Meg, I am suprised that you are against water recycling, given that
your theology promotes ever increasing numbers of people on the
planet.

You are going to have to face it! As population increases, natural
ecosystems will become more and more stressed. Recycling of water
will become part of all that, its already happening in many places.

So you need to sort out your dilema. If you want ever increasing
amounts of humans on this planet, reusing your own waste water
is part of that, you can't have it both ways.

While you have a problem with accepting there are more ways of using recycled water than just drinking it Yabby...others may be more attuned to where our vegetables and other foods come from...if the farmers at Toowoomba are presently using the waste water to water crops, etc...stop being so short-sighted...how will they produce the food without the water.

There is water in this country...just not enough vision to use it successfully and effectively enough...and narrow-mindedness won't solve the problems, nor will ignoring the obvious obstacles.

Stand for council in outback WA, Yabby and try to implement the same use of water so you can drink it there...nice and dry...see how you go there. For that matter use the bio-cycle loos and reuse your waste water now...try to clean that up for drinking...Good Luck! Just don't suggest that those who may or may not be affected should not be entitled to have a say...rather than just those like you who haven't much to do other than condemn without cause...at the very least give a reasoned argument for agreeing or disagreeing with the object of the discussion.

Stand for council on Norfolk Island or one of several other islands or in councils that administer islands Meg1 and see how far you get with a policy of open-ended population growth. Similarly with Douglas shire, Noosa shire and a few others.

Even the hardest of hard-nosed politicians and economists can see that a limit to the number of consumers is necessary on small islands. More and more people are seeing the necessity of extending this very basic concept to places on the mainland.

And especially this year, the number of people that are realising that limits to growth are of paramount importance in our cities and whole regions such as SEQ has rapidly grown, as a direct result of the resource crisis presented by water shortages.

“Ludwig suggests that little dams, tanks and damning any more babies may be the answer...”

Meg please, damning babies – that’s a bit rough!

“…perhaps the residents of that Sunshine State should barricade their borders instead.”

Gee, you really haven’t given this aspect of the water issue any thought at all have you!

Firstly, it is eminently sensible NOT to continue increasing the demand on a stressed resource, especially one as vital as water… and eminently stupid to just go on accepting rapid growth when things become as grim as they now are in SEQ.

Secondly, it is not a matter of erecting a fence at the border. It is a matter of implementing disincentives for people to move into resource-stressed areas, and of councils rejecting new development proposals in such areas. It is not difficult and not in any way draconian.

‘The prevention of further increase in the number of consumers of water (limits to population growth) is part of the answer.’ Ludwig, that sounds like I got your intention just right!

…barricading the borders was meant to be tongue in cheek…sorry if you missed that. There was so much Queenslander-sledging that it seemed like we needed to be reminded the issue wasn’t State-of-Origin, where we can win no matter how the other side plays-most-of-the-time…we just convince ourselves the others can play by a separate set of rules to us Cockies…south of that “Brisbane line”.

So too, my suggestion that Yabby should stand for anything…wasn’t an endorsement…he usually falls for pretty well anything, so the suggestion’s unlikely at best.

Where do you live, Ludwig? Mars? Australia’s a rather large island by Norfolk’s standards…how do you propose that we offer disincentives to the people hoping to move to Qld…tell them the ‘southern’ gentry will be unimpressed? Lol

China ‘offers’ disincentives to population growth too…should we follow? …or can we do better?

I am aware of council policies in high-growth-areas and of necessities to plan-and-limit housing-developments, especially high-density developments in particular areas…you-don’t-want-to-believe-everything-Yabby-sprouts…he-didn’t-write-the-Gospels.

‘…eminently sensible NOT to continue increasing the demand on a stressed resource’

…which is exactly what drinking recycled waste water is doing…instead of allowing the water to remain for use on crops, therefore naturally filtered through the soil, in the sunlight.

If you’d like to drink your own waste…go ahead, in your own area…why force it on Toowoomba residents? I KNOW there are other alternatives…just-no-vision-to-implement-them.

