We all know that water is one of, if not the most, valuable commodities we have yet, we only use it once while millions of litres per day goes down the drain and we can’t even have a decent shower.

As a butcher, working most days for 10 to 12 hours, I can’t have a decent shower in 4 minutes and why should I be forced to. I have paid my rates for 30 years, it’s not my fault our governments have miss managed our monies.

Morton shire along dumps up to 87 million litres per day and this is water that has been treated to ‘A’ class standard drinking water, re-treated to ‘safe levels’ after being used by households, and then dumped.

The solution is simple, RECYCLE!

You see the anti re-cycle lobby runs a very good scare campaign saying that if we recycle we are drinking our own sewage yet, we consume less than 2% of the water used per household per day. Even before the recent lifting of the restrictions I know very few people who consume in excess of two litres each per day straight from the tap.

Do people realise that of the 62,000 litres they use each year, (170litres per day), more than 60,000 litres of this is dumped.

That’s staggering.

On the other hand, if we re-direct this re-treated water back to the dams to be
Re-treated again then we can all get back to life as we knew it and for those of the minority who like to drink their 2 litres plus per day, they can either boil it first, buy a steriliser, or buy drinking water if they deem it to be un-safe to drink straight from the tap.

I say let’s have a ‘national’ referendum on the matter or, find a government that has the balls to make the decision and just do it.

Another option is stormwater harvesting, but this is a whole new topic.

Either way we must do something to stop this wasting of our precious asset

Rehctub, my first thought is; how can anyone living in southeast Queensland possibly express concerns about water without being worried about the rapid and ever-increasing number of consumers moving into your region, in the face of an already critically stressed basic resource??

The demand side of the equation is just as important as the supply side.

Yes of course we should be recycling and just being more frugal and efficient with overall usage.

But at the moment, all efforts to do this are really just doing to one thing; allowing more people to be squeezed in to the region.

It is one of the most extraordinary phenomena that I have ever encountered; the absolutely untempered rate of population growth into an area with critical water-supply issues, with practically no concern being shown form anyone - not the state government, local councils or more than a handful of citizens.

We live in the country and therefore have several rain water storage tanks, adequate for most seasons. It is only in a drought situation that we must buy tankers of water from our shire council. As a result of a recent shire amalgamation it has been decided that country people must now pay a 400 percent increase in the cost to buy 'town' water. A furore erupted and it was decided that the percentage increase would be brought in over 4 years, thus only increasing our costs by 100 percent in the first year. There will be increased fuel costs added to the costs of transporting that water. I know everyone should be paying more for water, but what would the greater number of urban dwellers say if they were hit with such increased costs?

Ludwig,
I don't know if you should read Paul Sheenan in todays SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/the-challenge-of-migration/2008/08/03/1217701846375.html

It won't please you. Makes me wonder how politicians think or where they get advice from.

As a side issue in a letter in the SMH a reader said a burst water main near their house is now being repaired after it was reported to Sydney Water 70 hours before. Apparently two crews came out to inspect and required specialist equipment which had to be obtained . That turned out to be a crow bar and a sledge hammer. Wonder if the need for a shovel or shifting spanner will hold repairs up again? The situation is almost laughable except they continue to talk about puting water rates up

I think everyone should read this:
1. http://www.naturalnews.com/023413.html
2. http://www.naturalnews.com/023412.html

as this applies to Australian aquifers as well which happen to be drained by the likes of bottlers and water rapists.

Logically, if you drop an underground water source, rivers will dry up.The likes of Coca-cola need to stop getting cheap water from below.
India has banned CC out of the country because of this, besides drinking CC and Pepsi is bad for you anyhow!

Fresh water is not particularly valuable. It can be created from salt water for between $1 and $2 per tonne. Few commodities are that cheap.

Recycling costs money as well. If the water is not recycled to drinking water standard, then using it (other than for limited localised industrial purposes) involves a separate distribution network with a huge capital cost. Recycling to drinking water standard and then returning it to the dams involves a huge pipe line which also costs money. Recycling to drinking water standard and then feeding it directly into the drinking water supply is politically difficult, particularly at the concentrations needed to make it worth the effort.

