The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The great water debacle > Comments

The great water debacle : Comments

By Ian Mott, published 21/8/2006

Kneejerk fixes to temporary water shortages could leave Queenslanders with an expensive legacy in a declining water market.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Does anyone know if any of those who are required to install tanks are able to enjoy reduced water fees by accessing less mains water . Or do fixed water charges still generally apply ?

Here in tas some councils charge a flat rate per household & some charge partially by volume taken .

If in those places where rainwater tanks are mandated fixed charges still apply the point made by perseus is proven .
Posted by jamo, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 10:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Jammo, in Brisbane you still pay over $110 a year for the access charge even if you use no water from the mains. I have deliberately left this out of the water costings because it is effectively a tax, not a water charge. But when you include this in the water costings it increases the average cost/KL by 44 cents at average use and much more if you use less anyway.

With a 13.5KL tank and an average use from the mains of only 35Kl it lifts the cost of this residual mains water by a massive $3.14/KL.

The irony is that they justify this water charge on the need for fire fighting supplies but this is also complete bull$hit. Every second house in Brisbane has a swimming pool with more than 30KL in it and a minor change in the emergency laws could enable this to be used on those rare occassions when a fire occurs in your street. There has been none in mine for at least 16 years.

Centralised high volume water was best practice in 1900 but these days, with improved tank and pipe technology, mains water can be delivered to a tank by small low cost trickle systems that fill it up over night rather than full pressure on demand.

And Shonga old boy, pull your head in, 3 of my 4 houses have water tanks so I am both an accountant, and a person who knows what happens on the ground.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 24 August 2006 12:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus,
Just for the record "old boy" I don't take orders from the likes of you or anyone else for that matter, you may get away with intimidating others on a daily basis, but that won't happen with me.

As you have answered my question adequately I have no further questions, you obviously wouldn't have a clue how the averege person lives because the average person does not own 4 houses. And you admit to being an accountant which speaks volumes.

You have my sympathy, if one day you crawl out of you cocoon and realise how the average family survives on little pay, you may then realise how poor your own money management skills are, until then, I wish you all the best, as life comes and goes, whether or not you own 4 houses, the object of the exercise is to enjoy life, not duplicate old Scrooge.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the percentage of houses, Greg. There is no reason why water tanks cannot be used by Semi-detached houses and townhouses. These have correspondingly smaller gardens and usually have fewer people in them. The smaller the roof area the smaller the garden or the more likely it will be paved not lawn. This will drop daily use from 700L to 500L a day so the size of the tank can drop in proportion.

A reduction in members in each semi-detached household will also allow a smaller tank to meet the same proportionate requirement.

This will lift the percentage of households that can use tanks from 76% to 85% before we start to look closely at capturing water from shopping centre roof to supply apartments.

Get real Shonga, you took a poke at me, I asked you to pull your head in, you then have winge about not being intimidated. Give us a break.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 25 August 2006 10:47:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus,
Apologies "old boy" I had no idea you had such a delicate, sensitive nature, the thing is that I support your arguement to a large extent, however you must realise the limitations of ordinary people financially to comply with these great ideas.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cost is the chief argument used by politicians and their advisers to reject rainwater tanks as a source of water supply for every household in Australia.

Governments pay subsidies for rainwater tanks because costs are too high. But if all households have rainwater tanks the cost will be affordable making subsidies unnecessary.

Shonga asks how can ordinary working people afford a rainwater system? The system that I propose costs under $3,000 comprising 5KL of capacity yielding 75KL/year or 2.25ML over 30 years. (Perseus and Ian Mott will spend more to have 13,500 litre rainwater systems installed, as is their right and good on them.)

The low cost is guaranteed when all houses have a rainwater supply installed. One way to achieve this is for all State Governments to mandate reduced mains drinking water consumption at point of sale of all property, with rainwater tanks deemed to comply.

Dwellings are sold on average every seven years. In a decade, most houses in Australia will have changed ownership. There are 7.1 million dwellings in Australia of which 5.3 million are separate houses. With 700,000 installations a year for 10 years, watch the prices tumble as suppliers compete and innovate.

At under $3,000, a 5KL rainwater supply is less than 1% of the cost of a house – new or existing. Lowest cost financing is when the rainwater system is financed as part of the property transaction. People who rent are protected because the owner of the property purchases the system.

At the heart of the policy issues lies the question of ownership of rainwater. State Governments actually refuse to confirm or deny that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is owned by the building owner.

If Governments simply acknowledged that the owner is the building owner, it is a simple next step for all State Governments to mandate reduce mains drinking water consumption (water that is owned by the State) with rainwater tanks deemed to comply.

Governments will not even examine this proposition. They do not acknowledge the facts and data when presented to them. Can anyone suggest why?

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy