- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
Peter Garrett should do a Midnight rain dance to Blue Skies are Mine!
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
Hi Julia and aussiejeff
It looks like we are pretty much thinking along the same lines. Something definetly needs to be done and I am happy for it to include, more water tanks, recycling, tiered water costing, transferable domestic allocations so people who for example don't want a garden can sell to those who do, desalination plants, even cloud seeding and any other options.
As you rightly say Julia, we are an affluent society and should have ready access to a reasonably supply of water.
I just think many people don't fully appreciate that we are the driest continent on earth when thinking about the solution. Too often we are highjacked by our politicans who rush into antiquated ideas and technology to solve short term political faces and not allowed to have careful considered dialog
Apart from the enviornmentional issues and costs of damming all of our rivers, I just believe it makes more sense to do all the other things we have mentioned, particularly more recycling, before building more dams inland from where most of our rain falls.
I also acknowledge smurfs point that the broader range of solutions often get smudged out by opposing extremist interests.
Having had training in conflict resolution specifically in enviornmental matters, I have seen these sorts of issues resolved by facilitators through organised processes where everyone can get more of what they want.
The simplistic classic example is of the neighbours fighting over control of a cow. One neighbour insisted he needed it to keep his grass down. The other insisted he needed it for fresh milk. When a faciliator discussed and worked through the issues with them they were able to see that if they cooperated with each other to share the cow, they could both get what they wanted.
The Qld DPI did build up a very good system of regional consultative committies and facilitators in the early nineties where problems were worked through systematically to find a good solutions to all sorts of issues from water, salinity, erosion, feral animals, noxious pests, quarantine etc, but they have not been used by the Beattie gov in Qld. We have basically seen a man railroading through his own ideas and adgenda, even dismissing his own party members because they would not go in to bat for his adgenda.
The so called cheaper cost of mega dams don't factor in the longer term costs to things like the fishing industry, silting of the river and rivermouths in particular, putrification of water from salvinia weed build up in still water, the recurring future costs of its removal, interruption of navigation and water sports by the invasion of the weed and silting, methane etc.
People... we need a law similar to business law where a nominated percentage of shareholders can force a general meeting and vote on issues.
Beattie, sacked his own party members for not jumping to his command on the Traverston dam and arogantly threatened to sack any councils who organised a poll re the redistrubution issue.
I say do unto others as you wish them to do unto you.
We need a mechanism in our constitution to enable us the people to call a vote on issues where politicians inexplicibly go against the wishes of the people, to recind bad laws and/or decisions and/or politicans who highjack the system rather than having to tolerate them and the damage they do for up to three years before we can vote them out.
We need the power to sack politicans like Beattie as brutally as he sacked and threatened to sack his oponents. That would be true democracy.
It looks like we are pretty much thinking along the same lines. Something definetly needs to be done and I am happy for it to include, more water tanks, recycling, tiered water costing, transferable domestic allocations so people who for example don't want a garden can sell to those who do, desalination plants, even cloud seeding and any other options.
As you rightly say Julia, we are an affluent society and should have ready access to a reasonably supply of water.
I just think many people don't fully appreciate that we are the driest continent on earth when thinking about the solution. Too often we are highjacked by our politicans who rush into antiquated ideas and technology to solve short term political faces and not allowed to have careful considered dialog
Apart from the enviornmentional issues and costs of damming all of our rivers, I just believe it makes more sense to do all the other things we have mentioned, particularly more recycling, before building more dams inland from where most of our rain falls.
I also acknowledge smurfs point that the broader range of solutions often get smudged out by opposing extremist interests.
Having had training in conflict resolution specifically in enviornmental matters, I have seen these sorts of issues resolved by facilitators through organised processes where everyone can get more of what they want.
The simplistic classic example is of the neighbours fighting over control of a cow. One neighbour insisted he needed it to keep his grass down. The other insisted he needed it for fresh milk. When a faciliator discussed and worked through the issues with them they were able to see that if they cooperated with each other to share the cow, they could both get what they wanted.
