Good Article and I agree.

Little kids dont like to share, neither do state givernments, so i wish you luck as this would be tougher than climbing everest to achieve.

People do not yet think on a global level, and until we work together we will always be short on something in most areas.

There are over 700,000 separate houses in southeast Queensland comprising 80% of all dwellings.

Each house would have yielded 75,000 litres (75 kilolitres) of rainwater in the 12 months to 30 June 2006 from a 5KL rainwater supply system, when collecting rainwater from all downpipes, for use in laundry, toilet flushing, hot water and outdoors uses.

All 700,000 houses combined would have yielded 53 billion litres (53 Gigalitres) of water.

Rainwater tanks would have yielded a further 16GL if rainwater was collected from the roofs of all other buildings in southeast Queensland, making a combined total of 69GL.

This compares with the proposed Tugun desalination plant which can potentially deliver 46GL.

Even if the current extreme drought conditions persist for another 25 years, rainwater tanks can provide almost all of the water required by a 52% increase in the population of southeast Queensland predicted by 2032 (ABS).

The cost of retrofitting will be less than $3,000 per house if all existing houses have a 5KL rainwater system installed over the next 10 years. It currently costs more than $3,000 to install a 5KL rainwater supply system into a new house.

The cost of $3,000 is achieved by manufacturing rainwater tanks in bulk, using 1KL tanks in preference to 5KL tanks, and making installation less expensive by encouraging do-it-yourself installation (using 1KL tanks) with fixed rates for work that must be performed by plumbers and electricians, or by engaging teams of highly trained, full-time installers.

For an average household, it will cost $0.40 per kilolitre to operate a 5KL rainwater system once installed and yielding 75KL a year.

Under Section 388 of the Water Act 2000, the Government may require reduction in mains drinking water consumption at point of sale of all property, with rainwater tanks deemed to comply.

The Queensland Government confirms that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is not owned by the State. However, the Government does not confirm or deny that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is owned by the building owner. Why?

Greg Cameron

“It is because as our cities, our farms and our industry have grown so our demand for water has grown apace.”

In admitting that growth and population increase has put extra pressure on water, Malcolm Turnbull should now also admit that there are too many people living in Australia, and that his government should stop pandering to industry in providing them with more and more customers that Australia simply cannot carry.

A zero net population growth is the answer. It is too late to do anything about our already twice-than-sustainable population, but we can still do something to prevent Australia from turning into a desert. But, first we need politicians with the guts and will to take appropriate action

Spot on Leigh. Nothing more needs to be said.

Zero net population growth is a fine idea, but how would it be implemented? Do we firstly drastically restrict immigration? What if this doesn't work as planned? Do we pass a law that will not allow any more than two children per procreating couple? This could become a slippery slope indeed.

New housing estates should be designed with water sustainability and energy efficiency in mind - water tanks, grey water systems for use in the garden and a system to harvest and store storm water. Strong encouragement to reduce consumption should be balanced with systems designed to increase supply.

As much as many of us would like to see decisions on water and population control made on the premise of ecological sustainability, it seems the reality is that our current economic model will collapse under such a regime. I don't know enough about economics to propose a solution but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who do. In my own area, the research and design of water-efficient gardens, utilising lovely new native cultivars is just one small part of what should be a multi-pronged approach to the problem of sustainable water consumption in Australia.

I don't know why Greg Cameron persists with this 5kl tank scenario when Sydney water makes it clear that 5kl is the minimum needed to make any difference to supply. If we accept that Gregs 75kl annual capture by his 5kl tank then that means a massive 180kl is lost when the tank overflows. A 5kl tank is only one weeks supply at the average 700litres/day so these dinky little things will even run dry in a wet season.

And a bunch of smaller 1kl tanks is even worse. The average house in Brisbane has 255kl of rain in a normal year and a 13,500 litre tank will optimise capture with minimal loss to overflow. You are up for the cost of plumbing anyway and it is an investment that more than pays its way. So why piss about with only half of a good investment?

It should be noted that Turnbull is wrong when he suggests that therte is no competition for overpriced public water. You are a competitor and every other homeowner can be a competitor for the price of a decent water tank. And the price of your own water is about $1.00/kl which is still well below the price of desalinated water.

The issue faced by the government when it comes to building water supply infrastructure is similar to the one that would be faced by private enterprise. There is a chance that rainfall will increase and then the new infrastructure is wasted.

Mr Turnbull quotes a cost of $1 to $1.50 (per kL) for desalinated water at the factory gate, but that's a touch misleading because it still has to be delivered to the consumer. A significant part of the price at the tap is the cost of using the water main system, so desalinated water to the consumer would cost more like $2.30 (for $1.50 at the factory gate).

Still, there would probably be a market for water at that price for people who want to be allowed to water their gardens or wash their cars. The problem for free market enterprise is that the market would, for want of a better expression, dry up, if rainfall increased leading to the removal of water restrictions. No company could afford to make the required investment in a desalinator faced with that risk.

However, there is an alternative, which is for such an enterprise to be financed by public subscription. A participating consumer would have to pay a share of the cost up front, in return for an entitlement to use a certain amount of desalinated water for just a small billing charge.

The up-front cost works out at about $18 per kilolitre per year. For example, if a person wanted to draw 75 kilolitres per year they would have to pay $1350 up front, plus the cost of a water meter - less than $100. I chose that figure of 75kL per year to compare it with the figures mentioned by Greg for a water tank based system, because it represents a saving to the consumer of $1550. The billing cost would certainly be less than the $30 per year represented by the 40c per kilolitre running cost Greg quoted. There would also be the advantage that the supply was not subject to the vagaries of the weather.

This water thing,
Isn't over dramatised.
There is plenty of water.
Just turn on the tap.

I agree with the authors proposal regarding the inadvisability of growing cotton or rice in arid areas, which, particularly with the idea of cotton also introduces significant levels of chemical pollution.

However, when one trawls the web for a moment numerous documents become available, such as these, which describe the various methods by which water can be produced economically from sea/brackish water, for collection as pure potable water, whilst some of these studies (one in particular carried out in the Middle East) also provides some pointers on sustainable, high-intensity agricultural methods, which also provide potable water as a bi-product.

http://tinyurl.com/grq8m

Others investigate the use of large & small scale solar stills and panel stills to purify/desalinate seawater, which have been used before, but which were dropped due to the availability of cheap oil:

http://www.eco-web.com/editorial/02090.html

http://tinyurl.com/sx5ke

http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/solar_distillation.pdf

Australia is a leader in this feild, which given our wide open spaces, and the amount of sea water available, also given our chronic lack of rainfall and continuing salinisation of our aquifers, is probably a good thing.

Reverse osmosis could also be tried, especially if the electricity could be provided by large solar based panels.

There is no excuse for Australia not to excel in this feild.

Inshallah

2bob

Perseus, your 13,500 litre tank will fill on the first major downpour and thereafter it will overflow at the same rate as a 5KL tank. Yield from a rainwater tank is a function of how much storage is available when it rains and this is determined by how fast you empty the tank by using the water. Five 1KL rainwater tanks will fit any urban allotment because they occupy a minimal footprint. One 13.5KL above ground rainwater tank is simply too big for an urban block and it is extremely difficult to connect all downpipes to a single tank. When 5KL rainwater storage is empty, you simply automatically switch over to mains water to ensure continuity of supply.
Greg Cameron

How sad that OO is running press release-puffery from Mr Turnbull; couldn't he get his snout in for more taxpayer funded advertising?
The absence of a new idea (centralising power is a very old idea) or a coherent policy proposal from Goldman Sachs' man in government makes his text barely worth reading: Yes, the water cycle primer is crudely accurate, but the economic fundamentalist dogma ('price is the only obstacle') is as stupid and self serving as it ever was. The States don't provide enough cheap water so should be overridden? The Fed's provide nothing but the Ministry of Hate, surely the Bush junta & MSM do that so much better, Canberra should be made redundant.

In may respects the argument about water was lost the minute it become a genuine commodity - at one time water was a communally owned asset and charges were not based on profit.

Now that water has been fully commodifed Malcolm is right we will afford as much water as we are willing to pay - and I suggest his interest do not lie in the development of publicly owned infrastructure to ensure the collection and reticulation nor do they lie in reframing our appracoh to water in an attempt not to waste what we have.

The other down side of this is over time particualry in times of extreme shortage we will have another social divide between the water rich and the water poor

Liam,

You de man!

Can't we find a soft Liberal seat somewhere and shoehorn YOU into Federal Parliament. I think you would be far more representative of the Australian Populace than MT.

Howard's immigrating 100,000 people a year, and their cars, into Sydney is unsustainable on every social index including water availability. The only winners are monopoly businesses and thuggish politicians. That makes MT's article nothing but a pissante sideshow designed to deflect from the REALITY of this unsustainable Federal push. A push I might add that is a typical Howard 'divide and conquer tactic' designed to secure Australia's future prosperity and easy rule by buggering Sydney and NSW.

One solution is to require all sittings of Parliament to rotate around the Capital cities on a weekly basis. If these 'out of touchers' get to feel the heat from the real people they are fantasizing about, they may just start to make some decisions on behalf of the Australian people and NOT on behalf of 'immigrants in their own image' who haven't even got here yet.

Spot on Leigh and Wildcat.

