It has always amazed me that if you decide NOT to tap into the power supply running past your front door, you don't have to pay for the service. Same with gas. Both are truly "user pay" systems, yet the same cannot be said for water. If a reticulated town water supply runs past a vacant block of land, the owner of that land has to pay the service fee each year, a fee I might add, that continually rises.
Currently, people off the reticulated system have gone to a lot of expense to ensure they have an adequate water supply. That expense increases over time due to the necessary maintenance requirements. The water utilities must be wringing their hands in anticipation of how much money they could steal should they convince State and Federal Governments that rain falling from the sky onto roofs actually belongs to them.

People claiming subsidies on rain water tanks should be very wary. It requires the filling out of paperwork to claim the subsidy, so sometime down the track it's not beyond reason that the Government comes knocking on your door to extract a yearly fee. People will then quickly realise that providing your own tank is a waste of finances for little return and the utility company will have it's desire for more income realised as more people go back to relying on the reticulated supply.

Bit like the lies Government told about registering firearms. "We only want you to register your guns just so we know how many there are." Yeah! Right! And once they knew where they were, they stepped in under the guise of a massacre and effectively disarmed the country.
Same with your water tank. Once you claim the subsidy, next step is paying for water which should rightfully belong to the home owner.

I don't doubt that if Malcolm Turnbull and his mates can see a way of turning a dollar from water they will be quick to grasp the opportunity.

Malcolm hasn't said anything about air being too cheap, has he? Because the next finding could be that the government 'owns' the air we breathe in addition to the water we drink.

Why is this listed under 'Law and Liberties' when it should be listed under 'Advertising' (with a fear factor for good measure).

Maybe off topic but a couple of points (that refer to the article):

If you can get lots of water from a rainwater tank and reduce the per kl cost you probably don't need one.

Is interest factored into the costing? I looked at installing a tank then decided that the several thousands of dollars was better used being paid off my mortgage (let alone invested in resource shares). The opportunity cost of these watery equivalents of bloke's sheds can be very high and rarely makes it into per kl costings. I guess that given some men like things size matters too.

My contribution is a question ; Can I lay out poly sheet say 1000 meters square on a hillside diverting rainwater to Tanks above ground ?
It's my hill , my poly sheet , my Tanks , my Water ?

I'm wondering what liability governments (or their departments) accept when they claim ownership of water. If my property suffers damage because of their water is the state liable for the damage?

As for the idea of smaller tanks at each downpipe I working towards a similar approach at my place. I'm putting in 200L tanks at each each downpipe and intend to plumb them back to a larger common tank eventually.

R0bert

Just following on from what PeterJH has said, I very much doubt the economics for the householder and the government from installing water tanks. This is notwithstanding our decision to put in a 7,000L tank with a pump for garden use.

The first and obvious problem is that government will not permit the profits of the water commissions to fall and in fact in the interests of profit they will be aiming to maintain lower water use and crank up water taxes post-drought.

Secondly, the tanks being installed by most householders are too small to last for the drier months that are normal to the climate cycle in most areas where they are being approved. A three thousand litre tank is only good for 2-3 hours continuous pumping with a small pump.

Operating a water pump is not as cheap as 'town' water and pumps are frequently 'on, off' if plumbed to house plumbing - where the installation costs alone are prohibitive. This is why governments must regulate to force installation in new homes. Water tanks and connection to certain plumbing fittings add substantially to the cost of new housing.

Few householders will be prepared to do the regular maintenance required for water tanks because these are back-up systems only.

Overall, water will not be cheaper for householders regardless of whether they have tanks or not, but those who install tanks will usually be much more out of pocket.

However for bureaucrats and politicians, tanks have been a useful diversion to take attention away from the reprehensible lack of planning and squandering of water taxes over many years and by both sides of government. I suspect that most householders are aware of this and are insulted by the accusing finger pointed at them for allegedly wasting water.

When looking at real total costs of capital and maintenance, numerous small rainwater tanks, installed at the point of use and taking advantage of the economies of mass production, are much, much cheaper than reticulated municipal supply using large dams and reticulated water pipes.

The biggest difference between using your own tank water and using the town supply is that town water is treated. But anyone who has lived on a farm knows that tank water is usually more palatable than city water -- a well-kept tank is kept clean.

The main reason households are obliged to pay for water supply and why urban councils forbade water tanks in past decades was to force the populace to pay for the big dams, centralised treatment plants and the pipes under every street -- which were seen as a necessity for public health at the time, more than just an amenity. The prices have been kept very low, even when supply has been severely restricted and the capital in bad repair.

Rainfall has been low enough in the inland catchments that desalination is becoming a competitive option for boosting central supplies. The water user will pay for this expensive technology, somehow.

As long as centrally-treated, reticulated water supplies are priced low, supplements from rainwater tanks private individuals have to buy up front (effectively at mortgage interest rates) will appear uncompetitive. But sooner or later the full cost of either option must be paid.

If the central supply were funded entirely by per-unit charges (instead of a flat availability charge plus "excess usage" fees), then tanks would suddenly start to look a lot more competitive. Any sane government program to boost supply would choose the option with the least total cost.

For the capital price of a big desalination plant, a water authority could hand out 100,000 free tanks and boost supply by the same amount with *zero running cost*.

I have not had access to town water for the last 20 years.

At my current property I have an investment of around $7000 in my domestic water system. With my 50,000 L of tank storage, 2 pressure pumps for supply, & 2 grey water pumps I supply the house, & about 35% of the garden water requirement.

Maintenance of the pumps, & tanks has averaged almost $150 a year. My best estimate of the power costs is a little over $330 a year.

This system has supplied the requirements of 3 careful adults, & mostly 3 not so careful kids.

Even in 93/94, both years drier than now, I did not have to buy in water, although many of my neighbours do have to, most years.

My water system is a little more costly than town water, but at least I can use it when, & how I damn well like.

I have watched, horrified, as Beattie decided to take the rate payer funded water facilities from surrounding councils, to supplement the tax payer funded Brisbane system.

From what I hear locally, if he tries to charge us, for our own water, in our own systems, he will find quite a bit more reaction than he has bargained for.

xoddam: "If the central supply were funded entirely by per-unit charges (instead of a flat availability charge plus "excess usage" fees), then tanks would suddenly start to look a lot more competitive. Any sane government program to boost supply would choose the option with the least total cost.

For the capital price of a big desalination plant, a water authority could hand out 100,000 free tanks and boost supply by the same amount with *zero running cost*."

Two excellent points, i know theres Business opposition to the first but the second is worth pushing. If nothing else it gives a nice idea of the scale of (mis)investment in desalination.

HasBeen, "if he tries to charge us, for our own water, in our own systems, he will find quite a bit more reaction than he has bargained for. "

If they try it on it will probably come under the guise of public health. A fee for a compulsory annual inspection of tanks to ensure that they are vermin proof or something. In the past there has probably not been enough tanks around to make it profitable but that might be changing.

R0bert

I'm getting quite interested in this. So if a PERSON owns the water falling on the roof of the place in which they live, does that mean:

If they rent the property and are not provided with a tank, are they being denied their rights to access what is lawfully theirs [the rainwater] and do they have a cause of action against the owner of the property if they are not provided with, or denied consent to mount, a water tank and associated infrastructure.

If the said tenant is being denied the property [rainwater] that is lawfully his [by extension of the writer's logic] do they have a right to compensation in a Tenancy Tribunal or in a civil court of a state.

Does any of this change whether the landlord is a natural person or corporation?

Does this, taken to its extreme, mean my landlord if denying me a tank, could in fact be stealing from me or witholding from me what is lawfully my thing to possess and use, ie the rain falling on the roof where I live.

I hope someone with the knowledge is able to confirm I have rights in this hypothetical or actual scenario.

Aime: the SA and WA governments claim that rights to water falling on a person’s roof are vested in the State. They advise that rainwater used for domestic purposes will not be taxed. In NSW, Victoria and Queensland, rainwater collected on a roof is not owned by the State and rights to that water are not vested in the State. Therefore taxation is not possible. The Federal Government claims that no property owner in Australia owns the water that falls on their roof, and all rights to that water are vested in governments. How is this true for NSW, Victoria and Queensland?

Cornflower: electricity to operate a rainwater tank pressure pump for an average house costs $3.50 a year. When tanks run dry, supply automatically switches to mains. Roof maintenance saves the owner money by extending the life of the roof, and tank maintenance is simple. Rainwater tanks can become a primary source of household water when they supply one-half of indoor use at less than the cost of desalinated seawater or recycled sewerage.

PeterJH: the Federal, SA, NSW, and WA Governments all told me to go seek legal advice about rainwater property rights. Why do you think this is not a legal issue? Do you accept their claims (except NSW) that you don’t own the water that falls on your own roof? Is this not a rights issue? Interest is not factored into the cost because water consumption is an unavoidable cost of housing, or building occupancy. This makes rainwater supply a building cost. Houses are sold on average every seven years. You can install rainwater supply to your next house when you buy it, and capitalise the cost that way. Alternatively, you can install now and recover the cost, including interest, when you sell your house. Rainwater supply adds $2300 to the capital cost of an existing or new house.

Sydney based etc: By renting the property, you have acquired the right to use the water collected on the roof. You would negotiate with your landlord for the cost of the tank the same as any fixture.

Porto Salvo: legally, a roof is not the surface of the ground in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. This legal position makes sense because people who occupy a building must have water and the roof provides it. In the other three states, the respective governments claim that there is no difference between a roof and a plastic sheet on the ground. In my opinion, this makes no sense. All governments regard water that falls on a plastic sheet on the ground as being surface water.

RObert: the SA, WA and Tasmanian governments claim rights to water that falls on your roof, however, if you choose to use that water - because they allow you to use it under law - this makes you liable. The other three state governments do not claim rights to water that falls on your roof and you are liable for it because you own it. Water that is collected on your roof becomes the government’s responsibility when it reaches the surface of the ground provided you have discharged it in compliance with government regulations. The public health issues have been resolved. You can use your rainwater for any purpose including drinking upon your own responsibility. You can sell it provided you meet food regulations. Your household plumbing can distribute both rainwater and mains water provided you comply with the Australian plumbing standard AS3500.1:2003, for purposes of backflow prevention.

Xoddam: spot on. With the benefit of large scale manufacture, distribution and installation, small rainwater tanks collecting water from most of the roof catchment area, can provide cheaper water than desalinated seawater or recycled sewerage but without a subsidy. Paying subsidies for uneconomic rainwater tanks is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Liam: local councils buy wheelie bins in bulk and supply these to all ratepayers while recovering the cost from rates. Rainwater tanks can be treated the same but on a voluntary basis. People are likely to opt for rainwater supply when they compare the cost per kilolitre with the cost of desalinated seawater and recycled sewerage.

Greg Cameron gregorydcameron@bigpond.com

Greg

The cost with basic installation of a 7 000 L round tank on a concrete pad, level site, small pump, one tap at the tank, is $4 000. Connection to internal plumbing and provision of piping for (tank) overflows could cost that sum again, especially where installation is to an existing house.

How is this cheaper than buying the same water from the town supply?

Many homeowners are installing small tanks of around 3 000 to 5 000 L and such tanks would cut out quickly during the usual drier spells of the normal season. However, 5 000 L would not meet the needs of a small family for one week.

On the other hand, government planning for dams and infrastructure has not factored in the known population growth from migration. In view of both of these known facts, can you demonstrate the cost/benefit of government subsidising small tanks?

Finally, what homeowners are not told about small pumps is that they are triggered every time a tap is turned on. It is only the more expensive pumps that can maintain some pressure reserve.

The home designs of the past forty years and more are rarely suitable for water tanks and will in many cases compromise windows and access. Proposing many smaller modular tanks is fine in theory and great for profits but the cost to the householder, loss of yard amenity and access are downsides that must be considered.

Reintroduction of water tanks requires a revolution in house design. It also goes against the mainstream of town planning which is for more intensive housing in cities.

If governments expect some of the population to fork out large sums for water storage and to make greater sacrifices of yard amenity and use, it is reasonable to expect that these same homeowners should see some financial return on their investment through real savings in water taxes.

At the same time we should not forget that the homeowner has already paid his/her share of a dam and infrastructure through taxes on the development of his/her land and then again through higher rates.

The CSIRO has reported that a small decline in rainfall can make a very big difference to the amount of water available for consumption. Says CSIRO, in the last quarter of last century, a 14% decline in Perth’s rainfall reduced its water supply by three times this amount - by 52%.

But a 15% decline in rainfall has a minimal effect on the yield of a rainwater tank. Take Sydney as an example. With 15% less rainfall for the next 30 years, four 670 litre rainwater tanks collecting water from 175 square meters of roof area will yield 82 kilolitres each year for a total cost of $2975 or $1.21 per kilolitre. The cost per kilolitre in Melbourne and Brisbane is $1.40.

If you accept that mean annual rainfall will decline by 15% due to climate change, on this basis alone, rainwater tanks are a necessity.