The Qld DPI did build up a very good system of regional consultative committies and facilitators in the early nineties where problems were worked through systematically to find a good solutions to all sorts of issues from water, salinity, erosion, feral animals, noxious pests, quarantine etc, but they have not been used by the Beattie gov in Qld. We have basically seen a man railroading through his own ideas and adgenda, even dismissing his own party members because they would not go in to bat for his adgenda.
The so called cheaper cost of mega dams don't factor in the longer term costs to things like the fishing industry, silting of the river and rivermouths in particular, putrification of water from salvinia weed build up in still water, the recurring future costs of its removal, interruption of navigation and water sports by the invasion of the weed and silting, methane etc.
People... we need a law similar to business law where a nominated percentage of shareholders can force a general meeting and vote on issues.
Beattie, sacked his own party members for not jumping to his command on the Traverston dam and arogantly threatened to sack any councils who organised a poll re the redistrubution issue.
I say do unto others as you wish them to do unto you.
We need a mechanism in our constitution to enable us the people to call a vote on issues where politicians inexplicibly go against the wishes of the people, to recind bad laws and/or decisions and/or politicans who highjack the system rather than having to tolerate them and the damage they do for up to three years before we can vote them out.
We need the power to sack politicans like Beattie as brutally as he sacked and threatened to sack his oponents. That would be true democracy.
- Joined
- 20 September 2005
- Posts
- 496
- Reactions
- 0
Out of curiousity
What level water restrictions are you people on?
We are on level 1 restrictions in Townsville which basically means you can only use your sprinklers 3 times a week but you are free to use handheld hoses to water.
I heard that Bendigo has had to close public swimming pools because of water shortages. Is this true? It just seems so hard to contemplate. Misery.
Cheers
Happytrader
What level water restrictions are you people on?
We are on level 1 restrictions in Townsville which basically means you can only use your sprinklers 3 times a week but you are free to use handheld hoses to water.
I heard that Bendigo has had to close public swimming pools because of water shortages. Is this true? It just seems so hard to contemplate. Misery.
Cheers
Happytrader
numbercruncher
Beware of Dropbears
- Joined
- 12 October 2006
- Posts
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 1
My bro on the Gold Coast tells me they are on level 5 which i understand basically means let your garden die and leave your car dirty!
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Lucky Happy you! It's Level 4 here in Wodonga/Albury/Yarrawonga - in fact all along the Murray system. Rather than try to give an indication of what that means, here are the restrictions as taken from the North East Water website (a long but interesting read!)
Critical (Stage 4)
The Following Compulsory Restrictions Apply To Stage 4:
** Residential or Commercial Garden or Lawn
A garden area must not be watered at any time.
A lawn area must not be watered at any time.
**Public Garden or Lawn
A garden area must not be watered by means of a manual or automatic watering system at any time.
A lawn area must not be watered at any time.
Garden and lawn areas must not be watered at any time.
A garden or a lawn area must not be watered at any time.
**Sportsground
An exempt playing surface must not be watered at any time.
Any other playing surface must not be watered at any time.
No part of a sportsground may be watered at any time.
**Pond or Lake
A new pond or lake must not be filled.
An existing pond or lake must not be filled or topped up unless the relevant pond or lake sustains aquatic fauna or bird life, and then only to the extent and in the manner specified in written permission of North East Water.
**Fountain or Water Feature
A fountain or water feature of any volume must not be operated.
A fountain or water feature of any volume must not be filled or topped up.
**Residential or Commercial Pool or Spa
A new pool or spa with a capacity of less than 500 litres must not be filled.
A new residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of between 500 and 2,000 litres must not be filled.
A new residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled.
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa with a volume equal to or less than 2000 litre capacity may be filled by means of a watering can or bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled except in accordance with a Water Conservation Plan, prepared by the owner or occupier and approved by North East Water.
An existing residential or commercial pool or spa must not be topped up except by means of a watering can or bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
**Municipal Pool or Spa
A new municipal pool or spa must not be filled.
An existing municipal pool or spa must not be topped up except to the extent and in the manner approved by North East Water in writing.