Country Girl

If the council allows you to have your own storage and gives you the entitlement to buy water from the council during droughts, then it has to recoup from you an amount of money that fairly represents the cost to the community of having reservoir capacity to meet your needs at those times. This can be done either by imposing a levy on you at all times, regardless of whether you're taking water, or by making the water that you do take expensive by comparison with the the price of water to the urban users. To do otherwise is to let you free load off the rest of the community. I infer that the council has determined that you're not making a fair contribution at the old price.

You ask how urban users would react to such price rise, but the situation cannot arise, because they don't take water only during droughts.

Ludwig
From your comments I assume you don’t reside in QLD. Don’t be fooled, most residents here are livered at the fact that our welcome mat has been put out by ‘back flip beaty’ without giving consideration to the consequences. It’s a joke and we are all paying the price. We have all paid our ever-increasing rates and watched these morons piss our money up against the wall. Still wouldn’t live anywhere else though!

Sylvia
I must admit I know little about the conversion from salt to fresh water so I will take your point.

On the other hand I don’t think the water that is supplied to our homes should be of drinking standard in the first place. It’s like spending $20,000 on an ice machine which will make 2,000 kilos per hour when all you want is enough ice for one rum and coke per night then you throw the rest of the ice out until you make some more tomorrow. And don’t forget, we currently bath, shower, swim, wash our cloths, cars and pets in drinking water. What a waste!

A pretty corny analogy but in essence that is exactly what is happening as very few people consume 2 Lt + per day drawn directly from the tap. In any case one can buy bottled water for less than 60c per litre. I for one would rather spend $1.20 per day on drinking water and have a decent shower!

My suggestion would be to treat water to a point where it is safe to drink if desperate but should be either filtered of boiled when consumed.

Furthermore, the water that is returned back to the dam would not be fully treated, it would be treated to the level that exists today. Surely if it is safe to dump into our streams it would be safe to re-direct back to the dams.

Continued
Finally, with regards to the ground water.
My theory is that due to the catchment of rain from the thousands of rooves which is then channelled out to sea and whereby this water, that once fell onto open ground in most areas is no longer falling the water table has been effected.

Possible solution, stop directing rain water into the sea and let our downpipes flow on to the ground.

Lets go back to soggy lawns etc.

Sylvia - regardless of how "valuable" water is per tonne, just where do you think we're going to get the energy to produce all this desal sustainably?

rehctub

You might be happy to spend $1.20 per day on bottled water, but the reality is that that's already more than it would cost to supply your entire daily water usage by desalination.

CJ Morgan

The energy requirements for desalinating the water are not great in the scheme of things (it's about 6kWh per tonne with current technology). A household would use much more energy to heat water for showers than would be used to desalinate its water.

Either we have an economic way of producing energy sustainably, or we don't. If we do, then no problem. If we don't then using energy for desalination makes little difference.

Sylvia
Desal is not a normally occurring process nor is the deumping of millions of litres of treated waste water per day into our waterways.

My suggestion is, that if we must dump it then pay the extra costs and dump it back into the dams where it came from in the first place.

I would be much happier to pay $1.20 per day ($438 per year) for drinking water than to see desal units pop up everywhere along our foreshores!

In further consideration of your previous comment I can't see how desal can produce 1,000 litres of water for just $1 or $2. Does this take into account the running costs, labour costs, maininance costs and depreciation of equipment?

Rehctub, I live in Townsville. We’ve got permanent water restrictions, which recently became permanently more restrictive. This has happened despite the last wet season being very good and filling the Ross River Dam. We are also constantly connected to the Paluma Dam and have a backup capacity to draw on the mighty Burdekin Dam in very dry times.

Townsville has a faster population growth rate than ever before! This is due in no small part to many people who would have moved into SEQ choosing to move somewhere where there is better water security and less harsh restrictions.

So here we are, in the largest city in tropical Australia, with water restrictions that we don’t need to have, but with a rapidly increasing demand on an unchanging water supply capability….which will cement those restrictions.

