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.