**Mobile Spa
A mobile spa with a capacity of between 500 and 2,000 litres must not be filled.
A mobile spa with a capacity of 2,000 litres or more must not be filled.
**Water Toy
A water toy must not be used at any time .
**Dam or Tank
A dam or tank must not be filled or topped up, except:
with the written permission of North East Water; or
in the case of a dam or tank providing water for fire fighting, public health or stock, only to the extent which, in the opinion of North East Water is reasonably necessary to provide for those purposes.
**Water Tanker
A water tanker must not be filled or topped up, unless;
North East Water has granted a mobile water tanker permit to the operator of that tanker; and
the tanker is supplying water to be used inside a dwelling or for fire fighting, stock watering, construction, or public health purposes.
**Commercial Market Garden or Commercial or Council Plant Nursery
Water must not be used for watering any garden, plant stock, seeds or produce, except:
a) if written permission of North East Water is obtained, by:
an automatic or manual watering system used only as required for up to two hours per day; and
in accordance with, and while displaying any signs required by, that written permission; or
b) by hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or a watering can or bucket filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from the tap, at any time.
**Vehicles
Water must not be used to clean any part of a vehicle other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only with a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
**Commercial Car Wash
A commercial car wash must not use water to clean any part of a vehicle other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only with a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
**Motor Vehicle Dealer
Water must not be used to clean any part of a vehicle in a motor vehicle dealership other than its windows, mirrors and lights, and for spot removing corrosive substances, and then only by means of a bucket filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
**Food Transport Vehicle
Water must not be used to clean inside a food transport vehicle except by means of;
a high pressure water cleaning device; or
a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, and only if such cleaning is necessary, either to avoid contamination of the vehicle’s contents or to ensure public safety.
**Boat Motors
Water must not be used to flush the inboard or outboard motor of a vessel unless:
a suitable receptacle filled by a hand-held hose is used or;
a flushing device, connected to a hose is used, and the tap is turned off immediately after flushing is complete.
**Hard Surface
Water must not be used to clean a hard surface unless cleaning is required as a result of:
an accident, fire, health hazard, safety hazard or other emergency, and a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle is used.
**Building Facade (including windows)
Water must not be used to clean a building façade unless cleaning is required as a result of:
a) an accident, fire, health hazard, safety hazard or other emergency, and either:
a bucket, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap is used; or
a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle is used.
**Dust Suppression
Water must not be used to suppress dust, unless dust is causing a health or environmental hazard; and then only by means of:
a water tanker permitted in accordance with item 11; or
a hand-held hose, fitted with a trigger nozzle, or by a watering can, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap.
**Construction
Water must not be used in construction except:
by means of a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or by a bucket or other container, filled either by a hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle, or directly from a tap; or
by construction equipment which requires a water supply for its safe and efficient operation.
**Animal Husbandry
Water must not be used for animal husbandry except for:
drinking by animals or birds;
cleaning of animals or birds;
cleaning pens, yards and cages, and then only if cleaning is done by means of a hose fitted with a trigger nozzle.
**Commercial Poultry Farm
Water must not be used for cooling a shed on a commercial poultry farm except by means of:
sprinklers used only for cooling and then only when the inside temperature reaches 30 oC and between the hours of 6am and 9pm; and
fogging systems and cooling pads, which may be used at any time.
**Other Purposes
Water must not be used for any other purpose without the prior written permission of North East Water.
So, lots of "cannot's, dont's" and dammed (sic) if you do! Absolutely no reference to bore water (don't know what the rules are for that). So, for us on town water, like I have indicated in previouys posts - it comes down to bucketing water out from the washing machine and bathtub (which we use as a receptacle for the buckets of water we collect from our showers!). My wife and I are approaching our 60's so we don't exactly like the idea of heaving countless heavy buckets around every few days to save a few precious shade trees!
Oh well. With a lack of political will and nous it was always going to come to this, wasn't it?
