With all the talk about the lack of water in South East Queensland, what about the water flowing down the Clarence and Richmond rivers into the sea in northern New South Wales?

Queensland supplies a large part of New South Wales electricity so surely they could afford to let us have a little of their surplus water to help generate it?

The pipeline would only be about 160 kilometres long and the land is already available if it runs up the interstate rail line corridor.

It could serve Brisbane, Gold Coast, a spur line to Toowoomba and even onto the Sunshine coast therefore no need for the Traveston Dam.

Well then, what about the Northern Rivers residents right to use the water to support their own development? Why is it that they should forgo their resources just to keep a highly profitable development industry going in SEQ. There are other practical solutions though. One is to build power stations on the coastline and harvest freshwater from steam arising from the seawater cooled condensers. A proposal for a solar thermal power station claimed that this measure could produce 40 litres of freshwater for each kilowatt hour of power generated. Electricity generated in this fashion would also guarantee an adequate water supply.

John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull may have a point. Reading the tone of this thread is like a State of Origin football game.

I mean, really, there is no "us and them" get over it.

Every State has a part to play in this and any jealousy has to be put aside. Currently, the QLD Government thinks that a connection between North QLD and the Murray Darling catchment area could solve many problems.

Don't forget that Byron Bay also had a disaster in water catchment, and the Northern Rivers didn't help them much either.

There is no one solution to this. It has to be a cocktail of various ways of catching water now that our dams are not longer reliable.

Mooree could also be desalinating some of its famous spa water to and piping it either to the coast, or to the Murray Darling catchment area.

I'm sure there are many ideas on the table, now action is worth more than words.

What about the various Governments giving every house a 10,000 litre rainwater tank?

There is no "us and them" saintfletcher? There certainly is so. If you wish to bulldoze scrubland, erect shoddy housing, then make a motza from it because the authorities coincidentally dont ensure sufficient housing supply to meet demand (try this trick without high immigration), you need water. Without it your golden goose dies. NSW Northern Rivers can play this game for a while quite easily as they still have plenty of cheap water for the taking. Now what sort of insanity would prompt them to have the water piped away so that others could make a motza from the game elsewhere?

On the freshwater from electricity generation line, this research describes a method of producing 4 megalitres of water per day per 100MW generation capacity using waste heat from a steam power plant.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/05/UCR_HBCU/pdf/papers/Klausner.pdf

And this group claims to be able to produce 1 gigalitre of demineralised water per day as a byproduct of 1200 MW of solar thermal generating capacity.

http://www.trecers.net/downloads/proposal_gaza.pdf

Saintfletcher, the moree spa water is sourced from the great artesian basin which has been coming under increased levels of protection. Whilst many of the regions artesian bores have been capped and piped, it is unlikely the pipes will lead back to the coast. The spa water already does flow into the river system, but at only a few ML/day it is a minor contributer.

Is mise, why "give" tanks? how about requiring new developments to be largely self sufficient in water. If you want to water a garden BUY a tank. Rural people have had to buy their own tanks, it would be unpalatable for them as taxpayers to pay for more city tanks too.

A very good question, grahama. It has been touched upon earlier in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5030 "The Ultimate Pipedream" by Tom Richman, published 19/10/2006.

Availability of water and storage sites in the NSW Northern Rivers region seems not fraught with the competition for land and water that apparently exists in SE Queensland.

NSW has long claimed that it has been missing out on its fair share of GST revenue, with Queensland being the major beneficiary of this maldistribution. A huge opportunity exists for the NSW government to obtain partial redress through the sale of water to Queensland.

But nothing except the outsourcing of water supply management seems to be on the agenda. Why?

Could it be that all governments, State and Federal, are not so much interested in solving localized urban supply problems as they are interested in effecting a massive cover-up of long-term mismanagement of an inseparable corollary to urban water supply, urban WASTE water disposal? The lion's share of this disposal problem would appear to be due to the extent and concentration of migration-driven population growth, particularly in Sydney and SE Queensland.

I cannot take credit for providing evidential backup for the suggestion that waste water mismanagement may have exacerbated the present drought, but what appears to be evidence for that claim has been presented on this forum by another regular contributor, KAEP, from December 2004 until the present. Out of a total of 366 posts made over that interval by KAEP, 107 have related directly to the science of regional climate distortion effects of sea surface pollution arising largely from urban waste water disposal practices. As a summary of what KAEP thinks may be happening, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5421#69062

The bi-partisan political solution is to force recycling of waste water as reticulated supply. To disguise the cost of their migration policies they are in agreement to outsource the management of water supply to foreign corporations. Prices up, living standards down. Our interests, as Australians, as usual, come last.

