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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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