Oh sorry, they’re already set in concrete. Spose the reason is that our illustrious council has thought ahead a bit and wants everyone to be used to the restrictions that we WILL have to have in the near future with ever-more people moving here.

Quite frankly, the restrictions we now have are serving one purpose only; to lower the per-capita usage rate a bit so that our town planners can justify squeezing in a whole lot more people than they would otherwise have been able to.

It's the same in SEQ.

Sylvia Else: << A household would use much more energy to heat water for showers than would be used to desalinate its water. >>

Ah but Sylvia - I can generate more than enough hot water for my household use with a solar system. Please tell me where I can get a solar desal unit that would do the equivalent.

Sylvia, in most rural areas, the rates of those who do not get a town water supply, have often paid a large percentage of the water infrastructure costs to supply that town water.

Where I live, my $1500 per year gets me 3 hours of mobile library, & not much else, except aggravation. However a large part of the councils borrowings, the interest payment for which comes from general revenue, are for town water. These payments come from my rates, as much as from yours.

Perhaps you don't understand. When we non urban folk do get a little town water, it costs our council nothing, other than the few pennies for the water. We have all ready paid for the infrastructure that supplies it.

A water carrier fills his truck, from a stand pipe, with no council input. They pay the council 180% of the domestic price for this water. By the time they have delivered a load, of about 8000 to 10000 litres, to someone in my area, the cost has risen to about $220. If you townies had to pay this much for water, I can imagine the scream.

As less than 45% of people in my shire are on town water, the majority of us are subsidising those who are. That you think that we should be slugged unreasonably, if we want a little use of the infrastructure we have lagrely funded, does not surprise me.I hope it does not surprise you that my impression of townies is of greedy grasping bludgers. Your post certainly does nothing to change my impression.

Ludwig
I hear you loud and clear. Just imagine the turn around we would experience if 85 to 90 % of what we waste were to be returned to the dams for re-treating and re-using.

All that is required, other than a one off infrastructure cost, is for the general public at large to get their head around the fact that we don’t need to shower in drinking water and that drinking water, especially when purchased in bulk, is cheap. Even free if one installs a rainwater tank.
Recycling is the answer, as our wastage would go from some 98% back to around 15%.
It would be nice to wash the car without fear of ‘big brother’ watching over you or your neighbour looking at you with daggers in their eyes.

To HASBEEN
As less than 45% of people in my shire are on town water, the majority of us are subsidising those who are. That you think that we should be slugged unreasonably, if we want a little use of the infrastructure we have lagrely funded, does not surprise me.I hope it does not surprise you that my impression of townies is of greedy grasping bludgers. Your post certainly does nothing to change my impression.

Dearest hasbeen
Just can’t help yourself can you. I have not yet been involved in one topic that someone like you hasn’t turned his or her post into personal attacks one another posters character.

Where do you people get off!

Furthermore, nobody, and I mean nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you where to live.

Also, if and when you visit our urban cities, costal towns or beaches, who do you recon subsidises the beatification of the parks, lakes and picnic areas that are there for all to enjoy FREE OF CHARGE.
WE DO.
So, unless you would prefer to pay a toll each time you use our facilities then get over it or move.

CJ Morgan,

I made the point about heating water just by way of illustrating the relatively small amount of energy required for desalination. Overall energy usage by a society is much greater.

rehctub

The water wouldn't be in the reservoir behind the dam in the first place if humans hadn't built a dam. It would long ago have flowed into the sea. Dams are no more natural than desalination plants.

Yes, the cost of desalinating water includes interest on capital, depreciation, maintenance, energy, manning, etc.

It doesn't include the cost of delivering it to you, but you pay that cost regardless of how the water is obtained.

Hasbeen,

I obviously don't have access to the accounts of your local council (not knowing which one it is) so I'll have to accept what you say regarding the infrastructure cost coming out of the rates. However, from what you say, your beef is with the company that transports the water anyway, not with the council. Whether the transportation charges are reasonable is hard to judge, but transportation also has capital and operating costs that have to be covered. If transporting water was hugely profitable, one would expect competitors to move in to get a piece of the action.

