Yep, there is plenty of room for Victorians to scrimp on water instead of going straight for desalination.
Just don't water those roses, among other things.

So why not scrimp and save? Save 30 per cent. on consumption - that will delay desalination until half a generation later: the time when the population has increased by 30 per cent.

Then, scrimp and save another 30 per cent in order to placate the god of economic growth - you know, that diety the Victorian Government lights candles to; and appeases by stimulating population increase.
The Little Desert is just a bit to the west - help along its progress eastwards - keep boosting the population along.

This article is typical of those that seek to oppose desalination:

"a large percentage of what we collect in our near-empty dams is subsequently lost via a leaking and inefficient reticulation system."

OK, but what is "a large percentage"? Would fixing it contribute in a significant way to solving the problem?

"but it could be so much better spent, whether on rebates for rainwater tanks"

Is that spending it better? Where are the figures that show that rainwater tanks are a cost effective way of supplying water? When people install tanks, do they reduce their reticulated water consumption, or do they just avoid restrictions on watering their garden?

"The proposed plant at Wonthaggi is expected to add 2 per cent to Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions every year. And yet the amount of water processed will only produce the equivalent of that required to power two of the regions four coal-fired power stations."

So what? We need the power those power stations produce, and we need the water.

"Water, or lack of it, and global warming are inextricably linked. Yet desalination is a silo attempt to tackle the water crisis and by so doing the Victorian State Government is only exacerbating the problem."

If the desalinator is not built, will the resulting slight reduction in global warming make the problem go away? No, of course not.

There is a viable alternative - potable water recycling - but until the population is willing to accept that, desalination is the way to go.

Sylvia.

Water in Melbourne currently costs $0.81 a kilolitre (KL). Rainwater tanks will supply each of Melbourne’s one million separate houses with 70 KL of water a year at a cost of $1.45/KL. Mains water will cost more than $1.60/KL after the price doubles within five years to pay for the desalination plant and pipeline infrastructure. Rainwater collected from roofs is rejected by the Victorian State Government, on cost grounds. Greg Cameron

Yes I have to agree a very airy fairy article lacking any numbers or science, just a lot of what ifs.

"the long Victorian drought is now generally understood to be permanent"
Obviously not....the timeseries graphs at the bom shows that it is more likely cyclical in nature with a very dry 1900-1940 period (drier than now) followed by a very wet 1940-2000 period. Climate is never permanent.

"As more usable water is generated by desalination more greenhouse gases are generated which warm the climate which in turn produces lower rainfall and a greater need for desalination. It is a vicious cycle that is ultimately unsustainable."
Oh my this is an extremely tenuous link...isn't a warmer world supposed to be wetter? With larger extreme rainfall events (pefect for filling up large dams)??

"Like Saudi Arabia, in time we could have all the water we need for spa baths and other water guzzling appliances but be surrounded by desert."
Again a feeble attempt to equate desalination with decreased rainfall and now even desertifcation. Don't let any proof get in the way of a great story.

"80 per cent of which is used to flush toilets"
Come up with a better alternative? One that doesn't stink.

"The fact that a four-meter diameter pipe will suck up five truck loads of marine organisms a day suggests the sea bed will soon be become an underwater desert."
Says who? The whole sea? How big a desert are we talking about? Come on...

"rebates for rainwater tanks"
Anyone done an energy comparison between desalination and making all of those plastic (oil) rainwater tanks? Or better yet concrete and steel ones?

"They should also think about the urgency of climate change and see the link between water shortages and global warming."
Climate change isn't that urgent as temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are the same as they were in 1978 when satellites first started measuring temps. Also a warmer world is a wetter world, colder is drier....where is the link?

Surely it would be better to convert all the waste plastic into rainwater tanks than into garbage bags. It has to be converted into something, so it might as well be useful.

Those of us who live out in the country away from a reticulated supply seem to manage all right with what we collect from our roofs. We even manage to water our vegetable patch, so it can't be that hard. At today's prices, the total cost of installing about 50,000 litres of tanks with pumps and piping is around $5000. No one provided us with any subsidy.

David

Greg,

I cannot get the cost of rainwater tank water down to that level unless I assume that the pump will last 25 years, which is hardly realistic. I get a cost per kilolitre of more like $2 based on pumps lasting 12 years and tanks lasting 25.

