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 > A buck-per-tonne is too cheap for our most precious resource > Comments

A buck-per-tonne is too cheap for our most precious resource : Comments

By Brad Ruting, published 29/1/2007

When households and businesses have to pay more for water there’s a direct economic incentive for them use less.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
While I agree with the commentsof the writer about the costs of the water in cities, please spare a thought for the country consumer - a minority group. We people on farms have always had to install our own collection systems, electric pressure pumps etc. so do know the real cost of water. We have never had the luxury of reticulated water. Fourteen years ago we installed two new, 14,000ltre iron rainwater tanks on our house. Last November one of these tanks rusted and broke under pressure and lost its water supply. I ordered a new poly tank, but was told it would be months before it could be supplied, due to all the urban people with reticulated water now ordering and installing rainwater tanks to supplement their water supplies. They will often receive a Council incentive of a discount on the cost of their non-essential tank. I won't! I am still waiting both for rain and another water tank. In the meantime I'm buying water, delivered in road tanker to my one remaining tank, at a cost of $140.00 per 14,000ltres. I'm watching my one remaining tank with increasing alarm as I see rust spots developing. Will it last until the new tank is delivered? If it doesn't how will I then be able to store water, even if I pay to have it delivered? Why can't priority be given in the supply of tanks to the people who have always needed to use them?
Posted by Country girl, Monday, 29 January 2007 10:09:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Sydney, the cost of rainwater is $1.25/KL compared with $4/KL estimated by the government.

$1.25/KL is achieved if rainwater is collected from every roof and used in replacement of mains drinking water.

Sydney’s rainfall in 2006 of 993MM was 20% below the mean annual rainfall (1217MM).

$1.25/KL is based on Sydney continuing to receive 80% of its mean annual rainfall for 30 years, which will provide an average separate house with at least 75KL of rainwater each year.

All house downpipes can be connected to four interconnected rainwater tanks enabling water harvesting from the whole roof area.

The cost of supplying four 670 litre rainwater tanks, pressure pump, automatic switching valve (to maintain continuity of water supply), associated plumbing items, plumbing and electrical installation, is $2000. Estimated operating cost over 30 years is $800, mainly for three 3 additional pressure pumps.

85% of houses in NSW are located within 50KM of the coast (25% within 3km) and receive reliable rainfall.

In 2006, Badgerys Creek, 50KM west of Sydney, received 60% (483MM) of its mean annual rainfall (789MM). A house in Badgerys Creek would have obtained 48KL of rainwater in 2006. At 80% mean annual rainfall, the average yield would be 67KL/year at a cost of $1.40/KL. (Although Sydney’s mean annual rainfall is much higher than Badgerys Creek, there are also significantly larger losses, due to extreme rainfall events.)

The average turnover rate of housing is seven years and there are 1.7 million separate houses in NSW. It can be a requirement that every building must detain rainwater for a period of time before allowing it to enter the stormwater system. The requirement can apply at point of sale of all property, thereby providing the demand to underpin the significant investment that will be required in rainwater tank manufacturing capability and installation services.

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Monday, 29 January 2007 10:50:24 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
Raindrops are falling on my roof ... but are they mine?

The NSW government confirms that a person may install a rainwater tank on their property, and connect the service line from the rainwater tank to the mains drinking water service, in accordance with the applicable NSW legislation.

But who owns the water that falls on a person’s roof?

Under section 392 of the NSW Water Management Act 2000, “The rights to the control, use and flow of all water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground are the state’s water rights.”

Is a person’s roof considered by the government to be the surface of the ground?

Does the government consider that the rights to the control, use and flow of water that falls on a person’s roof are the state’s water rights?

Can the government impose an entitlement regime for a person’s use of water that falls on that person’s roof, as claimed by the National Water Commission?

If so, what are the government’s powers, and when does it intend to use them?

Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement says, “In Australia, water is vested in governments.”

Is water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW vested in the government?

If not, is water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW the property of that person, as it is in Victoria?

Under the Metropolitan Water Plan for Sydney, the government rejected rainwater tanks as a water supply option because of excessive cost.

