Re mossies: A "defective tank" ie, one that allows mossies to breed in has only a very limited window of dysfunction. If, for some reason a small breach occurs in the gauze covering the intake or overflow then the sequence of response is very predictable.
1. wriggler shows up in glass of water or coffee cup,
2. wife or teenage daughter goes "eeeuuuww!"
3. dominant household male is hounded to drop absolutely everything he was doing and inspect the gauzes.
4. no longer dominant male accepts full responsibility for the fault.
5. male fixes gauze immediately and buys a stock of bottled water for female members of household who require eight weeks of un-sullied tank water before they will even consider using it again.
6. male resolves to regularly maintain gauze to ensure that he never has to put up with such incredible histrionics again.
7. mossie larvae hatch in tank but are unable to escape and infect anyone. They die and eventually are incorporated into the water supply at a density in the order of 0.00128 parts per million (ie, with fewer suspended particulates than a single breath of air you take at work).

Ludwig, you deliberately missed the point for the sake of your population fetish. That point is that with a 13,500 litre tank, any newly arrived family can cover 87% of their water needs in an average year, at a lower cost than the water that can be provided by the public sector water mafia.

And if every house had such a tank then the existing infrastructure could cope with a population that is seven times greater. That is not an argument for a seven fold population increse. It is simply to point out that water supply is only a population issue if water remains a public sector monopoly.

Ludwig, my point was, that there is no reason why the rest of us should have to supply the water, used to keep the costs down for Brisbane residents.
I can see no reason why Brisbane residents should not make the investment in supplying their own water, rather than the tax payer making it for them.
Such an investment, all in micro scale, will offer nothing to interest the investment bankers, who will ultimately invest in, & control, any large dams the taxpayer may build.

I agree totally Hasbeen

The taxpayer should not be subsidising water infrastructure for SEQ, especially as it is some mongrel SEQ local governments and the State Government that are responsible for the atrocious management that has led to the demand and supply capability blowing right out of proportion. You can also apportion part of the blame to residents who have not cried foul anywhere near loudly enough, and no doubt the manically pro-growth federal government is partly to blame as well.

But residents outside of SEQ aren’t to blame and they should not have to contribute one red cent.

Perseus, you inadvertently make a critical point. If we become really successful in implementing water tanks without addressing the population growth issue, then we will effectively be facilitating an ever-larger population, which will mean that in really dry times the magnitude of the crisis could be much greater, and it will also mean continued increases in pressure on all sorts of other resources, and indeed on the SEQ quality of life and even viability and as coherent and well-functioning society.

Thus, addressing water-consumption and water-provision issues without addressing the overall increasing demand issue will not win the day. In fact, it will exacerbate the whole nasty situation.

I fully support the large-scale implementation of water tanks, but only as part of an overall strategy of balancing supply and demand.

So I strongly disagree with your statement; “…water supply is only a population issue if water remains a public sector monopoly.”

Many would be intrigued to learn that the rest of Queensland has not only paid for the existing SEQ infrastructure but have also had their share sold off in a classic "asset stripping" operation.

Wivenhoe Dam cost about $400 million in 1985 and each Queenslander owned a portion of it. But the state government then sold off all but 10% of it to Brisbane City Council and the adjoining LGAs in 2000. And the price that the city paid for this asset owned by all Queenslanders was the same $400 million it cost in 1985.

This price was calculated on the basis of profits being earned on this investment, as determined by the Department of Natural Resources. But the moment Lord Jim Soorley gained control of the entity the wholesale price that was charged to the council customers (also the new owners) was increased from $120 per megalitre to $170/ML

And all of this price increase was added to the net profit figure and this meant that the value of the entity was closer to $1 billion rather than the historical $400 million.

The public officers who did the original valuations were closely involved in the running of the water system before the sale and, should have been aware that there had been no wholesale price increases for many years. And the potential for future price increases should have been a major factor in determining a fair price to pay Queenslanders outside Brisbane for their share of their dam.

So each non-Brisbane Queenslander got paid only $117 for their share in the dam that was really worth $295 while each of the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane now have an asset worth $666 (the devil's own number)that they only paid $266 for.

And one can't help wondering if the current lack of rain in the Dam catchment is the revenge of the gods.

Perseus,
I have taken the liberty of quoting your post re: the asset stripping operation - Wivenhoe dam, to a forum regarding the damming of the Mary River. Your post (and the original excellent article by Ian Mott) are very relevant to discussions on that forum.
I don't know the site rules here re: hyperlinks, so here is a non-hyperlink address: dubya dubya dubya dot travestonswamp.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2311&highlight=#2311

Firstly, I would like to invite you, ludwig, Ian Mott and any other interested parties to join the above forum - your participation would be most welcome.

Secondly, perseus, I want to know if you can provide references or calculations re: the $ figures you quote for the Wivenhoe sale.

Thanks,
Darren E