Irrigating Australia - food for thought

[David Hare-Scott]

Here is a review from the Department of the Environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/techpapers/series1/pubs/wateruse.pdf

Which says amongst other things:
"The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the
Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same
observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
$3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
from desalination "
I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
authority.

If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:

http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf

It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.

The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
such views are to the debate.

David

[Jonno[_16_]]

David Hare-Scott wrote:
> Here is a review from the Department of the Environment
>
> http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/techpapers/series1/pubs/wateruse.pdf
>
> Which says amongst other things:
> "The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
> greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
> hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
> irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
> inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the
> Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
> Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
> no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
> is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
> As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
> assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same
> observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
> Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
> $3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
> from desalination "
> I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
> but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
> authority.
>
> If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:
>
> http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf
>
> It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
> mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.
>
> The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
> organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
> very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
> such views are to the debate.
>
> David
>
>
The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

[David Hare-Scott]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
u...
> >
> >
> The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
> allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
> is panning out.

Which powers? How are they holding people to ransom? Why?

David

[Jonno[_16_]]

David Hare-Scott wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
> u...
>>>
>> The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce resources by not
>> allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
>> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
>> is panning out.
>
> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?
He asks the same type of questions.

[David Hare-Scott]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> > "Jonno" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >>>
> >> The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
resources by not
> >> allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
> >> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
> >> is panning out.
> >
> > Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
>
> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
> for water.
>

Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
expensive?

> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>
> Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I am sure.

> He asks the same type of questions.

Thankyou. I think.

David

[Terryc]

Jonno wrote:

> The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
> allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
> is panning out.

You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and
provide cheap water.

[Terryc]

Jonno wrote:

> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
> for water.

Who pays excessively for water?

[Jonno[_16_]]

David Hare-Scott wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>> u...
>>>> The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
> resources by not
>>>> allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
>>>> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
>>>> is panning out.
>>> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>> for water.
>>
>
> Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
> expensive?
I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is
all around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind
for their own purposes dont "see" it.

>> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>>
>> Are you sure youre not Farm1?
>
> I am sure.
>
>> He asks the same type of questions.
>
> Thankyou. I think.
>
> David
>
>
Do you work for the government perhaps?

[Jonno[_16_]]

Terryc wrote:
> Jonno wrote:
>
>> The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
>> allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
>> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way
>> it is panning out.
>
> You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and
> provide cheap water.
Dont even think about privatisation fixing it. They will tie you down
and screw you until you are handing over the family jewels. Whatever you
perceive them to be. Privatization only serves to do this.

[Jonno[_16_]]

Terryc wrote:
> Jonno wrote:
>
>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>> for water.
>
> Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...
Another government watcher?

[Jonno[_16_]]

Jonno wrote:
> Terryc wrote:
>> Jonno wrote:
>>
>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>> for water.
>>
>> Who pays excessively for water?
> You will. Just wait...
> Another government watcher?
It seems so as you're only replying during work hours........

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> David Hare-Scott wrote:

> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
> water.
>
> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>
> Are you sure youre not Farm1?

Not HE is most definitley not!

> He asks the same type of questions.

I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
>> water.
>>
>> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>>
>> Are you sure youre not Farm1?
>
> Not HE is most definitley not!
>
>> He asks the same type of questions.
>
> I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
>
>
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message

>> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
>
> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
> water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most
Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most
people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be
horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To
do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other
freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how
many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop
comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is
tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as
bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because
I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just
expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for
the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going
to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off
the grid.

> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>
> Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting
identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad
when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a
"discussion" which is what these groups are for.

> He asks the same type of questions.

I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't
understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it
doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> David Hare-Scott wrote:

>> Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
>> expensive?
> I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is all
> around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind for
> their own purposes dont "see" it.

Yeh gads! Now that is a politician type resposne if ever I saw one! "Trust
me, I'm a newsgroup poster!"

You are presenting an opinion and if you aren't prepared to give your
reasoning for your claims then what you say isn't worth your time to type it
or our time spent reading it.

And to issue insults if you are asked to back up your cliams is just plain
silly.

Weren't you the one to send in a post not so long ago saying that people
should not believe gardening myths but do some research to find out if the
gardening advice was just an old wives tale or was based on science? You
are being asked for the science and are expecting us to believe the old
wives tale simply because you said it.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> Terryc wrote:
>> Jonno wrote:
>>
>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>> for water.
>>
>> Who pays excessively for water?
> You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

> Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:

>>> He asks the same type of questions.
>>
>> I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
> Thats not a problem.
> It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>
>>> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
>> water.
>
> Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most
> Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most
> people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be
> horrified.
>
> I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To
> do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other
> freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how
> many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop
> comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is
> tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as
> bits need replacing.
>
> I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because
> I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just
> expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.
>
> And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for
> the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going
> to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off
> the grid.
>
>> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
>>
>> Are you sure youre not Farm1?
>
> I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting
> identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad
> when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a
> "discussion" which is what these groups are for.
>
>> He asks the same type of questions.
>
> I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't
> understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it
> doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen.
>
>
You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?
Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?
You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds
section of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake
us up to a government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is
trying, and succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a
dam in. These people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging,
not caring about others when they will probably damage the ecology
there. They're a bunch of government backed corporations, whose
identities are hidden behind, you will probably (guess this)
"shareholders" who may prove to be family members of government in
various guiswes.
We are also in the process here of having such a large population
increase in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than
Sydney in population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
Is that smart do you reckon?
I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
thoughtlessly follow their ways.

