Mark has well documented the water politics up in Queensland but here on my turf, the NSW Central Coast, the battle is just getting started. At the moment the water level at the main dam at Mangrove Mountain is down to 13.8% with total supplies at 15.4% (two smaller dams closer to the coast are at a greater capacity but don’t have a great affect overall). Level 3 restrictions are in place and Central Coast residents are facing a water crisis if things do not improve.
The main argument at the moment is focusing on temporary desalination plants. The plants would be located at various beaches (the four currently proposed are Budgewoi, Tuggerah, Soldiers and North Lakes) in the area. Wyong Council is pushing for the desalination plants while Gosford Council is hesitant on the idea. Concerns are the energy use by the plants and who will pay for the estimated $1.3 million dollars per plant running costs. Note that Central Coast residents currently pay $1.12/kilolitre for water and it will cost $4/kilolitre with the desalination plants. A rates rise to cover the costs will not make the local government popular with the locals.
Opposition to desalination also contains an element of nimbyism. Beach side property fetches a nice price and residents would not like to see their property value diminished by temporary desalination plants suddenly popping up at the beaches.
Unlike the events up in Toowoomba the situation hasn’t reached a public vote. However the problem is dire but as the water supply dwindles the focus on desalination is at the expense of other, cheaper alternatives.
The Central Coast gets (and has been) receiving good rainfall on the coastal strip where most residents live. For example we have had close to 50 mm of rain since Friday most of which has gone to waste. One component of resolving the water crisis is to make use of that water. And Gosford and Wyong Councils are starting to understand this. They are considering allowing a rebate up to $2500 for anyone who installs a water tank.
We have one in our modest backyard. It only takes two good falls (about 20mm of rain) to fill the 1,000 litres. The guttering has been modified so that it feeds into the tank. We have a small pump also attached for a garden hose. So when it does get dry, we can still water the garden. A very modest effort but it works for us. It can even be used to wash the car. Using tanks with larger capacity, a tank can be used to supply water for toilet and laundries.
Water tanks are not going to solve the overall water crisis. However if coastal councils are series about alleviating the water shortage then not only should water tanks be promoted (and supported via rebates) but considered as essential for all new housing. Indeed there is a new subdivision on the coast that is designed to meet much of its water needs via storing run off from rain.
The focus on finding one big solution for the water shortage is typical politics. It overlooks that a series of solutions may be needed, that managed collectively, could resolve the problem for some areas. In addition to home water tanks, use of recycled water for non-drinking supplies (which is being discussed), capturing run-off for the same reasons and other methods should be considered as an overall solution. As we start to once again think about summer the battle over how water supply is managed on the Central Coast is just getting started.
Magic Bullet thinking has always been an all too easy trap for pollies to fall into, and in the age of the soundbite the tendency is worsened.
one of my supervisors worked on a linkage research project with sydney water, and she gave the plenary at our national conference in 2004. what I remember about her paper was the argument about ‘big water’ and ‘little water’. ‘big water’ fits the mindset of 18-20th century civil engineering projects around which populations can rally and are winners on the political front because said populations don’t have to modify any habits. it is a very masculine, public way of contributing to solve the problem. on the other hand ‘little water’ is what happens on the consumer end, it is a question of people realising they have to modify their habits, of initiatives like ‘grey’ water recycling, and shaun’s water tank. one comment I remember was about water tanks allegedly being unsightly. What bollocks! Not having a water is unsightly.
It may be that the local councils are prepared to push tanks but anecdotally at least there is also a part of that bureaucracy that is moving in the opposite direction. I live on the coast but in a semi-rural area where we exist entirely on tank water. But I now have heard of two instances where applications to install large tanks on urban properties have been rejected. In one case, the resident wanted to put a 50000 litre tank on his property, dug into the ground so as to be all but invisible. He calculated that he would become largely independent of the town supply. The application was rejected, first for aesthetic reasons (hence the below ground option) and then on unspecified health grounds. That fight continues.
In the end it seems that the councils’ policy seems to be to hope against hope that it will just rain in Mangrove while at the same time allowing new residents to just pour in.
