Worst drought ever

[billhill]

Today's Courier Mail newspaper published an account of several households using as much as 37,000 litres per day(!).

Maybe this country needs a water rights trading sceme applicable to the whole population. People would get a yearly water allowance to do with what they please. People who use more then their quota would be forced to buy rights off other people who have not used all their quota. As water supply changes so would the quotas to reflect the change and then market forces could determine the price of water rights. At least then those who don't care about the problem can pay those who do.

 

[Smurf1976]

I know there is quite high evaporation in Queensland, but 37,000 litres per day does sound rather high.

Leaking pipes? Faulty meter? Or just a truly massive garden?

But never forget that the SE Qld water crisis is really nothing more than a lack of adequate investment. If we tell people how much water to use then we're telling them how to spend their money.

If we're going to do that then surely petrol would be a more logical target given that, unlike water, it is actually a reasonably limited resource. Or we could tell them what to eat, where to live, what to do, what to think, who to vote for...

 

[billhill]

If we're going to do that then surely petrol would be a more logical target given that, unlike water, it is actually a reasonably limited resource. Or we could tell them what to eat, where to live, what to do, what to think, who to vote for...

Some people unfortunately need to be told what to do or they end up ruining it for everyone else. I'm sure if there wasn't a quota system for tuna then japan (not that it stopped them) would have fished them to extinction already. Same should go for any finite resource. At the moment i wouldn't call food, living space or thought finite resourses, not that they won't be one day.

If we tell people how much water to use then we're telling them how to spend their money.

If we continue the status quo there will be no more water. We force people to save part of their income for their retirement which is maybe not popular with everyone but its responsible and integral to the continued functioning of our society. If you let unconditional freedom reign then its a free for all and at the end of the party all your left with is a big mess and no beer.

 

[Julia]

Maybe this country needs a water rights trading sceme applicable to the whole population. People would get a yearly water allowance to do with what they please. People who use more then their quota would be forced to buy rights off other people who have not used all their quota. As water supply changes so would the quotas to reflect the change and then market forces could determine the price of water rights. At least then those who don't care about the problem can pay those who do.

That's a really good idea. I'd go for it. How would it actually work in practice?
Say I want to use twice what my neighbour does: how would I get her share?
Do we simply have an agreement and what would be the actual mechanics of it?

 

[billhill]

That's a really good idea. I'd go for it. How would it actually work in practice?
Say I want to use twice what my neighbour does: how would I get her share?
Do we simply have an agreement and what would be the actual mechanics of it?

My thinking is that the government would calculate each year the sustainable quota of water that each household could recieve. People would then use their water as they normally would. If they go over their quota then they would be billed extra by the water authority for those rights. Those who use less water would receive reduced water bills from the water corp to reflect the selling of their rights to others. Obviously it would be much more complicated then this but IMO that would be the jist.

 

[Julia]

My thinking is that the government would calculate each year the sustainable quota of water that each household could recieve. People would then use their water as they normally would. If they go over their quota then they would be billed extra by the water authority for those rights. Those who use less water would receive reduced water bills from the water corp to reflect the selling of their rights to others. Obviously it would be much more complicated then this but IMO that would be the jist.

I don't really see how that's "trading" water rights. Sounds like simply charging more over a certain quantity used. I was thinking something more like a barter system. What you describe sounds just like a way for the local water authority to make more money.

 

[Smurf1976]

Some people unfortunately need to be told what to do or they end up ruining it for everyone else. I'm sure if there wasn't a quota system for tuna then japan (not that it stopped them) would have fished them to extinction already. Same should go for any finite resource. At the moment i wouldn't call food, living space or thought finite resourses, not that they won't be one day.



If we continue the status quo there will be no more water. We force people to save part of their income for their retirement which is maybe not popular with everyone but its responsible and integral to the continued functioning of our society. If you let unconditional freedom reign then its a free for all and at the end of the party all your left with is a big mess and no beer.

My point is simply that in the context of the Australian capital cities water is NOT a finite resource. Its supply being limited by money rather than any physical constraint on the ability to supply water.

Fair enough to have restrictions where it is necessary. But water is unique in that it is one of the few things that does NOT deplete some non-renewable resource in its production and yet it is the only one we are restricting the use of.

We live on the continent that has more water per head of population than practically anywhere else. It's time we got on with the job of properly managing that water rather than using it as a political tool.