The Cabinet Office advised that the government’s cost estimate of $4/KL was based on generally-accepted high level costings, without detailed quotes being sought from suppliers and service providers, and was considered to be robust for purposes of a hypothetical scenario involving one-third of detached dwellings in central and northern Sydney (about 665,000).

Will the government re-consider its estimate of rainwater cost (it is $1.25/KL), and its position on ownership?

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Monday, 29 January 2007 10:56:20 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
Brad successfully makes the case for pricing scarce resources for the good of the majority.

However, Brad makes the usual mistake of yet again clubbing the public majority and would enforce pecuniary penalties on 'excessive' usage mistakenly thinking this a solution to a complex challenge.

It is known that suburban water use accounts for around 9% of total usage, the vast majority going to the production of agriculture.

If Brad is correct in saying that two thirds is used indoors then we wish to penalise equivalent of 6% to save perhaps say 1%. Whilst all savings are important, this solution would in my view, seem little more than enriching the private water industry.
Posted by rembrandt, Monday, 29 January 2007 11:48:59 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
Rembrandt,

With Sydney in mind, the agricultural water is west of the mountains. Can we pump it over?
Or do we shift people to it.
All water is not the same product, its location determines its usefullness and at current retail price of $1 per tonne do you really think we could pump it far, realising that the $1 also has to cover distribution, maintainance, payment collection.

Get real.
Posted by Goeff, Monday, 29 January 2007 12:51:52 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
What bothers me with utilities (gas, water and electricity) are the service connection/availability fees. In Sydney, even if I do not turn on a tap, or flush a toilet, I still must pay nearly $100 each quarter; so I do not feel as obliged to save water as I would if the fee scheme were purely usage based. After looking at Sydney Water’s 2006 Annual Report, I estimated it costs $1.77 to provide each kilolitre of water, so the current charges are not too cheap at all. I think a variable usage only charge that covers the fixed costs of supply and disposal would give us more incentive not to waste water.
Posted by Robg, Monday, 29 January 2007 2:07:59 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
Rembrandt makes a good point about most water use being in agriculture, meaning that the absolute gain from reduced urban household use would be relatively small. If we’re to allow water to be used in ways most valuable to the community, a sensible pricing policy must be combined with opportunities to trade water between sectors. While Goeff is right that not all water used in agriculture could feasibly be diverted to urban supply (nor would this be necessary or even desirable), there are enough opportunities for trading to alleviate some urban water pressures and to encourage more efficient use by all sectors – households, industry and agriculture.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 29 January 2007 2:35:27 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
Rhian,
I argee with your sensible reply.

Perhaps Rembrandt hails from Melbourne where agriculture and city do not have the Great Divide as Sydney has, making it more feasible to interchange water use.
Posted by Goeff, Monday, 29 January 2007 3:53:30 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
Wow!

Another article on how outrageous it is that we consumers are paying so little for our water. It makes me feel ashamed of my profligate past when water was unmetered, Swirlons, garden sprinklers and backyard waterslides were forever on the telly, and more than once I left the hose on overnight and woke up to a deluged yard. And I cannot remember ever wondering whether flushing the dunny was worth it.

The reality is that there is only so much cheap water available, and when you keep packing people in, as governments of all tiers and persuasions in this country seem obsessed with, the cheap water runs out. Water is a commodity, and its price is determined by supply and demand. The idea of water having intrinsic value is idiotic. Why be so coy? Why not acknowledge that the water crisis and the prospect of a fourfold increase in the price of water is just another disastrous consequence of a population growth policy which a majority of Australians have long opposed?
Posted by Fester, Monday, 29 January 2007 6:13:19 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
Ah, the dear old government again. They have not wanted to set the price of water at a realistic figure in the past because they believed that the voters would rebel. Now there is a great rush to spend more of our money on alternative supplies. Maybe one day they will wake up and let the market do the job properly .......... Nah!.
Posted by RobertG, Monday, 29 January 2007 6:33:10 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
There are some strange costings above. One millimetre of rain
produces one litre of water from one square metre of roof. So the numbers for Sydney with 960mm/yr are 0.96 kilolitres for each square metre of roof. So the entire requirement for 225Kl per household can be met by the now median roof area of 250m2.

