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.