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> Terryc wrote:
>>> Jonno wrote:
>>>
>>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>>> for water.
>>> Who pays excessively for water?
>> You will. Just wait...
>
> You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
> pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
>
>> Another government watcher?
>
> And anyone who isn't, should be.
>
>
I agree...

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>
>>>> He asks the same type of questions.
>>> I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
>> Thats not a problem.
>> It only explains some arguments.
>
> Only in your mind.
>
>
Whoops, What if I am also a she?

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> Terryc wrote:
>>> Jonno wrote:
>>>
>>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>>> for water.
>>> Who pays excessively for water?
>> You will. Just wait...
>
> You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
> pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
>
>> Another government watcher?
>
> And anyone who isn't, should be.
>
>
I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

[Jonno[_16_]]

Jonno wrote:
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>> Terryc wrote:
>>>> Jonno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay
>>>>> excessively for water.
>>>> Who pays excessively for water?
>>> You will. Just wait...
>>
>> You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
>> "will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. <abbreviation< get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.
>>
>>> Another government watcher?
>>
>> And anyone who isn't, should be.
>>
> I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>> for water.
>>
>> Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and
>> most Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If
>> most people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd
>> be horrified.
>>
>> I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves.
>> To do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+
>> other freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God
>> knows how >> many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is
>> before one drop comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands
>> of $s there is tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting
>> the upkeep as bits need replacing.
>>
>> I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs
>> because I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap.
>> It's just expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.
>>
>> And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch
>> for >> the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play -
>> that's going to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we
>> may need to go >> off the grid.
>>
>>> Why? Think about it.... To make money...

> You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?

So why did you write:"By making them pay excessively for
>>> water.

> Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
> It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?

Reread what I wrote. I responded to your comment about being held to ransom
and paying excessively for water.

> You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
> things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds section
> of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake us up to a
> government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is trying, and
> succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a dam in. These
> people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging, not caring about
> others when they will probably damage the ecology there. They're a bunch
> of government backed corporations, whose identities are hidden behind, you
> will probably (guess this) "shareholders" who may prove to be family
> members of government in various guiswes.
> We are also in the process here of having such a large population increase
> in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than Sydney in
> population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
> Is that smart do you reckon?
> I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
> thoughtlessly follow their ways.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>> FarmI wrote:
>>
>>>>> He asks the same type of questions.
>>>> I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
>>> Thats not a problem.
>>> It only explains some arguments.
>>
>> Only in your mind.
> Whoops, What if I am also a she?

And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>> Terryc wrote:
>>>> Jonno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>>>> for water.
>>>> Who pays excessively for water?
>>> You will. Just wait...
>>
>> You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
>> pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
>>
>>> Another government watcher?
>>
>> And anyone who isn't, should be.
> I should have put it, another government person watching these news
> groups.

I doubt it from doing a properties check. I would be very surprised if any
government employee would be able to mung their addy.

[Jonno[_16_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>>> FarmI wrote:
>>>>>> He asks the same type of questions.
>>>>> I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
>>>> Thats not a problem.
>>>> It only explains some arguments.
>>> Only in your mind.
>> Whoops, What if I am also a she?
>
> And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
> comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
> You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
> one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.
>
>
I give up!

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> Jonno wrote:
>> FarmI wrote:
>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>>> Terryc wrote:
>>>>> Jonno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
>>>>>> for water.
>>>>> Who pays excessively for water?
>>>> You will. Just wait...
>>>
>>> You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
>>> "will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

> Youre right.

I know :-))

The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
> in the future, as more and more corps. <abbreviation< get their nose in
> the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
> due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
> They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
> Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
> other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.

I couldn't be bothered any more other than to comment that you need to
figure out which government you are writing about. The one which you
believe is responsible promising to make "us" pay through the nose is not
the same one invading "Iraq". It is not a one size fits all siutation.

[Trish Brown]

I'd like someone to explain to me how providing extra dams is going to
magically result in increased available water? Will it make more
frequent rain? Less frequent evaporation? Increased transpiration from
trees? You can't dam up what's not falling from the sky...

From the (miniscule) study I've done in hydrology, it seems the
large-scale damming done in the fifties and sixties has utterly buggered
up some of our Australian river systems so that once-plentiful flow has
reduced to a trickle. Hydrology was not nearly as well-understood,
especially in this most arid land, as it is today.

