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.