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.