The trouble with local councils is that they tend to personify the worst of the bureacracy. Below ground should be no problem. The health angle is interesting. I can understand an argument there but it shouldn’t be hard to purify water these days. Even if the person was just using if for non-drinking purposes they would save a motza.
I agree with the last statement, Mark. I’m sure that one day it will rain again but what do we do know and when the next drought happens?
Thanks for the ‘little water’ and ‘big water’ distinction glen. Nice terminology.
I see your leader the freckled one has appointed himself in charge of waters.
Good article in The Oz on the problems Goulburn faces.
One of the contributing factors to our water problem is the size of the population. Australia has almost reached its carrying capacity. Peter Costello, blind to the ecological problems, is encouraging Australians to breed. Malcolm Turnbull should tap Costello on the shoulder and set him straight about the relationship between population pressure and water scarcity.
(That is a little joke at Turnbull’s expense. I know Turnbull is no environmentalist. I went to school with him, and he was only mediocre at science.)
I just did a fresh install of Opera 9.1. this site doesn’t remember me, I seem to remember this happened before and there is a work around. Any hints? any opera users can help me import my old psswrds wands etc?
FXH, what’s worked for me in the past is to change themes to ‘nostalgic’, leave a comment somewhere, then change themes back to the current one.
Yes thanks Liam – That was it I remember now.
Life is funny isn’t it – nostalgia seems to work every time
bugger not working
mmh yes seems to be now
working now
Water tanks should be a requirement for all new dwellings.
All new dwellings (other than flats) in Victoria must have either a solar hot water or a water tank installed. See http://www.sustainable-energy.vic.gov.au/buildings/5starhousing/index.asp Other states should adopta similar requirement.
Currently Melbourne recycles some of its sewage water for agriculture. Eventually all sewage water in Australia should be recycled. It is disgraceful that we are now in the 21st century and we still pump our waste water into the ocean and rivers.
Urban storm water run off should also be recycled and reused.
New residential developments should be expected to comply with best practice in terms of energy use, water use, waste management and so on. So many technologies already exist that to allow us to drastically improve our environmental performance.
It is about time our state and local government’s mandated excellence in urban design rather than allow the ongoing sprawl of mediocre residential estates.
I agree that the water debate has been focused very much on single solution “big water” infrastructure. This prevents a focus on demand-side issues. Not only could we be using recycled water and rain water, we could be using LESS water.
Silkworm, with regard to the notion of carrying capacity, that is a function of not just population, but also consumption.
ie. CC(water) = indiv. water use x population
Given that water is drastically limited in many other countries too, countries where they already use much less water per person than we do here, it seems a tad selfish to cry ‘carrying capacity’ and ask noone else to enter our poor affluent country.
We can reduce our water use, and in the interests of globally equity, we should do so as a matter of urgency.
Water is water, no matter where it comes from. All water on earth is ultimately recycled. The water that falls from the sky as rain – and there are times and places where rain is non too fresh – think acid rain – has already been through the water cycle countless thousands of times in just a few centuries. I for one would be more than happy to use recycled water as the major source for the household tap. Who cares if you are flushing the dunny with water that is not pristine fresh from the sky anyway?
The reason for the current shortage was politics, the dam was built in a location that was relatively free from ratepayer ‘activism’ which also happens to be a rainshadow.
So why not build a dam where the rain falls?
The rain falling on the roof may be free, but the tanks, pumps and installation are not. This site quotes a price of $693 for a 2200 litre tank, and another $693 for a pump suitable for use with a washing machine or toilet. Allow say another $200 for installation. That’s a total of $1586. Assume a consumption of 150 litres per day and plug in the actual rainfall for Gosford over the last year falling onto Shaun’s 50 square metre roof (and be generous and assume the tank was full at the start of the year), and you end up with a total rainwater use of 36 kilolitres. The tank is empty on 95 days, and less than the 150 litres are available on another 43 days.
Now, if instead of buying the tank, etc, you paid down your mortgage, you’d have an annual interest saving of about $114. Depreciation, assuming the tank lasts 20 years, and the pump 10, is about the same. So the water ends up costing more than $6 per kilolitre.
