gardenlen wrote:
g'day david,

In a city/suburban situation you can do whatever you like with the
water that falls on your property

not sure about other states in australia? but imagine they won't be
far different. under the new water regulations the gov' owns 90% of
the water that falls on you property that's any property.

But does that apply to non-rural areas? I doubt it.

and now with
the setting up of the ready to be sold water districts in sth/east
qld, and once sold to profit takers these factors will come into play.
i would imagine that te gov will ahve ways say via sattelite imagary
to determine how much of the rain that falls on you property that your
garden and you might use, so then they would levy you against that
above 10% usage.


That's not how it's done in NSW and I suspect alsewhere. The 10% is
approximated by a formula which arrives at a rate per hectare depending on
the rainfall of the district, this multiplied by the number of hectares you
have then determines the maximum volume of water you can impound.

those of us who put in a tank and claimed the rebate (that makes us
known on records, so even those who didn't claim will come under the
spell of the water owners) are likely to be levied with an annual fee
for having a tank.


I think this is just speculation.

the irresponsible irrigation of unsuitable crops has little to do with
water ditribued in the cities, that's the side of agriculture that
runs incontrolled, they simply say if you want food this is what we
must do. and any charges levied against them gets added to the cost o
the food produced.


The crazy thing is that most of the cotton and rice I mentioned is for
export. The situation is different in the MIA as Ross said.


lots of controlling of whether people can put dams in or how many they
can have and fees being paid for a license to put a dam in etc.,.
already happening and has been for over the alst decade here in qld
and from what i've head victoria as well.


There is no license fee for a dam in NSW

utilities should never be turned into commodities they should e
retained by teh people and managed for the people, and having the
right to use fresh wate responsibly should remain that a rite. once
commoditised it then can become too expensive for the poor to afford.


Len with respect you have this completely backwards. We have had 150 years
of treating water a "free" and that has got us into this mess. Any time you
are doing a business case the cost-benefit analysis will lead you to over
use any resource that is too cheap. To ensure that water is put to good use
it must have a realistic price at least for commercial situations.


a person move to a property west of ipswich and wanted to start a
native plant nursery and where not allowed to as they has no water of
their own for irrigation, and also where not permited to put in a dam,
so teh rules are already bitting someone somewhere,

I would like to know the details, I suspect there may be more to this.

saw about a decade
agao a victorian farmer wanted to put in a dam and was prevented from
doing so until he paid the approprite fee. also a bloke west of the
downs out in teh middle of the scrub put a dam in without seeking
permission, thinking out here no one will drive by and see it, the
local council paid him a visit armed with sattelite pics which they
produced when he told said office he didn't have a dam.


The local council is not responsible for enforcing water laws it will be a
department of the State Gov. But they do use satellite images to check up
on dams.

water is a rite to every person on the planet as i see it, yes that we
must use it wisely is another story. our usage here is less than 50
litres per person a day, the control target is 200 l/p/d, to us that
encourges waste. the gov does not own any water as such.

and in time as they tighten up for profits sake what you do with grey
water will come under the light.


More speculation

David