Worst drought ever

[Rafa]

Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html

Dams 'contributing to global warming'

The world's dams are contributing millions of tonnes of harmful greenhouse gases and spurring on global warming, according to a US environmental agency.

International Rivers Network executive director Patrick McCully told Brisbane's Riversymposium rotting vegetation and fish found in dams produced surprising amounts of methane - 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

"Often it's accepted that hydropower is a climate friendly technology but in fact probably all reservoirs around the world emit greenhouse gases and some of them, especially some of the ones in the tropics, emit very high quantities of greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than, fossil fuels like coal and gas," Mr McCully said.

He said when water flow was stopped, vegetation and soil in the flooded area and from upstream was left to rot, as well as fish and other animals which died in the dam.

They then released carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide into the air.

"Basically they're factories for converting carbon into methane and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas - it's less known than carbon dioxide but it's actually about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat in the atmosphere." Mr McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide.

The Brazilian National Space Agency estimated that was about 104 million tonnes of methane each year, or four per cent of the human impact on global warming, he said.

Mr McCully said that was a lot for such a small sector.

But he said it was an area that was under-researched so a clearer picture of how dams were contributing to global warming was not known.

The only Australian research that had been done was on Tasmanian dams, which found emissions were around 30 per cent of a natural gas plant - a much higher reading than US dam emissions, Mr McCully said.

Those readings would be higher in hotter parts of Australia, especially northern Queensland, he said.

Mr McCully said greater energy efficiency needed to be researched to overcome the problem, including technology that could produce energy from the methane from dams.

The 10th annual Riversymposium, Australia's largest river management conference, brings around 500 delegates from 40 countries to Brisbane this week to discuss river health, damming practices, drought and climate change.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html

Hi Rafa...

Well, the Government could pass laws banning re-stocking of fish in all water resorvoirs. And they could let all water in existing dams be released and allow no more water to be collected in dams, thus allowing them to dry out and slow the rotting vegetation process. Those measures would satisfy this (new?) theory. BUT - it might be an unpopular decision with a few folks!

Cheers,

AJ

 

[Rafa]

certainly not advocating that course of action...

 

[Bush Trader]

Wheat Just hit $370 delivered Melbourne December Delivery. In real terms this is in the 90th decile. Fertiliser prices are at record levels.

Great for farmers you might suggest?

The Southern NSW crop has an average of 2 weeks moisture left under crops, before the shows over.

Many Farmers have had their last throw of the dice this year

Think of them as you eat your going to be more expensive bread and wheatbix, not to mention the cost of a T-Bone that has been fed grain for 90 days before going to the butcher

Cheers


BT

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, be interested in your comments on this article in the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...-global-warming/2007/09/04/1188783203624.html

It's a contentious issue and one that's difficult to prove either way given the difficulty of actually measuring methane emissions.

It would depend very heavily on several factors.

The area flooded versus annual power generation is one key factor. Looking at the Tasmanian situation, there is a massive variation in the % of the catchment flooded and also the flooded area versus annual generation. For example, the flooded area at Trevallyn is a tiny fraction of the catchment area wheras it's much larger for the King scheme despite both having very similar annual output. The man-made flooded area at Gordon is massive by Australian standards whereas it is an order of magnitude lower at Poatina despite both having very similar power outputs. There's a lot of variation between the different schemes.

Also it will depend on how the storage was developed and the timeframe under consideration. If the area is cleared prior to flooding then that will greatly reduce methane emissions compared to leaving the biomass there.

Time is another one. If you look at a period of, say, 30 years then emissions might be moderate. But if you look at it over a longer period of, say, 200 years then compared to the total power generated the level of emissions will be much lower for any storage that doesn't have an ongoing inflow of biomass materials (which is most of them in the Tasmanian situation).

Regarding the actual decay rate, research done by the Hydro (and effectively verified by an ABC TV investigation) found that the actual decay rate for storages in the South-West is very low with twigs, leaves etc still intact decades after flooding. That isn't going to be emitting a great deal of methane.