Sylvia my beef is with your suggestion that we should pay more than urban users, for any town water we may buy, & I explained why. I have no beef with water carters earning a living.

The main reason I saw red was your comment, & the complete lack of knowledge it displayed, of just how inequitable many of these things are. I'll give you an example.

Quite a few years ago, when Brisbane's water supply was considered secure, an "irrigation" dam was built in this area. In this user pays era, the irrigators have been paying an infrastructure charge to cover the cost of that dam, ever since. They then pay for the water they use. That's fair, so no problem there.

However, when it got a bit dry, we suddenly found that to save Brisbane water, half the water in the dam was supplied to a power station. OK, we all want power.

Then the rest of the water was reserved for urban water. Well, I suppose we can't have our neighbours in town with nothing to drink, can we? Struggling dairy farmers are going broke, as they can't grow any feed for their cows. I suppose that's OK.

What's not OK is, that in the 3 years they have not recieved a drop of water from that dam, they have still had to pay $28,000 per year in infrastructure charges, for that dam.

Not the power station, not the urban consumers, both of whom got the water, but the farmer who got none.

Perhaps you can now see the raw nerve that you touched with your suggestion that we should pay more for this same water, if we draw a bit from the town supply.

Is it OK if wre have a drink too?

Rehctub, perhaps, like me until recently, you are too busy, head down & tail up, to see just how this state workes.

I spent many wasted days at the Community Water Managememt Plan committee meetings, for our catchment, thinking I was doing something worthwhile. It took quite a while for us slow country bumpkins to realis it was just your leader, {Beattie] conning us. He just wanted our water for Brisbane, & was looking for the quietest way of doing it.

Perhaps you don't realise that my taxes have been invested in those big inner city hospitals, along with yours. Of course they are a bit easier for you to access than they are for me. No public transport out here, subsidised or otherwise. A lot of my taxes I would think, there's been stuff all spent out here.

Our state expenditure remindes me of a leaky truck. They fill these trucks with money in George street, & off they go, in all directions spilling money. A few get as far as the Gold & Sunshine Coasts, but the clapped out old ones they send anywhere else are very leaky. None can get past Ipswich, & by the looks of it, there's not much left by then. It's a pity, as most of that money came from the farming, & mining industries. They are the ones who pay for your facilities.

When it comes to use of these things, a quick look around here any weekend will show you many more urban types, out for their sunday drive, looking at the quaint yokels, than we could ever send to clutter your facilities. We don't mind, we enjoy all the pretty cars.
We won't even charge you a toll, if you promise to send lots of those vintage ones.

Try opening your eyes mate, & see the facts. After all, you cant build dams every where, & drown us all out, as you want to do to those in the way of a water grab, on the Mary.

Hasbeen
I have no beef with you and perhaps we should draw a line in the sand. I do however share similar feelings of having been ripped off by ‘back flip beaty’.

Just a few points however.
Much of the revenue used to fund the infrastructure in the cities was paid for by councils having been collected in the form of rates, along with a combination of GST, Payroll tax and property stamp duty funded by the state governments.

Now back to the topic.
It is my understanding that the water flow chart goes something like this.
Dam > Town revivor > Treatment plant # 1 > Storage tank > household > Treatment plant # 2 > Discharged into streams.

My ultimate proposal would be that instead of discharging the treated water from treatment plant # 2, re-direct it back to treatment plant # 1. Remember, this is water that has been treated to a level that is considered safe for all wild life and for humans to bath in.

This way the only time the dam is drawn from would be to make for any short falls in the reservoir. Ultimately resulting in no more additional dams.

Unfortunately this would require a lot of education for the public but I feel it would be the best solution in the long run. Again I stress, why do we have to bath in drinking water?

And just for the record, I don’t agree with the proposal to build more dams as I feel we have sufficient water and dams it’s just that we waste too much. That is why I am pro recycle. So please don't brand me as one who wants to drown perfectly funcional communities and towns.