Another issue is that the water company's cost of delivering water is largely determined by the maximum rate of delivery, which is in turn determined by the consumption rate when the rainwater tanks are dry (as they will be from time to time). Since the company has to recover its cost of delivery, if reticulated water is displaced by rainwater, it just pushes up the price of reticulated water. Effectively, the rainwater displaces water at its bulk price, not at its price in the tap.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

For the detailed analysis of my costings go to this item published on 18 July (third from the bottom)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6112

For the source article, “Water rights - your roof, your tank, your water, right?” go to

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6112

As always, your forensic financial analysis will be appreciated.

The central proposition is that rainwater supply sourced from the roof is a cost of housing, the same way that a stove and hot water service are costs of housing – they are not “optional extras”.

In relation to your comment about the network utility operator’s cost of delivering water, I have asked all State Governments and the National Water Commission to evaluate my costings. So far, none have managed to do so. The water utilities can, if they wish, integrate rainwater tanks into their water management systems. Using wireless communication, the performance of rainwater tanks, including holding capacity at given point in time, can be centrally measured. Rainwater tanks can be fully integrated into a network utility’s operations. One of the many benefits is water trading – the utility can sell a household’s saved mains water on the open market and share profits with the householder. The fact that network utilities are not prepared to assess rainwater tanks on their technical merit is of concern. My view is that rainwater tanks will lower water costs for households, increase profits for network utility operators as they cater for an expanding population, and benefit the environment. It is for this reason that it is important to establish who owns the water that falls on a person’s roof. Answer me this: do you own the water that falls on your own roof?

Greg Cameron

Lyn Allison fails to inform as to what entity will construct and operate the proposed desalination facility, and how its product will be 'sold', let alone provide any projected cost figures for desalinated water.

She also fails to state what method of desalination will be used: is it Reverse Osmosis (RO), or is it multi-effect distillation?

She fails to state specifically from where power will be supplied, although quoting a broad-brush figure of increasing Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions by 2%, and asserting that desalination is an "highly energy intensive process".

She makes the somewhat unclear statement that "And yet the amount of water processed will only produce the equivalent of that required to power two of the regions four coal-fired power stations." What does this really mean? Did she mean to say ".... the amount of water processed will require the power output of two of the region's four coal-fired power stations."? If she did, it is surprising that coal-fired electricity generation apparently contributes so little to total greenhouse emissions, percentage-wise. All very unclear.

All just 'desalination is bad'!

Lyn, and many others in public life, would do well to research some of the OLO discussions that have touched upon desalination as a component of the overall water supply situation for Australia's urban centres. They would do particularly well to examine some of the discussion upon Peter Ravenscroft's article "What's a bone-dry city worth?" See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5616 for the article, and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616 for the thread.

There seems almost to be a resentment of the prospective independence of desalinated water supply from the vagaries of rainfall in a country where such fluctuations have long been par for the course.

With the expanded, and still expanding, urban populations of Australia, the "more sustainable and cheaper alternatives" of which Lyn speaks in actuality have long belonged to others outside the urban centres. They are not Melbourne's to develop or take.

Time urban Australia paid its dues.

Greg,

See the spreadsheet at

http://www.cryogenic.net/rainfalltank.xls

Assumptions:

A house with a 250 square metre roof
Three people with average 230 litre per day consumption
One third of consumption sourced from rainwater tank when available.
Real interest rate of 4%
Actual rainfall in Terrey Hills from September 2006 to August 2007.

Water pump costs $581, and lasts 12 years, and then has to be replaced.
Tank lasts 25 years.

Pricings from http://www.irrigationwarehouse.com.au/

I based this on yearly payments. It would work out a bit cheaper on monthly payments, but not much.

The lowest cost of water I could get was $1.98, based on a 5000 litre round tank (i.e., the cheapest kind). A 2000 litre tank gave about the same result. Either smaller than 2000 or larger than 5000 pushed the price up.

The overall reduction in reticulated water consumption for he 5000 litre tank is 31%.

If we assume four people in the house, with a 5000 litre tank, with the same per capita water consumption, then the price drops to $1.65 per litre, though of course this is assuming that the pump still lasts as long despite the increased usage.

The results are clearly sensitive to assumptions, but I think one would struggle to get the cost down to something acceptable without assumptions that look highly implausible.