So overall it's a hard question to answer but for storages that don't have a significant ongoing sediment accumulation and which were cleared prior to flooding emissions ought to be very low. At the other extreme emissions would be very high.

To my understanding the research which found emissions from Tasmanian storages to be one third that of a modern gas-fired plant wasn't looking at the entire system but only at one particular storage. Various previous studies concluded that overall system emissions were likely to be very low (far lower than wind, solar photovoltaic or nuclear) and the following comments were made (published in Hydro's 1997 Environmental Report):

Newly created hydro lakes exhibit initial rapid decay of some softer biomass material but quickly reach a stage where photosynthetic-fixing is probably equal to or greater than decay rates...

...Lake Plimsoll was created in early 1994. It, and other Hydro storages, display similar characteristics to natural oligotrophic (low in nutrients) lakes...

Hydro Lakes are generally well-oxygenated, and have depth and temperature characteristics that indicate methane loss as a result of biomass decay would be minimal.

So if an area is to be flooded for a storage then clearing the vegetation first would be a logical way to reduce emissions. Also that will avoid contamination of the storage with methyl mercury which is a health hazard if fish are eaten from a contaminated storage or if the water is used for drinking.

The single greatest problem in discussing ANYTHING concerning dams is that virtually everyone has some sort of bias. The Internaional Rivers Network quoted in the SMH article is in fact an anti-dams lobby group. On the other hand, the research I have referred to above was associated with the Hydro-Electric Corporation, by far the largest dam owner in Australia. Along with anything to do with uranium, tobacco and genetic engineering, dams are one of those issues where there is essentially no unbiased information available. In that context it's worth noting that Greens leader Bob Brown was once discovered to be using anti-hydro claims provided by the coal industry at a time when Shell owned the only large coal deposit in Tasmania. Hmm...

 

[2020hindsight]

It's a contentious issue and one that's difficult to prove either way given the difficulty of actually measuring methane emissions.......

So overall it's a hard question to answer but for storages that don't have a significant ongoing sediment accumulation and which were cleared prior to flooding emissions ought to be very low. At the other extreme emissions would be very high.

To my understanding the research which found emissions from Tasmanian storages to be one third that of a modern gas-fired plant wasn't looking at the entire system but only at one particular storage. Various previous studies concluded that overall system emissions were likely to be very low (far lower than wind, solar photovoltaic or nuclear) and the following comments were made (published in Hydro's 1997 Environmental Report):

....
The single greatest problem in discussing ANYTHING concerning dams is that virtually everyone has some sort of bias. The Internaional Rivers Network quoted in the SMH article is in fact an anti-dams lobby group. ...

Along with anything to do with uranium, tobacco and genetic engineering, dams are one of those issues where there is essentially no unbiased information available. In that context it's worth noting that Greens leader Bob Brown was once discovered to be using anti-hydro claims provided by the coal industry at a time when Shell owned the only large coal deposit in Tasmania. Hmm...

fascinating detail as always Smurf
and thanks for the article Rafa..

"Basically they're factories for converting carbon into methane and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas - it's less known than carbon dioxide but it's actually about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat in the atmosphere." Mr McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide

Smurf, I take it it's not as easy as looking at a forest tree and saying
"there is 2000T of timber, which is about 1000T or carbon (whatever) -
and if we cut it down and woodchip it we lose the ability for those trees to grow (say 100T per annum)
If we leave it there it dies like a carbon pencil "stick in the mud"

(lol just like people who want to be buried vertically )

I mean - It's not just counting the carbon atoms - it's also counting the gases etc involved - carbon dioxide CO2 , methane CH4.
if it rots in the way described, then methane is a worst choice for breakdown material ?
(my days of understanding chemistry in detail are way behind me -
although..
I gotta feeling my days of being forced to understand carbon credits in detail are not too ahead of me , lol

thanks for any assistance -

and this is a message for the next generation ...LAY OFF THE ONIONS .

PS we had a dump not far away which was "filled" then backfilled over - and the methane that came out of there !! sheesh - flame burnt 20 foot high for 5 years !!

 

[Rafa]

thanks for the reply smurf...
insightfull as always...

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, I take it it's not as easy as looking at a forest tree and saying
"there is 2000T of timber, which is about 1000T or carbon (whatever) -
and if we cut it down and woodchip it we lose the ability for those trees to grow (say 100T per annum)
If we leave it there it dies like a carbon pencil "stick in the mud"

(lol just like people who want to be buried vertically )

I mean - It's not just counting the carbon atoms - it's also counting the gases etc involved - carbon dioxide CO2 , methane CH4.
if it rots in the way described, then methane is a worst choice for breakdown material ?

There are a lot of uncertainties involved which is the problem.

What we do know is that, methane is in the order of (depending on which figures you use) 35 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is thus highly beneficial (assuming climate change is real) to be reducing methane emissions.

Dams are one source of methane. Certain crops, cattle, rubbish tips, coal mines and leaking gas pipes (natural gas is methane) are among the others.

The problem with dams is that we don't really know what is going in or out other than water. And there's a massive variation between individual dams. Some examples of specific hydro-electric dams ought to make the point.

Poatina power station is the second largest (in terms of annual output not peak power) hydro-electric plant in Australia. Gordon is the largest. They both have large storages associated with them holding several years worth of inflows.

That's where the similarities end.

Storage for Poatina is the natural Great Lake enlarged (on 4 separate occasions) by a dam at Miena which (since 1983) has raised the level when full to 21.3 metres above natural.

Additional water is diverted into Great Lake from Lake Augusta (diverted since 1922 and itself dammed in the 1950's) and Arthurs Lake (dammed and pump diverted since 1966).

Overall, this scheme hasn't actually flooded much land. Great Lake, Lake Augusta and Arthurs Lake are all natural lakes only modestly enlarged (in terms of surface area) by dams. Whatever fish, biomass etc is in those lakes creating methane would be largely the same whether the dams had been built or not.

Gordon is however totally different. Lake's Gordon and Pedder form the storage and are completely man-made by the 140 metre high Gordon Dam and the Scott's Peak (literally 1 mile wide), Serpentine and Edgar dams.

Lake Gordon doesn't naturally exist at all. Lake Pedder is essentially man-made given that the original lake was totally innundated by the new lake with a vastly larger surface area.

Lake Gordon especially flooded quite a bit of biomass which is still clearly visible when the storage is low (as at present). And since the whole scheme is man-made, whatever methane is being produced is directly a function of the dams being built.

That said, biomass decay rates for those two storages are known to be very low as evidencded by dives at Lake Pedder. Note the very visible flooded biomass at Lake Gordon in the photo below taken earlier this year, three decades after the original flooding.

Another factor is the regrowth of plant material when the storage is low and subsequent re-flooding when it rises. The second photo shows a water level marker beside the road in Lake Gordon. Plenty of regrowth there with the level down.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well here we are. A third of the way through September. We're only a few weeks away from the seasonal peak for most major storages and the situation in many cases isn't good. Indeed it's worse than last year.

Looks like the politicians might be starting to worry too if acknowledgement of the possibility of a "permanent" drought is any indication. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/09/2027925.htm?section=australia

As for solutions, a Melbourne-based consortium is proposing to build 3 pipelines from Strahan (Tas) to two separate locations in Victoria. The scheme would reportedly work on gravity flow from an unspecified existing Tasmanian dam (presumably Lake Burbury given the location) and would transfer 500 GL per year.

Cost? They're talking about paying $400 million a year for the water which doesn't cover any of the costs of actually building the pipes. Given that we're effectively talking about a 300km+ penstock under substantial pressure, it isn't going to be cheap by any means. Presumably they expect to profit from this venture.