Thanx Rojo, I suspected this in Moree and the artesian basin. So hands off: yes.

I must say however that Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney's proposals for Solar Thermal power stations include the plains west of Moree. There are many thousands of hectacres of crown land there that are not being used for anything else, and the sun is very strong there:

http://www.chrisharris.org.au/?p=125

This is a plan on clean solar electrical power generation, but it does relate to water, as some solutions will need pumps to power water going "uphill".

Water tanks, I agree, are part of a solution. But we either find more solutions as well, or we adapt to using much less water.

And again an essential part of the solution goes unexpressed: We’ve got to denounce the insane continued rapid population growth in SEQ and all sorts of development and environmental stresses that go with it. Let’s promote a stabilization of the overall extent of human activity in areas that are suffering water stress.

Why is this factor so far beyond most peoples’ thinking?

Why do people gear their thoughts towards effectively SUPPORTING this absurd unending expansionism, by way of concentrating entirely on how to increase supply and how to decrease everyone’s usage…. while just letting the every-increasing number of users go unaddressed?

When are we going to start thinking in a holistic manner about this?

We’ve got to denounce the insane continued rapid population growth in SEQ and all sorts of development and environmental stresses that go with it.

But Ludwig, there aren't many other jobs in SEQ but whiteshoeing and spivving, what else do you propose they do :)

Ludwig

Well said

Thank you.

Another thing we need to sort is some state laws re tanks. The state Government say one thing but the Gold coast City Council introduce their "own" laws.
You may not have a tank in view of your neighbour. If your neighbour can see the top side etc of your tank you must A build a wall for which you require a permitt. B Dig a hole and sink it in the ground.
C go without a tank.
Too bad about all those elderly pensioners that tried to do the right thing.
Pity about the people who have 60 Ft of Rock to dig through.
Still good revenue for the old GCCC for years to come
.
Wonder why the gold coast City Council dont work in a bit more with Premier Beattie.??
Surley they must know the public will blame him when they bung this on.
I wonder when!? They intend to inform the public of this well kept secret.
Oh Well as they have over 80 percent full dams I guess they think they can afford to play games.
I hate to see the elderly carrying buckets while some of the resorts have signs on the wall reading- please limited your shower to Ten Minutes! Ten. I would have thought Three.

Ludwig.
I know its so annoying when they simple ignore the facts of the matter isnt it.
Makes one feel like standing at the border with a sign. Go home or bring your own!

Pleased someone mentioned regs. Can't the different levels of govt. see they're not working in unison on their common problem? The BCC also has silly regs.working against tanks. Namely, distances from all boundaries; 20ft from front boundary-which is usually where the house starts- you can have a 2 metre high fence, but only a metre high tank on the other boundarys!!I can understand the 2m clearance each side of main sewers, but concessions aren't afforded properties with the sewerage line across the yard, while others run beneath the footpath. This greatly restricts tank placement in small allotments (even if you can get a decent sized one in; several small ones being prohibitively expensive). Actually, tanks along some fencelines would be an improvement aesthetically; a screen of sorts is not an impossibility either. It was councils who previously forbad tanks,dual flush toilets and grey-water use I recall. Rural people have the space for dams, tho even they have more meddlesome regs. these days. Also, I'm more inclined to decentralised systems, even tho more expensive, as massive systems when they fail(like present)create massive havoc and even more unforseen massive expense.

Digiwigi
Umm I know its a mine field. Think we need to go for a National accreditation for water tanks [dont ask]
Seriously the state Gov puts out hand books and the councils just do their own thing. Imagine the stress on the elderly. They are making people apply for permitts. The normal set back here is 6m but then there are other circumstances to consider.
' If you call the council and talk to three different people they will tell you three different things. I am not kiding. So finally you loose it and call the minister in charge who finally tells you he cant stop the local council from bring out their own bilaws.
Personally I am sus from my part. I think The GCCC have it in for Beattie. The poor people are just the porns who will be fined and some end up loosing their homes in years to come because they cant afford to fix it
Maybe the fences of the future should double up as water tanks.
It nice to chat with somebody who can think a bit to be honest with you.

Person Against Live Exports, it is indeed very annoying when simple and highly significant factors are ignored, by article-writers on this forum, correspondents, politicians and the general community.

I support the widescale implementation of water tanks. But we’ve got to be careful about it. There are some major concerns;

Most urban properties cannot hold a tank big enough to truly drought-proof the residents. So in dry times when the tanks are empty, the demand on the public system is likely to be just about as big as it is now (actually, progressively larger when you factor in the rapid population growth rate in just about all our water-stressed urban areas).