And therein lies the great contradiction in Malcolm Turnbull’s expression; some realisation that the water problem has been largely caused by rapid growth and a failure to keep supply with a healthy safety margin up to an ever-growing demand. And yet he is one the main pro-growth advocates in his government, which is entrenched in the continuous growth paradigm.

He needs to think very carefully about this.

I suggest that the only sensible course of action would be for him to advocate limits to growth, which is surely an essential element to overcoming our water (and other resource) woes.

Jacqueline, a stable population can be very easily achieved in Australia, by reducing immigration to net zero or a bit lower (which would still allow for an intake of 30 000 or more per annum), along with a celebration of our low fertility rate of about 1.8 instead of attempts to raise it such as the ridiculous baby bonus. We do not need laws that limit us to two kids in Australia.

With these measures, our population would continue to grow for another three or four decades and reach a level about four million higher than at present. But I can live with that, just as long as there is a limit in sight that is firmly entrenched within a new paradigm of sustainability.

Our economy and much more importantly our quality of life do not depend on continuous growth. Just the opposite is true.

Turnbull, please run for Premier. New South Wales needs you.

I am bemused with the negative personal criticisms posted about Turnbull. At least he has the guts to ask the 'water' question and suggest some solutions to the water crises in the Eastern seaboard. How about some positive suggestions instead what looks like envious personal attacks on a successful indivdual who has succeeded in the business world and now trying to make a contribution to the nation's policies to improve our living standards.

Greg said, "your 13,500L tank will fill on the first major downpour and thereafter it will overflow at the same rate as a 5KL tank". But the 13,500L tank will have an extra 8,500L to last an extra 12 days. It can wait 19 days for the next shower while the 5,000L tank will be empty in 7 days.

Only 20mm of rain on the average 250m2 roof fills a 5,000L tank while the 13,500L tank captures 54mm. Even in normal dry months a 5,000L tank will still overflow, with the owners buying mains water they don't need.

The dry months for Logan City are June (53.8mm), July (38.6mm), August (48.6mm), September (45.8mm), October (55.2mm). Most of this falls in 2-3 days with small falls over the rest of the month.

This is why our modelling settled on the 13,500L tank as optimising cost, minimising overflow and maximising capture. See "Which Tank? at www.ianmott.blogspot.com

A 13.5KL tank need not be "too big" nor too difficult to connect all downpipes too. The trick is to mount small 100L drums high on the wall at each downpipe to capture storm surges and then join these to the main tank with normal poly pipe. As long as the small drums are higher than the main tank they will allow the poly pipe to go to ground and hug the house line with minimal visual impact and then rise to the main tank intake. Linked 5,000 and 9,000 litre tanks can capture the same volume.

And a 13,500L tank can just as easily switch over to mains water to ensure continuity of supply. But with a 5,000L tank you will still have to buy 180kl of mains water a year at whatever outrageous prices are charged in future. Those with a 13,500L tank will only need to buy 33kl of mains water and their water bills will be well protected from price increases for the next 30 years.

"I am bemused with negative personal criticisms posted about Adolph Hitler. At least he had the guts to ask the 'Poland' question and suggest some solutions to the standard of living crisis in Germany."

Hmmm!

Not every attack on the policies of a successful individual are based on envy. Additionally the preeminent suggestion to handle, in particular Sydney's water crisis, is to cease property development and thus immigration into the Sydney basin. Malcolm will not consider that option because he clearly has ulterior motives that stem from 'out of touch' Howard immigrationopoly policies. There are complex socio economic issues involved here and for someone to blithely accept Malcolm's water policies along with their iniquitous hidden focused immigration agendas is every bit as negligent as supporting Adolph Hitler before the advent of World War II. Those policies clearly profit a few at the expense of the many. Something in common with Hitler's Euro policies. Additionally the Federal government continually ignores falling standards of living in Sydney caused by focused immigration by averaging Sydney in with rising National standards. That in itself is a lie and a bad reflection on the honesty of John Howard and all his ministers including MT.

Barnaby Joyce asked the question "Would we use our new immigration laws on Mary Joseph and Jesus if they turned up on our shore?"

I ask the question "Would we NOT vote out of office any individual who would by immigration or any other means mount an invasion on the right to quiet enjoyment of the populace of Sydney and make the citizens of NSW pay for it through higher prices for every service including water as an also ran?"

What strikes me is the contradiction arising from Politicians describing the current dry spell as an abberation. If it is "The worst drought on record", then why are all the mitigation efforts suggestive of something much more permanent? Climate change is downplayed as a threat by government and big business, yet their behaviour relating to water supply suggests that a large proportion are closet believers.

Malcolm writes:
"We should solve our water problems together. "
We could all meet at the urinal, sees the rivers run, damn it all, filter it, and then we can all have a drink.

The Water Authority in West Australia tip from the Wellington Dam into the ocean, around 45 gigalitres of saline water from the base of that dam. A company called Smartwater Agritech approached the state government to fit and supply infrastructure (free of charge) to salvage that saline water. Their proposal is to run a pipe up to Harvey in the South West. The reverse osmosis of this technology eliminates the salt and is totally environmentally friendly. Agritech has offered the potable water to the government at a very reasonable rate. A brilliant idea in my opinion. No so with the state government who are ignoring this proposal and erecting environmentally damaging desalination plants! Not enough profits with the Agritech project, aye wot!

As a politician, you would do well not to ignore the huge drain on water by industry. Roxby Downs (Olympic Dam) in South Australia are the biggest users of groundwater in the southern hemisphere. Their application to take 1,500,000 litres of water a day (free of charge) for the next 70 years from the Great Artesian Basin surely must have a devastating, environmental impact. Uranium mining/nuclear energy -clean and green? I think not!! And are you not promoting this technology?

Hmmmmmmm. Who was it who said:

"So many politicians are blessed with great vision, which far exceeds their ability".

Perhaps you will make a difference?

After the failure of the Queensland referendum on the recycling of sewage we have a long way to go with our ignorance on the safety of recycling.It should not have been put the public without educating them on the scientific and technical aspects of recycling sewage.Astronauts reuse their excreta and sewage poors into Warragamba Dam.Remember Cryptosporidium and Guiardia cause by sewerage pollution.We have been drinking it untreated for decades.

People just don't trust their Govts these days, probably with good reason.How about some education programs via the media and then have a national referendum on recycling of sewage and get on with fixing the water problem.There is not so much a shortage of water but a lack of will by Govts to tackle the problem.

Malcolm Turnbull writes;

“The water shortages we face today are greater than they have ever been.”

Yes

“But our capacity to respond to them is greater too.”

NO!!

“It is because as our cities, our farms and our industry have grown so our demand for water has grown apace.”

Yes. And now that the overall drawdown is very much larger and the easy sources have all been exploited, it is a whole lot harder to respond to the crisis.

“Many would ask how that could have occurred.”

Well, it just might have something to do with our politicians, of both main persuasions, who have not only let this continuous expansion happen, but actually facilitating it at a very high level, despite the ever-greater awareness of resource-supply and sustainability issues and despite the responsibility to strive for balance between supply and demand, and between present and future wellbeing… which are supposed to be among the most basic duties of government.

Government has sold its soul to the privileged corporate sector at the expense of the ordinary people http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4778 and Malcolm Turnbull has been right in the thick of it. He has found the transition from high-faluting businessman into politics very easy, whereas those of us who are not money-chasers and who believe in genuine long-term wellbeing, don’t have a hope in hell of getting into powerful political positions, even with the best of qualifications.

“But let us leave the history and the blame game of over allocation to history.”

NO! Let’s not. Let’s realise that many of those that have been at the top of the pile over the last two or three decades and that have got us into this mess are still around, and the willingness to do just about whatever it takes to pander to the short-term profit motive is still firmly in place.

continued

We can have a much larger population if we stop widespread farming of rice and cotton.

Provided it rains, there is no limit to how much on site rainwater
tank storage you use see http://www.atlantiscorp.com.au/applications/rainwater_tank
For step by step instillation. What is stopping business from installing this form of tank?

Gosh, now it's the return of cotton and rice grower bashing. This is yet another regularly recycled junk argument of population growth zealots, and particularly disgusting in its attempt to create scapegoats. There are two major flaws with this argument. One is that it would in general be cheaper and less energy intensive to desalinate or recycle water where it is needed rather than pipe a resource away from where it provides an economic benefit. The other argument relates to the time over which water resources are available. Australia's climate has a large variability, and much of the geography does not favour water storage. The result is that some areas will have intermittent periods of plentiful water that would evaporate if attempts were made to store it. This makes the water resource useless for supporting a large population, but useful for growing crops like rice and cotton.

The Kimberley pastoral area is an excellent example of the climatic variability and largely unfavourable storage geography, yet the region is an important beef cattle growing area. It takes about twelve times more water to produce a unit of beef than a unit of rice, yet funnily enough I have never heard a population growth zealot advocating the destruction of the beef cattle industry to make way for more people.

from my last post

“Today's task is to ensure we have the water we need for today and tomorrow.”

It is more than this; it is to ensure that the demand matches the supply, with a very healthy backup safety supply factored in. Better water-provision must not lead to an ever-increasing demand. We must make sure that Turnbull’s beloved expansionism at all costs is not simply fed by improvements in water-provision.

“Let us put all the possible solutions on the table."

Yes….but Turnbull doesn’t do this. His article does touch on a lot of aspects, but he makes sure that the continuous growth issue is left right alone.

He mentions it once, as though it is such an innately natural thing to cater for that it is beyond questioning;

“Our economy, our growth, your growth here in Queensland needs water.”

"Nothing should be taboo"

Haa! You can bet your last dollar that he will dismiss any suggestions to do with limits to growth… and hence anything to do with genuine sustainability.

In an earlier OLO article he not only takes this growth for granted, but seeks to increase it in a totally unquestioned manner. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1859

Spot on Fester. And could all the anti-rice zealots please note, The CSIRO retracted the statements that were lept on by the metropolitan media to bash the rice industry. It was based on pure gonzo maths and distorted part-truth but there is always some sad bozo who takes the whole story and keeps regurgitating it like a supermodels breakfast.

And speaking of repetetive strain injuries, here we have Ludwig on his population monomania again. Every time someone mentions water poor old Luddite can be relied on to give his river of blood speach. He has never heard of rainwater tanks and doesn't approve of any other workable solutions because that would delay the public's much awaited epiphany on population. Yawn.

Sylvia Else sensibly proposes that water desalination plants can be financed by public subscription. Desalinated water is put into the mains water distribution network operated by the local water utility. Subscribers are entitled to use more mains water than non-subscribers because they have paid for the privilege. There already is provision for third-party access to the water distribution network under the national competition agreement. This means that the desalination plant could be privately owned. The same approach applies to recycled water. Rainwater tanks are a different proposition because the supplier is the consumer. The consumer knows when they are using rainwater and when they are using mains water. A person who uses a rainwater tank for water supply is not subject to the vagaries of weather because they automatically revert to mains water the instant that the rainwater supply is exhausted. The limitations on rainwater supply are size of roof catchment, volume of rainfall, rate of tank drawdown and volume of tank storage capacity. Perseus argues that in Queensland and NSW the optimum size of a rainwater tank is 13.5KL. Of course this will yield more water than 5KL of storage. What is guaranteed is that a 5KL system in Brisbane will yield 75KL in a drought year for an average house and over 100KL a year given normal rainfall. Incidentally, all houses in southeast Queensland using 75KL of rainwater will provide as much water as the proposed Mary River dam. The real cost of rainwater per KL can be compared with the real cost per KL of a new dam, desalination and recycling. I have proposed that the cost of rainwater is $0.40/KL with an up-front capital cost of $3000 for a 5KL system yielding 75KL – 100KL in Brisbane. (Perseus would install a 13.5KL rainwater system.) The Governments of Australia can quote the cost of new dams, recycling and desalination but not rainwater tanks. Why the rejection?
Greg Cameron

Very good question, Greg. The governments clearly cannot conceive of a solution that does not involve the perpetuation of their role, even in the face of economic, environmental, quality and security of supply advantages for water tanks.

Water tanks supplying household and business water needs are the nearest thing to a perfectly functioning pure market. It is absolute anathema for central control freaks who can only pay their way in a seriously corrupted market place.

My issues with greg are only of scale, not of principle. So let your water tank set you free.

Further to Perseus (Sunday, 13 August 2006 12:50:32 PM), the Forum article’s author makes well-informed commentary about recycling and desalination but he is mute on the topic of rainwater tank policy. He is not alone. There is no political party (Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Democrats and Greens) or environmental lobby group (including ACF and QCC) that is prepared to acknowledge the resource that is collecting rainwater from the roof of every building in Australia. To do so would require them to have authoritative data about cost, yield, ownership, lowest cost manufacturing options and roll-out methodology for achieving economies of scale. None can. Evidence abounds of “the strangling hand of administrative inertia” as the Hon Frank Sartor described NSW Government policy on 16 September 2003 when he announced measures for “slashing red tape” to encourage rainwater tanks. Politicians take the advice they want to hear. Bureaucrats do not want to advise politicians about rainwater tanks and so everybody is happy. However, it is achievable for every building in Australia to have rainwater supply installed within 10 years. It goes without saying that the cost must be competitive with mains water, desalination and sewerage recycling. Fortunately it is. When asked recently about his policy on sewerage recycling, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said that he supports recycling full stop. Mr Howard said that he would have voted yes in the Toowoomba referendum should he have had a vote. Well, the National Water Commission in his department did vote $23 million for the Toowoomba recycling proposal - provided a yes vote was recorded. And yet, in Toowoomba, the City Council rejected rainwater tanks as an option on the basis that the yield would be 25Kl a year at an installation cost of $5000. The Local, State and Federal Governments will not investigate the proposition that, in Toowoomba, the cost is under $3,000 and the yield is 59KL a year (for the last 12 months, and the lowest rainfall for a century).
Greg Cameron

All solutions on the table, you said, Malcolm.

First, please remind Australians they are drinking dinosaur piss, and always have done. The water is 4000 million years old and has been in and out of countless organisms, including people, since the dawn of time. So we should start recycling it like the rest of nature does.

Toowoomba showed it is happening. Before that city's poll, 70 per cent of Australians opposed recycling. After the poll, the number opposed was 60 per cent. Next poll it will be 50, and we're in business. Even a politician couldn't argue with that.

Our cities currently recycle 2-3 per cent of their water and throw the rest away.

Second, build more dams. But not the big wasteful ones on the surface which suffer from evaporation and contamination. The underground dams CSIRO has been pioneering in Adelaide. Aquifer recharge, as it is known, is a distinctively Australian solution to the problem of the huge waste of urban runoff. When water is stored underground the nasties in it are removed naturally in a space of a few weeks, without need for chemical treatment.

With these two measures there is no further need for Australia's cities to take any water from dying inland rivers, from agriculture, or pollute their oceans and estuaries.

And, by the way, let's recycle the nutrients into fertiliser too. With world food production needing to double in the next 40 years, we'll need 'em all.

Greg, you commented

"I have proposed that the cost of rainwater is $0.40/KL with an up-front capital cost of $3000 for a 5KL system yielding 75KL – 100KL in Brisbane. (Perseus would install a 13.5KL rainwater system.)"

But the $3000 is money that could be used in other ways if it weren't spent on a rainwater tank. It could, for example, be used to pay off part of a mortgage. If you spend it on the tank, then you can't do that, but you can use the avoided cost of mains water to pay back the mortage as and when the money is saved.

Twenty five years downstream, when the tank is worn out, the owner is going to consider it was a good investment only if he owes less on the mortgage that he would have otherwise. At a 7% interest rate, and assuming water prices inflate at 3%, that means that the current water price would have to be $1.90, and it is not.

Ian,

I think your costings are a little on the optimistic side, even for a house where installation is simple. However, my main concern is the impact on mains water pricing if the reservoirs are treated by everyone as a supply of last resort. The capital for the dams and water mains still has to be invested, and the marginal operating cost per litre is minimal. So the income would have to stay about the same, but would consist largely of the access charge. The overall effect would be that people would be paying the sum of their existing water cost plus the costs associated with their water tank.

Sylvia.

Poor old one-eyed Perseus has yet again indicated that he has no interest in sustainability (12 August).

Why can’t he just let others express their concerns and not comment if he is not interested in that particular subject? Why did he bother commenting on something that he finds such a “yawn”? Could it be that he just wants to knock the stuffing out of ol’ Ludwig at every opportunity, for daring to even mention this vitally important aspect of the whole water issue?

“He has never heard of rainwater tanks and doesn't approve of any other workable solutions….”

Off he goes again spouting a complete lie. He knows full well that I agree with him about the large-scale the implementation of tanks, as indicated on other threads on this forum (eg; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4685#48097), yet he makes out that we are at total odds on this issue. Ooooww he couldn’t be seen to be agreeing with Ludwig now. Oow no, we couldn’t have that! Must maintain the polarisation!

This is not the first he has been comprehensively caught out lying on this forum. In fact he is often scurrilously frugal with the truth. Tch tch tch. ):>|

“Spot on Fester”.

He is confused. Fester has often expressed the same sort of concerns as myself regarding continuous population growth and stabilisation of overall demand on our resource base. He is only reading half the message in Fester’s last post.

“zealots” “gonzo” “bozo”

Oh that Perzeuz, he’z so funny! (:>)

My mother once had a recipe for rabbit stew.
The recipe was in point form and steps in numerical order.
Rabbit Stew
1. Catch your rabbit.
2. Skin it.
3. Cook it.
Now from that recipe what would be the recipe for buying a rainwater tank.
1. It has to rain!
What is the good of a rainwater tank when it doesn't rain?
You are left with a bill for an empty rainwater tank.
Should the townships of Goulburn and Toowoomba, the towns lacking in water buy rainwater tanks?

Perseus writes;

“So let your water tank set you free.”

As if to say that all we need to do is get a large tank… and not think any more about the whole water situation?

Water tanks are a significant part of the solution, but they are certainly not the total answer. See my comments on this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4636#46954

I implore Perseus to broaden his perspective.

One thing about water that I would love to know is why people are opposed to drinking recycled sewage. Australians travel more than people of any other country, and most of us have drunk water in London, Paris etc. All this water contains recycled sewage. Again, if you think about our catchment areas and the water that flows over cow pats, kangaroo droppings, etc., it should be obvious that even catchment water has to be purified. Purification is not new technology, being over 100 years old. The media have not been full of reports of people in Europe dying from water poisoning. So what is the problem? Perhaps it is the basic distrust of government that pervades Australia.

