len garden wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:00 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
snipped

will they indeed?

yes they will!! that is their plan. the falt rate charge will be for
ahving a water tank as i see it not for how much the tank holds but
there again they could go that way depending on the greed factor.

i wonder why it is then that nobody would be able to collate how many
litres people are storing in dams, etc; and nobody wants to, and
nobody is trying to. a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the
bother, compared to charging for people's stored dam water.

and yes they are already gathering info on dam capacitites and they
already have rules that stipulate how much water you can trap for your
needs, all this can be done from high quality sattelite pictures,
they'll work on averages after all at the end of the day for them it
is all about control and profits.

you try and put a dam in without paying the license and see what
happens, from experiences of others you'll get a knock on the door
pretty quickly.

No kidding?

I guess this might explain why people are continuing to move to the north
and far north?

There's no shortage of water, but in many areas there is a shortage of
soil which is capable of producing crops and not already under
production. Plenty of duplex soils, old alluvial clays.
Property values have gone through the roof in recent years even on the bd
stuff.
In some areas you might require an operational works permit to construct
a dam. But - trust me - this particular compliance officer won't be
spying on it. Too much work to do already :-)

"len garden" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:00 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
snipped

will they indeed?

yes they will!! that is their plan. the falt rate charge will be for
ahving a water tank as i see it not for how much the tank holds but
there again they could go that way depending on the greed factor.

why will they?

i wonder why it is then that nobody would be able to collate how many
litres
people are storing in dams, etc; and nobody wants to, and nobody is trying
to. a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared to
charging for people's stored dam water.

and yes they are already gathering info on dam capacitites and they
already have rules that stipulate how much water you can trap for your
needs, all this can be done from high quality sattelite pictures,
they'll work on averages after all at the end of the day for them it
is all about control and profits.

you try and put a dam in without paying the license and see what
happens, from experiences of others you'll get a knock on the door
pretty quickly.

well, that's just not what happens around here :-) getting a dam in is
rather, ah, informal.

WHO is gathering info on dam capacities, and where the hell are they?

anyway, even if people were to try to collate dam volumes by satellite, they
would have no hope of somehow making it worth the trouble and expense. some
dams are deep, and some are shallow. there must be millions of them. some
can't really be seen from the air. water can be stored underground. in
short, what you propose does not sound realistic.

didn't think it was that strange the whole thing here is the confusion
between the basic requirement for a society/community to exist? and
draconian control for the sake of profit.

sounds like water is a commodity to be traded on the stock market, at
the expense of the poorer people in our communities?

i'm pretty sure the stock market would never take on such an unreliable item
:-)

legally, rain water belongs to the crown. "town" water used to be rainwater
(as well as sea water, cleopatra's urine, russian snow, inside a desert
cactus, etc etc). therefore rain which falls as rain is free but if the
council pipes it in to you, you have to pay for that service. but rain is
free. if you own your storage item, and the crown owns the water, it does
not logically follow that someone could be charged for storing a free item
(which they borrow from the owner) inside an item they own themselves.


snipped

nobody in australia pays "top price" for water. water is even more
undervalued than petrol is. the price of town water will go up, for sure,
because it's being undercharged compared to its value.

and nor should they our communites need basic utilities so they can
exist and develop and the way we have developed power and water along
with fresh air are fairly basic necessities for a healthy community,
not sure what life is going to be like for the have's when the have
not's can't afford those basics of life, they are having a difficult
enough time with accomodation and food let alone add more woes to
their subsistance.

sounds like some are looking forward to the days of the lords of the
manor and slums.

water is a natural right of life.

undoubtedly, when the price goes up, there will be a cacophony of
whingeing
from conspiracy theorists (and generally greedy people who think communal
problems are supposed to be dealt with by everyone else, not them).

Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.

you're not wrong there, but i think you're looking at the wrong thing.
kylie

sounds like you want to live in a castle of sand, not everyone is
neuvo rich. just give some thought to what it may be like living in a
community where basic rights and needs are only for those who can
afford it, and a thought to keep in mind anyone could end up treading
these boards of subsistance, things may look rosy now but unless you
are a mogel they can turn sour pretty quickly.

i'd think it's pretty obvious i'm not nouveau riche (nor a secret offspring
of the murdoch's either ;-) nor a mogul. when i've been struggling
financially, the cost of water was NOT one of the problems. water is cheap,
& anyone can afford it (unless they live somewhere that they're relying on
having it trucked in - and of course, people who are already poor are
somewhat unlikely to move somewhere that water needs to be trucked in
regularly - unless they're totally stupid, which might be their own
problem.)

where the poor struggle is with expenses such as costs of housing and that
type of fixed, high, unavoidable expense. these types of costs (rent & so
forth) can't be changed by the renter, are rarely negotiable, and are
genuinely expensive. if you are spending 40% of your weekly wage on rent, it
most assuredly is NOT one's water bill that's the _real_ problem.

electricity is another undercharged product (while we are on the subject).
it, too, is going to go up to reflect its real worth, so you might as well
get used to that idea now. the reality is simply that people are going to
have to stop thinking of running water & coal-fired power as "rights",
because they aren't. if they can't afford what they're using, it's up to
them to use less; it's up to all of us to consider what is actually
available for us to use, and therefore if our "right" is more important than
another person's "right" to the same water. it seems that some think they
have more "right" to it than others do.
kylie

It appears that while water is free, or claimed by the "government" the
rental to store such a product must be charged for.
As well as this, the accuracy of water meters and electricity meters
as well as speed cameras is not beyond reproach. Illegal testing
procedures plus reliability of state government testing procedures are
being called into question at this moment. Funny that, it involves
corporations at all levels. The majority of Aussies are slack so will
allow lies ABOUT it to happen.
If people are willing to have their freedoms stolen from them like the
ORIGINAL austalian inhibitants, then you must learn to fight for them.
Otherwise things which cooperations would steal from you, under the
cover of "government" statutes will become the things that will allow
this country to be governed by others who have no right.
Big Brother isnt a relative at all. He' a thief.
And perhaps some are fighting for their own survival in some countries.
Taxes are now being justified due to the spin doctors, who are in actual
paid liars.

0tterbot wrote:
"len garden" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:00 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
snipped
will they indeed?

yes they will!! that is their plan. the falt rate charge will be for
ahving a water tank as i see it not for how much the tank holds but
there again they could go that way depending on the greed factor.

why will they?

i wonder why it is then that nobody would be able to collate how many
litres
people are storing in dams, etc; and nobody wants to, and nobody is trying
to. a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared to
charging for people's stored dam water.

and yes they are already gathering info on dam capacitites and they
already have rules that stipulate how much water you can trap for your
needs, all this can be done from high quality sattelite pictures,
they'll work on averages after all at the end of the day for them it
is all about control and profits.

you try and put a dam in without paying the license and see what
happens, from experiences of others you'll get a knock on the door
pretty quickly.

well, that's just not what happens around here :-) getting a dam in is
rather, ah, informal.

WHO is gathering info on dam capacities, and where the hell are they?

anyway, even if people were to try to collate dam volumes by satellite, they
would have no hope of somehow making it worth the trouble and expense. some
dams are deep, and some are shallow. there must be millions of them. some
can't really be seen from the air. water can be stored underground. in
short, what you propose does not sound realistic.

didn't think it was that strange the whole thing here is the confusion
between the basic requirement for a society/community to exist? and
draconian control for the sake of profit.

sounds like water is a commodity to be traded on the stock market, at
the expense of the poorer people in our communities?

i'm pretty sure the stock market would never take on such an unreliable item
:-)

legally, rain water belongs to the crown. "town" water used to be rainwater
(as well as sea water, cleopatra's urine, russian snow, inside a desert
cactus, etc etc). therefore rain which falls as rain is free but if the
council pipes it in to you, you have to pay for that service. but rain is
free. if you own your storage item, and the crown owns the water, it does
not logically follow that someone could be charged for storing a free item
(which they borrow from the owner) inside an item they own themselves.