Assuming mass production and distribution, the cost of a 670 litre tank is $150. The cost of a pressure pump is $150, automatic switching valve is $200, and delivery/installation/plumbing is $1200. Electricity costs $3.50 each year and four pumps are used over 30 years. Pressure pumps provide water at a volume and pressure that is similar to mains supply.

A precedent for the model we propose is your local council’s garbage collection service. The council purchases the wheelie bin which it supplies to households. Most councils provide the collection service using private contractors. Contracts are let by competitive tender. It is an efficient, proven, system.

There are 4.6 million separate houses in Australia that do not have their own rainwater supply (17% of houses have rainwater tanks). If each household purchased a rainwater harvesting system costing $2,365 per house, a multi-billion industry is created. This makes rainwater harvesting a numbers game, whereby a central agency can act as the bulk buyer to secure lowest cost for all Australian households. Every house in Australia can be supplied with a rainwater harvesting system within 10 years.

How is the cost estimate of $2,365 per household confirmed? Simple: call for expressions of interest.

(continued)
Cost estimates published by the National Water Commission for desalinated seawater are $1.73 - $1.98/KL and recycled sewerage $2.23 - $2.61/KL.

At these prices, why subsidise rainwater tanks?

A 670 litre rainwater tank is 80cm in diameter at the base and 150cm tall. Four of these tanks can be installed without occupying too much space, one per downpipe. Weighing 20 kilograms, this tank can be safely handled – and installed - by the householder themself.

Building regulations require water collected on a person’s roof to be discharged into downpipes connected to the stormwater system. They generally require one downpipe for each 60 square metres of roof.

When all downpipes are connected to a rainwater tank all roof water will be harvested. Tanks are linked by 25MM low pressure plastic water pipe.

An average Australian household uses 150KL of water indoors each year or 411 litres a day.

A house with 175 square metres roof area collects 175 litres of water for every 1MM of rainfall. It takes 2.4MM rainfall to yield 411 litres.

When rainwater tanks are full, tank capacity becomes available at the rate of 411 litres per day, or the equivalent of 2.4MM rainfall.

Tank capacity is maximised when an automatic switching valve is used to access tank water immediately it becomes available as a result of rainfall. Continuity of supply is achieved by automatically switching to mains when tanks are empty.

The 670 litre tank is bottom-draining which means it is emptied 100% of stored water.

All State Governments have clearly signalled that the cost of mains water will increase substantially when desalination plants are connected to the mains water supply.

Residents of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland own the water that falls on their own roof. Consequently, the respective State Governments cannot make the use of rainwater tanks mandatory.

Would householders be happy to install rainwater tanks when the cost of this water supply per kilolitre was lower than the cost of the Government-owned water supply?

Why not ask them?

Greg Cameron

Greg, I cannot but applaud you for your article.
As to who owns the water the answer is; No one does!
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I canvassed this issue extensively, when Victorian Premier Steve Bracks was making known he was going along with the 10 billion dollars project of the Federal government, so I wrote to him. Steve Bracks then quickly changed his mind alright!
Anyone who supports to give the Federal Government to have the legislative powers about WATER should have his/her head read!
The Framers of the Constitution extensively debated the WATER issue and concluded that “no one” owned the water. Surely, States have a limited power to regulate the water usage and as such the Commonwealth of Australia since Federation could legislate as to water usage of navigatable rivers to avoid lack of water for the navigation of boats, but only “reasonable” water usage.
.
“Riparian rights” was much debated by the Framers of the Constitution also. As such it is all embedded in the Constitution.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
.
Few people have a clue what the Constitution really stands for and time and again when I read judgments of the High Court of Australia and/or documents prepared by Professors of law I can quickly detect the utter and sheer nonsense they are stating.
.
This post would not allow me to set it all out in details and some material can be found at my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
Being WATER or the Sunrays as they are natural elements that no one can claim as ownership. No government can control rainfall (don’t we know that) and their claimed rights over water are unconstitutional!

To add for clarity;
.
Hansard 4-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. WISE.-Each citizen is entitled absolutely to use all the water that falls on his own land.
.
As to handing over legislative powers in regard of water to the commonwealth of Australia!
.
HANSARD 24-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON.-It would be the same as federalizing our lands.
Mr. OCONNOR.-It would, because the value of the land is inextricably mixed up with the value of the water supply to it.
Mr. HIGGINS.-All conditions would apply to lands; all circumstances affect their value.
.
See further my article of 7 August 2007 on my blog