GlenWriter said:
'What is the good of a rainwater tank when it doesn't rain?
You are left with a bill for an empty rainwater tank.
Should the townships of Goulburn and Toowoomba, the towns lacking in water buy rainwater tanks?'

Since last August, Goulburn has had over 550mm of rain. How many litres is that off a 100 square metre roof? Worth saving as much possible, isn't it? Rainwater tanks need to be heavily subsidised or made free and mandatory, right across Australia.

Ev,
How many litres?
Enough litres of water to increase the population another million that Australia would need more water and more rainwater tanks and more rain.
Decrease the population, don't increase it.

Having faith in a person like Turnbull, who may have bought their way into political power, showing he's incapable of being elected on merit, is a sociological death wish.

There'll be nothing done, bringing new dams on line will take years, the same with desalination, recycling. Whilst economic growth continues, requiring more and more people, commercial expansion and water. By the time they get around to doing something, the problem will probably double, as climate changes have effect, it'll get worse. Water problems are like other aspects of our society, their in crisis yet we have baboons running the country and brain dead clones administering it.

If you don't do something for yourself, no matter who you are, you'll become a victim of your own making. Who cares whether a 5 kl or 1 kl tank is best, or whether an in ground or above ground grey water recycler is best. If you don't have anything it doesn't matter.

Talk of 700 lt a day consumption, with recycling and proper use you can easily half that. In our two houses, we wouldn't use that much in a week maybe two. When you actually rely on the rain, you understand how precious water really is.

Lets hope those secure in their boxes on boxes surrounded by boxes, don't get too upset when they turn the tap on and nothing comes out. Still your free to argue and complain about it until your throats too parched to speak, in a worse case scenario. You can live on 5 lt a day if you just drink and cook with it, most people waste 5 lt when they turn on the tap.

Here's your real water villain.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/home-ownership-costello-blames-states/2006/08/13/1155407675039.html

This article shows that Peter Costello and John Howard want to screw Sydney and NSW by boosting land releases in and immigration into Sydney. Since Sydney gets about 100,000 of the Feral Government's 140,000 focused immigrants and over 50,000 of their bloody cars, every year, we KNOW that Sydney is being SECRETLY singled out for bastardisation here. Sydney's living standards are decreasing, NSW citizens are being forced to pay for it and the rest of Australia is laughing at us while their average living standards are increasing, particularly in Costello's Melbourne Liberal eyrie.

Costello needs to be politically crushed and recycled like our water (with or without an immigration program). I'm sure we can find a use for him where he can do no more harm .. outside of politics. And meanwhile, a stabilisation of the numbers of people living in Sydney will give NSW time to catch up on living standards with the rest of this great nation. THAT is only fair and that is proper JUSTICE.

If Sydney needs skills in 10 years time we can expand State Government sponsored education programs or like 'Barry' Iemma is doing, we can poach skills from Qld. We cannot rely on Federal Liberal to do anything for skills in Sydney other than lower our lliving standards and our EXPECTATIONS with focused political immigration schemas.

Let me tell you that if NSW puts up a "Sydney closed to immigrants" sign then in 10 years time SE Qld will be so debased, overcrowded and short of water that skilled people will be flocking to Sydney at our beck and call.

And Malclom Turnbull? .... Who?

Greg Cameron -

If you pay off the $3000 5kL rainwater tank system over 15 years at 7 per cent, the repayments are $330/year. If you get 75kL per year that is $4.40/kL. Add that to the $0.40/kL that Greg quotes (which I assume is for operation and maintenance, electricity for pumping, etc.) and you have $4.80/kL. That is not a bargain for the average householder. SEQ could probably get desalinated water for $2.50 to $3.00/kL, until energy prices go higher, and recycled water for $1.50 to $2.00/kL.

Second, the quality is not as good as town water (considering the birds on the roof, etc.), so it is not really fair to compare the prices. Town water, including desalinated or recycled, is a superior product, so we should expect to pay more for it.

Do you see it differently Greg?

Ev, if Goulbourn had 550mm last year then the yield from a 100m2 tank would be 550x100 or 55kl. The average house of 250m2 would have still got 137kl or 54% of normal household use, provided the tank was more than 9,000 litres. I don't know what sort of restrictions Goulbourn residents have been under during that time but as their dam is now empty we can be certain that 137kl would be very welcome and a big improvement on what they have had.

Even a heavy dew, on a 255m2 roof, will deliver 100L of water to the tank.

And now Ludwig calls me a liar for failing to respond to the sum of all other posts made by another person on other articles. Give us a break, sure looks like defamation to me. And still we get this argument that fixing the problem with an effective solution like water tanks should not be encouraged because it will delay their population epiphany.

Of course, the other neglected solution is to recycle environmental flows. The current Draft Burdekin Water Plan allocates only 25% of all water flows to human use, leaving the rest as environmental flows. But no-one asks why, if waste water can be profitably recycled and pumped back into Wivenhoe Dam, the same cannot be done with environmental flows after they have done their work? Capture it before it hits the salt water and pump it back upstream to do the same job again.

The limit on how far this water can be pumped is defined by the alternate market price for the water that is saved. My understanding is that official environmental flows in Brisbane are about 120,000Ml a year, which still take place even in a year when the river would not normally flow. Unofficial flows are higher still. Ditto every other river.

And as mentioned on other posts, the 500,000Ml that has been taken out of the Murray to "restore" the Snowy River could easily be captured at the river mouth after it has done its work and then be pumped only 300km to Melbourne.

ericc---

Health aspects of rainwater tanks:

“The general public perception is that rainwater is safe to drink. In most areas of Australia, the risk of illness arising from consumption is low, providing it is visually clear, has little taste or smell and, importantly, the storage and collection of rainwater is via a well maintained tank and roof catchment system. While the risk from consuming rainwater is low in most areas of Australia, the water from domestic tanks is not as well treated or managed as the major urban water supplies. The microbial quality of water collected in tanks is not as good as the urban supplies. In a limited number of areas, specific industries or very heavy traffic emissions may affect the chemical quality of rainwater.
“Rainwater can be used as a source for hot water services, bathing, laundry, toilet flushing, or gardening. These uses represent lower risks to public health than drinking rainwater.”
Source: EnHealth Council, Guidance on use of rainwater tanks, May 2004, page 3
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-publicat-document-metadata-env_rainwater.htm

“The use of rainwater to supply household hot water services has been advocated as a low risk option since the high water temperature can inactivate enteric pathogens. There is evidence from research at the Figtree Place development in Newcastle NSW that microbiological water quality is substantially improved by passage of rainwater through hot water services, although further work is required to confirm the required minimum temperature. Existing Australian guidelines recommend that a water temperature of at least 60ºC is maintained in hot water service tanks in order to avoid growth of Legionella bacteria. This temperature also appears to be adequate to inactivate enteric pathogens. Use of rainwater for toilet flushing also appears to be a low risk indoor application as ingestion exposure is considered unlikely.”
http://www.waterquality.crc.org.au/publications/occpaper10_execsumm.htm

“[Epidemiological studies] suggest that consumption of water from rainwater tanks does not pose a significant health risk in relation microbial pathogens for children (and by inference adults) in the general community.”
Source: Public Health Aspects Of Rainwater Tanks In Urban Australia, Occasional Paper 10, CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, page 32

Greg Cameron

ericc—

Financial aspects of rainwater tanks

A 5KL rainwater supply system costing $3000 to supply and install will last for 30 years. It will cost about $900 to maintain - main costs are 3 additional pressure pumps and electricity @ $7/year. When water is collected from all downpipes and used for hot water, laundry, toilet flushing and outdoors the yield will be 75KL/year on the coast (80% of Australian live within 50 KM of the cost) or 2.25 billion litres (2.25GL) over 30 years.

Cost per KL over 30 years is derived by dividing 2.25GL by the sum of capital, interest and operating costs.

In comparison, water from dams, desalination plants and sewerage recycling plants is piped to consumers. The price charged consumers covers operating cost but not the cost of the water supply network. An exception is where the water supply network is extended to supply new consumers because they pay the full capital cost of the extension.

Mains water therefore is subsidised to the extent that the distribution network is not being depreciated and this means that the funds will not be available when the time comes to replace it. It is fair and reasonable to include the capital and financing cost of rainwater in the calculation of $/KL. To be equally fair, the same approach should be taken to pricing desalinated water and recycled water.

When 30% of the water supply is sourced from rainwater tanks, this extends the life of the mains water distribution network. What is this saving worth? When there is less damage to roads because of rainwater tanks (as stormwater pipes leak under pressure the road base is eroded from beneath) what is this benefit worth?

Governments provide a lifecycle costing of rainwater tanks but they do not cost mains supplied water. Rainwater is cheaper than mains water if rainwater is treated as building cost but not a water cost. Therefore, when rainwater supply is installed at point of sale of the building the cost is capitalised at under 1% of the building’s value. Houses sell every 7 years. Its painless.
Greg Cameron

More on deliberate Corporate bastardisation of NSW, including the creation of water shortages by overpopulation in Sydney.