Smaller houses generally have smaller gardens and therefore have smaller water requirements. But if we assume that Sydney will remain at 80% of mean annual RF and it is evenly spread over the year then clearly, each square metre of roof will deliver 80 litres of water each month. So the median roof size of 250m2 will deliver 10,000 litres each month.

So tell us all, Greg Cameron, why would anyone who is properly informed on this issue bother pussy footing around with four dinky little 640 litre water tanks? Even if they were all bone dry it would only take 20mm of rain for them to overflow.

And all the talk about charging more for water is bunk because the market is defined by alternative supplies. Those alternative supplies will come from water tanks (decent sized ones) and operate as a price reality check.

A 9,000 litre tank still costs only $1600 and even after adding extra for plumbing and pressure pumps etc, a total cost of $2500 is still only $200 a year at 8% interest which will deliver 225Kl at 89 cents/Kl.

The people talking up $4/Kl water prices will only succeed in chasing so many customers away from some very expensive public water infrastructure that they will become uncompetitive due to insufficient turnover.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 29 January 2007 11:32:20 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
Four dinky little 670 litre rainwater tanks collecting all of the water discharged from a house in Sydney with 175 square metre roof area will yield 75KL each year for 30 years at a cost of $1.25/KL. The collection efficiency is 45% - more than half of the water that falls on the roof overflows from the tanks into the stormwater system. (Rainwater tank yield is a function of the rate at which water is removed and not the rate at which it enters: a full 9000 litre rainwater tank overflows at the same rate as four full 670 litre rainwater tanks.)

The larger the tank, obviously, the more rainwater that is collected. Larger tanks cost more, are more expensive to install and frequently are impractical in confined urban spaces. Perseus is to be commended for wanting to convert his backyard into a rainwater tank storage area to enable him to obtain more water at a cost of 89c/KL. Large storage capacity is feasible for new homes where it can be included as a design feature, but for the 97% of existing homes that do not collect and use rainwater the option of installing four 670 litre tanks that occupy minimal space is now available.

An average household uses 150KL of drinking water indoors each year and thus rainwater can provide at least one-half of indoor water requirements. A million Sydney households will provide at least 75GL of water each year.

The cost per KL of desalinating seawater is $1.73 - $1.98; and indirect potable re-use (sewage recycling) is $2.23 - $2.61.
Source: Marsden Jacob http://www.marsdenjacob.com.au/Documents/MJA_2006_ResearchNotesSecuringAustraliasUrbanWaterSupplies.pdf table 2.

Rainwater is dismissed as an option by the NSW government as being too expensive – it estimates $4/KL.

Are rainwater tanks a cost of water or housing?

They are a cost of water when rights to the water are vested in the government.

They are a cost of housing when a person owns the water that falls on their roof.

Whose property is it?

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Tuesday, 30 January 2007 11:11:36 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 entirely agree on the issue of who should own the water but would coax as many people as possible to get a minimum storage of 5000 litres, so they can achieve a greater level of self sufficiency.

The public sector water mafia may like to claim that water on your roof is theirs but ultimately this will need to be determined by the High Court. Any ruling will need to consider the rights to water that came to the landowner when the original grant of title was made. And it will also need to consider the nature of the original vegetation and water yield.

The state has no right to claim all runoff from land if 95% of the pre-settlement rainfall was used by vegetation on the property. They can only claim ownership of the portion that naturally flowed into the rivers. So if a landowner takes actions that allow him to capture more of his 95% of rain for other uses then he is still operating within the normal character and scale of his existing use.

The lawful construction of a shed on a piece of land merely transfers the 95% of the rain, that used to go into the soil and vegetation that grew where the slab now is, to the water tank for use by either the owner or other vegetation on site.

