In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:
I had to start a new thread for this as my news server kept
rejecting my reply (perhaps it is a laissez faire capitalist
machine).
David, you date yourself. Getting "laissez faire" and "capitalist"
into the same sentence is so "decades" ago. These days, capitalist
leave very little to chance ;O)
The term does not mean unplanned or left to run free by the owner it means
uncontrolled by the State. All countries limit private enterprise to a
degree, the extent varies quite a bit. It was a whimsical nonce remark, I
don't propose to get into economic or political theory as that is OT for the
most part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-...omic_Partnersh
ip#Response
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Billy wrote:
In a few years, if you want a breath of fresh air, you'll be able
to buy it at a store.
We are hoping for a couple of hundredths of an inch more rain
tonight. Wish us luck.
Here we have a concept related to rainwater called 'harvestable
right' . It means that roughly 10% of the rain that falls on your
land is yours to do with as you wish, the rest must available for
the environment or be allowed to run down to the rivers for others
to use. In practice it limits the size of the dam you can build
and the kind of waterway you can build it on. If for example a
permanent river crosses your land you can't dam that.
that first part seems somewhat odd, as it would
likely help moderate and encourage ground water to
have a higher percentage available to be held back.
as it will eventually get into the creeks/rivers
eventually.
the second part i would agree with, because by
damming those sorts of waterways you would likely
be interfering with fish migrations or perhaps
raising the temperature of the water.
On top of that if you are on "permanent" fresh water, a river or
lake, you can pump from it (while it runs) without charge for 'bona
fide domestic purposes'. This includes stock watering, human
consumption and gardens. There is no specified limit to this in
terms of volume although if you were taking huge amounts somebody
might come around and ask exactly what you are doing with it. If
you were irrigating on a commercial scale or selling it you would
be fined. If you want to irrigate on a commercial scale you have
to buy a water license.
that makes sense, but those who get there first
in a situation where supply is declining would
be those who would get it. sounds like eventually
there will be rationing when enough people want
to draw on it.
Any attempt by government to take away any of these rights would
have dire consequences at the ballot box, as despite the fact that
Oz is very urban the cities have a romantic attachment to the
'bush' and a well organised campaign by farmers would gather many
votes.
For the small landholder and those running sheep or cattle this is
a good system. As for irrigators it seems they are never happy
regardless of government, policy, rainfall or anything else.
for the longer term i think the ground water
situation would benefit from a higher percentage
of capture of rainfall. has anyone tried to
increase that percentage?
Your idea doesn't work because:
- Irrigation water is held in dams that don't leak (or shouldn't) so
that doesn't lead to groundwater recharge.
- The more that is held in dams the more that is lost to evaporation
which is not useful to anybody including the downstream ecology.
- It is used for irrigation where most is lost to evapotranspiration
not to groundwater, if your irrigation is soaking down below the
root level you are doing it wrong and may be raising the water table
and so contributing to salination. This has happened in too many
irrigation systems around the world including the Murray-Darling.
- The figure was arrived at to allow sufficient flow in the rivers
for environmental, agricultural and domestic purposes downstream,
many rivers cease flowing none the less in dry times. If the figure
was more it would be favouring those where the rain falls at the
expense of those users downstream. And yes higher figures have been
suggested by those who would benefit at the expense of others.
You must also take into account that the system must respond to el
nino - la nina cycles as well as any seasonal pattern. This is not
a reliable annual rainfall nor a reliable seasonal pattern such as
annual snow-melt. It's a hard land.
David
You don't fill cisterns?
I fill above ground house tanks holding 50 kl from roof water for domestic
use but that volume would be useless for the garden and in any case must be
reserved. I have a small dam for stock watering holding 2.4 Ml that will
keep the garden alive in emergencies but that is uncovered and does lose
some due to evaporation.
As I understand it a cistern is used in very dry climates (eg north Africa)
and it is covered like the former but as large as the latter. This would be
extremely expensive, certainly out of my range.
D
I saw them in France. Why they feel they need them is anybody's guess,
as they get at least 2 - 3 days of rain every month.
In any event, in a cistern there is little evaporative loss of water to
heat, and wind as you find in ponds. A 25' x 45' cistern would be
expensive, no doubt. It was just an idea.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg