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