You argue that limits to population growth are necessary ‘as a direct result of the resource crisis presented by water shortages’…and that I haven’t given much thought to the water issue…on the contrary, I am aware that there are archived plans to utilize available water from Queensland that can provide significant relief both to the general population and the environment…including the Murray. This amongst other plans…all that is lacking is vision and commitment from those whose capacity can’t see past offering disincentives for any more babies…

It’s-interesting-that two-out-of-the-four-dams-supplying-SEQ-are-currently-extremely-LOW-while-two-are-almost-FULL…demonstrating-that-it’s-human-error-that-usually-creates-the-problem-with-lack-of-resources…the-damn-dams-were-put-in-the-wrong-place-to-catch-the-available-excess-water…i.e.,inappropriate-catchment-areas.

Before-speaking-about-councils-and-water-demands…in-SEQ-or-FNQ,check-your-facts…some-councils-in-coastal-SEQ-are-doing-very-well-water-wise,despite-populations-being-amongst-the-highest-per-sq.m.-in-SEQ. Great-water-planning-or-well-placed-dams? Certainly-no-baby-bans-or-disincentives-to-southerners…Joh B-P got that right...

Alternately-Douglas-Shire,FNQ-no-shortage-of-water-just-bad-planning-and-no-government-funding-for-adequate,well-placed-water-storage-and-infrastructure...Fact!

Wow Meg, that’s some response.

“ ‘The prevention of further increase in the number of consumers of water (limits to population growth) is part of the answer.’ Ludwig, that sounds like I got your intention just right!”

So let me just get this crystal clear – you don’t think that stabilising overall demand is a necessary part of the answer? You do think that we can and should just allow population growth in SEQ or Sydney or Perth or wherever… until the quality of life is degraded to the extent that no one else wants to move there?

“I am aware of council policies in high-growth-areas and of necessities to plan-and-limit housing-developments, especially high-density developments in particular areas…”

Excellent. I don’t think our views are that far apart afterall. So what “necessities” do you perceive are valid for limiting housing developments? Don’t you think chronic water shortages would be one of those necessities?

“…how do you propose that we offer disincentives to the people hoping to move to Qld…tell them the ‘southern’ gentry will be unimpressed? Lol

Perhaps you need to consider some of the possibilities before you laugh the issue off. One simple disincentive might be to place a considerable excise or tariff or one-off payment on people moving into resource-stressed areas, whether they be from interstate or not. Or we could add a, say, 25% surcharge to their rates or rents. There are numerous disincentives of this sort, which would be just as valid as current financial incentives to buy a rainwater tank or install a gas tank in your car or have more babies. The size of the financial disincentive could easily be adjusted until it does what it is supposed to do – slow or stop new residents moving into areas in which they would add to existing problems. Meg, three posts back you advocated incentives. So are disincentives that much different?

“China ‘offers’ disincentives to population growth too…should we follow? …or can we do better?” Please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4764#51257
and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4685#48097

August 16, 2006, 3:20 AM
Our council tells us via the 'local rag,' Bedford weir has 92% as on Monday, August 14th, Sun Water records. Don't rush to live here as accommodation is scant, unless you buy, then you will need a spare 250,000 thousand dollars at least, or ability to procure housing loan, plus the well paid job to go with it. Item beside it says Government visit postponed, meaning the Director General Dept. to look at the 'downside' of the coal boom. A litte over 3 years back they were shifting houses out of the area. Now they are trucking them in, those who can afford to.

The other minus is the water treatment facility has a mechanical fault that they know not when it can be fixed! Why did I get rid of my water tank? We are still allowed to use hand-held-hose sparingly.
All the water employees are ‘trainees,’ as the guys have left to earn the big dollar, and as you may guess
Council pay would hardly cover the rents charged in the district. So you see, lack of water is not the problem. You may find some reference to this news at http://www.cqnews.com.au/index.cfm later today, as the main Emerald paper has the web site.

I read that a certain number of Toowoomba district farmers were using the treated water to grow crops, and were against the treated water being recycled for domestic use. What happens when the well really runs dry, they will be no water for the city & none for them either.