From the SMH: "Mr Gersbach (the NSW HIA) said further contribution to (housing) supply and demand measures in NSW was a must in order to make a serious dent on the affordability front."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Higher-rates-hurt-housing-affordability/2006/08/14/1155407713705.html

Mr G is NOT an elected representative of the people of NSW.
If he is appealing to the Premier, let him note: This is NOT "NSW - the Premier's State" as some number plates suggest.

This is "NSW -THE PEOPLE's STATE" and profiteers who wish to create an industry out of manufactured water and lowering the expectations and living standards of NSW citizens by overcrowding and debasing Sydney at NSW's cost should take their aspirations to SE Qld. Mr Beatty will gladly make housing affordable for all immigrants who want it.

After they have ruined SEQ, NSW can happily rescue the goodun's with plenty of jobs and H2O to spare!.

Additionally, this Sea Height Anomaly map of Australia shows where populations are being abused through focused immigration schemas around Australia.

Just look for the large blue patches off the coast and locate the nearest city. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1155527536.gif
You will see that Sydney's deep ocean outfalls predominate for the entire nation apart from Perth and Carpentaria which are affected by heavy mining exploits. Melbourne's contriibution is hardly noticeable, a benefit of stable population and few heavy industries.

These maps going back several years are a historical record of water and population mismanagement for the Australian continent. They are also a benchmark by which we can plan future improvements and a permanent end to drought. The blue and reddish patches have their own microclimate as seen in studies off Perth. The blue patches with high sea surface pressure systems attract land based heat and moisture causing drought. The more coastal dwellers, the more waste and worsening drought

The answer is to hold onto stormwaters and sewage wastewaters and process them in wetlands on land. You don't need to recycle&pump to dams. Nature will do it for us by evaporation and rainfall.

GC,

It is not correct that mains water consumers do not pay for the cost of the supply network. The cost of the capital involved is indeed included in the price paid by the consumer, and represents a large part of the overall amount. See for example

http://tinyurl.com/r73je

which is the IPART determination for some NSW suppliers, including Sydney Water. Of particular relevance is chapter 5 of the final report which starts at Acrobat's page number 151.

As regard your other comments, I cannot see why reducing main water consumption would extend the life of the system as a whole. Pumps, OK, but much of the system consists of pipes. I am not aware of any evidence that the life of a pipe is function of how much water flows through it.

Could you give more detail about how you arrive at your cost per KL? Note that 30 years of 75KL per year comes to 2.25ML, not 2.25GL, though I assume that was an oversight in your posting, because your cost is certainly not out by a factor of 1000.

Sylvia.

Perseus

On 17 July I wrote;

“I agree with you [Perseus] totally that SEQ should be helping itself before claiming water from far away, instead of helping itself to other regions’ water. The large-scale implementation of tanks is a significant part of this. If projects of such enormous cost as this pipeline are being seriously considered, then perhaps that money should be used instead to actually buy and install tanks throughout SEQ.

Wahoo Perseus… we have a significant point of agreement here!! Wonders will never cease!!”

On 12 August you wrote;

“He [Ludwig] has never heard of rainwater tanks and doesn't approve of any other workable solutions because that would delay the public's much awaited epiphany on population. Yawn.”

I have also mentioned my support for tanks in a number of posts on other threads, every one of which you have also posted on. You seek out water issues on this forum like I do. You cannot possibly argue that you haven’t seen my posts.

You have lied to the forum Perseus. Clear and simple. And it is the second time on this forum that you have done it to me, in a most blatant and disgusting manner. The first time, as with this instance, I made a big point of it. After that, I would have thought that you would never do anything of the sort again, at least not in relation to me. Please don’t let there be a third time.

And as I said in response to the last instance, deliberately making a person’s views out to be very different to what they really are is a direct form of defamation. You really do need to be very careful about this sort of thing.
--

Again I direct you back to a debate we were having on tanks, which you cut and ran from - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4636#46954. I raised a few concerns there, to which you apparently have no answers. Comeon – tanks appear to be your greatest passion in life. So address my concerns…. and support your arguments, if you can.

Ludwig, my reference to you not having heard of rainwater tanks was in relation to the fact that you have been told on numerous times that population growth is not a threat to water stocks or existing supply if every new house is required to install a decent tank. Yet, you continue to flog population growth as a threat to everyone else's water security when you know it is not. All you do is distract people from more important aspects of the water issue. Growth does not automatically equal increased demand for mains water.

On the issue of tank water costing, the key to keeping tank water costs low is how much volume is captured and used each year. The more times it fills up and empties the cheaper each tank full becomes. And this must be balanced against economies of size. A 5kl tank costs $1000 or $200/Kl to buy while a 22kl tank costs $2700 or only $123/Kl of storage capacity. But these savings are lost if the big tank has insufficient roof area to keep it reasonably full.

And this is why I keep repeating that 13.5kl of tank capacity is the optimum size for the average house.

Those concerned about bird droppings on the roof ending up in the tank ignore the reality on a normal Australian roof. They are damned hot places. If you deposit a naked 90kg human without water on a Brisbane tin roof he will be dead by the end of a normal day. In a week he will be completely dehydrated with minimal biotic action remaining. A flying fox turd is turned to hard baked enamel in a day and is converted to inert carbon dust in a few days by the same radiation used in the water purification plants. But the amount of UV exposure on a roof top is astronomically greater than what is applied in the treatment plant.

You already have a low cost, fully functioning, solar powered, UV treatment plant on top of your house. And it works very well indeed.

"You have been told numerous times that population growth is not a threat to water stocks if every new house has a decent tank."

That is arrant nonsense.

Increasing population in Australia is only significantly affecting Sydney and thus NSW, according to the SHA maps I have presented. The greater Sydney's population grows, the greater will be the wastewater induced micro climate zones I have described off the East coast of NSW. Tanks will only increase immigration for profit, water overuse, and thus oceanic wastewaters. The cost to fix the wastewater problem will grow exponentially with increasing population and will be unaffordable. ITM NSW will experience permanent drought. It won't Global Warming!

This article http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/theyre-turning-wine-into-water-in-griffith/2006/08/14/1155407741502.html
correctly implicates evaporation from NSW waterways as a major problem in NSW drought. But that evaporation is only a problem while coastal ocean micro climates attract it out to sea. Further, the damming of and cultivation of the Griffith wetland is a good move. But this won't solve the drought problem while coastal populations and their wastewater rivers to sea increase and steal all the evaporation from the NSW heartland.

The solution:

* Stop land releases in Sydney and coastal areas. Divert immigration to SEQ. Let Beatty have the headaches. Tell Costello to butt out.

* Continue developing wetlands like at Griffith. Thousands will be needed.

* Gradually form RESPONSIBLE PPPs for sewage diversion to wetlands around Sydney. Shut down deep ocean outfalls where fiscally possible. Make these PPPs fully accountable up front to the public with plebiscites.

* The damming of these wetlands(described), causes minerals to be locked in the bottom of the dam. This, water overuse and accelerated ocean dumping are why dams have failed all over the world. To stop this all tributaries entering wetland dams in NSW must be protected by smaller wetlands whose siltation and vegetation can be periodically harvested and spread over farms.

All these measures are essential to stopping our drought and ALL of NSW, city and country, have roles to play.

NSW, together we can do it !

Sylvia--

One million Sydney houses using rainwater tanks will yield 75GL/Y @ 75KL/house. Installing 1M rainwater systems costs $3B ($3,000/house) and yields 2,250GL over 30 years costing $1.33/KL. Operating cost per house is $900 over 30 years or $0.40/KL. Combined capital and operating cost therefore is $1.73/KL. Sydney mains water costs $1.23/KL - rainwater costs $37.50 per year more than mains water.

The Sydney Metropolitan Water Plan Progress Report noted the opinion of some experts that ‘water has historically been undervalued’ in Sydney. It also noted that construction and operation costs of a 125 ML/day scaleable desalination plant would raise Sydney Water customer bills by about $60/Y. (Sydney’s Water Supply, Metropolitan WaterPlan, 8 February 2006, p8.)

The NSW Auditor-General reported in 2005:

“... We have reported over the last three years our concern about Sydney Water’s ability to fund the replacement of its system assets given the age and condition of the system and relevant pricing structures. The estimated cost of replacing Sydney Water’s assets at 30 June 2005 was $20.0 billion ($18.2 billion at 30 June 2004). However, based on Sydney Water’s estimate of the assets’ ability to generate cash inflows, their value was reduced to $11.2 billion ($10.8 billion).

“... We believe that the gap between Sydney Water’s ‘replacement’ asset values and their cash generating capability is significant and may need further analysis by key stakeholders. IPART has recently granted real price increases to Sydney Water in its 2005-2009 determination. This will help to alleviate some of our concerns.”

“... A desalination plant represents a viable method of supplementing supplies of drinking water for Sydney. Sydney Water estimates that it would cost $2.0 billion to construct a 500 megalitre/day desalination plant and approximately $100 million per year to run it. On a purely financial basis, this compares favourably against recycling water into the drinking water supply in established areas, where Sydney Water estimates that it would cost $2.8 billion to build the facilities to recycle wastewater, and a further $140 million a year to run the facilities.
Source: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/financial/2005/vol4/73-0955_SydneyWaterCorp.pdf

Rainwater tanks are competitive.