If you would be interested in helping to seek a pre-emptive ruling on this issue then please get in touch with the Landholders Institute at talbank@bigpond.net.au
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 30 January 2007 12:42:20 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
Hi Fester,

I am with you mate. This is not about an under supply of water, it is about an over supply of people. Resource and infrastructure planning in this country will remain "still born" until a real debate and a real methodology is developed for population control and is integrated into our social, political and economic norms. It has all been said before about Australia's carrying capacity, water is just the first in a very long line of symptoms.
Posted by Woodyblues, Tuesday, 30 January 2007 8:48:44 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
Good comment Perseus. I agree that the consumer stands to benefit from their own efforts, rather than passively become captives of a water supply behemoth.

I have put in a tank, but I think it crazy that there is not more consideration toward recycling greywater for toilet flushing, with perhaps a bit left over for the garden. This would cut water consumption by at least a quarter, and with the water treated on site to a lower specification than drinking water, it would be far less energy intensive than water recycling.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 30 January 2007 9:41:40 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
The problem isn't water shortages its IMMIGRATION.

The following report by CSIRO on behalf of a corrupt NSW government suggests that:

* Temperatures will soar around 5 degree C by 2070

* NSW will have drought for 9 years out of every 10 years by 2070, forcing Sydney residents to reduce water consumption by 54 per cent for the city to remain sustainable within the next 20 years.

* That Sydnesiders will The CSIRO report says the coastline will be devastated by 110-metre storm surges by 2100 and bushfires will almost double as rainfall is expected to fall by 40 per cent.

But here's the rub:

* The NSW government plans to stuff another 1 million immigrants in Sydney by 2025, so the drought won't force water restrictions, OVERPOPULATION will.

* Powerful government aligned developers will get rich on shoddy new buildings that maximise profits with government legislation that allows them to externalise costs such as water provsions, roads, schools, hospitals, police and other infrastructure.

* At the same time new water taxes and Desalination plants will funnel the lion's share of Sydney economic advantages to a few individuals who have good reason to gridlock and stress citizens:
Because it will engender an atmosphere conducive to the easiest money making venture in Australia today ... Gambling and Casinos.

* Under the above repressive and overcrowded conditions political parties will rise to heights of power not seen since the time of Rome or Nazi Germany. Already Government is using Nazi scare tactics from the CSIRO: 110ft storm surges, bushfires doubling and rainfall dropping 40% by 2100 unless global corporations are allowed to install and profit from at least $75 billion infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases by 30%. Yeah right! Pay me $220 billion and I'll save NSW from the bogeyman by 2100! Who will be around to say I won't?

The motivation for all this double talk on water? To divide Australian society by increseasing the 'Rich V poor' gap. Thereby making Australia basically a farm for future human capital and cementing forever the place of the existing status quo.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 6:58:07 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
In truth, the NSW LABOR government has motivation to do everything it can to create and maintain drought conditions and increase water restrictions and prices. Why wouldn't they to secure a dynastic future for family and friends?

Here is some proof:

This current SHA map of the east coast of Australia shows the high ENTROPY wastewater pollution, some 14 billion litres a year, being pumped off the coast of NSW. It causes and sustains drought by attracting low ENTROPY heat and moisture out of the NSW heartland by the most basic law of Physics, the second law of thermodynamics:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1170185183.gif

In contrast, in Mid January 2007, Sydney had some good rainfalls and the SHA map for the 17th January showed very rare and unusual decreases in the density of SHA anomalies off the NSW coast:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1170185259.gif

This suggests to me the possibility that the NSW LABOR government along with the CSIRO is experimenting with RECCE theory (Regional Ectopic Climate Catastrophe Event Theory, where extraordinary or ectopic thermodynamic shifts in climate are caused by urban REconcentrations of Entropic wastewater loads) and USING it AGAINST its own people, the citizens of NSW, to secure its future 'Rich V poor' agenda.

Further, the current surge in global corporate Friedman economic strategies (PPP funnels, leveraging, arbitraging, hostile takeovers) suggests that this type of democratic subversion is not unique to NSW, it is being ramped up right across the free world.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 7:15:08 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
Anyone who is interested in finding out if the water that falls on your roof is your property should drop an e-mail to your state’s water minister.

For Victorians, your state government (to its credit) already confirms that the water is your property.