snipped

nobody in australia pays "top price" for water. water is even more
undervalued than petrol is. the price of town water will go up, for sure,
because it's being undercharged compared to its value.

and nor should they our communites need basic utilities so they can
exist and develop and the way we have developed power and water along
with fresh air are fairly basic necessities for a healthy community,
not sure what life is going to be like for the have's when the have
not's can't afford those basics of life, they are having a difficult
enough time with accomodation and food let alone add more woes to
their subsistance.

sounds like some are looking forward to the days of the lords of the
manor and slums.

water is a natural right of life.

undoubtedly, when the price goes up, there will be a cacophony of
whingeing
from conspiracy theorists (and generally greedy people who think communal
problems are supposed to be dealt with by everyone else, not them).

Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.
you're not wrong there, but i think you're looking at the wrong thing.
kylie

sounds like you want to live in a castle of sand, not everyone is
neuvo rich. just give some thought to what it may be like living in a
community where basic rights and needs are only for those who can
afford it, and a thought to keep in mind anyone could end up treading
these boards of subsistance, things may look rosy now but unless you
are a mogel they can turn sour pretty quickly.

i'd think it's pretty obvious i'm not nouveau riche (nor a secret offspring
of the murdoch's either ;-) nor a mogul. when i've been struggling
financially, the cost of water was NOT one of the problems. water is cheap,
& anyone can afford it (unless they live somewhere that they're relying on
having it trucked in - and of course, people who are already poor are
somewhat unlikely to move somewhere that water needs to be trucked in
regularly - unless they're totally stupid, which might be their own
problem.)

where the poor struggle is with expenses such as costs of housing and that
type of fixed, high, unavoidable expense. these types of costs (rent & so
forth) can't be changed by the renter, are rarely negotiable, and are
genuinely expensive. if you are spending 40% of your weekly wage on rent, it
most assuredly is NOT one's water bill that's the _real_ problem.

electricity is another undercharged product (while we are on the subject).
it, too, is going to go up to reflect its real worth, so you might as well
get used to that idea now. the reality is simply that people are going to
have to stop thinking of running water & coal-fired power as "rights",
because they aren't. if they can't afford what they're using, it's up to
them to use less; it's up to all of us to consider what is actually
available for us to use, and therefore if our "right" is more important than
another person's "right" to the same water. it seems that some think they
have more "right" to it than others do.
kylie

Troppo writes:
Better to spend the rebate and tank money on something that actually
makes a difference !!

Like higher stumps and sturdier levee banks?? :-))
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

John Savage wrote in
om:

Troppo writes:
Better to spend the rebate and tank money on something that actually
makes a difference !!

Like higher stumps and sturdier levee banks?? :-))

Why not? No way I'd build on the ground round here :-) As it happens,
stumps aren't common any more for new houses. Minimum floor level is
450mm over 50 year floodline. So if there is a 200 year rainstorm (as in
1998 & 2000) you might get wet. Levee banks in some places but the common
alternative on flood-prone acreage is now a house pad. You might be stuck
on an island for a bit, surrounded by afflux.
I was thinking of measures like:
Compulsory fitting of AAA shower heads, dual flush toilets in houses
offered for sale (rather than just new ones).
Pressure limiting valves.
Water-efficient landscaping.
Front-loader washing machines.
And the rebates should be paid to the agencies responsible for the
reticulated system, eg for investment in containments, upgrading to
prevent losses from mains failures and leakage etc.

"Jonno" wrote in message
u...
It appears that while water is free, or claimed by the "government" the
rental to store such a product must be charged for.

why? by whom? how?

As well as this, the accuracy of water meters and electricity meters
as well as speed cameras is not beyond reproach. Illegal testing
procedures plus reliability of state government testing procedures are
being called into question at this moment. Funny that, it involves
corporations at all levels. The majority of Aussies are slack so will
allow lies ABOUT it to happen.

what?

If people are willing to have their freedoms stolen from them like the
ORIGINAL austalian inhibitants, then you must learn to fight for them.
Otherwise things which cooperations would steal from you, under the cover
of "government" statutes will become the things that will allow this
country to be governed by others who have no right.
Big Brother isnt a relative at all. He' a thief.
And perhaps some are fighting for their own survival in some countries.
Taxes are now being justified due to the spin doctors, who are in actual
paid liars.

i have no idea what your point is. we have big problems with big brother
activity in australia at the moment - that's exactly right. but
approximately 0% revolves around water or related issues at this time & i
can't fathom why anyone would foresee that happening when it is so
observably difficult to implement. short of draining it, how do you propose
someone measure the volume of a dam? where are all these inspectors going to
come from (particularly when they wouldn't be able to DO anything once
employed!!)
kylie

"0tterbot" wrote in
:

"Jonno" wrote in message
u...
It appears that while water is free, or claimed by the "government"
the rental to store such a product must be charged for.

why? by whom? how?

As well as this, the accuracy of water meters and electricity meters
as well as speed cameras is not beyond reproach. Illegal testing
procedures plus reliability of state government testing procedures
are being called into question at this moment. Funny that, it
involves corporations at all levels. The majority of Aussies are
slack so will allow lies ABOUT it to happen.

what?

If people are willing to have their freedoms stolen from them like
the ORIGINAL austalian inhibitants, then you must learn to fight for
them. Otherwise things which cooperations would steal from you, under
the cover of "government" statutes will become the things that will
allow this country to be governed by others who have no right.
Big Brother isnt a relative at all. He' a thief.
And perhaps some are fighting for their own survival in some
countries. Taxes are now being justified due to the spin doctors, who
are in actual paid liars.

i have no idea what your point is. we have big problems with big
brother activity in australia at the moment - that's exactly right.
but approximately 0% revolves around water or related issues at this
time & i can't fathom why anyone would foresee that happening when it
is so observably difficult to implement. short of draining it, how do
you propose someone measure the volume of a dam?

Surface area x average depth x 1000 = litres won't do it. Would have to
use cross-sectional areas as for volumes of cuttings in road building
etc. I did it once using a tinny and a simple sounding device. Took all
day and the client wasn't happy about the bill.

where are all these inspectors going to come from (particularly when
they wouldn't be able to DO anything once employed!!)

Apart fom a bit of fishing maybe :-)

State and federal governments often come up with silly ideas which they
immediately try to pass on to local governments (without any money passed
on of course). I haven't heard of this one. Last year I was asked to
calculate how long it would take to inspect all the swimming pools in the
LA area. My answer was - 1 compliance officer working full-time, 9000+
pools, Brisbane City Council inspection rates. Result = 22 years. And the
number of pools is increasing faster than the inspection rate.

"Troppo" wrote in message
0.25...


State and federal governments often come up with silly ideas which they
immediately try to pass on to local governments (without any money passed
on of course). I haven't heard of this one. Last year I was asked to
calculate how long it would take to inspect all the swimming pools in the
LA area. My answer was - 1 compliance officer working full-time, 9000+
pools, Brisbane City Council inspection rates. Result = 22 years. And the
number of pools is increasing faster than the inspection rate.

LOL- I hear you.
Ground truthing is very costly for any monitoring activity.... if you can't
model it or easily get it off satellite imagery it just doesn't get done
because there's no money to fund it.
Amanda

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"len garden" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:08:00 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:
"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
snipped

will they indeed?

yes they will!!

Councils cannot "legislate" to do anything. George got it wrong.

that is their plan. the falt rate charge will be for
ahving a water tank as i see it not for how much the tank holds but
there again they could go that way depending on the greed factor.

why will they?

But more to the point, where is his and George's proof to support their
claims?

It would make more sense for all Councils Australia-wide to levy water rates
at a high rate on anyone with land of more than an eighth of an acre, and at
the same time fast-track applications to approve the installation of water
tanks for use as domestic water.

Supplying and maintaining water storage and delivery is an expensive
business. Given the move over the last 10 years for all forms of authorities
to get out of the business of doing anything for anyone that they possibly
can, it surprises me that thias hasn't happened already.

i wonder why it is then that nobody would be able to collate how many
litres
people are storing in dams, etc; and nobody wants to, and nobody is
trying
to. a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared to
charging for people's stored dam water.

and yes they are already gathering info on dam capacitites and they
already have rules that stipulate how much water you can trap for your
needs, all this can be done from high quality sattelite pictures,
they'll work on averages after all at the end of the day for them it
is all about control and profits.

you try and put a dam in without paying the license and see what
happens, from experiences of others you'll get a knock on the door
pretty quickly.

well, that's just not what happens around here :-) getting a dam in is
rather, ah, informal.

And Len has been too general in his comments about putting in dams. What he
could perhaps apply all over Qld but not in NSW. There are many situations
in NSW where there in no need to get any approval for installing a dam (and
you may be interested in the following given your location).
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=au

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in
:

[snip]

Councils cannot "legislate" to do anything. George got it wrong.

They can - through Planning Schemes and Local Laws


It would make more sense for all Councils Australia-wide to levy water
rates at a high rate on anyone with land of more than an eighth of an
acre

And get voted out of office at the next LG election. Eighth of an acre =
500m2 = maybe 80% of properties around here.

and at the same time fast-track applications to approve the
installation of water tanks for use as domestic water.

As previuosly advised, not cost-effective in most areas - unless (maybe)
the water supply is actually running out.

In most areas of Queensland tanks do not require a permit unless they are
on a stand or greater than 2.4m in height.

Supplying and maintaining water storage and delivery is an expensive
business.

Standard rate here is around $0.50 per kL

Given the move over the last 10 years for all forms of
authorities to get out of the business of doing anything for anyone
that they possibly can, it surprises me that this hasn't happened
already.

The trend is to sell off assets that look good at the time but are going
to be a problem later. Difficult to sell something that has already
failed (eg SEQ water supply).

FarmI wrote:

and at
the same time fast-track applications to approve the installation of water
tanks for use as domestic water.

Game over.
Clear demonstration of your lack of understanding of how local govenment
operates in Australia.
"fast track" ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

101; even having to submit an application is a "tax".

"Troppo" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in
:

[snip]

Councils cannot "legislate" to do anything. George got it wrong.

They can - through Planning Schemes and Local Laws

Well it's interesting to learn something new.

I know that my local government has no-one on staff who could possibly draft
legislation, (they have enough trouble writing a simple letter to ratepayers
that is written in comprehensible English, let alone something as complex as
legislation). I've never heard of them doing anything but "regulating".
And come to think of it I've never heard of our Council either drafting a
law or seeking Royal Assent for any piece of Legislation.

How do Councils go about this? Is there some sort of "Legislation Drafting
for Councils" service that they contract to when they require "legislation"?
And how is this enacted into Law? By that I mean what is the process? I
understand what happens at State and Federal level but obviously Local
Authorities "legislating" must have passed me by entirely.

It would make more sense for all Councils Australia-wide to levy water
rates at a high rate on anyone with land of more than an eighth of an
acre

And get voted out of office at the next LG election.

Ha! You assume that people care about what happens at a local level! If
the people of Oz have failed to notice the truly appallling things that have
been happening at a Federal level for the past 11 years, and that they are
only now waking up to the lies they have been told ad finitum, it seems a
bit much to think that they'd notice at a local level.

I try to follow our local stuff but even I can't get fixed in my head the
difference between 2 particular councillors with similar sounding names and
it's important that I do so for our next lot of elections. One is a right
mongrel and should be shot at dawn because of his knowing environmental
destruction and the other is simply a drone, inoffensive and probably
ineffectual but not deliberately and knowingly destructive.

Eighth of an acre =
500m2 = maybe 80% of properties around here.

Not round here, but how many properties it applies to is not relevent. We
live in the driest inhabited continent on earth and most of the people
(especially those in high density areas) think that water is both a right
and available at the turn of a tap. Neither view makes sense in this land.

and at the same time fast-track applications to approve the
installation of water tanks for use as domestic water.

As previuosly advised, not cost-effective in most areas - unless (maybe)
the water supply is actually running out.

Yep! Many of the areas round me are doing just that (or have been till
recent rains saved their bacon - town of 25K with months of water left and
counting down by the day.

You live in a water rich area, so appreciate it while you have it. I live
in an area with supposedly "reliable rainfall". The last 10 years have not
been like that. In fact the last time we had really good water (subsoil and
surface) was in 1988. Currently we are getting wonderful rain but given the
time it will take to get to subsoil level, I'd like to see it rain for the
next 5 years at least 2 days a week.

In most areas of Queensland tanks do not require a permit unless they are
on a stand or greater than 2.4m in height.

That makes sense. Most NSW Coucils that I know of seem to require approval.
Presumably because of changes required to plumbing or storm water or
somesuch.

Supplying and maintaining water storage and delivery is an expensive
business.

Standard rate here is around $0.50 per kL

Please reread my sentence. I was not talking about the cost of water. I
was talking about the infrastructure that Councils need to supply, store and
provide water to ratepayers in those communities where they do so. And in
most areas the population is still growing as the infrastructure is getting
increasingly archaic and needs servicing, renewing, upgrading.

Given the move over the last 10 years for all forms of
authorities to get out of the business of doing anything for anyone
that they possibly can, it surprises me that this hasn't happened
already.

The trend is to sell off assets that look good at the time but are going
to be a problem later. Difficult to sell something that has already
failed (eg SEQ water supply).

Hmmmmm. Now if you go back to what I wrote before................ If all
dwellings in SEQ on more than an eighth of an acre had domestic water tanks,
water probably would not be a problem for them. They might have to watch
their usage but that would be a good thing. They might learn that water
doesn't come out of taps.

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in
:

"Troppo" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in
:

[snip]

Councils cannot "legislate" to do anything. George got it wrong.

They can - through Planning Schemes and Local Laws

Well it's interesting to learn something new.

I know that my local government has no-one on staff who could possibly
draft legislation, (they have enough trouble writing a simple letter
to ratepayers that is written in comprehensible English, let alone
something as complex as legislation). I've never heard of them doing
anything but "regulating". And come to think of it I've never heard of
our Council either drafting a law or seeking Royal Assent for any
piece of Legislation.

How do Councils go about this? Is there some sort of "Legislation
Drafting for Councils" service that they contract to when they require
"legislation"? And how is this enacted into Law? By that I mean what
is the process? I understand what happens at State and Federal level
but obviously Local Authorities "legislating" must have passed me by
entirely.

Ok. In Queensland:
Local Laws can be made under the Local Government Act. Procedure involves
drafting the Law, testing for "public interest" and "competitive
neutrality" issues, public notification, considering submissions, resolving
to make the Law, submitting to Department of Local Government. Once the Law
is published in the State Government Gazette, then its law.
Restraints: can't make a law if the subject is already covered under State
legislation, and can't alter State legislation.
Usually needs legal advice, and must comply with legal drafting standards.
I have written one. In no hurry to write any more.
A Plannng Scheme is also a law, once its gazetted. Similar restraint rules,
eg may not contadict a State law, eg override the building assessment
provisions - although some LAs have got away with this. Possibly due to
lack of attention at the "State Interest Check" stage or maybe political
leverage.


It would make more sense for all Councils Australia-wide to levy
water rates at a high rate on anyone with land of more than an
eighth of an acre

And get voted out of office at the next LG election.

Ha! You assume that people care about what happens at a local level!
If the people of Oz have failed to notice the truly appallling things
that have been happening at a Federal level for the past 11 years, and
that they are only now waking up to the lies they have been told ad
finitum, it seems a bit much to think that they'd notice at a local
level.

Well - we live in a plural society. The local level is all that some people
care about.
Speaking as a "stranger in a strange land", I do notice a high level of
apathy and a lack of protest, compared to some other countries I have lived
in. Not that I would want to return to any of those ...

I try to follow our local stuff but even I can't get fixed in my head
the difference between 2 particular councillors with similar sounding
names and it's important that I do so for our next lot of elections.
One is a right mongrel and should be shot at dawn because of his
knowing environmental destruction and the other is simply a drone,
inoffensive and probably ineffectual but not deliberately and
knowingly destructive.

Sounds like you've got them taped :-) Perhaps my lot aren't too bad. Mostly
"National" Party but with a small 'n'. The last LA I worked for were all
communists, but were very similar to my present lot - apart from the use of
the term 'comrade' and singing 'The Red Flag' before Council meetings :-)
I find that the characteristics of the species are more significant than
politics.


Eighth of an acre =
500m2 = maybe 80% of properties around here.

Not round here, but how many properties it applies to is not relevent.
We live in the driest inhabited continent on earth and most of the
people (especially those in high density areas) think that water is
both a right and available at the turn of a tap. Neither view makes
sense in this land.

and at the same time fast-track applications to approve the
installation of water tanks for use as domestic water.

As previuosly advised, not cost-effective in most areas - unless
(maybe) the water supply is actually running out.

Yep! Many of the areas round me are doing just that (or have been
till recent rains saved their bacon - town of 25K with months of water
left and counting down by the day.

You live in a water rich area, so appreciate it while you have it.

You bet. The last three years the average rainfall (around 980mm) has been
lower than the long-term average (1120mm). On the other hand the capacity
of the local dam is currently being increased, and there's a connection to
Burdekin Falls.

live in an area with supposedly "reliable rainfall". The last 10 years
have not been like that. In fact the last time we had really good
water (subsoil and surface) was in 1988. Currently we are getting
wonderful rain but given the time it will take to get to subsoil
level, I'd like to see it rain for the next 5 years at least 2 days a
week.

In most areas of Queensland tanks do not require a permit unless they
are on a stand or greater than 2.4m in height.

That makes sense. Most NSW Coucils that I know of seem to require
approval. Presumably because of changes required to plumbing or storm
water or somesuch.

Ditto here if regulated plumbing work is involved, eg connecting to toilet
flush and cold feed to washing machine.

Supplying and maintaining water storage and delivery is an expensive
business.

Standard rate here is around $0.50 per kL

Please reread my sentence. I was not talking about the cost of water.
I was talking about the infrastructure that Councils need to supply,
store and provide water to ratepayers in those communities where they
do so. And in most areas the population is still growing as the
infrastructure is getting increasingly archaic and needs servicing,
renewing, upgrading.

So why isn't this factored into the supply rate, and the Headworks charges
on new development? Like it is here?
Seems to me that there are large areas in Oz where no one was paying any
attention to supply/demand modelling and monitoring.

[snip]
The trend is to sell off assets that look good at the time but are
going to be a problem later. Difficult to sell something that has
already failed (eg SEQ water supply).

Hmmmmm. Now if you go back to what I wrote before................ If
all dwellings in SEQ on more than an eighth of an acre had domestic
water tanks, water probably would not be a problem for them. They
might have to watch their usage but that would be a good thing. They
might learn that water doesn't come out of taps.

If the rain still falls throughout the year? yes.
Here the significant falls are from cyclones, rain depressions and monsoon
troughs, mostly in the summer. Very little other times. Except this year
when there was 111mm in June, when it would not have been unusual to have
none.

So what's the purpose of charging for what is being contained? To
encourage the dam owner to drain the thing ?


This is the sort of argument that was being used in the late 1980's when it
was rumoured that banks would charge you to put your money in their bank.

Oh yes, in hindsight it is all clear now.