My comments were actually meant in a bigger picture sense, then
your little patch of Queensland, Meg. Its really a global
issue as much as anything, we are just more fortunate then
much of the rest of the world.

Go to Hong Kong, Shanghai, Mumbai or a number of other Indian
or even European cities and the main problem is simply too
many people. They have little choice but to recycle waste
water.

Even Perth will have to look at recycling waste water. More
and more people, less rainfall, less runoff, using fossil
fuel to convert sea water is not sustainable either. If
somebody objects, I guess they are free to install their
own rainwater tank.

I fully agree that some shires should limit their populations
Ludwig, as you mentioned, some are doing so

I would like the government to undertake a study to see what the cost of water would be for two proposals;
1. A desalination plant driven indirectly by windfarms including the
cost of getting the water into the reticulation system. It would only need to feed into the nearest points until
those points used all the available output.

2. A recycling system incluing all the extra mains piping needed to feed it into the whole system.
You could not get people to accept that they would have recycled
when others had "new" water or desalinated water.

Unless we have a figure for schemes like this all discussion pointless.

Meg

I should have written; “Wow Meg, that’s some response. Thankyou”

I appreciate people who go to the trouble to fully consider one’s comments and give detailed responses.

Yabby

Congrats on 500 posts on OLO

Actually Yabby…it’s not “my” little patch of Queensland…and I consider the global picture is THE picture. If your little patch in WA is spoiled, it affects the bigger picture sooner-or-later unless addressed. Unlike you, I prefer to do more than just offer glib put-downs…I don’t have to live there in order to see their viewpoint.

RE: HK, etc…the real problem is the rich buy water and the poor go to communal areas to get reticulated water that is unsafe…recycled-and-labelled UNSAFE for drinking…that’s what you’re suggesting for Toowoomba?

Which brings us to the real issue for Toowoomba, whether the Corporates like Coca Cola Amatil will have another market for their bottled water…or not.

Like everything else from either government in this country…it all comes back to the policies to give big bucks to the Corporates and then the reflex action of big bucks from the big boys for the ALP, LIBS and NPA election funds…check out the policies in relation to the donations lists in ANY state or the Federal sphere and tell me there’s no co-relationship…

Ludwig you seem to have confused Toowoomba with Rio De Janeiro or Beijing – let’s get this in perspective.

Other forms of accessing water are possible for Toowoomba - the powers that be are simply hell-bent on using the population there as a scape-goat trial for re-cycled waste water. Let’s examine ALL options and do not discount the effect that the proposed decision will have on the production of local crops which will be without THEIR water source.

Still haven’t decided an alternative food-source? Chinese food-safety standards would make you blanch, let alone the levels of toxins, etc. that are ‘acceptable’ in foodstuffs…not accepted from our own farmers, but they’re here as IMPORTS on our supermarket shelves.

Limiting development (whether-by-building-height,maximum-dwelling-limit/sq-ha,maximum-of-one-duplex/triplex,etc.-per-ten-single-residential-dwellings) does not necessarily limit population. If people have to live there to work, they’ll be forced to live crammed-in-with-relatives,-friends-or-in-accommodation-too-small-for-their-needs–like-many-are-already-doing-in-coastal-communities-along-the-east-coast-and-paying-outrageous-rental-charges-to-live-in-poorly-maintained-dwellings. (Check-with-local-'affordable-housing'-groups...)

This simply forces the housing prices up past the grasp of low-to-middle-income-Australian-families and puts them at the mercy of the ‘financially well-endowed big end of town’ – somewhat-like-providing-recycled-sewerage-as-drinking-water,may-inconvenience-or-harm-average-families-but-the-‘financially well-endowed big end of town’-will-simply-buy-bottled-water.

tbc...

[Deleted for using hyphens to exceed real word count.]

I think you might be jumping to conspiracy theories about
corporations yet once again, Meg. Most give something to
both parties, to make sure that whoever wins, they are not
discriminated against for giving nothing or backing the
other side. If they gave large amounts, shareholders would
squeal like hell. They are accountable after all. Rich
individuals are another story, but most big bizz is actually
owned by shareholders, above all super funds, which you and
everyone else own. So forget the bottled water for bribery
theory :)

What it comes down to is cost. In WA there is heaps of water,
but its in the North. To pipe it South would cost 4 times more
then desalination. Similarly they would have crunched the numbers
in Queensland. Consumers want water for a song. The numbers
don't stack up. So the question is, how much will consumers pay
for water that is not recycled?

Few people need to buy bottled water in Australia, when they
have roofs where a small tank can be installed. We at least
still have options in Australia, unlike many parts of the
world, where due to too many people, recycled water is
compulsory.