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.