Sylvia
All I can say to your comment is that many people have become wealthy from having property that either backs onto dams or has a view of them, ultimately resulting in increased taxes in the form rates derived from property values. I doulbt many agents would talk up a de-sal plant in your view!

Water wastage.

In 1950's I built a small dairy farm in the Riverina irrigation, The NSW government supplied water to farmers for Stock and Domestic, i.e. stock drinking water and Domestic for household and garden use.
The Hume weir, designed for hydroelectric generation, contained water in excess of hydro needs.
The Government decided to encourage irrigated pastures. Not only generating government revenue it would increase farm production.

Limited licences for 20-50 acres were approved to grow rice.
My advice is that the present rice acreage approvals have been increased to 1000+.

Corporations have been approved to pump water from aquifers to meet the demand for larger crops.
If I recall correctly it took 4 acre feet of water to produce a ton of rice.
Clearly, water management was an ad hoc basis with little long term planning. Australia, a dry continent is subject to extremes of floods and droughts.
The fact that draining our water resources to the extent we have, was not sustainable and would damage our environment.

Cotton, next considered, became a major pollutant to our waters and the land.

A conclusion can be that greedy governments have contributed to the damage of our river and lake systems by promoting an image of unlimited water.

I believe flood irrigation is not suitable for Australian soils. Crops such as rice and cotton, including hydro electricity generation are wasteful of a very limited resource.

Where appropriate, spray irrigation is preferable. We only need to wet a few inches of our land, not feet.
It would reduce the effects of salination.

Next, the consideration should have been of the suitability and viability, e.g. pastures, rice and similar crops, horticulture, etc.
During the drought of 1966 the NSW government decided to cut the farmers water supplies, claiming that electricity generation took precedence.

We are now reaping the result of short term objectives.
We are destroying our "Food Bowls". Reduced quarantine laws allow importation of foods grown in countries where chemicals are slavishly used. Chemicals banned from use by Australian producers, yet imported products are full of chemicals banned here.

A friend of mine said yesterday; “they just don’t get it do they”

He went on to say something like;

‘You Ludwig make the vitally important point that water restrictions are just playing straight into the hands of the massive pro-growthers. No one disagrees with you but neither does anyone express much concern about it.

This is surely by far the most important factor in SEQ, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, etc and yet everyone else is hung up on recycling, more efficient usage, desal, etc….all the things that lead directly to the facilitation of population growth.

It is totally insane! The psychology of it is absolutely fascinating and totally perplexing’

Ludvig,

Whatever your views on population growth, while the population grows infrastructure needs to be built to handle the extra people. Otherwise not only the new arrivals suffer, but the existing residents do as well.

Hi Sylwia

So do you think that there is merit in putting a moratorium or a considerable slow-down on population growth until the water issue and a few other vital issues are taken care of?

BTW, I missed your input on the ‘Queensland nude beaches thread’.

Ludvig, I don't see much scope for achieving a stabilisation of the population in the near term without serious economic consequences. We already face a situation where older people are overrepresented. If we deter people from having children or stop people migrating here, then the situation would get worse.

So, as I see it, even though the population clearly cannot be allowed to grow indefinitely, stabilising it is something that would have to be achieved over a longer term such that equalising the numbers in each age group could also achieved.

In the mean time, we have to manage the reality of an increasing population.

Ludwig
I am convinced that recycling is the option for several reasons.
1. 98% of what we currently use goes down the drain, gets re-treated (to a lesser extent than drinking water quality) then dumped. Some 160 odd litres per day, per person. This is adjusting for the 170Lt per day restrictions that are in place.

2. If we went back to the good old days where you used the water you wanted and paid for it then it would be fair to assume that 15 to 20% of what we used was lost from either, going onto the garden, into the pool or washed the dog car etc. This would still mean that up to 80% of what we draw, goes down the drain to be recycled to be used again.

More than enough to cater for the extra population growth.

Why are you so anti population growth anyway?

Do you think the recent foreshore beautification's would have occurred in Townsvile if the population was the same as 20 years ago?