Chiz,
AJ
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
AussieJeff
That is really harsh. I do feel for you. Does the Vic government have a subsidised tank installation scheme? e.g. in Qld there is a $1000 rebate for installing a tank. Does it rain enough to even make it worthwhile?
I'd move to FNQ.
That is really harsh. I do feel for you. Does the Vic government have a subsidised tank installation scheme? e.g. in Qld there is a $1000 rebate for installing a tank. Does it rain enough to even make it worthwhile?
I'd move to FNQ.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
a website on Traveston Dam (there are others of course)
THINK TANKS !!
DAMN THE DAM !! etc
http://www.themaryvalley.com.au/html/cms/103/traveston-crossing-dam-mary-river
THINK TANKS !!
DAMN THE DAM !! etc
http://www.themaryvalley.com.au/html/cms/103/traveston-crossing-dam-mary-river
Attachments
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Drat.
Looks like the farmers in northwest and central Vic are going to lose their crops. Only one week left for a miracle biblical proportions rainfall event to save the massive plantings they banked on when that late winter season rain and La Nina predictions by long range weather forecasters encouraged them to plant big time.
The weather charts look woeful for the next week or so, so not much hope....
I guess wheat and some other grain futures are likely to go further through the roof.
AJ
Looks like the farmers in northwest and central Vic are going to lose their crops. Only one week left for a miracle biblical proportions rainfall event to save the massive plantings they banked on when that late winter season rain and La Nina predictions by long range weather forecasters encouraged them to plant big time.
The weather charts look woeful for the next week or so, so not much hope....
I guess wheat and some other grain futures are likely to go further through the roof.
AJ
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Hi Julia,
Re: moving to FNQ - unfortunately, I'm allergic to cane toads..... (the hopping variety, of course!)
With regards to water tank rebates...
"Households purchasing and installing a water tank from 1 January 2007 are now eligible for a rebate of up to $1000.
Water tanks can save up to 40,000 litres per household per year.
The rebate is based on the size of the tank and requires the tank to be connected to toilet and/or laundry facilities as follows:
Rainwater Tanks, 2000 – 4999 litre capacity, connected to toilet and/or laundry - $500 rebate
Rainwater Tanks, 5000+ litre capacity, connected to toilet or laundry - $900 rebate
Rainwater Tank 5000+ litre capacity, connected to toilet and laundry - $1000 rebate
The existing $150 rebate for tanks 600 litres or larger not connected for indoor use will still apply.
The rebates scheme is administered by the retail water authorities on behalf of the Government, in partnership with the Department of Sustainability and Environment."
Cheers,
AJ
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,120
- Reactions
- 16,956
Just a few points that seem to be missed here...
1. Australia has MORE water per head of population than any other inhabited continent.
2. ALL Australian capital cities and major irrigation districts would now have run COMPLETELY out of water if we had adopted a No Dams stance 100 years ago and not built any.
I can accept that dams most certainly do have an environmental impact. I've seen more dams than most and they ain't too pretty once you look below the suface (something that's easy to do given the drought).
But why is nobody mentioning the environmental impacts of not building dams? They are certainly there. For example:
1. A house that crumbles as clay foundations shrink represents a truly massive environmental impact to build a replacement house. Even repairing it uses lots of materials and adds greenhouse gas emissions. And somewhere around half of all houses in some Melbourne suburbs are cracking up...
2. Tanks use vastly more materials to construct than a major dam per unit of water supplied. Worse still, the tanks are transported on oil-guzzling trucks from the factory to the house. In greenhouse terms it's anything but "green".
3. CSIRO research following the Canberra fires some years ago found that those who didn't water their lawns were the houses most likely to be burnt. The environmental impact of replacing those houses would likely exceed that of even desalinated water in terms of greenhouse gas emissions - houses are pretty destructive things to build.
And so on. There's two sides to this debate. No dams and you save the river but damage something else. Build dams and you flood the river but save something else.
If you consider the overall impact of dams for urban water supply versus cars then it's no contest. Cars are the real environmental nasty. So why the stage 5 etc water restrictions but not even stage 1 car restrictions?