In addition, wholesale clearing of trees has encouraged a rise in the
water table in some areas and a concomitant rise in salination, thus
killing ground cover and soil-binding trees.

Overstocking by hoofed mammals has permanently destroyed grass cover and
resulted in wind erosion of pugged ground and the loss of many native
grass species and herbs.

Overgrazing has resulted in stock animals ring-barking vital trees in
order to get moisture and nourishment.

I could go on and on, but I guess the point I'm making is that *with
hindsight* we have discovered all these facts about our land. The task
remains to fix the problems for the future. Simply breaking or adding
dams and 'restoring' habitats won't work, because you cannot revert to
the finely balanced systems that existed previously. Habitats form over
millenia, responding to changes as infinitesimal as a grain of sand at a
time. Vast changes made in this land by man have successfully knocked so
many landscape systems for six: repair is going to be necessarily as
vast, I think. Finer minds than mine are at their wits' end and I do
wonder how successful we can ever be...

Most other countries pay for their water, why shouldn't we, dry as we
are? We've had it too easy for too long and *something* is going to have
to pay for whichever water-conserving schemes are put in place for the
future. And why shouldn't we city dwellers pay through the nose for our
water which pours so lavishly from our taps? We who allow those taps to
run while cleaning teeth, washing hair, rinsing dishes, washing dogs and
cars, 'sweeping' paths - isn't it time we pulled our horns in just a tad
and paid for what the farmer holds so dear? I'm happy to watch my
camellias cark it if that might mean a few sheep could live a bit longer.

If you want to point accusing fingers at money-hungry governments, then
point them at the blokes who won't subsidise our primary producers and
*help* them survive in spite of the lack of water! I think that's a much
worse conspiracy than 'holding people to ransom' over water. Ask any farmer!

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Terryc]

Jonno wrote:

> Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
> in the future, as more and more corps. <abbreviation< get their nose in
> the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
> due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.

lol, some people still have to learn that the Earth is a finite world
and what that means.


> They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
> Australia. It could have been prevented...

Do tell

Now if you really knew anything you would not be wasting your time
posting drivel in usenet.

[David Hare-Scott]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
u...

> >
> Do you work for the government perhaps?

No I don't. Do you imagine I am suporting the way that governments have dealt
with water in the past - if so you haven't understood a thing I have written.
Do you imagine all government employees agree with government policy - if so
you haven't spoken to any such employees or understood them either.

In other parts of this thread you have claimed that we are paying too much for
water and that more dams should have been built. As others have said there
isn't much point in building dams if there is no water to catch or if they
simply wreck part of the land or if is just going to be wasted.

Please explain how building more dams would have made water cheaper. Who
would have (will in future) pay for the dam building if it isn't the consumer
through the price of the water they buy? As others have also said part of our
problem is that neither the domestic consumer nor the farm irrigator is yet
paying a fair price for water. By fair I mean one that will:

- support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure
- encourage people to treat water as a limited resource and so something worth
conserving
- encourage agribusiness to make rational market decisions about the crops
that they grow in relation to world markets.

I don't consider growing cotton and rice in dryland areas via irrigation to be
anything like rational. The only reason it is done at all is because the
price of their water is subsidised.

Did you read the source material I started this thread with? Or even the
quote that I extracted? Here let me refresh it:

"Proposals such as the
Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. "

Yes we will pay more for water in future but for reasons not related to your
unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Jonno, you are entitled to your opinions
but you will have to accept that you are not going to convert anybody to your
views without giving any reasons.

David

[jones]

Is it just my Water a/c or are others having the same problems.

I do my bit for carrying buckets of grey water out to the garden (even with
a bad back), I have a large round garbage bin to catch water and I collect
quite a bit that way, for my garden.

I rarely use the hose, am careful with the water usage inside the house
and...........

the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!

Would like some comments please.

Katherine

[FarmI]

"Trish Brown" > wrote in message
> I'd like someone to explain to me how providing extra dams is going to
> magically result in increased available water? Will it make more frequent
> rain? Less frequent evaporation? Increased transpiration from trees? You
> can't dam up what's not falling from the sky...
>
> From the (miniscule) study I've done in hydrology, it seems the
> large-scale damming done in the fifties and sixties has utterly buggered
> up some of our Australian river systems so that once-plentiful flow has
> reduced to a trickle. Hydrology was not nearly as well-understood,
> especially in this most arid land, as it is today.
>
> In addition, wholesale clearing of trees has encouraged a rise in the
> water table in some areas and a concomitant rise in salination, thus
> killing ground cover and soil-binding trees.
>
> Overstocking by hoofed mammals has permanently destroyed grass cover and
> resulted in wind erosion of pugged ground and the loss of many native
> grass species and herbs.
>
> Overgrazing has resulted in stock animals ring-barking vital trees in
> order to get moisture and nourishment.

Lots of valid points.