Suddenly, paying $4 per kilolitre for the mobile plant desalinated water doesn’t sound so bad, and the $2 or so per kilolitre for fixed plant desalinated water seems positively cheap.
The rebate for installing rain water tanks should be scrapped, because it’s a waste of money when there are other workable solutions that cost less.
Sylvia.
GIGO Sylvia. As I stated tanks are part of an overall solution used in conjunction with other measures.
rog, you will need to find space on the narrow and popular coast strip. Again a dam only works if rainfall patterns remain the same. If they change then we are stuck with the same problem. The solution is better management of what we have.
Now Silvia, that is a pile of mindless nonsense.
For one thing, if all of Australia mandated water tanks for new dwellings the price of water tanks would fall dramatically, partly due to economies of scale. But even now water tanks can be bought fairly cheaply.
There are also very cheap devices currently on the market which allow rainwater that falls on your roof to be diverted to the garden. I do this myself and as a consequence only need to water my garden 3 or 4 times a year at most. (As most keen gardeners know, a deep soak is much better than what normal rainfall usually allows). The cost of my diverter and irrigation system is less then $300 and it will reliably save me water until the day I cark it.
There are also many other cheap water saving measures which cost nothing or very little. For example, if you have a pre-dual flush toilet you can save water by putting a water filled two litre bottle of soft drink in the cistern.
My local water utility accounts show that my 2 person townhouse with small garden consumes less water than a typical one person dwelling without a garden. I do this with no difficulty whatsoever.
Done in SEQ, steve, and the Brisbane City Council gives a $700 rebate for installing a tank in an existing house (might have risen lately, but that’s my recollection).
Thanks for the post, Shaun. My tip is for the politics of water to get bigger and bigger.
It’s an interesting case study in where science meets political struggle for advantage, among other things.
But then, there is an equal mindset amongst some environmentalists that small is always beautiful (think, in the context of energy for instance, solar photovoltaic or wind microturbines, which with current technology are complete and utter wastes of time). Sometimes the big, industrial solution is the way to go, even if it involves the participation of nasty big multinationals.
On the topic of water, I really have to recommend Prof. Quiggin’s blog; to oversimplify, he advocates raising the price of water to an appropriate level and then best mix of conservation, water tanks, recycling, and desalination will happen naturally.
I say we redirect all the rivers inland. (No, hang on, I didn’t say that: Alan Jones did.)
Shaun,
The fact that water tanks would form part of a larger solution does not affect the fact that water from rainwater tanks is expensive.
Steve,
I cited the sources of my data for pricing. You can’t just wish them away by claiming that they are garbage. This Australian Consumer Association article gives a price of between $550 and $750 for a 2000 litre tank, so the price I quoted for a 2200 litre tank is well within the range, and includes delivery.
It’s simplistic to assume that prices will come down much even if the tanks are made in greater numbers. Indeed, the price of polyethylene tanks could well go up because of the impact of rising oil prices. The price of oil will also impact on the delivery cost.
The prices would have to drop dramatically to make rainwater tanks competetive with a a fixed desalination plant. Making vague claims about the impact of production scale is hardly a sufficient justification for going down a path that is currently very expensive.
It might seem to people that rainwater tanks should provide cheap water. The facts say otherwise. A move towards greater use of rainwater tanks should be supported by credible numbers, not just wishful thinking.
Still GIGO Sylvia. I don’t have much argument with your initial calculations but you are stretching it with the second part. Also, did you factor in savings even by not using mains?
4 years ago the NSW government published research on using water tanks and the savings. Other information can be found here and here.
Sylvia,
As I’ve already indicated, you don’t actually need a water tank to make major water savings. Rainwater diverters and irrigation hoses are as cheap as chip. See http://www.bunnings.com.au/site/awdepfour.asp?q=0&dealer=5709&depnum=10883
In any event, it seems fairly obvious that if steel and galvanised iron tanks could be produced on an industrial scale the price per unit would fall. They already cost little especially after rebates are factored in.