Many will argue it's because we live in a free society and it's not the role of government to tell people not to buy an SUV despite the environmental effects of such vehicles. If that's the case then how does it become the role of government to worry about the environmental effects of dams? It is after all far easier to rehabilitate a flooded valley than put oil and carbon dioxide back in the ground, a point that even the likes of No Dams champion Bob Brown have noted.
I just sense a high degree of double standards here and I've seen it before. Dams = bad but ignore other things that are far worse and even promote them as alternatives.
Consider the impact of road building and the amount of materials and land lost to roads. There's an incredibly strong case to argue against ever building more highways anywhere. Likewise there's an even stronger argument against the aviation industry.
But for some reason we keep getting all worked up about dams.
Go to an airport and just watch the planes landing and taking off whilst contemplating just how much oil they're burning in order to provide so little actual transport.
Stand beside a busy highway hearing the noise, smelling the fumes and wondering what happend to the farm and before that forest that used to be there.
Walk the city steets and note the incredible waste as perfectly good buildings are demolished.
Visit a landfill and just gaze at the incredible waste of resources and destruction of a once-beautiful valley that's being filled in with literally rubbish.
Visit a new housing estate and just contemplate the construction of all the oversized, energy-guzzling buildings designed to not last very long anyway on land that used to be bush.
And go visit a few dams.
Do this and I very much doubt you'll be too worried about the impact of the dams.
1. Australia has MORE water per head of population than any other inhabited continent.
2. ALL Australian capital cities and major irrigation districts would now have run COMPLETELY out of water if we had adopted a No Dams stance 100 years ago and not built any.
I can accept that dams most certainly do have an environmental impact. I've seen more dams than most and they ain't too pretty once you look below the suface (something that's easy to do given the drought).
But why is nobody mentioning the environmental impacts of not building dams? They are certainly there. For example:
1. A house that crumbles as clay foundations shrink represents a truly massive environmental impact to build a replacement house. Even repairing it uses lots of materials and adds greenhouse gas emissions. And somewhere around half of all houses in some Melbourne suburbs are cracking up...
2. Tanks use vastly more materials to construct than a major dam per unit of water supplied. Worse still, the tanks are transported on oil-guzzling trucks from the factory to the house. In greenhouse terms it's anything but "green".
3. CSIRO research following the Canberra fires some years ago found that those who didn't water their lawns were the houses most likely to be burnt. The environmental impact of replacing those houses would likely exceed that of even desalinated water in terms of greenhouse gas emissions - houses are pretty destructive things to build.
And so on. There's two sides to this debate. No dams and you save the river but damage something else. Build dams and you flood the river but save something else.
If you consider the overall impact of dams for urban water supply versus cars then it's no contest. Cars are the real environmental nasty. So why the stage 5 etc water restrictions but not even stage 1 car restrictions?
Many will argue it's because we live in a free society and it's not the role of government to tell people not to buy an SUV despite the environmental effects of such vehicles. If that's the case then how does it become the role of government to worry about the environmental effects of dams? It is after all far easier to rehabilitate a flooded valley than put oil and carbon dioxide back in the ground, a point that even the likes of No Dams champion Bob Brown have noted.
I just sense a high degree of double standards here and I've seen it before. Dams = bad but ignore other things that are far worse and even promote them as alternatives.
Consider the impact of road building and the amount of materials and land lost to roads. There's an incredibly strong case to argue against ever building more highways anywhere. Likewise there's an even stronger argument against the aviation industry.
But for some reason we keep getting all worked up about dams.
Go to an airport and just watch the planes landing and taking off whilst contemplating just how much oil they're burning in order to provide so little actual transport.
Stand beside a busy highway hearing the noise, smelling the fumes and wondering what happend to the farm and before that forest that used to be there.
Walk the city steets and note the incredible waste as perfectly good buildings are demolished.
Visit a landfill and just gaze at the incredible waste of resources and destruction of a once-beautiful valley that's being filled in with literally rubbish.
Visit a new housing estate and just contemplate the construction of all the oversized, energy-guzzling buildings designed to not last very long anyway on land that used to be bush.