> I could go on and on, but I guess the point I'm making is that *with
> hindsight* we have discovered all these facts about our land. The task
> remains to fix the problems for the future. Simply breaking or adding dams
> and 'restoring' habitats won't work, because you cannot revert to the
> finely balanced systems that existed previously. Habitats form over
> millenia, responding to changes as infinitesimal as a grain of sand at a
> time. Vast changes made in this land by man have successfully knocked so
> many landscape systems for six: repair is going to be necessarily as vast,
> I think. Finer minds than mine are at their wits' end and I do wonder how
> successful we can ever be...

I don't think we can be. A bit like putting the genie back in the bottle.
For example, take serrated tussock and the need to use herbicide to kill it.
What damage is the herbicide doing when it's used? Can't be done by hand as
even
the entire Australian Army put to the task wouldn't manage to get rid of it.
And that is just one of the many noxious weeds without even moving on to
other bits of land degradation we've inflicted.

I suspect that the best approach we could come up with is to work with what
we've got and go from there. Not that I see too much evidence of that
anywhere. I get the poops at these garden shows which plant the most
useless things. Why don't they ever seem to equate beauty with productivity
and plant more harvestable plants?

> Most other countries pay for their water, why shouldn't we, dry as we are?
> We've had it too easy for too long and *something* is going to have to pay
> for whichever water-conserving schemes are put in place for the future.
> And why shouldn't we city dwellers pay through the nose for our water
> which pours so lavishly from our taps? We who allow those taps to run
> while cleaning teeth, washing hair, rinsing dishes, washing dogs and cars,
> 'sweeping' paths - isn't it time we pulled our horns in just a tad and
> paid for what the farmer holds so dear? I'm happy to watch my camellias
> cark it if that might mean a few sheep could live a bit longer.

:-)) Well if both your camellias and the sheep could live, you could at
least have green tea with your lamb.

> If you want to point accusing fingers at money-hungry governments, then
> point them at the blokes who won't subsidise our primary producers and
> *help* them survive in spite of the lack of water! I think that's a much
> worse conspiracy than 'holding people to ransom' over water. Ask any
> farmer!

And if farmers or rural dwellers do end up leaving rural areas in droves,
who then looks after the land? All those noxious weeds will be sending
seeds all over the place. (You can tell that noxious weeds are currenlty
getting a consideration here on this farm)

[David Hare-Scott]

"jones" > wrote in message
...
> Is it just my Water a/c or are others having the same problems.
>
> I do my bit for carrying buckets of grey water out to the garden (even with
> a bad back), I have a large round garbage bin to catch water and I collect
> quite a bit that way, for my garden.
>
> I rarely use the hose, am careful with the water usage inside the house
> and...........
>
> the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
> think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!
>
> Would like some comments please.
>
> Katherine
>
>

What is higher the cost or the amount used? Assuming its the amount check for
dripping taps, running toilet cisterns and leaking pipes all the way around
the system from the meter to every outlet. You (or a more mobile friend) may
have to get under the house up in the roof etc to trace the pipes. Are there
any mysterious wet spots around the house or the yard? Do you have more
people in the house than you used to?

David

[Terryc]

David Hare-Scott wrote:

> What is higher the cost or the amount used?

Well, the cost of ours is going up all the time,but that seems to be
charges.

> Assuming its the amount check for
> dripping taps, running toilet cisterns and leaking pipes all the way around
> the system from the meter to every outlet. You (or a more mobile friend) may
> have to get under the house up in the roof etc to trace the pipes.

First off, turn off all taps in the house and go see if the water meter
is ticking over. slow leak? read if before and after you leave for wor
forthe day.

[len garden]

g'day katherine,

if it is the bottom line? ie.,. the money factor that is rising with
each bill then that is the nature of the beast hey?

regardless of what happens they are simply going to charge more and
more and more. wait until it is federaly controlled and sold off to
private profit rakers.

we currently don't use any of their water but we still pay for it.

now if you are using more and more water then you best do an audit i'd
suggest, and as has been suggested read the meter when there is a
quiet time ie.,. at night after everyone has retired to bed turn
toilet taps off and direct everyone no to use water then before water
is needed the next morning read the meter again if it has moved then
you have a leak somewhere. the dripping tap is very obvious.

another way follow the new slogan "if it yellow let it mellow - if it
os brown flush it down"

too much drinking quality water gets wasted flushing waste water.
alternatively use some of you grey water to flush toilet solids use
water twice at least.



On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:28:21 +1100, "jones" > wrote:
snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[SG1]

"jones" > wrote in message
...
> Is it just my Water a/c or are others having the same problems.
>
> I do my bit for carrying buckets of grey water out to the garden (even
> with a bad back), I have a large round garbage bin to catch water and I
> collect quite a bit that way, for my garden.
>
> I rarely use the hose, am careful with the water usage inside the house
> and...........
>
> the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
> think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!
>
> Would like some comments please.
>
> Katherine
>

Our small village has a bore which was subsidised by Mr Beatty. We have not
used town water for a couple of months as the rainfall has been more than
enough. The cooling tank has been getting rainwater. The tanks have flowed
over 2 or 3 times. Our water charges have gone up about 10 to 15% since the
bore was put in, the councils costs have gone down 85%. The water costs the
council zilch to extract as it comes out at 42Psi. And to make matters worse
they imposed a tax for NOT having pig's pee (bore water) connected. Oh well
the useless mayor is not running again.
Jim

[jones]

Thanks Len and others,

Good suggestions. Actually we are less people now only 2 of us, and we are
using less water - less washing (of clothes) etc.

