing on the same supply capability.

Imploring people to install water tanks and councils to facilitate it is all well and good. But it is not the answer. It could be a good part of the answer if done on a wide scale, in conjunction with strong action to limit overall demand, but let’s be careful about it.

We will still need a public supply capability that is able to handle something in the order of current the maximum demand, to cover the community in really dry times when the tanks are empty. Okay, so let’s all get really big tanks that drought-proof us. Nice idea, but it would just not be practical for a large portion of households, for space and cost reasons.

Ian Mott writes; “Clearly, there is a crisis of management competence, not a water crisis.”

YES. But he makes no mention of the very rapidly increasing demand on water in SEQ, or the fact that there is no end in sight to this growth. This is surely the overriding issue, which sits right at the core of management competence.

We need limits to growth in SEQ and a government that plans for it, with a vengeance. This is an ESSENTIAL aspect in the management of this issue. It is time for rapid population growth with no end in sight, which is rapidly exerting ever-increasing pressure on water and many other resources, to be CURTAILED.

We cannot meaningfully discuss the water issue without addressing this aspect of it

Great article, Ian Mott, although I believe that Ludwig is correct. In order to address this problem we must do something to stop the relentless grow in population, which is STILL being encouraged by the Beattie Government (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4591#44914).

Ludwig is correct. Many new houses, townhouses and units on smaller blocks may not be suitable for rainwater tanks. I suggest that people read a truly bizarre article ("Getting a Slice of the Action") in Friday's Brisbane Courier Mail, in which the Real Estate Institute of Queensland tells of its plans for South East Queensland. The article states:

"The current water crisis will mean natures’s drop will be rare, ensuring most houses will have minimal lawns and garden.

…

"A session in entertainment rooms will replace the smell of fresh air and a potter around in the vege patch. Besides most workers won’t be bothered about gardening at the end of a long day at the office."

I have transcribed more of it here : http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/05/against-the-doomsayers/#comment-54955

--

Also of interst may be an excellent Radio National Background Briefing program, "Water in India" to be repeated on Tuesday Evening at 7.10PM (see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1668948.htm - transcript should be made available in a few days.)

It’s about India’s water crisis - falling water tables, dry and and contaminated rivers and lakes - and attempts by the World Bank to ’solve’ the problem by forcing the Indians to privatise their water utilities.

Ludwig, you are dead right about population growth, its got to be stopped,in SEQ, before it consumes the entire state wealth. However, you are dead wrong on water tanks. There is no reason for the rest of the state to subsidies the cost of water to Brisbane.

The only large employer of large numbers left is government. Lets start by decentralising our public servants.
We had the one vote one value, now lets have one vote one public servant. The same number of public servants to be employed in each electorate, but with no increase in numbers. That gets them out of the CBD to start with, & probably solves 30% of Brisbane's traffic problems at the same time. Done over 15 years, it would go almost unnoticed by the staff.
When the people, & businesses that earn their living off the public service follow, Brisbanes growth will become manageable.

With growth reduced, we can stop trying to jam more people into confined spaces. The only reason for the SEQ Regional Plan is to try to reduce the cost of services, so lets take water out of the picture, over 15 years.
All new housing must have 35000 L of tankage.
Every house transfered to new ownership must have 35000 L tankage.
All housing to have 35000 L tankage, by 2015.
All water charges to increase by 20% each year to 2015, then doubled.
Subsidies to be phased out by 2100, but must be applied to all state residents , not just those currently getting cheep "Town" water.
The industry developed building, & installing tanks, would give employment to many thousands more than dam building, & spread it over much of the state, & probably at a lower cost to the tax payer. The money would go into small, rather than large, pockets.

Most of the people who are soon to watch their dreams drowned to supply more water to Brisbane, will be currently providing their own water, by water tank. Ironic, isn't it?

Hell I live in a part of Oz were on a good year we get 250mm not 300mm a month! I've got a water tank.

Well you’ve got me Hasbeen. I can’t figure out what you think I am wrong about re water tanks, or how you associate the notion of the rest of the state subsidising water in Brisbane with anything that I have written.