As regards the water utility using remote sensing to measure tank capacities, I don't think that undermines my argument about the delivery costs. I would expect tanks over the entire metropolitan area to empty at similar times, because they're largely exposed to highly correlated rainfalls.

I don't understand the point about water utilities selling on the open market water that has been substituted by rainwater tank water. The premise for installing rainwater tanks is that there is not otherwise enough water.

Sylvia,

One method for collecting water from all downpipes of a house is to have a rainwater tank installed at each downpipe. The tank used in my cost estimate is a 670 litre tank, so selected because it can be conveniently installed in all but the tightest spaces. A 670 litre tank will cost $150. A pressure pump will cost $150 and our conservative estimate is the use of four pumps over 30 years. Automatic switching valve cost is $200. System installation and plumbing estimated cost is $1200, based on four inter-connected rainwater tanks collecting from 175 square metres of roof area. These costs can be delivered with modest economies of scale, around 5000 households. The cost estimates are easily validated.

Based on 85% mean annual rainfall (which means that Sydney’s desalination plant will be required just to make-up the shortfall for existing consumption, let alone a 25% increase in population) the cost of rainwater for one million households in Sydney (separate houses) is $1.25 a kilolitre for around 80KL each year. This makes rainwater the lowest cost source of additional water supply. The assumption is that rainwater is used for at least hot water, toilet flushing and laundry.

When Sydney Water starts charging $1.60 - $2 for mains water, to pay for the desalination plant, the premise for installing rainwater tanks will be to secure a lower cost of water. When everyone runs out of rainwater, they revert to mains water, and will consume all of the desalinated water that this plant is able to produce. When one million households use 80 KL of rainwater this is 80 GL of water that remains in storage. When this volume is sold for $1.60 - $2 a kilolitre, obviously, profits will be made. The alternative – not to build the desalination plant – has been ruled out by the Government on the basis of risk.

Greg Cameron

This article makes sweeping statements and generalisations, with no evidence. An appeal to emotion that is sadly typical of what passes for political debate these days.

Where are the true environmentalists? For decades we've been diverting water from our natural rivers and lakes, and now even from our farms. A properly designed desalination plant has negligable impact on its local environment and can be powered from non-carbon emmitting sources.

Let's MAKE the water we want to use, like any other commodity. I for one don't mind paying a little more for this necessity. I want to see our rivers flowing freely again.

Also, don't forget that domestic rainwater is not "unused" at the moment. It flows into our storm drains and then into our bays or rivers, flushing them out. Capturing a significant fraction of this and diverting it to the sewers, may lead to poor outcomes.

GC, with your system, if you get more than 15 mm of rain, your little tanks will overflow.

K Katulla
"Where are the true environmentalists? For decades we've been diverting water from our natural rivers and lakes, and now even from our farms. A properly designed desalination plant has negligable impact on its local environment and can be powered from non-carbon emmitting sources."

I suggest you give us an example of the power sources you envisage for the rather large amount of power required.

David

Water tanks are not a mainstream solution for cities. Simply; the water catchment area must be considerably greater than the urban area. It must also contain a variety of sources and large storages. Any home based system can’t properly drive the sewer. A fully recycled home based system could become deadly. Appropriate treatment requires delicate engineering and science. To do that sustainably we may resort to buckets. It’s much easier to live on bottled spring water from the supermarket.

Lyn wrote around the concept of limits. Consumer demand is insatiable. For several decades I worked in Melbourne’s rapidly expanding industries and the vast MMBW systems that sustained the urban population. When recycling the Lower Yarra seemed the only option we prepared in haste for a lower grade of water that depended heavily on an overdose of chlorine at the tap. However, not all suburbs would need to suffer. The Thompson River project finally saved the day for everybody.

Technology has not changed much since the 1960’s and 70’s. Fluoridation is now well established everywhere. Reverse osmosis filtration and deionisation plants help our major industries such as food processors to reach new standards. Bottling and packaging replaces buckets and baskets. High-rise dwellers don’t have a compost heap either, but their flushing goes on and on. 100lt/person/day is a luxury, any more is just pure waste.

The reality is that one million homes in Sydney are able to yield 80GL of water a year costing $1.25/KL; one million homes in Melbourne can yield 70GL costing $1.45/KL; and 700,000 homes in southeast Queensland can yield 50GL costing $1.45/KL.