I use grey water to flush the solids in the toilet, but will try checking
the meter and see if there is a leak.

Thanks again people
Katherine



and as has been suggested read the meter when there is a
> quiet time ie.,. at night after everyone has retired to bed turn
> toilet taps off and direct everyone no to use water then before water
> is needed the next morning read the meter again if it has moved then
> you have a leak somewhere. the dripping tap is very obvious.
> http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[Claude[_1_]]

"jones" > wrote in message
...

> the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
> think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!

A real problem with most water authorities is that the consumption (or
variable) component of the bill is usually quite small compared to the fixed
charges for water, sewerage, drainage, parks levy, etc. So even if you
reduce your consumption significantly, its bound to have only a small impact
on the overall bill. Standard CPI increases in the fixed charges then
routinely outweigh any new savings in consumption. Perhaps in the first
year that you go from squandering water to conserving water you'll see a
small but worthwhile cash saving, but therafter your additional water
consumption savings from year to year are likely to be only marginal and
accordingly get swamped by the annual CPI increases on the fixed charges.

[Blackadder XXIV]

"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...

> "Proposals such as the
> Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New
> South
> Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There
> is
> no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally,
> there
> is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally
> feasible.
> As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
> assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. "

Hmm... water prices have risen a fair bit since the 1980s, same with oil. It
may not have made economic sense to build such a scheme in 1982. But with
the price of water increasing exponentially since the 80s, such an
engineering scheme would be economically viable today.

[jones]

Yes Claude, I think you are very correct.

They get you in the pocket whatever you do :-)

Thanks
Katherine


>
> A real problem with most water authorities is that the consumption (or
> variable) component of the bill is usually quite small compared to the
> fixed charges for water, sewerage, drainage, parks levy, etc. So even if
> you reduce your consumption significantly, its bound to have only a small
> impact on the overall bill.

[Terryc]

Blackadder XXIV wrote:

> Hmm... water prices have risen a fair bit since the 1980s, same with oil. It
> may not have made economic sense to build such a scheme in 1982. But with
> the price of water increasing exponentially since the 80s, such an
> engineering scheme would be economically viable today.

lol, can see you know nothing about anything.
why hasn't the price of engineering increased?

[John Savage]

"jones" > writes:
>the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
>think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!

Get a lock fitted to your outdoor taps ASAP. I think your neighbours
might be topping up their swimming pool from your garden tap!
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

[Blackadder XXIV]

"Terryc" > wrote in message
...
> Blackadder XXIV wrote:
>
>> Hmm... water prices have risen a fair bit since the 1980s, same with oil.
>> It may not have made economic sense to build such a scheme in 1982. But
>> with the price of water increasing exponentially since the 80s, such an
>> engineering scheme would be economically viable today.
>
> lol, can see you know nothing about anything.
> why hasn't the price of engineering increased?

Of course the price of engineering has increased but the price of water has
increased even more. Moreover, there have been increased advances in
engineering technology in case you haven't noticed, lol.

Try reading up on it, you just might learn something.

[Terryc]

Blackadder XXIV wrote:

>
> Of course the price of engineering has increased but the price of water has
> increased even more.

lol. Dream on.

The Bradfield Scheme is just another ****** pipe dream. Any water pumped
through it will never be economical, nor sufficent.

And it will just prop up existing bad practises.

[Jonno[_6_]]

Re Dams. Of course you cant make it rain more, but you can spread the
catchment areas. The spin doctors who tell you "dams don't increase
rainfall" are using dams that catch the available rainfall. Using the
stupid argument that dams don't increase rain is correct but wrong in
reality. We need them where the rain IS falling. That can be anywhere.
So you spread your catchment areas...In our case South Gippsland. I'm
particularly concerned about Victoria. They have decided to go hand in
hand in having a increased population and at the same time not providing
dams in catchments that ARE having rainfalls. Instead, they're putting
in a desalination plant. Putting up the cost of water....



