water tank rebates
 

Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not supplying
water as needed.
We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.
Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.

You cannot blame "climate change"

this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians
No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years

Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.

Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and its
environs

We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc
so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change that
may or may not come along


frosty

water tank rebates
 

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:25:23 GMT, "George W. Frost"
wrote:

Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

that's what it is all about, it's about selling control of water to
privateers so they can make profits, and the rebates aren't to
encourage people to save water as they don't encourage people to put
in tanks of sufficient size to do that in any way, fi they did want to
encourage conservation of water then they would not offer rebates on
tanks sizes under 15k litres, as anything under that size does little.

the main thrust of the rebate which catches the greedy is so they have
an inventory of tank owners under contract so when the time comes as
you say they will bill you for owning a tank and most likely for ease
of administration it will be a flat rate no matter how tiny the tank
is.

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not supplying
water as needed.

yes as the yuppie set work under the premise that you can drink and
eat your money they will supply water but only if you can afford to
buy it, just like power so we have interesting to say the least times
ahead as major sections of our communities go without the basics of
like that is somewhere to live, water and power.

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.
Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.

we are already on level 5 heading for level 6 in september

You cannot blame "climate change"

we can point the finger at land developers and factory mega farms for
descimating our bio-diversity all in the nterest of profits and this
loss of bio-diversity has at the very least reduced our opportunities
for rain.

but no these climatic fluctuations are part of the planets structure,
as they keep showing on free to air news programs (who watches free to
air anymore let alone news/current affairs programs, they ca afford to
be honest now as their is almost nill audience), all these extreme
events have happened before and some even worse than now.

this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians
No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years

gotta love them greenies hey well any pollie for that matter, they get
into power and all they all do is line their pockets with red, and
bleat about what they are doing for the environment, classic example
tassie.


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/

water tank rebates
 

"George W. Frost" wrote in
:

Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater
tanks to connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the
councils have planned for the future.

Still doing it tough down south ?

My Council in NQ (along with several others) has a 3 year exemption on
installing tanks for new houses. The reason: it's a huge waste of
resources with little return. $5,000+ for the installation (under QDC
25), value of water recovered $50 p.a. at the current penalty rate per
kL.
The containments are still full and the mighty Burdekin River flows on.
Better to spend the rebate and tank money on something that actually
makes a difference !!


They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

I doubt this. Most Councils haven't enough plumbers to carry out their
own essential work properly. It is probably unlawful to charge a fee for
a service that isn't done.

AFAIK no Council in NQ offers tank rebates. People who install a tank can
get one from the State.

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying water as needed.
We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which
means you cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top
price for the supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.
Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.

True. The cause is massive failure to predict and plan, vast amounts of
water wasted on unsustainable crops like cotton, etc. etc.
At the end of the day, its the large scale systems of collection and
containment that will produce results, not fiddling at the micro level.

[snip]

water tank rebates
 

On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"


Maybe, there is no limit to what the bureaucratic mind can find to
charge a fee for.


It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not supplying
water as needed.

I find nothing odd about this at all, the two have little in common.
Should the Water Board be held responsible for it not raining?

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

But you still only pay for what you get.

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


So you are blaming the Council or the Water Board for El Nino?

You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.


this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years


The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind. But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then


No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.

It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.


Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and its
environs


I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.

We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.

so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change that
may or may not come along


It does not follow.


David

water tank rebates
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks
to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"


Maybe, there is no limit to what the bureaucratic mind can find to
charge a fee for.


True statement


It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying
water as needed.

I find nothing odd about this at all, the two have little in common.
Should the Water Board be held responsible for it not raining?

I am not sayuing that they are to blame, if you read my comment about
Connex, then that relates to the water board as well, Connex have a system
in place but do not supply thte amount of scheduled trains they promise, if
they don't, they get a hefty fine from the Government,
The water board have a system in place, admittedly there is no water for
them to supply, but they are still charging cunsumers the full amount as
when there is plenty of water, they are still upgrading their new cars,
upgrading their buildings as if there is no tomorrow and treating the
consumers with contempt.
Do you think that the Government would let Connex charge train travellers
for travel on trains which are not there?


We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means
you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

But you still only pay for what you get.

When there is the water to have, then you get charged a water usage fee for
what you have used,
but another poster has claimed they were on level 5 going to level 6,
How much water can you use on stage 6?
Bet he will still be charged the full amount for supply of water he wont be
able to use


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


So you are blaming the Council or the Water Board for El Nino?