Mean annual rainfall of 85% means up to a 50% decline in water inflows into dams serving coastal cities. Desalination plants, obviously, will struggle to replace losses due to climate change and reduced rainfall. Population increase of 25% over the next 25 years will increase water demand by 25%. Consequently, rainwater tanks are a cost effective and technically achievable addition to the nation’s urban water supply.

It is true that in Sydney, four 670 litre rainwater tanks will allow 80KL of water each year to overflow into the stormwater system. However, nearly 80KL will be used by the householder costing $1.25/KL.

It is a different story in Melbourne. Four 670 litre rainwater tanks will provide 70KL of water a year costing $1.45 a kilolitre and the overflow will be about 12KL a year. Melbourne has about 50% of Sydney’s rainfall but it is evenly dispersed throughout the year, whereas up to 50% of Sydney’s annual rainfall occurs in a handful of rain events, typically round 100mm in a day. Mains water in Melbourne will cost over $1.60/KL when the price doubles within five years.

Brisbane has a lower annual rainfall than Sydney but a similar rain pattern. An average Brisbane household will yield about 70KL of rainwater a year from four 670 litre rainwater tanks costing $1.45 a kilolitre. Overflow will be about 70KL a year.

Naturally homeowners can increase their rainwater yield by installing larger tanks.

The 670 litre tanks used in my estimate are low cost because they are made by plastic injection moulding and are designed to achieve economies of scale in delivery and installation. Larger tanks are more expensive to deliver and install, and once filled, overflow at the same rate as four 670 litre tanks. In general, large tanks installed for existing houses provide more expensive water.

Greg Cameron

Greg: The reality is no academic can solve our problems with a bundle of stats or for that matter a pile of plastic tanks. Working with water and sludge was my biz. Finding good trades for doing all the fiddly bits was my speciality. Let’s say the hard yards from here on besides monitoring industry is metering the activities of folks hiding in high rise.

After experiencing some of the wettest conditions in this country I now live in the MDB region most affected by continuing drought. 50% of our town water once went on suburban gardens. These days we let even the street trees die. Climate change in this district close to the Great Divide is severe. Rainfall anywhere is quite uncertain, plumbing any sized tanks to my five downpipes is almost a total waste of time and the Murrumbidgee would suffer. After all, who owns that occasional drop falling on my head?

Water authorities here are currently investigating expanding our sources to include those existing dams in the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme. Desalination for this region could cost billions after a review of the engineering involved in getting seawater over the divide. High tech treatment of sewage is a much cheaper option but even that involves extra dam capacity. There is no convenient marshland for a natural UV treatment stage.

Professional advice is available on our situation in some 30 recent reports. See other links on salt management and health.

http://www.actew.com.au/waterSecurity/default.aspx

Seawater desalination as the target of the article, and now (in the discussion) a complementary source of potable water supply, rainwater collection from rooftops, both seem to be being talked down.

Is this because they are feared, if not immediately obvious, competitive threats to the profitability of the "high tech treatment of sewage" that is being touted as the solution to water supply shortages?

Is it not upon the bargain-basement sequestration of this effluent waste stream that the empire(s) of privatized water supply have, at least in other Australian cities, been planned (out of public view) to be built?

Once seawater desalination becomes a technically mainstream source for potable water supply to urban concentrations of population, perhaps it could, and should, then be made to be the REQUIRED exclusive source for supplying those populations.

As users, those urban populations, or their landlords, would then have to pay the full cost of reticulated supply sourced from seawater desalination. Urban Australia for once paying its dues, at least with respect to supply, even if not yet with respect to disposal.

The article accepts the technical feasibility of desalination. It attempts to attack it on the basis of an implied, relatively unquantified, environmental impact of the imposed energy demand. This is really where the author shows either her lack of having done the most elementary journalistic research into seawater desalination, or her bias against this as a workable solution. OLO itself could have provided many useful insights into possible solutions, but probably little joy for the would-be privatizers of water supply.

The Australian public already owns a key to seawater desalination. It exists in the waste heat from our coal-fired electricity generation, a generating capacity that is not about to be shut down in the near future. Not only can the waste heat be used to desalinate sufficient water to solve the supply problem, but also to provide an accumulating basis for changing over to solar powered electricity generation within the projected lives of existing thermal power stations. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#75523

Forrest Gumpp: Yes.