Trish Brown wrote:
> I'd like someone to explain to me how providing extra dams is going to
> magically result in increased available water? Will it make more
> frequent rain? Less frequent evaporation? Increased transpiration from
> trees? You can't dam up what's not falling from the sky...
>
> From the (miniscule) study I've done in hydrology, it seems the
> large-scale damming done in the fifties and sixties has utterly buggered
> up some of our Australian river systems so that once-plentiful flow has
> reduced to a trickle. Hydrology was not nearly as well-understood,
> especially in this most arid land, as it is today.
>
> In addition, wholesale clearing of trees has encouraged a rise in the
> water table in some areas and a concomitant rise in salination, thus
> killing ground cover and soil-binding trees.
>
> Overstocking by hoofed mammals has permanently destroyed grass cover and
> resulted in wind erosion of pugged ground and the loss of many native
> grass species and herbs.
>
> Overgrazing has resulted in stock animals ring-barking vital trees in
> order to get moisture and nourishment.
>
> I could go on and on, but I guess the point I'm making is that *with
> hindsight* we have discovered all these facts about our land. The task
> remains to fix the problems for the future. Simply breaking or adding
> dams and 'restoring' habitats won't work, because you cannot revert to
> the finely balanced systems that existed previously. Habitats form over
> millenia, responding to changes as infinitesimal as a grain of sand at a
> time. Vast changes made in this land by man have successfully knocked so
> many landscape systems for six: repair is going to be necessarily as
> vast, I think. Finer minds than mine are at their wits' end and I do
> wonder how successful we can ever be...
>
> Most other countries pay for their water, why shouldn't we, dry as we
> are? We've had it too easy for too long and *something* is going to have
> to pay for whichever water-conserving schemes are put in place for the
> future. And why shouldn't we city dwellers pay through the nose for our
> water which pours so lavishly from our taps? We who allow those taps to
> run while cleaning teeth, washing hair, rinsing dishes, washing dogs and
> cars, 'sweeping' paths - isn't it time we pulled our horns in just a tad
> and paid for what the farmer holds so dear? I'm happy to watch my
> camellias cark it if that might mean a few sheep could live a bit longer.
>
> If you want to point accusing fingers at money-hungry governments, then
> point them at the blokes who won't subsidise our primary producers and
> *help* them survive in spite of the lack of water! I think that's a much
> worse conspiracy than 'holding people to ransom' over water. Ask any
> farmer!
>

[Jonno[_6_]]

John Savage wrote:
> "jones" > writes:
>> the account is higher each time I get it. Actually I don't get it. Then I
>> think, why do I bother wrecking my back even further!
>
> Get a lock fitted to your outdoor taps ASAP. I think your neighbours
> might be topping up their swimming pool from your garden tap!
> --
> John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)
Yep that could be happening. You know their neigbours do ya John?
The fact is now the water supply companies are fitting the bills with a
"supply " charge, much the same as Telstra do when phone calls go down
due to people using their computers for phone calls using VOIP.
The less you use the more they charge. I once had a H.E.C. electrical
(EX Tasmanian) inspector come through my house to see why we weren't
using as much hot water electricity, (dual meters there ). I had
enclosed the Hot water service and we now weren't loosing as much heat,
so it was using less power. They get very paranoid when we use less than
expected...

[Trish Brown]

Jonno wrote:
> Re Dams. Of course you cant make it rain more, but you can spread the
> catchment areas. The spin doctors who tell you "dams don't increase
> rainfall" are using dams that catch the available rainfall. Using the
> stupid argument that dams don't increase rain is correct but wrong in
> reality. We need them where the rain IS falling. That can be anywhere.
> So you spread your catchment areas...In our case South Gippsland. I'm
> particularly concerned about Victoria. They have decided to go hand in
> hand in having a increased population and at the same time not providing
> dams in catchments that ARE having rainfalls. Instead, they're putting
> in a desalination plant. Putting up the cost of water....


.... and ... umm... you can predict how damming 'newer' catchments will
affect things like stream flow, velocity, the water table, salination
levels and availability of potable water for wildlife (oh - and
people!), can you?

In 200 years of drought and aridity, don't you think there have always
been reasons why 'new dams' haven't been employed in the places where
you think they should?

Just because rain falls in an area doesn't mean it's safe to dam and
collect it! What about the Bonanza Dilemma (first saw it on 'Bonanaza'
in about 1962): if you dam the headwaters of a stream and enjoy the
benefits of its water for your purposes, what about the poor bloke
immmediately downstream? What about the even poorer bloke half-way to
the sea? The distraught bloke in the tidal zone?

Not only that, but the ways in which streams form and runoff contributes
to creeks and rivers is not only determined by precipitation. Other
factors, such as soil porosity, the existence of bedrock or otherwise,
the integrity of the substrates etc etc etc all come into play. Some
areas where rain falls plentifully may not be suitable for damming, even
though there *appears* to be a plethora of water. Porous soils, for
example, often mean that the majority of the rainfall disappears almost
immediately into the ground. In the opposite case, the rain may run off
(often beneath the soil and vegetation cover, but above a non-porous
bedrock such as granite or basalt) to wind up in a completely different
catchment area. Damming the existent stream may cause untold damage to
an already delicate habitat (which includes you and your water needs!).

Hydrology is an incredibly complicated field of study. I've only done a
tiny bit of reading and that a long time ago. But I do know a few of the
reasons why tampering with streams, damming injudiciously and
interfering with naturals systems can cause untold and often irreparable
damage. Look at the Snowy River! Who'd have thought such a 'beneficial'
scheme would cause such mayhem?