Who mentioned anything about El Nino?


You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.


El Nino's effects are usually only around for abour 7 - 8 months



this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?


Who said anything about bribery?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years


The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind.

You have just answered my argument

But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Not really, nature is doing it well by itself.


Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and
seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then


No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.


read the next sentence again.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.



It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.


Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and
its
environs


I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.


You know nothing about atomic reaction?
if not, then your argument is baseless.
You know something about physical reaction.
You know something about mental reaction.
then you should know something about atomic reaction, seeing that everything
on this planet is created from atoms
a mixture of particular atoms create a reaction, even to the atoms in your
body.

We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.


This is also my argument and I agree with you on this,but on a different
agenda

so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change
that
may or may not come along


It does not follow.


Every day, the volcano in Hawaii spews more than 2,500 tons of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere, enough noxious gas to fill 100 Goodyear blimps.
a natural occurance from one volcano which no-one would be able to contain
or control.

cheers

frosty


David

water tank rebates
 

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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.

of course, common sense and conspiracy theories don't usually match.

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying water as needed.

what a strange thing to say. you are charged for connection & supply because
nothing has changed - you still have connection & supply. you are charged
the same amount of usage as usual for the water that you use. when you turn
on the tap, water comes out (at a very cheap price), same as ever. what's
the problem?

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means
you cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

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.

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

water tank rebates
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks
to connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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.

of course, common sense and conspiracy theories don't usually match.

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying water as needed.

what a strange thing to say. you are charged for connection & supply
because nothing has changed - you still have connection & supply. you are
charged the same amount of usage as usual for the water that you use. when
you turn on the tap, water comes out (at a very cheap price), same as
ever. what's the problem?

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means
you cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for
the supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

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.

I read and re-read this to make sure that what I saw was right.
What a ****ing ****** you are, trying to compare water prices to petrol
Have you ever tried to run your car on water, or even tried to drink petrol?

if you had, then you would have found out that it doesn't work either way.
Two vastly different commodities with a different use .
While you are at it Einstien Otterbot, compare the price of diamonds with
glass,
then go complain to the jewellers that they are charging too much for a 5
carat ring when one can be made with glass instead of a diamond

Don't forget to take your daily meds, you have obviously missed out on a
dose or five.



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

water tank rebates
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks
to connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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.

of course, common sense and conspiracy theories don't usually match.

It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying water as needed.

what a strange thing to say. you are charged for connection & supply
because nothing has changed - you still have connection & supply. you are
charged the same amount of usage as usual for the water that you use. when
you turn on the tap, water comes out (at a very cheap price), same as
ever. what's the problem?

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means
you cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for
the supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

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.

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


While you are at it, look at what happened in this news item

You gotta love them,
it could only happen in the USA..............


or could it ??

http://www.ksl.com/index.php/?nid=148&sid=1444771

water tank rebates
 

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

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...



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.

I read and re-read this to make sure that what I saw was right.
What a ****ing ****** you are, trying to compare water prices to petrol
Have you ever tried to run your car on water, or even tried to drink
petrol?

Then perhaps you'd better read it again - it makes perfect sense to me.
However, your posts thus far seem to make quantum leaps in logic at almost
every new sentence.
To enlighten you, it was in response to you stating that we are paying "top
price" for water, which is not the case. Otterbot's statement very clearly
(and correctly) says that water is an undervalued comodity in Australia and
infers that we are indeed *not* paying top price. An analogy is drawn with
the fact that petrol is also an undervalued comodity and that water is even
more undervalued.
Have a nice day.
A

water tank rebates
 

"Flowergirl" wrote in message
...

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

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...



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.

I read and re-read this to make sure that what I saw was right.
What a ****ing ****** you are, trying to compare water prices to petrol
Have you ever tried to run your car on water, or even tried to drink
petrol?

Then perhaps you'd better read it again - it makes perfect sense to me.
However, your posts thus far seem to make quantum leaps in logic at almost
every new sentence.
To enlighten you, it was in response to you stating that we are paying
"top
price" for water, which is not the case. Otterbot's statement very clearly
(and correctly) says that water is an undervalued comodity in Australia
and
infers that we are indeed *not* paying top price. An analogy is drawn
with
the fact that petrol is also an undervalued comodity and that water is
even
more undervalued.
Have a nice day.
A



You obviously have some sort of affiliation with Otterbot
have a nice life together

water tank rebates
 

On Jul 10, 9:01 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:

You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.