Other things like low flow shower nozzles, shower timers, cistern retrofits, garden mulching, water wise platings etc are also cost effective. They actually save you money as well as water.
Desalination, given its expense, should be the last option rather than the first.
This is all true. I redirected my downpipes on to my garden, as well as my hot water service overflow valve, and my greywater, and I water only once in a blue moon. I’m in the process of getting a small water tank just for my toilet, which will cost around $600.
Shaun,
I’m not clear what you mean by “the second part”.
The basis for the long term costs cited in the fact sheet (link supplied by you) is not specified. I rather suspect they’re not including the cost of capital, or opportunity cost in other words, which I’ve chosen to describe in terms of a mortgage offset because that’s the easiest to understand.
I don’t know what you mean by factoring in the savings by not using the mains. The calculation was of the cost of the water. The cost would be exactly the same regardless of how much mains water cost, or even if mains water did not exist.
Steve,
If all we need to do to avert the crisis is to stop watering our gardens with mains water, then the problem is not difficult to solve. I don’t water my gargen anway. Those who want to water their gardens can pay the higher price for water that arises from the use of tanks. However, I suspect that even without garden watering, a significant problem remains.
Rebates do not really reduce the cost, they just transfer it. If the rebates are taken up on a large scale, then taxes (rates, or whatever) would have to be increased to accomodate the rebate payments. While considering the effects of rebates is something that an individual would do when deciding whether or not to install a tank, the existence of rebates is not something that is relevant to deciding whether the community as a whole should start using tanks.
??? What could you possibly mean by this?
In any case, aren’t we missing a huge point? Isn’t most water used by industry, and not residential use?
Alice,
In context, it means that people would not be allowed to use mains water to water their gardens, and would have to obtain water for garden watering by some other means. In practice, given that an individual is not in a position to install a desalinator, this means that garden watering would have to be done using water collected in rain water tanks. I have argued that despite what might seem to be the case, when all the costs are properly included, the water from rain water tanks is much more expensive than mains water. Hence my comment.
I doubt that it’s true that most water is used by industry, but if it is, then that just means that the rainwater tank debate is nothing more than a distraction, because rainwater tanks would be unable to have a big impact on water consumption.
Sylvia.
I was right that I might have been wrong about the current level of water tank and other water saving device rebates in SEQ. Since Level 3 restrictions came in, the rebate for a tank has been upped to $1000.
Details here:
http://www.ourbrisbane.com/living/realestate/propinvest/archive/bucketsofmoney.htm
Good points Alice, although it is actually agriculture that uses the overwhelming bulk of water.
It has cost me less than $300 to cut my water usage in half we a rainwater diverter from the roof to the garden, super efficient shower nozzles, shower timer and so on.
Also Sylvia, why not
-capture and purify urban storm water run off
- treat sewage water for agricultural use (as per Melbourne)
- require new housing estates to capture and recycle rain water
- etc etc etc
All of these types of options should be compared in terms of cost (including environmental externalities) with the proposed $4/kilolitre desalination plant.
According to the ABS two-thirds of water usage in Australia is by the agricultural sector.
The ABS says:
“Household water consumption increased by 13% since 1996-97 to 2,181 GL in 2000-01. On average each Australian consumed a total of 115 kilolitres (kL). While Australian households consumed an average of 280 kL. The majority of household water was used for outdoor purposes (44%), such as water for gardens and swimming pools.” see http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/e5cb0b45f4547cc4ca25697500217f47/cc9d340e1feef80bca256e9900810f09!OpenDocument
Sylvia, does it really make sense to desalinate sea water at great expense in order to water the garden and fill up the swimming pool? Moreover, much of this drinkable water will be used by industry in processes that do not require highly purified water. I’m sorry but this makes no sense at all.
Steve, it makes sense if people are prepared to pay the cost (including the environmental externalities).
One of the big problems with non-potable water, as I understand it, is that all our infrastructure is set up to distribute one grade of water, and that’s the drinkable stuff. Duplicating infrastructure to distribute non-drinkable water is expensive.