My personal soapbox is a dreary little local stream in my area. Forty
years ago, powers that be thought to dam it off and prevent the seasonal
flooding that interfered with roads, grazing, transport and so on. Now,
all these years later, the stream is dead, having been dammed and
contained in an artificial concrete bed for so long. When the stream
does run, the water is emerald green and serves only to move a massive
payload of orphan shopping trolleys a few metres closer to the Big Drain
in the middle of town.

This stream, in my living memory, was a paradise of wildlife back when
it lived! We caught tadpoles and penny turtles from its banks, climbed
the sheoaks in its meadows and counted the numerous species of birds
that lived off the fish in its waters. AND the commercial concerns the
original damming was supposed to have helped are all gone! All of them!
When the big Newcastle Flood occurred just recently, the water had
nowhere to go because the natural waterways in and around town have been
so stuffed up. Instead of following the natural drainage patterns, the
excess water backed up in eutrophied, clogged drains and took the line
of least resistance. THAT'S what happens when you bugger up waterways
without fully understanding what you're doing.

My opinion (and you, of course, have a perfect right to your own) is
that water is so scarce in this country, we can no longer afford to make
disastrous mistakes like those made on the Snowy and the Darling. We
need study, conservation of *all* resources and cooperation between all
interested parties.

Oh, and PS. A desalination plant is a good idea! It makes use of water
that has been tainted by the surface salts that wouldn't be there if so
many trees hadn't been removed from your catchment!

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Terryc]

Jonno wrote:
> Re Dams. Of course you cant make it rain more, but you can spread the
> catchment areas.

lol, sorry, but that is based on the assumption that you can build a dam
everywhere, which isn't the case.

Far better to become more efficent users of water and remove the
porcelan throne.

[jones]

Jonno - you could be right too.

ps - no swimming pools in this area. :-)

Katherine


> The fact is now the water supply companies are fitting the bills with a
> "supply " charge, much the same as Telstra do when phone calls go down due
> to people using their computers for phone calls using VOIP.
> The less you use the more they charge.

They get very paranoid when we use less than
> expected...

[len gardener]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:16:43 GMT, len garden >
wrote:

>g'day katherine,
>
>if it is the bottom line? ie.,. the money factor that is rising with
>each bill then that is the nature of the beast hey?
>
>regardless of what happens they are simply going to charge more and
>more and more. wait until it is federaly controlled and sold off to
>private profit rakers.
>
>we currently don't use any of their water but we still pay for it.
>
>now if you are using more and more water then you best do an audit i'd
>suggest, and as has been suggested read the meter when there is a
>quiet time ie.,. at night after everyone has retired to bed turn
>toilet taps off and direct everyone no to use water then before water
>is needed the next morning read the meter again if it has moved then
>you have a leak somewhere. the dripping tap is very obvious.
>
>another way follow the new slogan "if it yellow let it mellow - if it
>os brown flush it down"
>
>too much drinking quality water gets wasted flushing waste water.
>alternatively use some of you grey water to flush toilet solids use
>water twice at least.
>
>
>
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:28:21 +1100, "jones" > wrote:
>snipped
>With peace and brightest of blessings,
>
>len & bev
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[jones]

We are checking the meter numbers and they seem to be going up without us
doing anything. There are no dripping taps, so it may be in the pipes
somewhere.

We rang the Water Board and they said to get a private plumber to check it.

My question - has anyone else had this problem, and would the plumber have
to dig up all the concrete to get to the pipes? :-(

Is there an easier way for him to check for leaks?

Thanks for any suggestions.
Katherine

[len gardener]

g'day katherine,

they can test along yout pipes for teh leak and once they find it yes
they may have to dig up concrete major work, in some constructions the
pipes are in the cement slab of teh home that is very major work and
none of it will be cheap, apart from the disruption of it all.

if it came to some or any of teh above i'd be looking to see if that
section could be bipassed even if you had visible pipes running along
the bottom of an outside wall.

have you noticed any wet patches that seem forever to dry out that
could indicate where the problem is. those hidden in the wall shower
units can leak inside the wall and cause timber damage as well, they
are a big job to replace usually means pulling out that section of
inside wall, if it is the shower then do yourself a favour and have it
replaced with one of those chrome or brass external units they are far
easier to maintane and lots cheaper to do as well, and they can't leak
inside the wall.

out of sight - out of mind - out of pocket, plumbers gold mine, the
joys of modern building practises.

the bifg downside of modern home builkding with all plumbing conceled
is when there is a problem it can be biggun. and be sure any new
copper pipe doesn't mmake contact with the cement reaction between the
2 can cause pipe failure.

for now at least each evening fill some bucket or dishes to get you
through the night and turn off the maind tap. get a number of quotes
and diagnosis there are plumbers then there are plumbers.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:42:44 +1100, "jones" > wrote:
snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[jones]

Thank you Len,

Some good advice there in your reply. A lot to think about.