It’s no secret. Mr Howard and Mr Turnbull have been forthright in their support for sewerage recycling for potable use. Whether this is conducted by big business or big government is a separate question. However, last week, the NSW Government announced it was reserving the ability to sell Sydney’s desalination plant to private interests at any time. NSW Government policy, obviously, is to support privatisation of additional forms of water supply. The Victorian Government is yet to decide between three financing models for their desalination plant. The fact that a fully private model is one of the options indicates that privatisation is consistent with Victorian Government policy.

Politicians do not support private water supply at the household level. The community does. The missing link is to make tank rainwater affordable. Technology developed for this purpose, and discussed in my posts above, makes rainwater a lower cost than desalinated seawater or recycled sewerage.

Liberal Party policy is that the water that falls on a person’s roof in Australia is vested in Government. Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement (NWIA) explicitly states this. The Federal ALP is mute on the matter. So too are Greens and Democrats.

The National Water Commission asserts that Governments have the right to impose entitlement regimes on the use of rainwater tanks, on grounds that the water is vested in Government.

Clause 2 of the NWIA does not apply to tank rainwater in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, even though those States are signatories.

This week I wrote to the Premiers of NSW, Victoria and Queensland seeking their confirmation of previous advice that the water that falls on a person’s roof in their State is the property of that person.

Recycled water from the laundry generates about the same volume of water used for toilet flushing. The combination of rainwater tanks and recycled rainwater can supply about 50% of an average household’s indoor water consumption. When mains water is recycled for toilet flushing (because rainwater tanks are empty) this is a further 20%.

Any problems so far?

Greg Cameron

-Original Message-
From: Greg Cameron
Sent: Thursday, 8 March 2007 1:02 PM
To: Hon Morris Iemma
Cc: Hon Malcolm Turnbull; Anthony Albanese
Subject: Entitlement Regime For Rainwater

Hon Morris Iemma MP
Premier of NSW
NSWLabor@nswalp.com

Dear Mr Iemma,

Re: Entitlement Regime For Rainwater

Does Labor support the Federal government’s proposed “entitlement regime” for a person’s use of rainwater?

As you are aware, the Federal government proposes an entitlement regime if rainwater tanks are adopted on a large scale “such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle”.

Rainwater is an economic source of water supply, particularly when tanks are used on a large scale. Maximum contribution to the state’s water supply will occur, obviously, when rainwater is collected from the roof of every building, and my understanding is that your government, if re-elected, would encourage every building owner in NSW to collect and use rainwater from their roof.

By artificially increasing the cost of rainwater per kilolitre used, an entitlement regime will make rainwater tanks uneconomic compared with other sources of water, such as mains water, desalinated seawater and recycled water. This would deter building owners from using rainwater.

Government imposition of an entitlement regime could only occur if rights to water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW are the state’s water rights.

According to the Federal government, rights to water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW are vested in the government, and roofwater is not the property of that person. However, the Federal government is unable to support its claim because section 392 of the NSW Water Management Act 2000 limits the state’s water rights to water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground, and a person’s roof is not the surface of the ground.

Therefore, is it Labor’s position that rights to water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW are not the state’s water rights?

As you are aware, in Victoria, water that falls on a person’s roof is the property of that person, and Labor supports this position.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Cameron

Greg must have all his shares in rainwater on private property. Or was it just tanks?

Sorry mate; I can't help it after all these years of wondering who gets our natural resources.

PS I love election campaigns!

Taz, tanks and valves.
Greg

Thanks, Greg, for the reference to Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement. I did not know that there had been such arrogant categorical assertion by the Federal government as to ownership of the rainwater that comes off my roof.

You clearly identify Howard and Turnbull as proponents of this policy.

Should they attempt to effectively tax rainwater tank storage into oblivion, they will assure themselves of a place in history akin to the proponents of Queen Anne's "window tax", and will deservedly be remembered with like derision 300 years hence. People bricked up existing windows rather than pay that obnoxious tax on a natural bounty, and the record can be seen in bricks and mortar to this day throughout Britain!

How right you are in saying "Politicians do not support private water supply at the household level. The community does."! In a rare instance of governmental responsiveness to this community view, local government on the Central Coast of NSW recently backed down from enforcing usage restrictions on water collected in rainwater tanks that had been installed with the aid of a Council rebate, and were, as a condition, plumbed into the reticulated supply piping within the respective buildings.