As for uses of the water, providing urban supply to Adelaide was one possible use mentioned but that won't use the whole lot by any means. Doing that would, of course, leave more water in the Murray for some other use. Judging by where the pipelines are shown, supplying Melbourne and also some rural use in Victoria / South-East SA seems likely too.

The only real problem I can see is that the water source is naturally tainted by tannins due to the vegetation type and high rainfall in the area. It's completely natural and not considered harmful, but the water isn't at all clear. But it's better than the water in the Murray and better than nothing. Presumably they could filter it somehow for urban supply use.

 

[2020hindsight]

Thanks Smurf
gee you've got me thinking
there's a new dam being built at Traveston in SE Qld
very controversial as it covers massive area for little benefit (wipes out heaps of lovely farms as well) -
which is another way of saying it's extremely shallow - like a metre or two for bludy sq miles - and (you'd think) this could potentially mean biomass , methane etc by the sounds. unless they
a) "do the math" - and
b) get it right,
c) without political overtones

They should give you a call before they get too advanced imo (lol)
thanx

 

[Julia]

there's a new dam being built at Traveston in SE Qld
very controversial as it covers massive area for little benefit (wipes out heaps of lovely farms as well) -
(lol)
thanx

I can't comment on the viability of the Traveston Dam from an engineering point of view, but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. ...but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
2. So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.

1. You're closer to it that I am Julia lol - massive controversy.
2. Cost / benefit ratio then? - (bit like the hooker thread comment lol) - I mean, driving hundreds of farmers off their farms adds a fair bit of weight on the cost side of the equation.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=148231&highlight=beattie#post148231

This from ABC's PM after it was rushed through Qld Govt ( Barnaby Joyce stayed up all night for a few days to try to make them weigh things up fairly - but .

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1900869.htm PM's version

Quote:

KATHRYN ROBERTS: Neither the Premier, Peter Beattie, nor his Deputy, Anna Bligh, attended the hearings, but in State Parliament Ms Bligh had this to say.

ANNA BLIGH: I've heard nothing from Day 1, of the Senate inquiry, nothing that would cause this government to reconsider our position for one second. Mr Speaker, we are determined to build this dam.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: That prompted a fiery response from committee member Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce.

BARNABY JOYCE: She's showing complete arrogance, totalitarian, gulag-type mentality, that has just walked completely over all the people, whether they're farmers' groups, small business groups, indigenous groups. It's showing that she makes the statement from parliament, she's made it from the 'cowards castle', she doesn't have the courage to turn up here today and really face the music.

KATHRYN ROBERTS: And he pursued the issue during this exchange with the Queensland Nationals Leader Jeff Seeney.

BARNABY JOYCE: Was parliament sitting yesterday?

JEFF SEENEY: Yes. Yes it was.

BARNABY JOYCE: What time did it finish?

JEFF SEENEY: About 11 o'clock last night.

BARNABY JOYCE: 11 o'clock last night.

JEFF SEENEY: Yep.

BARNABY JOYCE: Did Ms Bligh say this morning in parliament that she'd been through all the information and she hadn't found anything that would change her opinion?

JEFF SEENEY: That was the statement she made in the parliament, yes.

BARNABY JOYCE: So do you think it's possible, that, being what we went through yesterday, that between 11 o'clock and this morning she went through all that information and came up with that decision, or did she mislead you?

JEFF SEENEY: No, it's obviously not possible.

Barnaby Joyce should start his own party !!!

 

[2020hindsight]

but you're right
I guess water is worth more than oil these days etc.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't know about the specifics of the dam proposed in Qld but if SE Qld is going to keep adding population (an issue in itself) then either more infrastructure is built or the end result is some sort of disaster.

Conservation? The trouble with permanent conservation is that we end up with fairly strict measures (as population increases) even during times of normal rainfall. Then we're completely stuffed when the next drought occurs.