I just don't like the idea at all that government intentionally creates a shortage of water, which is precisely what has been done at least in SE Qld and Melbourne, and then uses that shortage as a means of effecting increased control over the population. Fair enough if the shortage was unavoidable, but not when it has been knowingly allowed to develop through years of policies that couldn't possibly have resulted in any other outcome.

 

[chops_a_must]

My point is simply that in the context of the Australian capital cities water is NOT a finite resource. Its supply being limited by money rather than any physical constraint on the ability to supply water.

Pretty much.

Look at the Yarragadee aquifer. Country bumpkins and two headed morons want to stop it being utilised, yet, these same fools allow strip and sand mining UPON it, and then say that "using it for drinking purposes is damaging to the environment". Lol! I mean come on.

And then they use "scientific research" tabled by hacks at a sub-standard university (ECU) with p***s envy (these people were rejected from positions in the environmental departments at Murdoch University) to justify their claims. Hey boys, just because your work isn't good enough to attract research funding does not also mean your work has any credibility.

Country bumpkins (that may or may not be able to read this), take note. If you want help, you have to be prepared to give it as well. Until then, you get no sympathy from me.

*grumbles* -allowing Capel Sands to contaminate the water table yet refusing boring it for "enviromental reasons"- Lol!

 

[billhill]

Pretty much.

Look at the Yarragadee aquifer. Country bumpkins and two headed morons want to stop it being utilised, yet, these same fools allow strip and sand mining UPON it, and then say that "using it for drinking purposes is damaging to the environment". Lol! I mean come on.

And then they use "scientific research" tabled by hacks at a sub-standard university (ECU) with p***s envy (these people were rejected from positions in the environmental departments at Murdoch University) to justify their claims. Hey boys, just because your work isn't good enough to attract research funding does not also mean your work has any credibility.

Country bumpkins (that may or may not be able to read this), take note. If you want help, you have to be prepared to give it as well. Until then, you get no sympathy from me.

*grumbles* -allowing Capel Sands to contaminate the water table yet refusing boring it for "enviromental reasons"- Lol!

Chop's,
Firstly i take extreme offence at your comments regarding country people. I've lived out in rural WA and although you may see everyone out there as backward yokels i can asure you that most are'nt that stupid and in fact many are quite intellegent. These people do it tough as i'm sure you can attest to and although you do not have to agree with them there is no reason to be derogatory. You have your reasons to tap the Yarragadee aquifer, but they also have legitimate concerns.
Secondly in regard to tapping the aquifier i hold reservations as to the sustainability and management by the government and i worry with falling rainfall it will be sucked dry in a couple of decades (mismanagement of gnagara is seeing it dwindle as a resource). And no one can say that if it drys up that it will not be an environmental disaster. Personally i would rather see recycled water and more desalinated water before we interfere with more of the states environmental systems.

 

[chops_a_must]

Secondly in regard to tapping the aquifier i hold reservations as to the sustainability and management by the government and i worry with falling rainfall it will be sucked dry in a couple of decades (mismanagement of gnagara is seeing it dwindle as a resource). And no one can say that if it drys up that it will not be an environmental disaster. Personally i would rather see recycled water and more desalinated water before we interfere with more of the states environmental systems.

Rainfall doesn't directly penetrate this aquifer unlike the Gnangara mound. So it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

People do not want recycled water and desal is hugely expensive and energy inefficient.

The Jandakot mound is contaminated, every river that is not damned in the state is brackish (along with many that are) and the Yarragadee empties into the sea. At some point you have to make a decision about these matters. Doing nothing has got us in the situation we are in.

But the fact the people of this region did not campaign at all against the clearing of the Ludlow Tuart Forest, I find their claims of "environmental concern" totally totally disingenuous.

 

[billhill]

Rainfall doesn't directly penetrate this aquifer unlike the Gnangara mound. So it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

How does the aquifier replenish supplies? Surely even if indirectly filled by rainfall a fall in precipitation would lead to slower replenishing rates.

People do not want recycled water and desal is hugely expensive and energy inefficient

Not all water is used for drinking. Its stupid that recycled water at least isn't used exclusively for industrial purposes or watering parks and agriculture. Must admit that desal still has some issues to sort out.

The Jandakot mound is contaminated, every river that is not damned in the state is brackish (along with many that are) and the Yarragadee empties into the sea. At some point you have to make a decision about these matters. Doing nothing has got us in the situation we are in.

