The water tank wars are going another round, this time in the Victorian state cabinet, according to yesterday’s Age:
The behind-the-scenes Government debate centres on the role of tanks in light of last year’s contentious decision to spend almost $5 billion on big water projects such as desalination.
It has intensified as the Government finalises its new-look green building code. Existing five-star rules require that all new homes must have a tank or solar hot water system.
Senior bureaucrats with the ear of Water Minister Tim Holding are arguing that, with the desalination plant set to come on line in 2011, tanks should be left to personal choice.
The Age article reports on two studies by Peter Coombes, which argue that the contribution that water tanks can make to Melbourne’s water supply has been substantially underestimated by Melbourne Water. Instead of something in the order of 50 gigalitres per year, Coombes estimates something closer to 120 GL per year, if every Melbourne household was fitted with a tank. The discrepancy apparently comes because Melbourne Water’s studies are based on rainfall statstics from Melbourne Airport, on the city’s dry north-western fringe. Melbourne’s eastern and south-eastern suburbs are considerably wetter, and thus tanks would supply a lot more water there. That said, both numbers are highly artificial. The context of this debate is fitting water tanks to new houses, not retrofitting; retrofitting tanks to existing houses (specifically, plumbing them in to toilets and hot water services) is extremely expensive. Given that, the amount of water that can be realistically collected in tanks is an order of magnitude lower, nowhere near enough to avoid building new water infrastructure of some kind or another.
But there’s more to it than that. In new houses, plumbing is at its easiest, finding a spot for the tank can be done on the drawing board, and, most importantly, in new developments other water and stormwater infrastructure can be resized to take advantage of the use of tanks – not to mention the environmental benefits of avoiding the artificial peaks of stormwater flow into rivers and creeks. But even with those, the strict financial case for tanks varies from “marginal” to “throwing away money”.
Anyway, the debate on the appropriateness of mandating tanks for new houses will continue. But it’s largely a sideshow on the question of where Australia’s cities will get their water, and it’s even more irrelevant to the question of where Australia’s irrigators will get their water.
UPDATE: An op-ed by Coombes, noting the conflict the monopoly supplier and regulator motivations of water authorities. However, I’d make one nitpick – contrary to Coombes’s comments, desalination clearly can supply essentially unlimited amounts of water. Whether that is a good idea or not is another question.
G’day Robert and tank you very much!
You say, “Anyway, the debate on the appropriateness of mandating tanks for new houses will continue. But it’s largely a sideshow on the question of where Australia’s cities will get their water”
Well, let’s put aside irrigators and focus on urban dwellers. You appear to dismiss tanks. Some houses can only fit small tanks, it’s true. But some can fit whoppers.
We had space and put in a largeish tank and saved 70% on water consumption. (year on year). Admittedly the consumption had been higher because
i) it was dry
ii) new garden being established.
Still, it was a significant saving. Please don’t dismiss small steps that folk can take, which might average out to a 4% or 7% reduction in water use. Several small increments can sum to a significant total. By all means let this be a private choice for retro-fitting. But as you point out, initial installation substantially reduces cost and increases utility.
cheers
Whether or not water tanks reduce water supply usage depends heavily on if they are used to avoid water restrictions. Many people install water tanks merely so they can water their gardens when they otherwise wouldn’t be able to – this doesn’t save any water at all.
I don’t know if its compulsory to have the water tank attached to internal plumbing in Victoria, but that could help. Certainly placing water caught in water tanks under the same water restrictions as the mains water would help.
Kind of wonder why solar hot water is optional at all – at least except under very unusual circumstances (eg significant overshadowing).
Robert’s point is that initial installation does reduce costs, but merely to the point that is very expensive in proportion to the gain, rather than absurdly expensive.
Absent realistic water charging to fund new infrastructure, then volunteering for the less cost-effective way is praiseworthy – you have chosen to wear heavy costs to fill the void left by poor policy.
But it’s no argument for forcing others to carry totally unnecessary costs. “Totally unnecessary” because there are ways of achieving the same outcome at much less cost – making everyone act as their own water supply utility loses massive economies of scale.
It’s as though we decided to mandate that all new houses to have photovoltaic roofs. We could achieve much bigger greenhouse reductions for the same cost, and do it more fairly, just by a carbon tax or ETS that raises the price of electricity sufficiently to make solar power stations (that achieve economies of scale) viable.
Sydney Water estimates that 25% of water used is used outside the home. So even if the tank wasn’t plumbed in and was only used to water the garden and wash the car, that’s still 25% not coming out of water storages.
Link
I think my further point was that the amount of water available from tanks quoted in the Age article was illusory and misleading, unless you are prepared to mandate not only water tanks in new houses, but the universal retrofitting of water tanks in every house, which as DD notes is absurdly expensive.
The place where water tanks make most sense is on new houses in new suburbs, where you can take advantage of them to reduce the infrastructure requirements. Even then, I’m a bit doubtful of the potential magnitude of the savings.
I’ve never seen a clear case that shows rainwater tanks resulting in smaller stormwater infrastructure. It may be the case, but I’ve never seen it.
Mindy: the problem with that is that you water your garden during dry summers. Guess what, that’s when tanks tend to be empty. During the water, the tank stays full, and all the water ends up down the drain – I should know, that’s what’s happening to the water in my (garden-only) tank right now.