I don't know this for certain, but I'd be surprised if houses and roads weren't a bigger threat to farm land than the dam in SE Qld. Every Australian capital city has taken up valuable land that could have been farmed. More to the point, most Australian houses are standing on what was once an old growth forest...

It's a classic case of dam politics though. Engineering, science, economics and hard facts all swamped by the No Dams Vs Go Dams politics of it all. It's been that way for 35 years so I don't see it changing until there's an actual outright disaster with water in this country.

Much the same with energy. Can't drill here. Can't drill there. Can't build coal. Can't build hydro. Can't build nuclear. Can't even build wind. And even if you get the plant built then the next problem will be transmission lines. All of which will change in about 5 minutes when a major crisis hits.

The great problem is that since the late 1960's problems with water and energy have been short term and fixed themselves due to ongoing large scale construction that ultimately lead to over investment. Now that we no longer have either surpluses or an active construction program, for the first time in decades the prospect of sustained water and energy shortages is very real.

 

[2020hindsight]

some articles on Traveston going back to Feb -
and also this month hotting up again.
(PS I've posted my thoughts on Poetry Thread #650 )
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/02/23/1855857.htm

Govt rejects Traveston dam report
Posted Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:49pm AEDT

The Queensland Government has dismissed the findings of a new report that questions the value of the Traveston Crossing Dam near Gympie.

A report on behalf of the Mary River Council of Mayors says the dam will not help the current drought.

Council of Mayors chairman Mick Vernados says desalination and recycling offer cheaper alternatives.

"It's going to be the people of south-east Queensland that will have to make that judgement as to whether or not they want to pay more for their water," he said.

But Deputy Premier Anna Bligh says the report's findings rely on the implementation of onerous water restrictions.

"Our Government makes no apology for a long-term plan, including Traveston Crossing Dam, that looks forward to a time when water restrictions are a thing of the past," she said.

Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the project will be scrutinised by the Senate's Rural Affairs Committee.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/04/2023591.htm

Print Email Add to My Stories

Proposed Traveston dam hot topic at Brisbane rivers conference
Posted Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:26pm AEST

Map: Gympie 4570
One of the speakers at a major rivers conference in Brisbane says she hopes the proposed Traveston Crossing dam on the Mary River in south-east Queensland is never built.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/03/2022509.htm

Molloy promises Traveston dam fight
Posted Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:48pm AEST

The former state Member for Noosa says she will make a Beattie Government proposed dam near Gympie one of her Federal Government election platforms.

Cate Molloy was disendorsed by the Beattie Government last year for not supporting the proposed Traveston Crossing dam near Gympie in south-east Queensland.

Ms Molloy says her opposition to the dam has not waned.

"Any of these decisions, pulp mills in Tasmania, Traveston dam in the Wide Bay area, can all be changed, those decisions need to be looked at and if I can stop that bloody dam going ahead I will," she said.

 

[Smurf1976]

"Any of these decisions, pulp mills in Tasmania, Traveston dam in the Wide Bay area, can all be changed, those decisions need to be looked at and if I can stop that bloody dam going ahead I will," she said.

I'm thinking of putting out a scenic calendar for next year featuring that most prized area known as Bell Bay, site of the proposed pulp mill in Tas. I'll just drive around the area and take a few snaps of the power station, switchyards, gas receiving facility, aluminium smelter, ferro alloy furnaces, aluminium powder plant, port, oil storage, wood mills, Basslink converter station... Might even get the old wheel casting plant and board mills too if I'm lucky. Oh, and not to forget all those transmission lines which dominate the Southern approach to the area.

Odds are 90% of Australians have no idea what's at Bell Bay and actually believe the notion that it's some sort of scenic, quiet area. That's the problem with environmental (and most other) politics. Nonsense presented as fact.

The Traveston Dam? No idea but if someone's opposing it and pulp mills in the same sentence then that makes me very wary that this is just another case of oppose it first, ask questions never.