If you have kids or grand kids, wouldn't you like to see them play under the sprinkler on a hot day? Or are these fond times only ever going to be available in photo albums!

rectub, there is a major problem with water recycling outside of coastal areas. Where the water is treated and "dumped" back into our river systems, we are still getting that vital environmental flow. By recycling, we are effectively taking the water out of our river systems and aquifers for good. Otherwise the theory is sound.

I am about sick of hearing the lament over the "dying" Murray too (not on this thread I know). If we didnt have dam systems built for our towns and farms, then the blasted thing would have dried up properly by now anyway.

Hey Ludwig

Dont you love the identical reasoning skills of population growth advocates and climate change denialists? It's like arguing with a goldfish.

Country girl
Very good point, this is exactly what I think OLO is all about. Common sense people putting their point of view across.

I don't know who fester is but I am assuming that that wise crack was aimed at me.

One thing I am certain about is that if any of these anti population growth advocates have children, grand children or intend to have children in the future then the are making complete fools of themselves because they are in fact contributing to the very problem that they are so strongly oppossed to. A bit like pissing into a fan one might say.

Don't you just love the ones who put their foot in their mouth every time they speak!

Rehctub, now you are confusing me. You say that you hear what I’m saying loud and clear. But then you ask;

“Why are you so anti population growth anyway?”

I think I have answered that in my posts above.

How can anyone possible not be against significant population growth in regions with critical basic resource problems, basic infrastructure problems and basic service shortfalls that are obviously due directly to population growth and piss-poor planning to keep these things up to the ever-increasing population??

"I don't know who fester is but I am assuming that that wise crack was aimed at me."

No Rehctub, it wasn't aimed at you, but you might like to think about the justification for population growth first. The reality is that the cheap water is gone, and while there are alternatives, they provide water at several times the price. Go back a few years to a less populated Australia, and your water was not metered in some places.

I say population growth is the cause of the water crisis. Justify the growth and you will go part way toward explaining to people why paying at least $3.50 per kl is better than having unmetered water for a small service charge.

Ludwig
When I said I agreed with you it was with your comment on water, not population growth. I am sorry for this missunderstanding, I should have been clearer.

As for population growth I can see both sides of the argument however I am all for population expansion it is just that our government has failed to cater for the growth. At least I draw comfort in knowing that I didn't vote for them.

As for water, perhaps the answer is in us recycling our own waste water in our own back yard.

I have access to an electronic water purifier in my shops for around $500 a pop and these provide around 300 Lt of purified water per hour.

So if I were to install a catchment tank in the back yard and one of these babies then maybe I can enjoy my longer showers again without being hastled by big brother.

“…I am all for population expansion…”

Well, it really does beg the question rehctub;

How can anyone possiblY not be against significant population growth in regions with critical basic resource problems, basic infrastructure problems and basic service shortfalls that are obviously due directly to population growth and piss-poor planning to keep these things up to the ever-increasing population??

and…

How can anyone who is concerned about this possibly be putting all of their energies into just one side of the equation? Don’t we all need to address both sides? Don’t we need to both look at ways of being more efficient with our water usage AND of reducing or at least stabilising the demand?

I can understand how someone might not be in favour of stopping pop growth tomorrow. But I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could be against a strategic plan for SEQ that has limits to growth as one of its most fundamental principles, even if the limit isn’t achieved for a couple of decades, allowing for a doubling of the population.

But for anyone to support it just being open slather with no end in sight is totally perplexing…and highly undermining of, if not completely cancelling out of, any recycling efforts, tanks, desal, new dams, usage restrictions, etc….. and efforts to improve all sorts of other infrastructure and services.

.
I’ve got a greywater system that takes all household water, cleans it and puts it out on the garden though a reticulation system. So I’m a little miffed at having to cop water restrictions along with everyone who just pours their greywater down the sewer.

For 20 years I’ve advocated a local plan that includes a limit to the size of Townsville, in just the same way as the plan for Magnetic Island, which has several residential areas and which comes under the Townsville City Council jurisdiction, has a population cap. So again, I’m just a tad miffed at having to cop restrictions along with everyone who just blithely condones the massive growth in demand for water.