And go visit a few dams.
Do this and I very much doubt you'll be too worried about the impact of the dams.
A good post. Wish Bob Brown could see it that way. Dams don't ruin the enviroment they CHANGE it. In most cases for the better.
The same applies to a lot of forests too. I once asked a forester why they did so much monoculture and did not selectively log native forest and preserve the native forest. The answer was along the lines that all the forests they were doing that to were taken from them by the national parks and the best way to maintain their jobs was to clear fell and plant single species.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,120
- Reactions
- 16,956
I would consider myself as being moderately green. I'm certainly not in favour of development at any cost and there are quite a few things that I'd very much like to see the end of.
But let's be realistic. Fly over Sydney (or any other city) and then fly over some dams, power stations etc. You'll soon realise that it is the city itself that is the problem. The water and energy industries would never get away with doing the sort of damage that building the city itself has created.
More to the point, if they were subject to a proper environmental assessment process then none of Australia's state capital cities would ever gain approval to be built. They destroyed massive areas of old growth forest, all were built right near rivers, all produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases, all produce toxic solid wastes constantly and most expose humans and the few remaining animals directly to toxic air pollutants. And none of them are even remotely sustainable in their present form.
I don't hear anyone campaigning to stop the construction of cities. But they're happy to campaign against the dams, power stations, mills, mines, smelters and so on that are directly responsible for sustaining the city in the first place.
Those words were originally written in 1962. 45 years later we're still trying to get our collective minds around the inherently rather simple issue of land use. Let's hope we never have to deal with anything that's genuinely difficult, like peak oil or climate change.
But let's be realistic. Fly over Sydney (or any other city) and then fly over some dams, power stations etc. You'll soon realise that it is the city itself that is the problem. The water and energy industries would never get away with doing the sort of damage that building the city itself has created.
More to the point, if they were subject to a proper environmental assessment process then none of Australia's state capital cities would ever gain approval to be built. They destroyed massive areas of old growth forest, all were built right near rivers, all produce vast quantities of greenhouse gases, all produce toxic solid wastes constantly and most expose humans and the few remaining animals directly to toxic air pollutants. And none of them are even remotely sustainable in their present form.
I don't hear anyone campaigning to stop the construction of cities. But they're happy to campaign against the dams, power stations, mills, mines, smelters and so on that are directly responsible for sustaining the city in the first place.
Those words were originally written in 1962. 45 years later we're still trying to get our collective minds around the inherently rather simple issue of land use. Let's hope we never have to deal with anything that's genuinely difficult, like peak oil or climate change.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
smurf
as usual your post cover heaps
1. spot on with double standards re "why not car restrictions" - assuming that you are allowed to merge the argument for drought and environment - and I for one believe that they are linked indirectly even if atmosphere is not the only factor in the climatic change argument.
And it's too urgent to bring cliamte change into this one. We need water yesterday.
Guess I'm all for tanks - though I don't have one personally (must look into that
) - least energy to make one would be nice , as you say. 2. However, I'm also all for "demand management" i.e. clever water restrictions - no option imo - until we get our act together.- desalinators , filtering stormwater runoff, whatever.
People tell me stormwater runoff water is more difficult to filter than salt water. I find that incredibly hard to believe. surely easier to get rid ofa hint of perol or oil than dissolved salt by the bucketful. ??
3. My references to Traveston ? - mainly feel sorry for the farmers. And I guess I am always suspicious of political BS on these matters. i.e. If one pollie told me it was a good idea (arguably with political motve),
and another told me it wasn't ( eg Barnaby Joyce - with at least a track record of trying to be open, diligent, sincere and honest) - then I'm more inclined to believe the latter
(not that I agree with him on his beliefs
) - But I like the man nevertheless - prepared to fight against the "yesman mentality" of party politics. With the Libs having held both houses, Barnaby Joyce has been the only conscience in that place to TRY to keep SOME of the BASTARDS a fraction fair and honest (IMO).But in the end, If it has to be, so be it.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
currently we use about 8 garbage bins out the back - keeps enough water for the garden (sheesh - if you can call a few struggling excuses for plants a garden) Sydney is green of course at the moment, and Warragamba looking much healthier - forget the percentage full thoughGuess I'm all for tanks - though I don't have one personally (must look into that
PS the dog prefers to drink from them than tap water -
I keep telling her she needs the flouride for her teeth - but
you think she'll listen??
no bludy way
typical woman
and her mother was a real bitch I tell you
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,120
- Reactions
- 16,956
The trouble is that it's not just a bit of petrol and oil.
