The “lack of investment in water infrastructure” is something we should be harassing our do-nothing-but-talk-and-then-introduce-restrictions politicians about. Politicians are not only too “frightened” to take practical steps to ensure Australia has water for the future; they are also too dumb. The handing out of charity to unviable farmers, who are to blame for the degradation of our land, is the proof.

All of the nonsense about overcoming “climate change” is a crock of the proverbial

Jennifer, Some dams in the Darling Range WA have NEVER overflowed since they were constructed in the 1960's and 1970's In the past 15 years Mundaring Dam and Wellington Dam have overflowed once each.The question that needs to be asked is. Were the dams built too large to begin with? You mention logging as a means of increasing the water yield yet in the highest rainfall area of the Range logging in the guise of bauxite mining has not filled the water catchment dams any more that the other dams. Perhaps roof catchment tanks with appropriate hygiene would be a more effective means of getting water without having wasteful infrastructre being built

In response to Jennifer, as a small business person who seeks to bring about policy change in relation to rainwater tanks in Australia, of course I am using the ONO forum to promote what I think should happen whereby a market opportunity will be created for me and others.

One is privileged to have readers of ONO comment as vigorously as they do on the ideas that are offered.

When Jennifer says “governments are frightened to make some of the necessary and practical decisions which could alleviate some of our water problems because they might be unpopular”, is she not inviting comment on relevant aspects of government policy?

The example I offer is that governments should adopt a uniform policy in support of rainwater tanks for every building in Australia. If they do this, and I make a gazillion dollars, I hope the Institute of Public Affairs will celebrate the success of my small business.

However, it is Federal Government policy to restrict large-scale use of rainwater tanks, on environmental grounds.

It is the policy of all State Governments and the Federal Government to reject rainwater tanks as an option for providing up to 25% of Australia’s drinking water supply, on cost grounds, without providing their cost estimates.

It is a fact that no government is willing to consider whether large-scale production and installation of rainwater supply systems will produce a cost per kilolitre of rainwater that is comparable with the cost of mains-supply drinking water.

(continued below)

The National Water Commission makes the claim that, under the National Water Initiative Agreement, ownership of rights to rainwater from a roof is vested in government.

If this is true, the use of rainwater could be restricted by governments setting entitlement regimes, or imposing taxes.

National Water Commission policy is: “If rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water”.

However, no State law explicitly vests in the State the ownership of rights to rainwater collected from a roof.

The South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian governments interpret their respective State laws to be that this right is vested in the State.

The New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian governments do not, as yet, claim ownership of the rights to rainwater collected from a roof.

No State Government, or the Federal Government, has a policy to support rainwater tanks being used by every existing building to reduce consumption of mains drinking water.

A national market warrants significant new investment in large scale manufacturing facilities and installation services such that the cost of rainwater per kilolitre would be competitive with the cost of mains-delivered water.

State and Federal Government policy is preventing such investment.

Current demand for rainwater tanks is fuelled largely by government subsidies – because the cost of rainwater installations is high compared with the cost of mains water.

There would be no need for subsidies, obviously, when the cost per KL of rainwater was competitive with the cost per KL of mains water.

Government rainwater tank policy is contrary to the national interest.

Governments can:

(1) Confirm ownership of rights to rainwater from a roof.
(2) Establish the cost of rainwater supply when utilised by every building in Australia within 10 years.

Greg Cameron

“Ludwig, implies I'm for controls on population.”

Whaaaat??

Jennifer, I realised a long time ago that you would the last person on the planet to be in favour of any sort of population controls!

And therein is your greatest flaw. You write about a wide range of environmental subjects. But the bottom line is that if you are in favour of continuous population growth, then you are fundamentally missing the core issue of environmentalism, which is sustainability, and you just can’t call yourself an environmentalist.

“…and please don't infer from this comment I'm advocating more people.”

But if you are not in favour of any population-growth mitigation measures, then you ARE advocating more people!!

“just against population growth without the necessary associated infrastructure development”

But you are not against population growth despite critically stressed resources…most notably water! This doesn’t make any sense!

“….Australia is a large country with few people”

omygoodness! With all your environmental qualifications and experience, you would know as well as anyone what the limitations of this continent are, in terms of low rainfall, unreliable rainfall in areas that might otherwise be much more productive, and predominantly piss-poor soils and salinity.

“we should be able to provide water, energy and food to the few already here and a few more.”

“Should” indeed! Surely we MUST make sure that the provision of these resources is confidently implemented BEFORE we increase population, instead of struggling to keep up substandard supply to an ever-increasing number of people.

“and a few more”. How many more?

Given the critical nature of urban water supplies across the country and of drought and overallocation of water in many rural areas, and the need to pull right back on our activities in much of rural Australia, how on earth can you not be strongly favour of stabilising our population….and quickly?

Ms Marohasy continues her solid work on behalf of the IPA's more reptilian clients, though the use of strawman argument and selective statistics is now taught at high school level.

Posing but not actually naming or citing anyone so rash as to suggest some link between drought and climate, Ms Marohasy flourishes her carefully chosen data as if it is conclusive and then parrots the 'hard decisions'/more centralisation of power theme being broadcast from Canberra lately (Mr Howard is never one to waste an opportunity).

A dissection would be tedious, but this was template stuff: "Australia is responsible for less than 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions." Overlooking coal & gas exports, & aviation, how convenient for IPA's clients. Ignoring per capita extravagance, how convenient for individuals rationalising away their impact. 'Excuses for the corpulent' should be the IPA's slogan.

No surprises really from the fundamentalist pro-growth church, but i have to worry for the author. Selling the sustainable growth fantasy takes a tremendous personal and intellectual toll, all the more so in the face of the mounting ecological, social and economic evidence against it. Sure, statistics can be found to support your valiant attacks on strawmen, and you can hide among fellow neoliberals to avoid thought, but the rest of the populace know you for what you are, and thats gotta hurt.

Also, with Business and Wealth finally grasping the sheer scale of our intertwined sustainability crises, apologists like Ms Marohasy and Mr Howard may find themselves without a client base if they don't adapt fast.

So 4/10 Ms Marohasy, please complete supplementary homework (it may improve future employability):

Why is Robg a pessimist for worrying about fossil fuels when global oil production is falling (1st half 06 vs. 1st half 05, US EIA figures)?

How is your opposition to Kyoto different to a smoker refusing to quit smoking until all other smokers do too?

-

thanks GC for the drum on rain water tanks, very interesting