Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Here is a review from the Department of the Environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/te...s/wateruse.pdf

Which says amongst other things:
"The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
inland diversion of water from coastal streams. 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. The same
observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
$3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
from desalination "
I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
authority.

If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:

http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf

It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.

The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
such views are to the debate.

David

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Here is a review from the Department of the Environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/te...s/wateruse.pdf

Which says amongst other things:
"The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
inland diversion of water from coastal streams. 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. The same
observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
$3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
from desalination "
I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
authority.

If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:

http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf

It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.

The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
such views are to the debate.

David


The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
u...


The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

Which powers? How are they holding people to ransom? Why?

David

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
u...

The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?
He asks the same type of questions.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
u...

The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.


Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
expensive?

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I am sure.

He asks the same type of questions.

Thankyou. I think.

David

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Jonno wrote:

The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.

You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and
provide cheap water.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Who pays excessively for water?

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
u...
The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.
Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.


Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
expensive?
I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is
all around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind
for their own purposes dont "see" it.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I am sure.

He asks the same type of questions.

Thankyou. I think.

David


Do you work for the government perhaps?

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way
it is panning out.

You are going to have to explain how privatisation will fix this and
provide cheap water.
Dont even think about privatisation fixing it. They will tie you down
and screw you until you are handing over the family jewels. Whatever you
perceive them to be. Privatization only serves to do this.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...
Another government watcher?

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Jonno wrote:
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...
Another government watcher?
It seems so as you're only replying during work hours........

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
water.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

Not HE is most definitley not!

He asks the same type of questions.

I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
water.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

Not HE is most definitley not!

He asks the same type of questions.

I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!


Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most
Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most
people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be
horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To
do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other
freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how
many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop
comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is
tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as
bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because
I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just
expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for
the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going
to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off
the grid.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting
identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad
when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a
"discussion" which is what these groups are for.

He asks the same type of questions.

I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't
understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it
doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
expensive?
I dont need evidence. I am not making a federal case. The evidence is all
around....Only blind people,and people who are inclined to be blind for
their own purposes dont "see" it.

Yeh gads! Now that is a politician type resposne if ever I saw one! "Trust
me, I'm a newsgroup poster!"

You are presenting an opinion and if you aren't prepared to give your
reasoning for your claims then what you say isn't worth your time to type it
or our time spent reading it.

And to issue insults if you are asked to back up your cliams is just plain
silly.

Weren't you the one to send in a post not so long ago saying that people
should not believe gardening myths but do some research to find out if the
gardening advice was just an old wives tale or was based on science? You
are being asked for the science and are expecting us to believe the old
wives tale simply because you said it.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.

I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most
Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most
people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be
horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To
do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other
freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how
many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop
comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is
tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as
bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because
I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just
expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for
the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going
to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off
the grid.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting
identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad
when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a
"discussion" which is what these groups are for.

He asks the same type of questions.

I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't
understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it
doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen.


You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?
Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?
You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds
section of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake
us up to a government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is
trying, and succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a
dam in. These people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging,
not caring about others when they will probably damage the ecology
there. They're a bunch of government backed corporations, whose
identities are hidden behind, you will probably (guess this)
"shareholders" who may prove to be family members of government in
various guiswes.
We are also in the process here of having such a large population
increase in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than
Sydney in population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
Is that smart do you reckon?
I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
thoughtlessly follow their ways.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.


I agree...

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.


Whoops, What if I am also a she?

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.


I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Jonno wrote:
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay
excessively for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
"will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.

I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and
most Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If
most people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd
be horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves.
To do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+
other freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God
knows how many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is
before one drop comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands
of $s there is tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting
the upkeep as bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs
because I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap.
It's just expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch
for the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play -
that's going to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we
may need to go off the grid.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?

So why did you write:"By making them pay excessively for
water.

Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?

Reread what I wrote. I responded to your comment about being held to ransom
and paying excessively for water.

You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds section
of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake us up to a
government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is trying, and
succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a dam in. These
people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging, not caring about
others when they will probably damage the ecology there. They're a bunch
of government backed corporations, whose identities are hidden behind, you
will probably (guess this) "shareholders" who may prove to be family
members of government in various guiswes.
We are also in the process here of having such a large population increase
in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than Sydney in
population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
Is that smart do you reckon?
I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
thoughtlessly follow their ways.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.
Whoops, What if I am also a she?

And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.
I should have put it, another government person watching these news
groups.

I doubt it from doing a properties check. I would be very surprised if any
government employee would be able to mung their addy.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.
Only in your mind.
Whoops, What if I am also a she?

And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.


I give up!

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
Jonno wrote:
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
"will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Youre right.

I know :-))

The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.

I couldn't be bothered any more other than to comment that you need to
figure out which government you are writing about. The one which you
believe is responsible promising to make "us" pay through the nose is not
the same one invading "Iraq". It is not a one size fits all siutation.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

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!

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

Jonno wrote:

Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.

lol, some people still have to learn that the Earth is a finite world
and what that means.


They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...

Do tell

Now if you really knew anything you would not be wasting your time
posting drivel in usenet.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
u...


Do you work for the government perhaps?

No I don't. Do you imagine I am suporting the way that governments have dealt
with water in the past - if so you haven't understood a thing I have written.
Do you imagine all government employees agree with government policy - if so
you haven't spoken to any such employees or understood them either.

In other parts of this thread you have claimed that we are paying too much for
water and that more dams should have been built. As others have said there
isn't much point in building dams if there is no water to catch or if they
simply wreck part of the land or if is just going to be wasted.

Please explain how building more dams would have made water cheaper. Who
would have (will in future) pay for the dam building if it isn't the consumer
through the price of the water they buy? As others have also said part of our
problem is that neither the domestic consumer nor the farm irrigator is yet
paying a fair price for water. By fair I mean one that will:

- support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure
- encourage people to treat water as a limited resource and so something worth
conserving
- encourage agribusiness to make rational market decisions about the crops
that they grow in relation to world markets.

I don't consider growing cotton and rice in dryland areas via irrigation to be
anything like rational. The only reason it is done at all is because the
price of their water is subsidised.

Did you read the source material I started this thread with? Or even the
quote that I extracted? Here let me refresh it:

"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. "

Yes we will pay more for water in future but for reasons not related to your
unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Jonno, you are entitled to your opinions
but you will have to accept that you are not going to convert anybody to your
views without giving any reasons.

David

water usage bill
 

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

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"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)

water usage bill
 

"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

water usage bill
 

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.

water usage bill
 

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/

water usage bill
 

"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

water usage bill
 

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/

water usage bill
 

"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.

Irrigating Australia - food for thought
 

"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.

water usage bill
 

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.