Greg Cameron

A desalination plant represents a viable method of supplementing supplies of drinking water for profiteers riding the back of an usustainable and unwise 100,000 people and 50,000+ car immigration loading every year on Sydney. And NSW you will pay not only for their water but all the other costly infrastructure that is needed to support this invasion of your state.

This strategy is in the interests of Ghibelline state government officials in line for post ministerial favours and jobs. It is in the interest of Costello and Howard who are shepherding Melbourne at the expense of Sydney in order to maintain Federal power. It is NOT in the interests of the general NSW public.

NSW you can beat this! STOP immigration into Sydney NOW and build a NSW future on QUALITY and not untrue, untried and untested NUMBERS of neo-electors. Qld will gladly take up all the excess immigrants and we can pick and choose the best skills after Qld has melted down in a debased, overcrowded mire of humanity. These skilled people will be only too glad to shift to a state run on QUALITY ideals.

And Sydney's water problem is not the issue for NSW. The issue is the perpetual drought caused by ever increasing rivers of muck pumped out to sea off the NSW coast and through Deep Ocean Outfalls off Sydney where unsustainable numbers of people are settling.

I have listed the ways this can be reversed and the NSW drought can be broken.

NSW ... take control of your state!

Your only enemies are a small minority of bigmouths with lots of YOUR money, deep pockets and NO respect for your future.
I think we all know who they are.

“But let us leave the history and the blame game of over allocation to history.”

One would imagine, incorrectly it would seem, that Mr Turnbull would be aware of that wise adage "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

We are entitled to better than this self serving rhetoric from our national leaders. He could afford to heed Ludwig's postings on this thread for some simple root-cause analysis and problem solving.

Greg,

You cannot add together amounts of money that relate to expenditure at different times. Or at least, if you do, you don't get meaningful answers.

Consider this. Suppose that a kilolitre of water today costs $1. What is the cost to me, today, of a kilolitre of water to be delivered in fifteen years? First we have to work out how much a kilolitre of water would cost in fifteen years. Suppose inflation's running at 3%, and the price rises in line with inflation. Then in 15 years, the price will be $1.56. Now suppose that the interest rate is 7%. I don't have to put aside $1.56 today, because in the intervening 15 years, the money will earn interest. In fact, $1 today will be grow to be $2.78 in fifteen years. So to have $1.56 in fifteen years, I only need to put aside 56 cents today.

When you buy a water tank, you are effectively putting aside money today to buy water in the future. To compare that cost with the cost of buying that water from the mains, you have to compare it with the amount you'd have to put aside *today* to buy that future water, and that's a lot less that the simple sum of the amounts paid in the future.

This is discounted cash flow. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow

Sadly, this is little understood by the public at large, which means that people generally do not understand the investment decision made by governments.

Sylvia.

Thanks Greenlight for the vote of confidence.

Malcolm Turnbull, can I respectfully ask you to enter the debate that you have triggered and respond to some of your detractors.

Thankyou.

Thanks for the timely DCF/NPV stuff, Sylvia. The costings for the 13.5kl tank options were based on 7% over 30 years.

Lowest cost rainwater supply: why don’t Governments want it?

NSW is the only State where building approval is conditional on reducing mains drinking water consumption (by 40%). Other States make building approval conditional on installing rainwater tanks. NSW’s BASIX law is honest because its explicit purpose is to conserve mains drinking water. NSW plumbing policy also is honest – see Hansard, Hon Frank Sartor, 16 September 2003 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20030916011

The NSW Government so far has dealt with 20,000 certificates issued under its BASIX law. There are 1.7M separate houses (70% of dwellings) in NSW (ABS, 2001). Will it take more than 100 years for BASIX to apply to all houses?

No State Government makes rainwater tanks mandatory in existing houses because water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is not owned by the State.
Perversely, no state Government confirms that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is actually owned by the building owner.

All State Governments have the legal right to mandate reduced mains drinking water consumption at point of sale of all buildings, with rainwater tanks being deemed to comply. Dwellings sell on average every seven years.

In a decade, most dwellings would be required to reduce mains drinking water consumption. All house owners will pay less than at present for installing a rainwater system. At $3,000 per installation, rainwater supply will add 1% (or less) to the cost of an average house – new or existing. Rainwater supply is a building cost that is depreciated as part of the building, with an operating cost (house) of $0.40/KL.

In summary
· all Governments want houses to have rainwater tanks
· lowest cost is when rainwater supply is installed in all houses
· 5 million household installations can be accomplished in 10 years without mandating rainwater tanks

All Governments can mandate reduced mains drinking water consumption at point of sale of all buildings with rainwater tanks being deemed to comply. Why do they choose not to? Don’t they want every house and every building to have their own rainwater supply, within a decade, at lowest cost?

Greg Cameron

Perseus,

I have repeatedly tried to get people at least to believe in the ideas behind DCF/NPV, even if they don't fully understand them. I seem to be beating my head against a brick wall on this. GC has clearly ignored my previous posting, and is just restating his flawed argument.

It's not just with water that these issues are arising, of course. Power is another one. Yet if people don't (or won't!) understand how costs need to be calculated, they end up being more receptive to the whole "big business conspiracy" idea that's constantly circulating.

That wouldn't matter, except that it's pushing governments down a needlessly expensive path.

As regards your own 13.5Kl tank proposal, have you thought about whether any cost should be attached to the land on which it sits? The version of the tank I found online covers an area of 7 square metres.

Sylvia.

Of course we must work out the economics of providing water, it's the most important aspect of the situation. Sylvia mentions power as another add on to the situation, but aren't you all missing the most glaring problem to face.

How does Sydney or other cities on the coastline cope with sea rises in the next decade or so, of many metres. I sat and listened to a CSIRO climatologist the other day, stating the effects are happening 50 and 100 years before they were expected.

He said at the current rate, the seas will rise a minimum 7 metres within 10 years. But because we are increasing our output of warming gases, they have no idea whether it will be 2 years or 10. What he did say was, we have a different situation in Australia because we are surrounded by sea, so the effects for us will be unseen until like a boiling pot, it overflows and the seas rise in huge surges, but won't retreat until the earth cools. He also said within 30 years they will rise up to 70 metres.

If this is true and he said all the data from the Antarctic supports the data from the Artic, don't you think working out the economics of water is useless. When the seas rise, so will the rivers, flooding the plains. It will also flood inland Australia. I found this frightening to contemplate, except I live more than 100 metres above the sea. But close to 90% of Australians live below 100 metres and within 5 klms of the sea, below the coastal ranges.

We saw the tsunami of Indonesia, will that be what it will be like when it happens. It will happen in summer when its warmest and most people are holidaying on the beach. How do you cope with walls of water that don't retreat. Could someone give me the economics of what should be done about that, economics will save us, won't it.

Sylvia,
I don't think any elements like land area should be included because they are already in place and are already being paid for. But you raise an interesting issue of multi tasking of water tanks.

It is ironic that I can build a 1.8 metre brick fence on my front boundary but cannot put a set of slimline water tanks of essentially the same dimensions within 6 metres of that boundary. Yet, this is a classic case where the tank could provide a dual function but is being prohibited by Council regulations.

A brick fence can easily cost up to $300/lineal metre, both the bricks and the tank need a solid foundation, so the cost of the tank can be off-set by the savings from not building a fence. I seem to recall that a 2.4 metre long slimline holding about 3,000L costs about $700 which is about the same as a similar length of brick fence. And given that one has chosen to have both functions then it is quite reasonable to discount the cost of the tank by the savings on the fence. Unless, of course, you already have the fence.

The same can be done with garage walls, garden shed walls and even house walls (for excellent heat transfer and sound proofing qualities) etc but in far too many cases there is some stupid bit of Local Government BS in the way. Either way we have hardly started to think about solving on-site water storage issues

Tanks in 10 years or 100 years?

All houses in Australia will have rainwater tanks in about 100 years, as State Governments’ building laws are applied for renovating and replacing the nation’s housing stock.

Governments mandate rainwater tanks/reduced mains drinking water consumption, for new houses and major renovations, because they believe this is in the best interests of the community.

In making these laws, one expects that DCF/NPV of rainwater tanks has been considered and signed-off by State Treasuries.

Sylvia comments that “Governments are being pushed down a needlessly expensive path” by their support, both legislatively and financially, for rainwater tanks.

An alternative view is that Governments recognise that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is a large and valuable source of urban water supply and they are looking for ways to make it more affordable and accessible. Perseus’ rainwater tank fence is one example of the myriad opportunities for innovation that are available if, as Hon Frank Sartor said, we can overcome that “familiar enemy, the strangling hand of administrative inertia”.

It is also true that there is a needlessly high cost structure for rainwater tanks necessitating subsidies. For example, the Queensland Government provides a $1000 subsidy for installing rainwater tanks in existing houses of which there are 700,000 in southeast Queensland. (The subsidy fund is capped at $84M or 12% of eligible households.)

However, subsidies for rainwater tanks will not be required if all houses have rainwater tanks.

This is because the cost savings from economies of scale in manufacture and installation, are worth more than the subsidies.

The building laws passed by State Governments will see rainwater tanks in all houses in 100 years. Why not 10 years?