Roads themselves slowly wear away adding blue metal and bitumen. Likewise tyre rubber which is full of all sorts of nasties.
Car brake dust builds up as does particles from exhausts.
So too the animal droppings, cigarette butts, spilled paint (and road marking paint as it wears off), tree leaves, plastic sawdust from water, gas and electrical construction works, spilled drinks, radiator coolant, concrete dust from construction works, human body fluids (including blood from accidents), general litter.
It all goes into the stormwater system and that water is not presently treated (with one exception that I know of).
Go to where the stormwater flows into the river / ocean during a high rainfall event following a dry period and the you'll easily see the visible plume discolouring the water. In Hobart it's been known to turn the Derwent brown well south of the casino (just imagine what goes down the drains in larger cities).
Part of the problem is the inconsistency of stormwater. We know what's in the ocean (a disgusting man-made mess by the way) but it changes little in the short term unless there's an oil spill etc. So no big deal to build a plant to treat the water of known quality and remove the salt etc.
But with storm water or sewage it's constantly changing. A cyanide spill into the system one day, petrol the next and rain after that. It's hard running any industrial plant with a constantly changing feedstock. Differing quality coal into a boiler is hard enough. Differing quality water into a treatment plant that needs to maintain absolutely consistent quality of output doesn't make it easy.
And given that there's no shortage of sea water, the only point in treating storm water or sewage is if it's cheaper (financially and/or environmentally) than desalination.
Technically, there's nothing stopping a 100% renewable energy powered desalination plant. Politically it's difficult, too many people protesting about clean energy spoiling the scenery, but technically it's not at all difficult.
Pipelines are also technically quite doable. There's plenty of water flowing into the sea all over the place that could be diverted without a single new large dam needing to be built. I'm not sure of the cost however.
- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
a) well my wife thinks you're wrong wrong wrong! lol
b) for mine, ... you're promoted from "Mr 110%" to "Mr 115%" -
i.e.
when anyone asks you a question, you can tell em 115% more than they ever could have imagined lol
(bit like a mate at work - gee but he's a great bloke to have around lol)
thanks btw.
numbercruncher
Beware of Dropbears
- Joined
- 12 October 2006
- Posts
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 1
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=227694
Wow isnt that just amazing ........
Wonder if this could have an effect on the population size of Sydney, one thing im thinking is that Gardening is one of the most common/popular pastimes - would people move enmasse to a place they can indulge?
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Like... F.N.Q?
I guess they could do with a few million more volunteers for the Cane Toad Corps!! haha.
AJ
I guess they could do with a few million more volunteers for the Cane Toad Corps!! haha.
AJ
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
As long as gardeners are still permitted to use irrigation systems/sprinklers at night, there's no problem. It's a much more sensible time to water anyway.
But, yes, if the "buckets only" law were to become permanent, I do think keen gardeners would consider moving to FNQ. I have seriously thought about it.
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
I think the phrase you are looking for Smurf, is 'sustainable development.'
The problem is that Politicans mostly think of sustainable development in terms of money and their election prospects in cities.
Rural areas and farms in particular have borne the brunt of the environmental sustainability arguement so far. Conserving and recyclicing irrigation water has been practiced for decades. But precious little water that falls over cities has been captured in tanks or recycled.
If politicans let the public engage in dialog in structured processes with professional facilitators, (referred to in a previous post) we would tend to get a much better balance between economic and environmental sustainability with planning decisions.
One reason why I don't support the Traverston dam (yet, if at all) is because the process is fundamentally flawed.
