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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Greg,
While appreciating your good will and intellegent suggestions, $3,000 may as well be $1 million to most working families, it is akin to offering a Rolls-Royce to a working family at half price, while it reresents a terrific bargin, the family is still unable to afford the wheel covers.

Highly paid people [ no insult intended ] seem to believe that everyone in the community recieves the same remuneration as themselves, nothing could be further from the truth. The first person who can show me a shop assistant on $56,000 per annum, will have a commitment from me, that I'll bare my bum in Bourke Street, if such a shop assistant is found.

Even though I am debt free I could not come up with $3,000 unless I prostituted myself, which is something I wouldn't do. All I am suggesting is now that both you and Perseus have identified the problem and the solution, please devise a way to get the plan off the drawing board and under construction. The sticking point is that $3,000 is about $2,700 more than an ordinary working family can afford.
Regards, Shaun.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 26 August 2006 5:09:44 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
Shaun – as a person who is debt free, you are one of the 40% of householders who owns the dwelling they occupy. Of the other 60% of dwellings, about half are occupied by people who have a housing loan and the other half are occupied by people who rent.

You’re dead right: $3,000 cash is too much for an ordinary person to stump for their private drinking water supply using rainwater tanks. This is why I propose that you find the cash when you sell your house, which, if you live in Sydney, is now worth about half a million, give or take. If you want to install a rainwater supply system earlier, you are able to borrow the money at competitive rates against the value of your property.

Dwellings are sold on average every seven years and this, obviously, generates the cash to purchase a rainwater supply system. My proposal to make reduction in mains drinking water consumption mandatory at point of sale, with rainwater tanks deemed to comply, assumes that rainwater is owned by the building owner.

Ownership is relevant because the person who owns the water is legally responsible for its quality. The Government will not accept responsibility for rainwater being drinking quality. Non-drinking quality water may not be connected to your household plumbing system – separate plumbing must be installed. If Government owns the water you collect in your rainwater tank you will be required to install costly separate plumbing.

You should be more concerned about Government regulating the water that you collect from your roof and setting an entitlement for you to use this water.

According to the National Water Commission, no entitlement to use the water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks is specifically issued under a water management Act. “Entitlement to (not ownership of) the water captured would by default rest with the building owner, provided that it has been captured in accordance with whatever regulation might apply for rainwater tanks in each jurisdiction”. In other words, Government wants to be able to tax you for using rainwater.

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Saturday, 26 August 2006 9:27:57 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
Greg,
I appreciate your logic and common sense approach, I am debt free, however I wish to stay that way. On a low income, meeting any repayments put one in grave danger of losing everything. What I am saying is were I to borrow $3,000 and repay it of course with interest, and a week later my car breaks down needing major repairs, which I must undertake in order to continue to work, I then find myself unable to meet repayments, and in the worse case, which always has to be a consideration on low incomes, I have my home sold out from underneath me so the Bank can retrieve it's $3,000. Would this be a fair assesment?
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 26 August 2006 3:06:31 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
Shaun,

The safety net in my proposal is that you do not buy a rainwater supply system unless you buy a new house, or undertake a major renovation of your existing house, at which time the law requires you to reduce mains drinking water consumption with rainwater tanks deemed to comply.

Greg
Posted by GC, Saturday, 26 August 2006 5:28:28 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
Greg, the reason the governments will not confirm that the rain on your roof is your water is that they are busy trying to claim that the water that falls on a farm belongs to the government. This is in direct contradiction of all the legal descriptions of freehold title which include "waters" etc.

The very same people who were once trying to nationalise all means of production (until it was proven to be a complete failure) are now trying to nationalise ecological values.

The interesting legal point is that if the rain is owned by the state then surely it must be the responsibility of the state to fix my leaky roof and to fully compensate me for flood damage etc.

The key to resolving this issue is to view the roof as an "improvement", the benefits of which accrue to the improver. But once that was recognised the homeowner would become responsible for the cost of disposing storm runoff. Not a problem if one has a good tank.

But that also raises an interesting question of the cost of storm water disposal that will be saved by a tank. This should be included as part of the economics of the tank and certainly justifies a large part of the government tank rebate.
Posted by Perseus, Sunday, 27 August 2006 10:12:17 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
Thanks Greg,
Perseus, despite a bit of to and fro I am very interested in this debate, and hope to progress my knowledge, as Greg has done with me, I also value your contribution, the thing is if the concepts could be harnessed in a way that makes it affordable for not only new home owners but those like myself wishing to make a contribution to the saving of water, but are bereft of finances to do so, how can we help.

Also I would be interested to know both your opinions on Tully, the wettest town in Australia, N.Q. RE an engineering capacity to harness some of that rainfall for use by the balance of the country.

Also is there any way that agriculture could become more efficent with water use, as they are collectively the largest users of water, is anything being done in this regard?
Posted by SHONGA, Sunday, 27 August 2006 12:25:56 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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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