El Nino's effects are usually only around for abour 7 - 8 months



But this time several years. If it isn't EL Nino causing the drought
what is it? Climate change?


this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?

Who said anything about bribery?


OK why do greenies and poltician use a made up word? Why do most
climatologists say it is real and not made up?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years

The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind.

You have just answered my argument

Not at all. Just because climate change has had natural causes in the
past does not mean that there can be no changes caused by humans now
or in the future.


But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Not really, nature is doing it well by itself.


What evidence do you have for this other than that you say so?

Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and
seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then

No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.

read the next sentence again.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.


Once again you are making bald assertions with no evidence supplied.

It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.

Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and
its
environs

I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.

You know nothing about atomic reaction?
if not, then your argument is baseless.

This is no explanaton of your position. What exactly is the way that
atomic reactions are affecting climate? Where are these atomic
reactions happening? What are they doing to the atmosphere? I need
enough detail to follow your argument, what you have said doesn't tell
me anything.

You know something about physical reaction.
You know something about mental reaction.
then you should know something about atomic reaction, seeing that everything
on this planet is created from atoms
a mixture of particular atoms create a reaction, even to the atoms in your
body.

This is no explanation either. If you don't have the words yourself
then give a reference to somebody who is making this case. As it is
you aren't saying anything.


We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.

This is also my argument and I agree with you on this,but on a different
agenda

What agenda is that? If you agree that humans are responsible for the
extra CO2 in the air then explain why this is not causing climate
change.


so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change
that
may or may not come along

It does not follow.

Every day, the volcano in Hawaii spews more than 2,500 tons of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere, enough noxious gas to fill 100 Goodyear blimps.
a natural occurance from one volcano which no-one would be able to contain
or control.


I will accept your figures for the point of discusion for now. What
effect do you think that 2500 tons a day of sulphur dioxide has on
global climate change? If you say it is a significant effect on
global climate then you need to show me the climate modeling or other
scientific work (or a reference to it) that supports the case.

David

water tank rebates
 

"0tterbot" wrote in
:

[snip]
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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,

Been there, done that. Doing consultancy work for proposed licencing of
private dams, for safety reasons. It's a hell of a lot of work. The
project was dropped real quick.

[..] a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared
to charging for people's stored dam water.

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

water tank rebates
 

"Troppo" wrote in message
.25...
"0tterbot" wrote in
:

[snip]
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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,

Been there, done that. Doing consultancy work for proposed licencing of
private dams, for safety reasons. It's a hell of a lot of work. The
project was dropped real quick.

[..] a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared
to charging for people's stored dam water.

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

don't ask me. maybe when george gets back from his weekly alien-anal-probe
and catching up with elvis at the c.i.a., he can tell you.
kylie

water tank rebates
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"Troppo" wrote in message
.25...
"0tterbot" wrote in
:

[snip]
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"

will they indeed?

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,

Been there, done that. Doing consultancy work for proposed licencing of
private dams, for safety reasons. It's a hell of a lot of work. The
project was dropped real quick.

[..] a few poxy town water tanks wouldn't be worth the bother, compared
to charging for people's stored dam water.

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

don't ask me. maybe when george gets back from his weekly alien-anal-probe
and catching up with elvis at the c.i.a., he can tell you.
kylie

Elvis has hi, the aliens used a really nice soft and fluffy probe this week.
The CIA still have no intelligence.

George

water tank rebates
 

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.

of course, common sense and conspiracy theories don't usually match.

common sense would dictate than no one body can say they own 90% of
rain water and all other water, now whether that is conspiracy will
depend on your vivid imagination but theory it isn't all is in vogue
with present legislations, read it and weep might be the words to use.

snipped

what a strange thing to say. you are charged for connection & supply because
nothing has changed - you still have connection & supply. you are charged
the same amount of usage as usual for the water that you use. when you turn
on the tap, water comes out (at a very cheap price), same as ever. what's
the problem?

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?

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.


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/

water tank rebates
 

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 :-)

water tank rebates
 

"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

water tank rebates
 

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

water tank rebates
 

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)

water tank rebates
 

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.

water tank rebates
 

"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

water tank rebates
 

"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.

water tank rebates
 

"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

water tank rebates
 

"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

water tank rebates
 

"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).

water tank rebates
 

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".

water tank rebates
 

"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.

water tank rebates
 

"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.

water tank rebates
 

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.