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

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

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

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

Would like some comments please.

Katherine

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of valid points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"jones" wrote in message
...
Is it just my Water a/c or are others having the same problems.

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

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

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

Would like some comments please.

Katherine



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

David

David Hare-Scott wrote:

What is higher the cost or the amount used?

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

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

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

g'day katherine,

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

len & bev

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

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

"jones" wrote in message
...
Is it just my Water a/c or are others having the same problems.

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

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

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

Would like some comments please.

Katherine


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

Thanks Len and others,

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

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

Thanks again people
Katherine



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

"jones" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

Yes Claude, I think you are very correct.

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

Thanks
Katherine



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

Blackadder XXIV wrote:

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

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

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

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

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
Blackadder XXIV wrote:

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

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

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

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

Blackadder XXIV wrote:


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

lol. Dream on.

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

And it will just prop up existing bad practises.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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