By the way, where does the $4/kilolitre figure for desalination come from? Quiggin, in his posts on the matter, tends to quote around $2/kilolitre.
Steve, things like recyling water in new housing estates probably do make sense, and are being done, and I have not argued against them.
However, most houses are not on new estates, and the cost of retrofitting a second distribution network to the existing housing stock would be prohibitive. It would also be extremely disruptive. You’re talking about digging up every residential street and front garden.
It’s also difficult to imagine that enough of the retrofitting could be achieved in time, given that dire state that the politicians have allowed the reservoirs to reached before admitting that there’s a problem that can’t be solved by just getting people to use less water.
I haven’t looked in any detail at the idea of using storm water runoff, but a one issue comes immediately to mind, which is that it comes in bursts, so would need to be stored somewhere. It would have to be purified to potable water standards before it could be distributed through the existing network. Also stormwater is just dumped out to sea at a convenient point. It is not currently collected at a few central points. So either were talking about lots of little purification stations, or we’re talking about building infrastructure to move stormwater to a few places. Somehow, it starts to sound expensive.
Don’t get the idea that I have some philosophical opposition to anything other than large scale water operations. I don’t. However, the community is best served by getting solutions that have the lowest cost commensurate with the requirements. Finding those solutions involves rather more than pulling ideas out of the air and assuming that they are cost-effective.
Mark, the $4 per kilolitre figure is for the proposed mobile desalinators, which are presumably all that can be achieved in time. A fixed desalinator would provide water at a lower cost, but has a significant lead time.
Sylvia,
How do you work the costs of the energy concerns of desalinaton into your eqautions. That was one reason for the killing of the Sydney project.
Shaun,
The cost of the energy is included in the stated cost of the desalinated water. However, it is not the major component of the cost. A large scale desalinator runs on about 3kWh per kilolitre, which is around 30cents worth of electricity.The major cost of desalinated water is the cost of capital used to build the plant, and the plant’s depreciation.
There is an external cost in the form of CO2 production and other polution as a result of the energy consumed. As yet there is no agreed way to quantify that cost.
Sydney’s desalinator project was killed off (or at least put on the back burner) more by politics than economics, and by the discovery of some bore water that will at least postpone the decision to go ahead with a desalinator until after the next election.
Sylvia.
Shaun there is, or was, plenty of space around Mardi, or Ourimbah, or the Watagans for a dam.
It is always raining at Ourimbah, it never rains at Bucketty yet the dam went in. If they had better management then….
Sylvia says:
“So either were talking about lots of little purification stations, or we’re talking about building infrastructure to move stormwater to a few places. Somehow, it starts to sound expensive.”
Well, no actually- they can be very cost efficient. The Rocky Mountains Insitute in the USA is frquently used by all levels of Government and private business on a huge range of projects with an environmental aspect. The material on this page gives cause for optimism http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid172.php#W04-21
Anyone with an interest in cost effective solutions to environmental issues should read the RMI book “Natural Capitalism”. It gives hundreds of practical examples of water, energy, materials etc saving schemes that have cost very little or, more often than not, saved money.
Most of what is written in these comments considers the potential of “little water� ignoring the fact that our population nationally will continue to increase demand for water to maintain the status quo. Dams have generally been built at the outfall of river systems, unless the twofold benefit of head pressure for hydro electric power was a consideration. Long before I became interested in the activity of my politicians, voters were discussing water shortage with their elected representatives. All the while these same politicians continued the mindless town planning that places developments on the low lands in what are potential dam sites? The way media support adding tanks to households in the Gosford Local Government Area, is overlooking the extra cost involved in integrating the tank to the house hold water supply to obtain the subsidy. Rain water is labelled unfit for consumption a fact not widely publicised in promotions. New developments must build underground catchments to slow rainwater runoff from development sites in places like West Street Umina essentially because the storm water system council installed decades ago was inadequate. It is interesting to note that this long weekend the Commonwealth Bank, a subsidy of Westpac and Macquarie Bank have all invested large amounts of money in shares of drinking water supply in Britain. And in our country Federal Government has legislated toward eventual privatised water supplies. Are we well represented?