Greg Cameron

Perseus, you wrote;

“Ludwig, my reference to you not having heard of rainwater tanks was in relation to the fact that you have been told on numerous times that population growth is not a threat to water stocks or existing supply if every new house is required to install a decent tank.”

And yet you knew that I supported the concept of rainwater tanks! That’s pretty whacky Perseus.

As I said on another thread (link given in my last post), even if every new residence has a tank, we will still need to maintain a healthy public supply network, due to not all tanks being large enough to drought-proof people, health scares and a tendency to increase water-usage once people have installed a large tank.

So, the implementation of tanks certainly does not neutralise the population growth factor.

“All you do is distract people from more important aspects of the water issue.”

This is extraordinary! I could more legitimately say that you provide the distraction here, by attempting to focus debate on one small aspect of water-provision and security, rather than looking at the overall issue. However, I do think that discussion on tanks is important. What is really unfortunate is that you are so intolerant of population / growth / sustainability aspects even being mentioned in relation to water. I just can’t understand this.

I have no problem with your economies of size. But let’s just be aware that the most economic or practical tanks for many people are not necessarily going to be the most drought-proofing.

Not all rooves are stinkin’ hot all of the time. Bird and bat droppings can easily get into tanks before they are ‘cooked’. Disease IS an issue. We could easily find a situation where a very large portion of the population suddenly stops using tank water and greatly increases demand on the town supply

Rainwater tanks on urban buildings are indeed an easy solution , However the difficulty lies in finding ways to encourage voluntary adoption .

The practice of charging a set fee for mains water supply regardless of the quantity utilized by the is probably the greatest deterrent to installation of tanks .

Why pay for a rainwater tank if you still have to pay the same water fee ?

Ok some municipalities may offer reduced water charges where tanks are installed & that’s good but not nearly good enough .

In the interest of promoting the concept of self reliance I personally wouldn’t suggest an installation subsidy from the state , Unless perhaps it could be in the form of a deduction against taxable income as with farm water improvements .

Worst solution would have to be compulsion of any form as compulsion only ever leads to more bureaucracy & red tape .

Best solution in my view is that mains supplied water only be charged for on the basis of quantity utilized as per meter reading . Plus perhaps an annual service fee to cover meter reading . The option of no mains connection should be available so that no fees are incurred at all .
Also rainwater tank installation should not require approval if installed in accordance within sensible guidelines .

This type of approach would provide the opportunity for those who choose to be self reliant to easily save on utility expenses as well as providing a fair financial incentive to be frugal with mains water .

continued ;

From above ;

Additionally the above may create a degree of competition for reliable supply of water , Firstly between state/council water utilities & tank suppliers , Then after many tanks are installed the sky’s the limit , Water could be purchased from farmer Fred with his large dam & filtration system but no crop contract or maybe the power generation industry , They produce plenty of steam so why can’t that be from salt water ? Or of course from a desalination plant operator .

Simply change the way existing water supply entities charge for their water & rainwater tanks will be sought voluntarily , or I’ll eat me hat .

One wonders if there would in fact be a supply shortage now if there had been some real competition in the past .

Ps ; I prefer the term utilize to the term use when talking about water as it is more accurate . The word use somehow suggests exhaustion & is likely the cause of much of the misunderstanding & heat that exists in the debate .

Good point, Jammo. The sole justification of regulation is to prevent foreseeable harm. So what sort of harm, to either the homeowner or his neighbour, do these councils think will be inflicted by an unregulated water tank?

They are not known for jumping the fence to hump the neighbours hot water system. At their very worst, they will leak. But even this will have most impact on the owner's property rather than the neighbour's. If the footings are innadequate then the worst that will happpen is that one side will subside and the tank may only last 15 years instead of 30 but again, this is the owners loss, no-one else's.

And what are the dreadful consequences if a tank has to be fixed? No shock horror here either, just let the water out (not much in dry season) disconnect the pipes an push the empty tank aside to make the repairs.

And as for the misguided fears of health risks, where is the evidence? All of rural Australia has lived on tank water for more than a century and there is NO EVIDENCE of any variance in the incidence of waterborne infection or disease between the two communities.

If the metropolitan public is so stupid as to be incapable of ensuring that the inlet and outlet mesh is in good order then I would be the first to tell them to avoid tanks. But you tell me, are they?

Have discovered this site in the wake of the 7.30 Report a couple of nights ago on similar subject.
Will not tarry long, except to say I am from Adelaide, the cloarca maxima of the Murray-Darling. And grew up in a housing trust semi-detached, with rainwater tank and no end of consumed bird sh-t ever killed me. Sweet water; rainwater!
Firstly, Toowoomba. Had the the Feds been dinkum over the recycling facility they surely would have been dealt with it firmly, instead of in the gormeless, namby-pamby way they did. It was almost as if they WANTED to kill the precedent.
Which brings me to KAEP.
I have to agree with much that KAEP said, and sense his and other's writer's frustrations both with cretin state ALP governments, for a start. What a classic paradigm, I am ashamed to say, is Tripodi- so typical. Worst since Carr's (and Griener's?) tunnels and Lennon's and Liberal Robin Grey's despicable woodchipping decade in Tassie and Bracks'PPP's (and Liberal Kennett's privatisations before that)and Nat/ALP land clearing and Cubby Creek in Queensland ... and so on. Heavens, what's the point- its an entrenched culture!!
Then there has been the devious and destructive Fed Howard government and effeminate ALP opposition.
Consider Tory Regional Forestry "agreements" to begger-up the catchments as an unconsidered (wilfully ignored) consequence of ratchetting-up woodchipping.Then there's been regional rural grants rorting, deliberate inaction on serious issues like water purification, lies over urgency of needed change, funding "failures" and trumpeting of neo liberal "small"- read impotent- government and cult of self, etc.
The point is, with all the various legal traps installed in privatising everything, over the heads and behind the backs of a complicitly apathetic public, you can't get water conservation schemes up any more than you can stop get traffic funnelling, because the privatised companies now in control will demand compensation- the damage has BEEN DONE!!
The best we could do as consolation is grab a stack of merchant bankers, "developers" and politicians within a prospective radius of five million miles and HANG them !

Do you own the water that occurs on your roof when it rains?

Does Government have the right to regulate your use of water from your roof?

First of all, let’s get plumbing and building regulations out of the way.

No question that the law requires you to plumb your rainwater tank in compliance with the plumbing regulations; and you must install your rainwater tank in compliance with building and town planning regulations.

However, the Queensland and South Australian Governments have taken Government regulation one step further. These Governments now require you to install a rainwater tank and to use the water for purposes nominated by the Government if you want permission to build a house. If you do not collect and use rainwater as stipulated, you are not permitted to build a house.

There is no question that the Government can refuse you permission to build your house if you cannot demonstrate that the house will have an adequate water supply. But does that give Government the legal right to regulate where and how you use the water that occurs on your own roof?

So, who does own the water?

Queensland is the only State to confirm that the Government does not own water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks. All other States (except Victoria, which has not indicated a position) propose that water flowing off a roof is the same thing as water flowing over land which is surface water. Surface water is owned by the State. Therefore, the Governments infer that the State owns water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks. This is how the State Governments replied:

“Based on the definition of water in the Water Act 2000, water collected in rainwater tanks does not fall within the ownership of the State under Section 19 of the Water Act 2000” - Hon Henry Palaszczuk, 26 October, 2005. Section 19 is “All rights to the use, flow and control of all water in Queensland are vested in the State”. The meaning of “overland flow water” “does not include water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks”

“Section 124 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004SouthAustralia sets our rights and responsibilities in relation to the taking of water. This includes surface water which is defined by the NRM Act to include water flowing over land (except in a water course) after having fallen as rain of hale or having precipitated in any other manner and land is defined as including any buildings or structures attached to the land. Therefore, any rain that becomes runoff from roofs is surface water for the purposes of the NRM Act and the rights to take that water as set out in Section 124 apply” - Hon John Hill, 15 September, 2005.

“The Premier has received your e-mail dated 23 March 2006 in relation to the collection of rainwater in tanks from roofs. He has asked me to reply on his behalf. The Cabinet Office is not in a position to provide you with advice as to your legal rights on the questions you have raised” - R G Wilkins, Director-General, The Cabinet Office, NSW, 29 June, 2006.

“The [Western Australian] Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 vests the rights to the use flow and controls of water in water courses and ground water systems in the Crown. The Act does not prevent the landowner collecting rainwater from roofs or intercepting overland flows on the property unless the collection diminishes the flows or quality of water in water courses or wetlands or damages the ecology of water courses or wetlands. In practical terms, the collection of rainwater from a roof is unlikely to have any of these adverse effects and the owner is free to collect the runoff and use it how he or she chooses. This water is not vested in the Crown” – Hon John Kobelke, 29 May, 2006.

“The land owner or occupier [in Tasmania] has a right to take and use rainwater. Once the water has been “taken” in accordance with the Act, the rights as to the use of that water vest in the owner or occupier” – Hon David Llewellyn, 16 May, 2006.

Greg Cameron

Good info from GC ,

Even a move in the right direction can be a wrong move if the method is flawed .
It boggles the mind .
A tool box full of carrots & still the reds can’t help but go for the bashing stick every time .

In his article Malcolm Turnbull essentially suggests , Let’s just let go a bit for the sake of better outcomes .