Shouldn't the fact that there are these problems with the rivers, jandakot mound and gnangara ring alarm bells. I'm seeing a trend that we mismanage current water resources ruin them and then have to move on to the next source. I'm all for using yarragadee if it can be done sustainably, which is something we don't have a good record for.

 

[chops_a_must]

How does the aquifier replenish supplies? Surely even if indirectly filled by rainfall a fall in precipitation would lead to slower replenishing rates.

Yes, but not for tens of thousands of years. The amount of water withdrawn is less than the replenishment rate, so there is still a nett gain. The proposed level of withdrawal is equivalent to the amount lost to sea.

Not all water is used for drinking. Its stupid that recycled water at least isn't used exclusively for industrial purposes or watering parks and agriculture. Must admit that desal still has some issues to sort out.

As far as I understand, most of the industrial uses of water in Kwinana are from recycled sources. I don't have a problem with not having a garden. Ours is all native and feral. Unfortunately, people selling houses near us don't like that (and I assume most of the people on this site wouldn't agree with that principle either). And after all, we live in a democracy and most people like their gardens. And as long as councils make it almost impossible here to be able to install a grey water system, the problem will remain.

Shouldn't the fact that there are these problems with the rivers, jandakot mound and gnangara ring alarm bells. I'm seeing a trend that we mismanage current water resources ruin them and then have to move on to the next source. I'm all for using yarragadee if it can be done sustainably, which is something we don't have a good record for.

As mentioned above, and described here, it is a totally different system to the Gnangara mound.

The Jandakot mound problems actually aren't to do with the Water Corp... or the boring. It is entirely the fault of city council (mainly Melville). Oh thank you lord for right wing hacks and Liberal party donaters in local council. Lol!

The Yarragadee system will be subject to some of the tightest regulations we have seen in regards to water management. As long as Peter Newman, and the ISTP department are managing it and auditing the impacts, there wont be a problem.

Interesting you chose to ommit my final coment.

The real issue here is that the region complaining, and supposedly effected, are dominated by dairy farmers. It is a hugely water dependent industry.

Whilst they complain and are "concerned" by the "unsustainability" of the project, I'm sure they have no problem in using a 1000L of water to produce 1L of milk. Lol!

 

[billhill]

Interesting you chose to ommit my final coment

I simply don't know enough about the clearing of the ludlow tuart forest to comment on your final post.

The real issue here is that the region complaining, and supposedly effected, are dominated by dairy farmers. It is a hugely water dependent industry

I do see your point but having lived in both the city and rural areas i can sympathise with farmers. The services they recieve out there really are dismal when compared to the cities which is probably why they are so reluctant to let city folk have a share of their resources. Its a bit like the neglect WA seems to get from the federal government simply because we're on the other side of the country. Country people feel that the cities don't give a s**t about them and unfortunately because the majority of votes are in the cities more attention is paid to those areas.

 

[chops_a_must]

I do see your point but having lived in both the city and rural areas i can sympathise with farmers. The services they recieve out there really are dismal when compared to the cities which is probably why they are so reluctant to let city folk have a share of their resources. Its a bit like the neglect WA seems to get from the federal government simply because we're on the other side of the country. Country people feel that the cities don't give a s**t about them and unfortunately because the majority of votes are in the cities more attention is paid to those areas.

But it's irrelevant to the issue. Farmers have been helped by city folk throughout this crisis. The country people in the state are not as egalitarian as one would hope and these country folk are indulging in pure selfishness. I mean, it's not as if the city hasn't provided Kal with water for the last hundred years or so is it...

 

[billhill]

But it's irrelevant to the issue. Farmers have been helped by city folk throughout this crisis. The country people in the state are not as egalitarian as one would hope and these country folk are indulging in pure selfishness. I mean, it's not as if the city hasn't provided Kal with water for the last hundred years or so is it...

There are greedy people on both sides of the fence. Perhap farmers would be more accommodating if they had telecommunications, education, health services and roads that were closer to the standard in the cities. Remeber the 1000 litres of water to produce a litre of milk in the end is a result of the demand placed on farmers by the cities for their products. You can't turn around and blame them for complaining when the water they do use is to service the cities needs anyway. Kalgoorlie is not agricultural its mining so i can't see farmers really getting alot out of that pipeline.