A lot has been claimed about the Murray darling Basin from Marohasy’s claim back in May 2006:

“A commitment of $500 million from Australian tax payers, and 500 gigalitres of water for the environment is an enormous investment. I can only conclude that we are indeed a rich society if we can afford so much, for so little obvious environment gain - or hasn’t anyone realised that the Murray River has already been saved?”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4446&page=0

To claims that the drought experienced by Australia for over the past 10 years is a direct result of AGW.

Irrespective of whether AGW is directly or partially responsible, we urgently need to change how we farm.

The following is an extract from an excerpt of ‘Thirsty Country’ by Asa Walquist
http://asawahlquist.com/content/view/28/14/

“The head of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, warns "there is really no improvement in sight". Research by CSIRO scientists Wenju Cai and Tim Cowan has found that since 1950 Victoria has suffered a 40 per cent decline in autumn rainfall, compared with the long-term average. And that decline has been most severe in May. Cai says the decline "is not totally due to climate change, but it shows an imprint of climate change"….

….Rainfall has been this low in the past, but river flows were never as low as they have been over the past decade. As Craik puts it: "average rainfall no longer results in average inflow".


…. Wenju Cai has calculated that a one degree rise in temperature in the basin results in a 15 per cent reduction in river flow, or about 1850 GL less water in the river. The last three years in the basin were the warmest on record, with last year the warmest yet at 1.1ºC above average.”

Continued….

Continued….

” … The decline in autumn rainfall is critical to inflow because, as Cai explains, it wets the soil so that when the wettest time of the year arrives - winter and spring - the rain runs off the soaked soil and into the river….”

…..Victorian dairyfarmer Stephen Mills is chair of Irrigation Australia, a director of Murray-Goulburn Cooperative, and was recently appointed to the Victorian Government's Future of Farming Advisory Panel. He readily admits the reduction in rainfall is making it harder for farmers to remain productive and viable. "But I still think there is a lot of hope for the way that farmers approach their production systems. We will see enormous changes in the next decade or so. We have seen changes already that perhaps we haven't recognised."
Mills says dairy farmers are adopting new irrigation technologies "like sub-surface drip, and very fast flow surface flood irrigation, which are proving to provide very significant production increases, while maintaining very efficient water use". They are growing more lucerne, a deep-rooted crop that responds quickly to rainfall and needs less irrigation, and they have shifted their main irrigation season from spring to autumn…..

Mitchell argues it is important to manage on the assumption the downturn will continue. "If you are assuming that rainfall will return, you won't try and adapt to a drier climate and when you get hit by those dry years, it will impact your bottom line, you productivity and your system much more. Whereas if it gets wetter, the chance is you will get a bumper crop, but the other years you will be OK."”

I urge any who is genuinely interested and concerned to at the very least, to read the full article and consider obtaining a copy of the book – which will be available in libraries soon.

There is no single answer to saving water. A variety of strategies from catchment, recycling and population will be a part of the solution.

I think it's absurd that we are forced to carry buckets around the backyard while you can pour it down the sink for $1 per ton.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Water-when are we going to stop wasting it? well I cam across a company named Waterwise System that install greywater systems and I got one installed last summer!! as I am trying to make the most of all my water usage at home. It has worked wonders and is a great way of re-using our greywater. This is there website: www.waterwisesystems.com I highly recommend them.

greencup
I am pleased that you are happy with your new grey water system however, the use of grey water systems does not solve the problem, at best, they allow you to waste the water on your garden etc as opposed to dumping it down the drain. Either way, the water is still wasted.

What needs to happen is for all grey water to be re-used on a national scale then we can all go back to decent showers and water the garden without feeling like a criminal.

As for luwigs comment on my position on population expansion, I guess it's a bit of the old 'damned if you do damned if you don't'.

All I know is the more taxes raised the more chances we have of providing better services. Tell this to the fools that continue to vote our governments in hey! After all, it is they who are to blame for the lack of services to cope with population expansion. We have paid our taxes and they have wated them!