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.