While the ideal would be to find a balance between using tank water and mains supply, if tank water is free (the cost of tank having been paid) while mains water carries a cost (and no doubt a much-increased cost in the near future), then people are going to use their tank water entirely until it is gone.

So while the demand on the public system is likely to be greatly reduced for a lot of the time if tanks are installed on a wide scale, it would still need to be fully maintained and indeed progressively increased in order to cater for dry times. Indeed it would need to be improved with just the same urgency as it would if no-one installed a tank.

Thus, tanks can give us all a bit of a false sense of security.

continued

And the worst thing of all is that with the widespread implementation of tanks and the resultant large reduction in demand on public system, our pea-brained leaders are just going to keep on encouraging more and more water-consumers to move into the stressed areas. They’ll just see in their normal blinkered manner that growth can continue unabated. They won’t feel any pressure to slow the population growth rate, let alone stabilize it.

But crikey, widescale implementation of tanks beats stuffing around with the northern rivers or NSW or QLD hands down.

The great advantage of the water crisis SHOULD be an awakening in the general community and amongst all levels of government of the imperative to stop bloody well forever expanding the demand on stressed resources, to get the bijeezus off the continuous growth spiral and to gear ourselves towards a stable population that can be comfortably supported by a renewable resource base, with a huge safety margin to get us through the worst times.

It’s a pretty simple and obvious message. But very few people are getting it!

Ludwig

Have you considered how enticing SEQ will be to potential migrants under level 8 water restrictions, whatever they turn out to be? And if the people dont come, the property market collapses, then everyone wakes up to the big con.

Yes indeed Fester.

But you can bet your last razoo that Beatty will still be espousing the virtues of rapid growth in Queensland even when SEQ is virtually crippled under greatly increased water restrictions. In fact, you can just imagine him hollering across the border; “Nooooo don’t stop coming to luvly Qweenslayand. Please keep coming. Pleeaaase……….waaaaaah boo hoo hooooo!! !! !!”

What a crying shame it is apparently going to have to be a major decline in the quality of life for existing residents that stops the influx rather than thoughtful government policy.

rojo,
There are some very good reasons to give free tanks or to heavily subsidise them.
My local council gives $500 dollars subsidy but requires a minimum 7,000 litre tank, which is fair enough as that is a size that can make a difference to a homes supply. It can cost around the $500 for site preparation, materials and pipe work. So for most households the cost is going to be around $1,600 or so.
There is currently a waiting time of around 3 months to get a tank.

The NSW Govt has just announced up to $1,500 subsidy, in the near future. Around this neck of the woods the installation of tanks has been put on hold! There are many in the community who simply cannot afford to put in a tank.
Last night it rained heavily, which is very good but if it continues to rain then the dams will fill up, the crisis will be over and the pollies will do nothing.
Many years ago there was a scheme afoot to tunnel through the Great Dividing Range and turn some of the Nth Qld rivers' water into the western rivers. Ion Iddreas (hope I got Ion's name right) wrote a book on it, or one that discussed it among other things. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Is Mise, I don't have a problem with some token subsidy, but not for tanks to be given. If watering a garden or topping up a pool is required this should be incentive enough for tank investment. Public infrastructure supplied water should no longer be expected to cover these "luxuries" as we have been able to in the past.

I am so tired of hearing Federal and State politicians and assorted 'experts' and advocates saying we are going to have to pay more for the water we use. Many good ideas have been expressed in these forums about personal water storage. There has also been the suggestion of free tanks. I would like to add a couple more.

* Water storage systems come in many shapes and sizes these days. Composite design systems are easy to implement on most properties.

* Federal and State Govt. could underwrite - through local councils - full installation costs including switchable first-flush plumbing between indoor and outdoor use.

* No rebates needed. Cost of water storage systems could be added to the annual rates but spread over a 10-15year period depending on storage size and total costs for the recipient. If the property is sold the water storage payment is still included in annual rates until paid. This would make it much easier for people and small business who cannot afford the upfront costs. Just like the old time-payment plans. It could be paid quicker if finances permitted.

All of the above would cost hundreds of millions of dollars - but then so do constantly evaporating dams with their associated delivery mechanisms and environmental impacts or energy-hungry, expensive desalination plants - not to mention ongoing maintenance costs for both methods. Government monies (our taxes) subsidising these methods is going to be eventually recouped.

It is not something that will be achieved overnight. It is a long-term goal that needs a steady, national effort made over several years which would virtually drought-proof our most populous areas. It should be a combined Federal/States effort without the politics. Lack of water affects all of us and all political persuasions.