True it may be that such plumbed-in tanks could have been used as a vehicle for evasion of restrictions rightly TEMPORARILY placed on the reticulated supply, but it is even clearer to the community who the real evaders of responsibility have been, and they have not been the private householders! Those tanks are seen by the community as a private remedy for a long-term dereliction of duty at State and Federal government level that has permitted reticulated water supply to get into the present precarious position, and imposed 'overstocking' stresses that now make recovery difficult, respectively.

The tank rebate itself was, of course, in the ultimate, only the ratepayers' own money coming back to them. So no gratitude was owed for these decisions.

Tanks. For the memories!

As for Turnbull, look at what nearly happened to him: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=967#17292

-Original Message-
From: Greg Cameron
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 6:20 PM
To: Hon Anna Bligh
Subject: ALP rainwater policy

Hon Anna Bligh MP
Premier of Queensland

Dear Ms Bligh,

Liberal Party policy is that the water that falls on a person’s roof in Queensland is not the property of that person.

Your Government confirms that water collected in rainwater tanks in Queensland is not owned by the Government.

Please advise, is water that falls on a person’s roof in Queensland the property of that person?

Additionally, does Clause 2 of the National Water Initiative Agreement apply to water that falls on a person’s roof in Queensland? Clause 2 says, “In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of purposes – whether irrigation, industrial use, mining, servicing rural and urban communities, or for amenity values. Decisions about water management involve balancing sets of economic, environmental and other interests. The framework within which water is allocated attaches both rights and responsibilities to water users – a right to a share of the water made available for extraction at any particular time, and a responsibility to use this water in accordance with usage conditions set by government. Likewise, governments have a responsibility to ensure that water is allocated and used to achieve socially and economically beneficial outcomes in a manner that is environmentally sustainable.”

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Cameron

I cannot help but wonder at how the claim in the National Water Initiative Agreement that rights to the rainfall that falls on my roof vests in the Federal government squares with Section 100 of the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution says:

"100. The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation."

Since the waters of rivers only get there by virtue of the natural water cycle, which means through precipitation over a river's catchment area, it is difficult to see how the collection of rainfall off the roof of a dwelling could be anything other than reasonable use for conservation or irrigation. It is to be noted that the residents within a State are separately and expressly recognised in their own right as having protected access to rainfall runoff in Section 100, not just the State concerned as an entity.

The Constitution thus effectively recognises the personal right of an Australian resident to rainwater collection. It would seem any legislation, State or Federal, that purports to constrain that right would be unconstitutional.

I note in the article the refrain we seem to be hearing our representatives all too frequently representing to us, that is, that urban users should be expecting to have to make do with less water. After the event self-justification for dereliction of duty with respect to infrastructure planning and investment, if you ask me. Sure, this unspecified desalination proposal is probably not the appropriate one, but desalinated water is at least new or extra water.

Then again, if I reflect but briefly, I will realize a claim of Federal government right to impose an entitlement regime with respect to roof rainwater collection is but to be expected under the aegis of Malcolm Turnbull as Federal Environment Minister, a person who not long ago led the charge to destroy our Constitution at the republic referenda in 1999. What's that saying about leopards and their spots?

Forrest,

The Republic and water rights are two distinct issues, please don't merge the two.

Its quite reasonable to expect people to be able to support a Republic while at the same time support a persons right to the water that falls on his roof.

Clause 2 of The National Water Initiative Agreement (NWIA), signed in 2004 by the Federal, State and Territory Governments, is an ambit claim in relation to rainwater falling on buildings in Australia.

According to the Federal Liberal Government, Clause 2 means “all” water in Australia – including water that falls on a person’s roof – is vested in Governments.

To its credit, the Victorian ALP Government says Clause 2 is not correct for Victoria because it does not say “all” water in Australia is vested in governments. The Victorian Government confirms that water falling on a person’s roof in Victoria is the property of that person.

Which Government is correct – the Federal Liberals or the Victorian ALP?

The Federal ALP has not declared a position on rainwater rights. This is probably because State ALP Governments are in disagreement. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4920#56469

In Australia, rights to surface water are vested in Governments. Surface water is “water flowing over land”.

The SA, WA and Tasmania State Governments consider that a person’s roof is land. The Victorian Government says a roof is not land. The NSW and Queensland Governments remain coy.