 

[Whiskers]

I can't comment on the viability of the Traveston Dam from an engineering point of view, but if it had been built, it would have been more than half full following recent rains in this area.
So if you consider the point of dams to be to supply water for the population, then it's hardly correct to say that this dam would be of little benefit.

Hi Julia,

I suspect you are mostly picking up on a conceptual fallasy in 2020's arguement. However I think he is arguing the right cause but probably not putting the best case. I shall endeavour to do that.

It is true that some water from recent rain would have run into the Traverston dam. But despite the misleading information peddled by Beattie, that water mostly comes from tributeries of the Mary river in the sunshine coast hinterland. I doubt it would have gone anywhere near half filling it though. It would make much more sense to build a couple more smaller dams on those tributries where the rain falls.

I'm not an engineer either, although I have been engaged in the civil construction and agricultural industries all my life and actually built and worked on dams. I think I have a pretty good sense of the issues. I also understand the desperation people in the SE are experiencing with water restrictions. I have had occasion to independently drought declare my property in the nineties and for the rural community over much of Australia water rationing has been the norm rather than the exception for many years.

Around the Bundaberg, Gin Gin, Childers irrigation scheme farm rations for water have been around 0 to 30% of allocation for years. Some times not allowed to irrigate at all and often not enough for farmers to be able to justify planting a full crop I heard in parts of the Murray, the NSW gov completely cancelled water rights, but did not refund farmers what they had paid for the water. The loss of income to farmers and farming communities has been enormous.

Many city folke (and some farmers) whinge because they can't turn on a tap and get all the water they want, so their solution is simply to build more dams.

Obviously, the 'Traverston' issue stemmed from poor gov planning for the SE corner and politicians do what politicians do in a crisis. The issue is/should be more about water conservation, rather than more dams. If the water restrictions and/or the cost of water for domestic and industry use in the cities had been implemented even roughly in parallel with rural irrigation costs and restrictions over the rest of the state and country, to account for seasonal conditions we would not have the crisis and urgent ill-conceived need for a mega dam at Traverston.

People like myself who live in rural areas depend on our rainwater tanks and conserve water all the time. If gov had legislated to install rainwater tanks in a certain way to minimise mosquito problems rather than banning water tanks in towns and cities altogether decades ago, most houses would have a water tank or two even if just for the pleasure of decent drinking and/or washing water and considerably lessened the water crisis.

Some critics say they don't hold much water, but the point is the SE coastal strip of Qld where most of the population is gets much more rain than inland, and therefore any little shower of rain replenishes some water in their tanks, verses zilch in the dams built further inland.

On the issue of the feasibility of the Traverston dam, while not seeing the exact site myself, there is one thing that can be said with certainty.

The Traverston dam is built near a fault line. A guy, I think attached to CQU has been monitoring and recording minor seismic activity in this area for years. It has been quite awhile since this part of Qld have experienced a substantial earthquake. But there is one thing for sure, if a quake hit the area there is a good chance that the dam will leak and probably the wall will fail. It seems they are saying they can build the footings deeper and stronger, but at what cost, and I haven't heard anyone guarantee the wall will be quake proof.

For me the big risks are being glossed over. I wonder how many of the strong proponents of the Traverston dam would be prepared to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and live downstream from it.

I'm with senator Joyce on this one. The whole water problem really needs to be thaught out more carefully.

 

[Julia]

Whiskers,

Thanks for your comprehensive comments. I don't live in the area concerned - either the SE Corner or the Traveston area - so am personally unaffected by what happens. Except that being in Hervey Bay, if our present water supply were to be inadequate in the future, then the proposed Traveston dam would remove our current capacity to access water from the Mary River.

I don't know the actual size of the proposed dam or how long it would take to fill but certainly the Mary River was hugely in flood for many days so I imagine there would have been a pretty reasonable hypothetical flow into the hypothetical dam.