By all means continue to educate and encourage in ways to make better use of our water but, for heaven's sake, stop digging further into our pockets to achieve debatable ends. Get rid of the user-pay, pay, pay mentality.

Rhett

I think the user-pays philosophy is an essential part of the water-supply reform process. We’ve all got to start paying a more realistic price for our water. And it is legitimate to raise prices in order to make everyone more efficient and frugal with their usage, in times of water-supply stress.

The residents of southeast Queensland, Sydney, Perth, etc SHOULD have to pay more, for these reasons;

1. Water at the price that it has been for decades has not been valued as the essential commodity that it is. So when supply becomes stressed and the resource becomes much more valuable, as any commodity would under those market forces, everyone should have to pay more, just as they do when fuel prices rises due to peak oil, real estate prices rise due to demand exceeding land releases or banana prices rise due to a sudden massive drop in supply.

2. The general public has had practically nothing to say about the continuous rapid rate of population growth into most of our water-stressed areas, even after the stress factors have become bleedingly obvious. They has just sat back and accepted that a rapid increase in the number of consumers drawing from stressed supplies is ok! How extraordinary! Now these communities SHOULD pay for this amazing blindness or blasé attitude. They cannot just simply blame the relevant governments, although of course those governments should have addressed this issue very early on.

“Composite design systems are easy to implement on most properties”

Yes. And one sure way to promote this is to raise the cost of water drawn from the public system.

“Federal and State Govt. could underwrite - through local councils - full installation costs including switchable first-flush plumbing between indoor and outdoor use.”

Yes indeed they could. But this would mean higher taxes and/or rates. Everyone would pay those not in proportion to the water they use. This means that some people would subsidise others. Isn’t it better for people to be charged in proportion to their usage?

Should households have a "necessity" water allowance equivalent to normal indoor use at low cost, and then a second much higher rate for usage above this amount. Water efficient households get their water cheaper and don't subsidise luxurious gardens/prolific carwashers etc. It would be a user pays system that doesn't penalise low income and low use users.

(Answer in two parts)
Ludwig,

I agree with you that water is essential but not a commodity. In fact, water is the core essence of life on this planet. Without it everything dies. I do not equate water to fuel, banana's or real estate prices. So, I cannot agree with you about increasing the price of water on an amount used basis. On that basis, affluent people would be able to use as much as they want while a low income family would be struggling with yet another impost on already stretched finances. I am talking about ALL residences having a personal water storage system to draw from thereby decreasing demand on current resources.

The bulk of Australia's population lives on the East Coast which still gets reasonable rainfall.

* 10mm of rain on 1 sq. metre of roof equals 1 litre. The average house now has 160m2 - 200m2 of roof area. Do the math. A little rain on the average roof can go a long way.

* Biggest home uses of water are toilet, washing clothes, bathing, outdoor use.

* Govt. should mandate every home have a water storage system of at least 9,000 litres.

* For housing estates where developers like to cram as many dwellings as possible into a given area perhaps two or three large underground resevoirs could be council required with house roof run-off directed into them.

* Shopping malls, entertainment facilities, sporting grounds, industries etc., should be mandated to provide as much of their own water storage systems as possible for general in-house use.

* Pure water recycling plants should be developed for inland towns where rainfall is infrequent to compliment household water storage systems.

Yes, as I said in my original post, purchasing an government underwritten water storage system would be added to the annual rates but spread over a 10-15yr. period depending on storage size and total costs for the recipient. If the property is sold the water storage payment is still included in annual rates until paid. Make it affordable for people and small business who cannot afford the upfront costs. Most water storage systems these days are guaranteed as 20yrs+ lifespan. I do not know if this claim is true though it would be silly to give the guarantee if it weren't.

Taxes would not need to be increased. Mal Turnbull is going to waste $52.6million posting a water-use brochure to each household. The NSW government recently spent $1.4million on tv advertising telling us how good a desalination plant will be for us. There are quite a few storage systems in there for a start.

More than anything else we have a right to water. If we can provide for the majority of our personal water uses through storage so much the better. While by no means the perfect answer it does offer a practical, permanent solution to most personal water use and dispenses with ratepayers money being used for selective rebates thereby freeing it for other important use involving shire requirements.

(Actually, three parts)
Speaking of Local Councils and their regulations, that is another area that should be addressed as mentioned in a couple of the posts above (Gold Coast, etc.). I also heard of another set where each year the council will require the storage connection to be visibly inspected by 1.) council inspector, 2.) licensed plumber, and 3.) licensed electrician. All 3 will need to produce a document stating the tank and connection is working. A plumber and sparky have an average flat fee of say $100, not sure what council will do - let's give benefit of $25. So each year you will be faced with a $225 fee. If Government is serious about getting on top of our water situation this sort of rubbish has to stop. Alternatively, vote these ratbags out at the next council elections.