The standard reply from governments is that the water is vested in them but they give you the right to use it. Some ministers say that the question is academic. However, there’s nothing academic about governments purporting to give you the right to use water when the right is not theirs to give.

Under clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement, all governments claim that, “In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of purposes ...”
http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/iga_national_water_initiative.pdf

Here’s what the National Water Commission had to say concerning your rights and entitlements:

“As we understand it, governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water. However, 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. It is important to think of the capture of water from any source in an integrated way. Taking your reference to Goulburn as an example, if 1000 homes were to install 5 KL tanks with an annual yield of 57KL, this is 57 ML that would not have reached a river or groundwater system or, viewed another way, is taken from either the environment's entitlement or another productive use. So as you can see these things are not that straightforward and rainwater tanks is only one option not the solution. As [we have] pointed out before, the NWC supports the use of rainwater tanks as an option and the NWI provides the mechanism to allow rainwater tanks to be considered as an option.”

Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 8:39:59 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
So now it is 110m storm surges from climate change and 40% drops in rainfall. For the record, the drop in rainfall for Sydney over the interval from 1950 to 2003 shows up on the BOM maps as bright (alarming) red but closer examination reveals two things,
1 this drop amounts to only 5mm each year for a mean annual rainfall of 1250mm and,
2 50 years of this only amounts to 20% change.

But when we compare the current falls with the change over the interval between 1900 and 2003 we actually get a 2mm a year improvement.

And that means Sydney households will still get a tonne of water for each square metre of roof they have connected to a decent tank or tanks.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 11:44:28 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
Kaep

I agree with the idea that some are profiting greatly from immigration at the expense of other Australians and the environment. But I think your suggestion (of a conspiracy between the CSIRO and the NSW Government to adversely affect the weather in order to further profit at the public expense) to be a bit too much of a stretch for me.

I am curious to hear an update from you of your appraisal of the cyclone risk for Northern Australia using RECCE theory.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 9:57:57 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 there is precious little else left to tax, so why not hit the people who are unable to pay extra, will the Howard Government eventually install camera's in our bedrooms and give us a daily allocation of fresh air, as sex and air are the only things they have not taxed so far.

Howard should be building more water storage sites so when the drought breaks we will have extra water capacity, but that would be too progressive, for conservatism.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 2 February 2007 10:26:39 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
I live in the Riverland of SA and pay $25.00 per month for 8,000 ltr of water. I cart it myself from a standpipe 1km away. The water is straight from the river, Irrigation water in fact, I pump settle in a tank and filter. After use, toilet bath and kitchen it flows to my "garden" a couple fruit trees some Red gums the rest saltbush. Since being charged I have neither increased nor decreased my usage! the river is unaffected whether I pay or not. I've just contributed $25.00 per month to the O/S owners of the distribution rights

At the bottom of my block the Murray flows but I have no right to pump from same, and connot attain it. Having grown up in the Mallee, by nature water conservation is always a priority.
I used to get from the standpipe free but with all the buhaha currently, they put locks on the standpipe and now I need pay.

I am a pensioner and Central Irrigation Trust insists this is fair. If I lived in a city and the cost were proportionate I would need pay at least $5 per kilolitre to equal what I pay now, the water would be unfiltered and everyone would have a real belly ache.
I also know the guy over the road who waters grapes for wine pays .30 cents per k litre
{1} it what does not profit him{2} He uses 50 ml per year.

How to make sense of all this?
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Saturday, 3 February 2007 7:58:50 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
Further to my previous post.
I always thought that water was free? What you paid for in rates was the infrastructure to deliver the water to your property.
This entitled govt. to charge for installation of pipes, building dams and gutters to keep excess controlled. When did we decide it was alright to charge for water itself?
Will the rich care if they pay $20 a litre, the poor certainly would.
Furthermore every litre of rain captured by tanks will affect the flow in our rivers, this may sound spurious but think of the rate that water is captured by Cubby, so denying the Darling of the enviromental flow essential to flood plains which are by far greater areas of influence on nature than water that flows in the river proper.
Posted by fluff4, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 10:36:21 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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