I have to disagree about populations having to accept severe water restrictions on a permanent basis. OK, you have to do it if you choose to live outside of a metropolitan area and are dependent on tank water.
But people like to have gardens and be able to wash their cars. And top up their swimming pools. We are a modern, affluent society and expect this stuff. It's not unreasonable. So if we have to create increased water storage (not sure that that will solve the SE's problem) and build desal plants all along the coast, then so be it.

I recently installed three 5000L water tanks which after recent rains are full.
However, I would only have to run my garden irrigation system for an hour on 15 occasions to empty them. This area can go for three months without rain so they are not going to get topped up. So tanks are good, yes, but not the total solution, and many properties in built up areas simply don't have the room for them.

 

[Aussiejeff]

I have to disagree about populations having to accept severe water restrictions on a permanent basis. OK, you have to do it if you choose to live outside of a metropolitan area and are dependent on tank water.
But people like to have gardens and be able to wash their cars. And top up their swimming pools. We are a modern, affluent society and expect this stuff. It's not unreasonable. So if we have to create increased water storage (not sure that that will solve the SE's problem) and build desal plants all along the coast, then so be it.

I guess it depends on how much the general population is prepared to pay to access these proposed alternative sources. Of course, those with deep pockets would say "I'll pay ANYTHING to keep watering my beautiful lawns..!!", while those with VERY to MODERATELY tight budgets are likely not going to be too happy to fork out 2-3 or more times their current water bill to keep up appearances.

Maybe the current pricing systems need to be completely re-jigged on a sliding scale so that low residential water users pay minimal amounts whereas high residential water users (or those who are prepared to pay for high water useage) pay BIG bucket loads for that privilege. I don't think the current scales really place that BIG a premium on higher use ATM.

Interestingly, north-east Victorian irrigators are now saying "well, the Government created this you-beaut water trading scheme - since I have some excess irrigation allocation and the towns are on Stage 4 and desperate to water their lawns and gardens, I am prepared to sell my water allocation to any town that wants to pay me..."

Sounds ok at first glance - it IS a free market now, after all - but the result will inevitably lead to a "virtual auctioning" of "virtual water" allocations to the highest town bidders! Interesting to see which towns/sporting organisations are going to stump up the sky-rocketing water allocation prices in a competitive market environment.

Ho-hum...

Back to the bucket brigade for me...



AJ

 

[Julia]

I guess it depends on how much the general population is prepared to pay to access these proposed alternative sources. Of course, those with deep pockets would say "I'll pay ANYTHING to keep watering my beautiful lawns..!!", while those with VERY to MODERATELY tight budgets are likely not going to be too happy to fork out 2-3 or more times their current water bill to keep up appearances.


Maybe the current pricing systems need to be completely re-jigged on a sliding scale so that low residential water users pay minimal amounts whereas high residential water users (or those who are prepared to pay for high water useage) pay BIG bucket loads for that privilege. I don't think the current scales really place that BIG a premium on higher use ATM.

Interestingly, north-east Victorian irrigators are now saying "well, the Government created this you-beaut water trading scheme - since I have some excess irrigation allocation and the towns are on Stage 4 and desperate to water their lawns and gardens, I am prepared to sell my water allocation to any town that wants to pay me..."

Sounds ok at first glance - it IS a free market now, after all - but the result will inevitably lead to a "virtual auctioning" of "virtual water" allocations to the highest town bidders! Interesting to see which towns/sporting organisations are going to stump up the sky-rocketing water allocation prices in a competitive market environment.

Ho-hum...

Back to the bucket brigade for me...



AJ

AJ,
Good post. I can't argue with anything you say, except that many of us who want water for our gardens have no interest in "keeping up appearances". It's simply the joy and sense of sanctuary a beautiful garden can provide.

Yes, a tiered water charging system makes complete sense.

If you are using buckets, how are you managing, if you have a large garden, that is?