I understand completely what you are saying about political lack of vision in relation to population density though I think that is another broader argument of which water and energy are a part. I do not believe people should be penalised for wanting to have a basic necessity on tap, so to speak. I really am tired of the user-pay argument.

This is all fine Rhett. But it is not at odds with a user-pays setup for water drawn from the public system. In fact it complements it.

As I said, firstly water has been grossly under-priced and secondly, higher prices would help spur on the various water-saving and alternative-source strategies.

We can’t really escape the fact that the affluent will get it easy while the battlers will, well battle. I suppose we could gear water-pricing to income, but still the affluent would come out well ahead. The same applies with the ability to install water tanks and so on, unless it is all paid for via taxes and rates, which could essentially mean that the lower income-earners would be subsidizing the affluent? Spreading it out over a long period on the rates bill would perhaps help. This would of course be passed on as rental increases to those who don’t own the property they live in.

It would be nice if all residents had tanks. But let’s be careful. The battlers would be losing out again, generally speaking, for a number of reasons. For one, they would on average have less space to install large tanks compared to the wealthy.

But notwithstanding some inequality on the financial side, all of this is good.

However, there are other problems. One is the potential trap of over-reliance of on tanks when real drought conditions occur, as expressed in an earlier post on this thread.

The other is of the still rapidly increasing number of water-consumers in nearly all of our water-stressed cities and regions.

While you said that you understand my point, I think that you don’t pay it sufficient attention. It is of absolutely critical importance that we stabilize the overall demand on highly stressed resources, is it not?

“More than anything else we have a right to water.”

Yes. And we must surely be able to expect our elected leaders to protect this right, by limiting the ever-increasing pressure on water resources, as an essential part of the overall strategy.

Ludwig,
I am not concerned about the affluent. They will always be ahead of the game. It is everybody else. You know - the rest of us. The majority. Charging higher prices for an absolute essential causes nothing but hardship and the harder up you already are, the harder it will be. Not on.

People are paying attention and are already doing their bit to help minimise demand. For instance, Sydney's annual water consumption is the same now as it was in 1974, when there were 1.2 million fewer residents. But only 32,000 rebates have been paid for installing rainwater tanks.

That's why I am saying water storage systems should be mandated. That's why I'm saying it should be made easily affordable.

A 9 - 15,000litre system does not take up a lot of space, nor cost an arm and a leg. The cost spread over 10-15yrs. would not increase rents because it would be negligible and also tax deductible for the owner. Roof run-off storage systems would give communities more protection than a dozen dams. They become their own little catchment areas.

I don't expect our elected leaders to protect this right by limiting the ever-increasing pressure on water resources. I expect them to do something constructive; something that does not include paying more for an essential we already pay for.

Rhett, I still can’t see how the user-pays concept for water from the stressed public storage and infrastructure is at odds with improving efficiency and developing alternative sources. These things are complimentary.

Yes water is a fundamental resource. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t all be paying a realistic price for its provision and security, and that this price shouldn’t go up as the resource becomes more stressed and precious.

I just can’t agree that user-pays has no place here. It seems to me to be an essential part of the whole water infrastructure redevelopment strategy.

If we all pay standard water rates, then some are strongly subsidizing others, and there is scant motivation for those who are using quantities well within their allotment to improve their efficiency.

Yes I think storage systems should be mandated. My local council has just voted this down and maintains the position that it is the property-owner’s choice.

“I don't expect our elected leaders to protect this right by limiting the ever-increasing pressure on water resources.”

Why not? How can they just simply allow this huge aspect of the whole subject to continue growing at a rapid rate with no end in sight, especially when they have shown that they are incapable in numerous ways of planning properly for growing populations!

We really MUST insist that our local, state and federal governments address the absurdity of continuous unending expansion in an environment of severely stressed basic resources. Of course it is not THE answer to the issue. But it IS an essential part of the answer.

Rhett, you haven’t addressed my concerns about an over-reliance on tanks possibly leading to critical problems in really dry times. Do you think my concern about this real?

Ludwig,

I can see that an over reliance on tanks could be a problem.
As a child I can remember living in a NSW town that had a really putrid water supply, or rather the water that it supplied was on the nose.
It was only used for the gardens and then only if necessary. When there was not enough rain things could become grim and the water-carts would start rumbling around town.
Many years later, in the 1970s, I lived in a small town to the south of Bathurst and we were dependent on tank water as there was no piped supply.

Visitors from Bathurst and especially those from Sydney were watched
like hawks whenever they went near a water tap.