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.