Water Conservation

Fossie 32

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
19,719
Likes
9,821
Location
1300GODOGS
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Melbourne..VICTORY, Leeds
Thread starter #1
Why don't the govt charge more per litre used? [And less for access fees etc]. Surely that would help conserve water and be a fairer system?

Afraid of backlash from industry?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

H2F

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Posts
23,664
Likes
15,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#2
It's because all the degenerates of Australian society would been screaming foul when H2F had 24 hour sprinklers going on his acre front lawn, and they couldn't afford to flush their toilets.

Pisses me off no end.
 

likka

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Posts
12,202
Likes
24
Location
Rehab
AFL Club
Collingwood
#3
I refuse to save water when so much of it is wasted by business, the govt and Melbourne Water.

FFS just last week it was reported than Melbourne Water lost 30 billion litres in the latest in their long list of **** ups.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/down-the-gurgler/story-e6frf7jo-1225786418597

I'm supposed to take a 2 minute ****ing shower and let my garden wither and die whilst they incompetently manage what water we have left.

Methinks not.
 

Oakland Raider

All Australian
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
786
Likes
10
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Raiderettes
#4
Plenty here - http://www.lakeargyle.com.au/statistics

According to the Diamond mine site -

Argyle's environmental management programme includes a range of projects to prevent, minimise, mitigate or remediate environmental impacts. The program encompasses functions such as:
  • Conservation of natural resources to promote efficient use of water and energy.
Is it true they use the same amount of water in a week cleaning diamonds as the population of Sydney uses for drinking?
 

theGimp

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Posts
2,800
Likes
44
Location
South of Heaven
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
The Clan of Gimps
#8
Why don't the govt charge more per litre used? [And less for access fees etc]. Surely that would help conserve water and be a fairer system?

Afraid of backlash from industry?
Agree. The last bill I got was the final straw. They can get stuffed, Im watering when I feel like it.

260 dollar water bill with just over 70 in water use.

Top incentive.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Niximus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
13,482
Likes
13,557
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#15
We're on a planet that is what? 70% water? Water supply should never be a problem.

Build a heap of desalination plants and charge water appropriately.

How about - your first x litres (based on your household size) is included in your council rates. Over that you pay for desalinated water at the market rate.

It quite simple really.
 

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
#16
Desalination isn't without its problems though. Pumping highly concentrated, high temperature saline back into the ocean is effectively pumping toxic waste into the oceans, it can cause a lot of environmental problems. And then there's the enrgy problems too, until we start generting huge quantities of clean energy then these desal plants are have a huge carbon footprint. I'm not against desal as a concept but the current plans do seem to be being pushed through with foolhardy haste.
 

Niximus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
13,482
Likes
13,557
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#17
Desalination isn't without its problems though. Pumping highly concentrated, high temperature saline back into the ocean is effectively pumping toxic waste into the oceans, it can cause a lot of environmental problems. And then there's the enrgy problems too, until we start generting huge quantities of clean energy then these desal plants are have a huge carbon footprint. I'm not against desal as a concept but the current plans do seem to be being pushed through with foolhardy haste.
Build reactors with them so they can churn out fresh water at will, pump some back to the cities and some into the center of the continent and grow a forrest in the desert.
 

KUNG FU

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 31, 2006
Posts
6,044
Likes
32
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
#18
Why don't the govt charge more per litre used? [And less for access fees etc]. Surely that would help conserve water and be a fairer system?

Afraid of backlash from industry?
And backlash for agriculture; primarily the cotton, citrus, wine, meat and dairy industry and any other produce we aren't geographically suited be cultivating on mass.
 

Copernicus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Posts
11,420
Likes
1,190
Location
Hotlanta
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
UGA, KSU, Knox C.C
#19
I daresay the problem is that water isn't appropriately priced. The problem exists in epidemic proportions in the US, which at least in general has a lot more water, but it is ridiculously cheap. People don't simply don't pay a 'market' price for water, especially in arid areas like Arizona and California. If they did, I don't think we'd see the proliferation of golf courses and green lawns in the middle of the desert like have sprung up lately.

Meanwhile, those aquifers are just drying up with not enough water to replenish them, and the less said about the Colorado River, the better.
 

bit_pattern

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
9,053
Likes
354
Location
Mosman
AFL Club
Collingwood
#20
Yeah, the SW is going to be utterly ****ed within 50 years. Definitely the most vulnerable region in the States to the ravages of climate change.
 

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
47,270
Likes
48,777
AFL Club
West Coast
#21
Water should definitely be more expensive. Regardless of sprinkler bans etc. if it costs 50c to run your garden hose for an hour then people aren't going to realistically value water as a resource.

What staggers me is Perth (the poster city for urban sprawl - big blocks, single storey 4 x 2's etc.) receives plenty of rainfall (on average around 150mm more per year than Melbourne) and more sunshine than most places on the planet and yet there are no requirements for new dwellings to have solar panels or water tanks...
 

Kram

I'll brik u
Joined
May 2, 2007
Posts
53,215
Likes
66,677
Location
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
#22
I refuse to save water when so much of it is wasted by business, the govt and Melbourne Water.
Worked at a Nickel smelter for a while where they installed a waterless urinal, it had a note on it boasting that this saves x amount a water a year and is good for the environment. Some smart ass wrote underneath 'why don't we all go down to the flash furnace and take a piss then?'.

He seriously had a point though, they would waste enough water in one day to supply at least a 1000 toilets for a year.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Posts
16,989
Likes
8,784
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
#25
Yup, coal smelters....mmmm. Desalination is good for us :D

Would love to see new housing developments etc forced to be more environmentally friendly (solar panels, water tanks, insulation etc) but can't see it happening with the urban planners wanting to cram more people in as little space as possible with the new development.

As for charging for water usage, imagine the outcry from the voters if Kevin of Double Bay with a pool, spa & can afford to water his garden 3hrs a night whilst Bogan Westie of Blacktown can't afford to water his once a week (you get the drift).
 
Top Bottom