 

[chops_a_must]

There are greedy people on both sides of the fence. Perhap farmers would be more accommodating if they had telecommunications, education, health services and roads that were closer to the standard in the cities. Kalgoorlie is not agricultural its mining so i can't see farmers really getting alot out of that pipeline.

They never are going to be though. And Bunbury is better off than most other country centres.

The federal government has drastically cut funding for rural roads in WA. Funnily enough, it's being done by the parties people in these areas generally vote for. They have the power to change their own circumstances.

I was using Kal as an example of WA's water resources being available for all.

Alternatively... we could build a canal from the north. Lol!

 

[billhill]

I think we've hit a dead end between us in this debate chops. Obviously we have very different veiws both with there own merits however i can't see you changing your position and so far i'm unlikely to change mine. At least we can agree to disagree.

 

[Smurf1976]

All I know is that the very good rainfall the last 3 months has not changed the fact that the dams used for cooling water for power generation are still going down, and that the water that is left is very saline ie nearly unusable.

There has already been load shedding at some power stations and if the situation doesn't improve dramatically then some power stations will shut down, leading to power shortages.

NSW residents at least will be faced with 2 options, reduce power consumption ie power rationing or buy a generator.

This could possibly induce a recession, or seeing how NSW is borderline now, make it much worse.

Maybe Earth Hour could be extended to Earth Day's?

Well we've now got NSW coal-fired generators collectively producing considerably less power than NSW is using. It's not solely due to water problems but production is down nonetheless.

So we're sending power from Qld, Vic, Tas and SA into NSW to make up the shortfall plus letting even more of what water remains in the Snowy run through the turbines.

Now, there's a limit to how long we can keep doing that. Snowy storages are low, some Qld power stations are also running low on water and Hydro Tas storage is down below 21%.

But at least we can rely on the gas-fired stations in Vic, Tas and SA, right? Nope! Now that's gone too, at least in Tasmania where all gas-fired generation is now completely shut down (since yesterday afternoon) due to gas production problems in Victoria.

This means we're now going to be running down the water storages even faster and Tas will need to get that lost power back somehow given the storage situation. Heaven only knows where that's coming from...

What next can possibly go wrong?

We'd better start having a bit more luck, or water to be more precise, before Winter sets in or I'm off to buy shares in candle makers and battery companies.

 

[bel532]

They never are going to be though. And Bunbury is better off than most other country centres.

The federal government has drastically cut funding for rural roads in WA. Funnily enough, it's being done by the parties people in these areas generally vote for. They have the power to change their own circumstances.

I was using Kal as an example of WA's water resources being available for all.

Alternatively... we could build a canal from the north. Lol!

When you state the Federal Government has cut funding for roads in WA, isn't this is due (assuming your statement is correct) to the realignment of federal funding due to higher taxes being generated in WA by the mining boom? The same applies, but probably to a lesser degree, to Queensland.

When Federation was formed it was agreed that those States that were undeveloped and had a comparatively low population would be compensated in terms of Federal Funding. This meant that, over many decades, the more heavily populated states ie Victoria and NSW received less funding, on a PER CAPITA basis, than the other states. With the wealth being generated by WA and Queensland the time had come for this imbalance in Federal funding to be adressed. I believe this is non existent now for WA (I may be wrong) and reduced for Quensland. Tasmania and the ACT receive the most, by a large margin, in Federal Funding on a PER CAPITA basis.

 

[Smurf1976]

When Federation was formed it was agreed that those States that were undeveloped and had a comparatively low population would be compensated in terms of Federal Funding. This meant that, over many decades, the more heavily populated states ie Victoria and NSW received less funding, on a PER CAPITA basis, than the other states. With the wealth being generated by WA and Queensland the time had come for this imbalance in Federal funding to be adressed. I believe this is non existent now for WA (I may be wrong) and reduced for Quensland. Tasmania and the ACT receive the most, by a large margin, in Federal Funding on a PER CAPITA basis.

It was origninally at least partly on the basis of scale of economy. That is, it will naturally cost more to provide a given level of service (in practically anything) in Tas or SA than in NSW or Vic due to scale of economy issues. Doubling the scale of operations doesn't generally double the cost so it costs less per capita in the larger population states. The underlying basis being that all Australians ought to receive a similar level of publicly funded services regardless of their states' actual ability to pay.