Here are 3 elementary tests if a roof is land -

Is the source of water for a roof (a) the sky, or (b) the land?

Can water be collected in a rainwater tank from the surface of the ground?

Do occupants of buildings live underground?

Under recent changes to South Australia’s Development Act, rainwater must be used in new houses. But under the Natural Resources Management Act, a person is “entitled” to use surface water.

Does “entitlement” mean ”requirement”?

This e-mail was issued on 17 September 2007:

Hon Gail Gago MLC
Minister for Environment and Conservation
South Australia

Dear Minister,

Is the occupier of land entitled not to take surface water from the land under section 124(2) of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004?

Section 124(2) is “Subject to this Act and to any other Act or law to the contrary, the occupier of land is entitled to take surface water from the land for any purpose.”

Greg Cameron

Senator Lyn Allison:

Would you advise Democrats policy in relation to rights to water that falls on a person’s roof in Victoria? Do you support the Federal Liberal position or the State ALP position (see above)? Or, do you have a different position?

By separate e-mail copy to Mr Anthony Albanese, would he kindly advise the Federal ALP position in relation to Clause 2 of the NWIA as it applies to rights to water that falls on a person’s roof in each State?

The link to State ALP Government policy is
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6112 - apologies to all for providing an incorrect link, in my post, above.

Last week, NSW Premier, Mr Iemma, was asked to confirm NSW Government policy, as below.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Cameron
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 5:11 PM
To: Hon Morris Iemma
Subject: ALP rainwater policy

Hon Morris Iemma MP
Premier of New South Wales

Dear Mr Iemma,

Federal Liberal Party policy is that the water that falls on a person’s roof in New South Wales is not the property of that person.

Would you please confirm your Government’s policy (see below) that the water that falls on a person’s roof in New South Wales is the property of that person?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Cameron

-Original Message-
From: Information [mailto:Information@nswalp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:11 AM
To: gregorydcameron @bigpond .com
Subject: RE: Ownership of roofwater in NSW

Dear Mr Cameron

Thank you for taking the time to express your views.

The water that falls on a person’s roof is considered the property of that person. That’s why we are encouraging people to install rainwater tanks to help conserve town water supplies.

It is only the Federal Liberal government that has been talking about taxing people for the rain they collect.

With best wishes

ALP Information Office


Mr Cameron wrote:

Dear Mr Iemma and Mr Debnam:

Do you know who owns water that falls on a person’s roof in NSW?

Your answer will be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Cameron

Senator Lyn Allison answered my question put to her in my 24 September post, above. She advises, “The Democrats consider the water that falls on a person’s roof to be the property of that person.” Thank you, Senator.

Mr Anthony Albanese was asked the same question on behalf of the Federal ALP, but he has not replied.

Federal Liberal policy is that all water in Australia – including water that falls on a person’s roof – is vested in Governments.

NSW ALP policy is, “The water that falls on a person’s roof is considered the property of that person. That’s why we are encouraging people to install rainwater tanks to help conserve town water supplies. It is only the Federal Liberal government that has been talking about taxing people for the rain they collect.”

NSW Coalition policy is, “The rain that falls on a person’s house is their property.”

Victorian ALP policy is, “The water that falls on a person’s roof in Victoria is the property of that person and Labor supports this position.”

The Victorian Nationals position is to agree with the proposition that “The water that falls on a person’s roof in Victoria is the property of that person.”

In Queensland, no State political party has a position.

Does this mean that the Queensland ALP, Queensland Nationals and Queensland Liberals all agree with the Federal Liberals? All parties – including the Democrats - have been repeatedly asked for their positions and all have demurred. Surely the position is clear? Section 19 of the Queensland Water Act 200 says, “All rights to the use, flow and control of all water in Queensland are vested in the State”, and, the definition of water “does not include water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks.” The best response that the Queensland ALP Government can muster is that “water collected in rainwater tanks does not fall within the ownership of the State.”

Mr Albanese: Is the Federal ALP’s policy the same as the Federal Liberal’s policy?

Now that Senator Allison has given the Democrats position, what is the Greens position?

Greg Cameron

Could someone please advise/explain whether a change in Government party (after the coming election in Nov) could result in a change in planning for the desalination plant?

Sophie,

It will make no difference. The decision on the desalinator was made by the state government, not the federal one. The federal government has no say in the matter.

Sylvia.