Fat chance !

Perseus , My answer to your last question would have to be no , so long as a bloke is free to be an individual & make up his own mind . Beyond that I’d have to check for regulations governing independent thought .

One shouldn’t be flippant I know but after reading Gregs last posts I can’t help it . Even when they do cotton onto a good idea the Marxists will stuff it every time by trying to control it .

Is it lack of faith in fellow man or lack of imagination or fear of being left behind or all three .

Get out of our way .

I asked Mr Beattie and Mr Springborg “Is it your policy that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks in Queensland is owned by the building owner?” Replies will be posted.

Greg Cameron

Perseus,
I live on Tablelands of NSW and have my own water supply for the house and seperate supply for yard and garden. 700ml rainfall.
I consider there are some failings in your figures based on actual experiance, but still see rainwater tanks as a usefull suplimentary supply to reticulated supply in most cases.

Firstly I think your average house catchment is more like 200sq m.
Secondly, no one yet has mentioned the need for a presure system, which is necessary for showers and dishwashers, etc.

Your house tank size is far too small. One needs 3 mths storage on coastal fringe and 5 mts storage on Tablelands and at least 6 mts storage further West. This is to allow for periods of little or no rainfall.

750 litres PER DAY, for each 100 sq metre of yard, is regquired for garden/yard to keep it barely alive during the summer.

If you add this up for 4 people in house and a lawn of 200 sq m you need 2800lts per day. Say 150 days storage equals 225000lts storage, without any reticulated town supply.

So I consider that rainwater tanks are a usefull suplimentary supply but question the economics and space requirements if a reticulated supply is available. I would not drink water from a town supply. Mine is far superior.

It would be interesting and worthwhile to see the average normal use for each household in places like Bathurst or Goulburn. Figures from Eastern rainfall belt are not usefull anywhere else.

In South Australia, the legislation controlling rights to water is the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. Under Section 124, rights at common law in relation to the taking of "naturally occurring water" are abolished. Instead, the occupier of land is entitled to take surface water from the land for any purpose. The meaning of land includes any building or structure fixed to land and the meaning of surface water includes water flowing over land after having fallen as rain.

A rainwater tank is a tank that contains water collected from a roof. Legally, a tank that contains water that has touched the ground is not a rainwater tank. Water that is on the ground is surface water. The Government claims that water that is on a roof also is surface water. Whereas water on a roof can be collected in a rainwater tank, water that is on the ground cannot be collected in a rainwater tank. How is it possible to claim that a roof and the ground surface are the same thing?

Under recent changes to the SA Development Act 1993, the occupier of land on which a new house it to be built, or an existing house is to be renovated, is not entitled to use the water collected from the roof for any purpose. This is because roofwater must be collected in a rainwater tank and must be used for either hot water, laundry or toilet. If the occupier of the land does not agree to collect roofwater and to use it for one of the three mandatory uses, they are refused permission to build their house or renovate their existing house. The occupier of vacant land who is refused permission to build a house, obviously, cannot collect roofwater.

In NSW, the State Government overcame this anomalous situation by mandating reduced mains drinking water consumption for new houses, and renovations, with the voluntary use of rainwater tanks being one way to comply.

Is the SA Government’s objective to reduce mains drinking water consumption, or is it to own rainwater collected from roofs?

Greg Cameron

Banjo—

The reason why rainwater tanks are not a significant source of water supply in Goulburn is because NSW Government policy throughout the 20th century was to discourage them. 30% of households outside Sydney have rainwater tanks but only 3% in Sydney.

Now, the Government requires all new houses in NSW to reduce mains drinking water consumption by 40%. The Government considers that installing rainwater tanks in existing houses is too expensive and therefore the law only applies to new houses and major renovations.

However, if all houses were required to reduce mains drinking water consumption by 40% at point of sale, with rainwater tanks deemed to comply, there would be a significant drop in the cost of installing rainwater tanks in new houses. All house owners – new and existing – would benefit.

The cost of supplying, installing and plumbing (including with pressure pump) a 5KL rainwater system for an average house in Goulburn (and NSW), would be under $3,000. Houses are sold on average every seven years. Almost all houses in NSW will change ownership within a decade.

Drought stricken Goulburn is a good case study. Rainfall in the City of Goulburn for the 12 months to 31 July 2006 was 573MM. A 5KL rainwater system would have provided 60KL of water for an average Goulburn house (175m roof area) when used for hot water, laundry, toilet flushing and external uses. As part of the plumbing package, an automatic switching valve is installed for returning the household to mains water the instant the tanks run dry, and back to tank at the next rain event.

Several extreme rainfall events in Goulburn meant that a 5KL rainwater system would have overflowed by about 27KL in the 12-month period. The impact of Goulburn’s level 5 water restrictions is that every person currently uses 150 litres of mains drinking water per day, compared with 380 litres per day in Sydney.

Based on current rainfall and per capita consumption, rainwater tanks would have supplied 40% of Goulburn’s drinking water needs in the last 12 months of record-breaking drought.

Greg Cameron

Greg,
Am pleased that you have included a presure pump and automatic switching valve in your costings. However, even if Government legislated for each house to have a system as you advocate, I doubt if a 40% reduction in mains water use would be acheived.

I don't wish to pour cold water on the use of house tanks but the flaw is that, for areas with a normal dry summer, your system is at its lowest usefulnes at the period of greatest need. I submit that in these areas the summer requirements far outweight the winter needs.

I have not watered outside since March but come November I expect to, and right through to next March/April (which is normal). I have a useable garden water storage of 300KL and many summers this is not sufficient to get through, watering 600sq m. Just to green survival stage.

I expect your 5KL tank would not see a week out watering 200sq m.
It would last 3 weeks only for a house with 4 persons.

The storage needs to be increased dramaticly and I acknowledge that this increases the capital costs, but I see no way of avoiding this if the system is to be of practical use.

Summer rainfall areas are an entirely differnt situation.

[Deleted for lack of relevance. Try the general forum if you want to start your own thread.]

Funguy,

Thanks for the compliment.

I think your grammar is a bit shaky but I love the vocab and the sentiment. Keep posting.

And remember: We don't have to hang them. If we scuttle Howard's Sydney immigration funnel, we stop Sydney's water shortage. And go a long way to easing the NSW drought in the bargain. Its all we have to do.

And ... more immigrants in Sydney means NSW returns more GST to Canberra and the more GST Canberra gets, the bigger percentage it will want to keep.
Res Ipsa Loqitur, Immigration is not in NSW's interest.
NSW has done our bit for immigration and a lot more to boot. Its over to the other states now!

You got room for more in SA, Funguy?

Bango makes some constructive points about yield of water from rainwater tanks that are worth addressing.

He says “I don't wish to pour cold water on the use of house tanks but the flaw is that, for areas with a normal dry summer, your system is at its lowest usefulness at the period of greatest need. I submit that in these areas the summer requirements far outweigh the winter needs”.

The key point here is that rainwater tanks perform when there is rain. Roofs are impervious surfaces and so they generate 100% runoff of water. In the wet season (winter in the NSW Tablelands) the time not to use mains water is when it rains and the dam catchments are producing maximum water runoff because the soil has its highest moisture content for the year. In summer, rainfall on a dry catchment produces much less runoff into the dams per mm of rainfall. During the summer dry, when rainwater tanks are empty, the mains water that was not used in the winter can be used. In other words, dams provide a back-up supply for the rainwater tank in summer.

Of course, the flaw in this argument, so far as Banjo’s garden is concerned, is that the NSW Government wants there to be a net reduction in mains drinking water consumption by the substitution of rainwater, and watering restrictions prevent a person from using in summer the mains water that they saved in winter.

There is still rainfall in Goulburn, even in the current record breaking drought. In the 12 months to 31 July 2006, there was 573mm rainfall that would have yielded 60Kl of water for an average Goulburn house from a 5KL rainwater supply (see my posting above). More storage would not have produced a significantly higher volume of water from a house roof .

Greg Cameron

Greg and Perseus
I believe that the 175sq m roof catchment to be about average and the 13500 storage to be the minumum for those areas with summer rainfall.
This would make a substantial difference to the mains water requirements for each house. Even in the 'dry' months at Logan there is sufficient rainfall to make use of the system.
The areas that have wet summers,i.e. from east coast to the escarpment is the area you should concentrate your efforts. It is also the area of highest population.

I continue to question the economics and practical use of the same system in areas that normally have dry summers. The storage would have to be increased substancially.

Some Sydney people have expressed concerns about the quality of rainwater caught off their roofs because of air pollution residues on the roofs. Is this a concern and if so is there a way around it?

Ludwig.
I agree with you about the immigration factor. Simply put, more people require more water as well as other inferstructure. Both Liberal and Labor are in the hip pockets of big business who want high immigration and neither Liberal or Labor have a population policy. The reason being that they can play politics with various ethnic groups before elections, promising increased access for their relatives and so on. We need to determine our carrying capacity before setting immigration to suit.

Thanks Banjo.

--
And after more than two weeks Malcolm Turnbull still hasn’t entered the debate to address some of his detractors. This is terrible. One has to assume that he just doesn’t have answers for some of the comments.

I will maintain that all article writers should be required to comment their own threads, a number of times proportional to the number of posts – say, one for every twenty posts or something like that!