Katherine



"len gardener" > wrote in message
...
> g'day katherine,
>
> they can test along yout pipes for teh leak and once they find it yes
> they may have to dig up concrete major work, in some constructions the
> pipes are in the cement slab of teh home that is very major work and
> none of it will be cheap, apart from the disruption of it all.
>
> if it came to some or any of teh above i'd be looking to see if that
> section could be bipassed even if you had visible pipes running along
> the bottom of an outside wall.
>
> have you noticed any wet patches that seem forever to dry out that
> could indicate where the problem is. those hidden in the wall shower
> units can leak inside the wall and cause timber damage as well, they
> are a big job to replace usually means pulling out that section of
> inside wall, if it is the shower then do yourself a favour and have it
> replaced with one of those chrome or brass external units they are far
> easier to maintane and lots cheaper to do as well, and they can't leak
> inside the wall.
>
> out of sight - out of mind - out of pocket, plumbers gold mine, the
> joys of modern building practises.
>
> the bifg downside of modern home builkding with all plumbing conceled
> is when there is a problem it can be biggun. and be sure any new
> copper pipe doesn't mmake contact with the cement reaction between the
> 2 can cause pipe failure.
>
> for now at least each evening fill some bucket or dishes to get you
> through the night and turn off the maind tap. get a number of quotes
> and diagnosis there are plumbers then there are plumbers.

[Terryc]

jones wrote:

> Is there an easier way for him to check for leaks?

It really is about money. Plumbers do not come cheap and competent
plumbers can be rare.

Len's comments are spot on about looking for wet ground, etc. If you can
find the leak yourselves, you can save a lot of the plumbers time and
your money.

The alternative is replacement. If you think about it, if you have to
dig up extensive lines of piping, then you have done the hard work and
might as well replace it with new stuff.

[jones]

According to the Bill, we only use $20 worth of water, the rest seems to be
sewerage charges etc, so maybe we don't have a leak - just their charges
have been going up and up.

Also on the graph at the bottom of the Bill, it shows we are using more than
this time last year (we were an extra body here last year).

Maybe......... could it be a faulty meter. I really don't want the whole
yard and driveway dug up. The kitchen, bathroom and laundry were done from
scratch 20 years ago.

There doesn't seem to be any wet areas around the place :-(

Will keep you informed of this saga. Thanks for all your help(s).

Katherine



>
> The alternative is replacement. If you think about it, if you have to dig
> up extensive lines of piping, then you have done the hard work and might
> as well replace it with new stuff.

[len gardener]

yes work out an alternate route for the pipe from the mains to the
house, i've done it before and if you can do some digging whatever
that will save you heaps, jobs like theses are like gold mines to
tradesmen.

a neighbour needed an ag drain fitted because of a water issue feeding
down the hill under ground from down pipes, plumbers wanted up to
around $2k or more at the time and the best bit they had no idea if
what thery where going to do would even work (they have no knowledge
is what he meant no common sense). and prices me neighbour couldn't
afford.

anyhow because this water was a minor issue in my place i was already
thinking about an ag drain down the fence on the neighbours side, so
when this came along hey presto even better, so i used me nut a bit
so to cut a long story short $600 later and few blisters on me
neighbours hands (he was younger than me without the back problems)
and a tad of advice from the digger bloke the ag drain worked a treat
amazed us realy stopped the problem.

look for someone with ethics

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:49:19 +1100, "jones" > wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[John Savage]

"jones" > writes:
>Maybe......... could it be a faulty meter. I really don't want the whole
>yard and driveway dug up. The kitchen, bathroom and laundry were done from
>scratch 20 years ago.

I'd reckon the meter will tick over only if there is flow through it.
So while your property is using no water, then the meter will not advance.

I think my water board will check a meter for a fixed charge and if the
meter is found to be faulty they will refund their meter-check charge.

You could maybe check your own meter. Turn on a garden hose and ensure
all other taps, etc., are off. Allow the flow to stablise and measure
the flow (litres/min) from your hose by filling graduated buckets or
some such. Note the water meter reading. Water the garden for an hour,
checking every 15 mins that the flow rate is held constant. After an
hour record the increase in your meter's reading. Compare the reading
with your calculated increase.

You can often hear water escaping from pipes by listening to the pipe
at another location. I don't know whether this will work for under-
ground leaks, but I'd try it. If you can borrow a stethoscope from a
friendly doctor you can try listening to the pipes around your
property first with the mains tap turned off, then with it turned on
but all other taps off. The lounder the sound of whistling, the closer
you are to a place where water is escaping. I deduced that the owner
in another unit had a dripping tap because I could hear the pipes
'whistling' when I put my head close to my washbasin while brushing
my teeth. I left her a note about getting leaking taps fixed and the
whistling soon ceased. I bet she wondered how I knew she had a dripping
tap in her unit! We don't have individual water meters in my unit block
so when one resident wastes water, we all generously share the expense!
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)