To use the water in a tank effectively, you need to connect it to your toilet and your hot water service (the heating effectively sanitizes the water, making it safe to use). That way, the tank is perpetually being emptied, making room for any rain that does fall.
kymbos: Coombs is arguing that tanks reduce the need for stormwater infrastructure.
Intuitively, what worries me about such claims is that you’d presumably design stormwater systems for the worst-case scenario, not average flows. In a worst-case scenario, presumably everybody’s tank is full, in which case the water flow is just as bad as if there weren’t any tanks.
But I suspect he’s spent more time thinking about the issue than I have.
If water tanks are absurdly expensive, perhaps that really means that water is absurdly cheap.
A side issue to this is the heat capacity of the water. A well designed building could store the water somewhere that reduces the buildings heating and cooling requirements.
Robert @ 8, presumably working risk to work out how much capacity is best for a given price, having a non zero probability of extra capacity which you don’t have to pay for, it would help with stormwater capacity sizing.
David @ 9 – or that economies of scale when it comes to water infrastructure are really really good. Also there is infrastructure cost which is not taken into account – we need the high cost distribution network regardless of the home water tank capacity.
In general when it comes to addressing water shortages, just like power we’re looking in the wrong direction. The cheap gains to be had are from increasing efficiency, not increasing supply.
I am having great trouble seeing how tanks can effect stormwater runoff much at all – except in a drought. (and then there is no rain to fill them but thats another story)
The infrastructure for run off will need to be the same whether we have tanks or not. It doesn’t take much to fill a tank when there is plenty of rain. When rains are at their peak tanks will be full and so run off will be business as usual.
Am I missing something?
We could all start by forming local or household Think Tanks.
FXH: I don’t know. whether you’re missing something or not, but Dr. Coombes’ PhD thesis (linked from his home page above, from about 5-6 years ago) is online and devotes a chapter to this very topic. His conclusions say that you can reduce stormwater infrastructure substantially, but I haven’t had time to read how his modelling supports this conclusion.
There is no hope for sensible water policy from an ALP state government. It will never happen, and we can only hope they don´t permanently mortgage the state into eternal boondoggles like the desal plants like this one is shaping up to do.
merkel – cheeky of you to suggest I do some background checking from provided links. Why can’t I be like other commentors and just sound off or like a real journalist and have a press release to work from?
Disclosure: Until my early 20’s I lived on tank water, dam water and real spring water, supplemented by beer, Stones Green Ginger Wine and Corio Whisky. Tank stories: Did I tell you about the time my pet cocky was missing for a week?
There is no hope for sensible water policy from an ALP state government.
Yeah, we need visionary yet sensible Liberal leaders.
From a letter by Frank Pederick of Caslemaine in today’s Age:
‘water tanks comprise a distributed system that is not amenable to central control and which would reduce profits in a fully privatised water system, which appears to be the eventual aim of the Victorian Government’.
I have 10,000L and would love to put a BIG tank at the side of the house that is so shaded buggerall grows there. The water lasts for the garden until end of summer.
Re stormwater, when I had my office in gilbert St Adelaide and looked at all the townhouse/unit developments, all built or paved ground, no rainwater tank, I did wonder what would happen in say a 10 year rainfall event, let alone a hundred year event.
Chris wrote “I don’t know if its compulsory to have the water tank attached to internal plumbing in Victoria, but that could help. ”
Well, a couple of years ago in Victoria you could get a sizeable rebate from Vic Govt and local water authority without having the tank plumbed to the house.
In 2008, they’ve now introduced that requirement (if you want to get the subsidy). Even without the subsidy, it can still be good value if you install say 10,000 litres or 20,000 litres; I mean in savings on water bills. And that’s with current water prices. Even better savings ($) as prices rise over the next 5 years.
At 3.10pm Robert inscribed “Mindy: the problem with that is that you water your garden during dry summers. Guess what, that’s when tanks tend to be empty. During the water, the tank stays full, and all the water ends up down the drain – I should know, that’s what’s happening to the water in my (garden-only) tank right now.”
Well yes, you’re right but only up to a point.
Dry summers? Well guess what Robert, on the days when people are ALLOWED to water their gardens, they DRENCH them, hoping the soil moisture level will sustain the plants for the 3 or 4 days until the next watering. So if Mindy waters every day from a tank, she IS saving the water that she would take from a tap (town supply). Also, Mindy’s tank might last a good 4 to 6 weeks into a hot dry spell, depending of course on its capacity and how much watering she does. Not all garden tanks are tiny.
During the winter, the tank tends to be fuller, but we still may be using quite a bit of water from the tank. Not all is lost.
Above based on Melbourne restrictions (water on only two days each week, only in early morning or after dusk); and experience with a garden-only tank.
If the tank water is used to grow vegetables that saves water.
Ours is about half yours in size JM @ 19 and has been great. We have severe water restrictions and it is good to have some personal control over the time and amount of watering. We are able to fill up the small blow up pool as well.
Still ,Robert has an extreme bias against water tanks and that is that. My only concern is the need for vigilance against mosquitoes. A small layer of paraffin, added to the top, is just perfect.
laura @ 21 – agreed if it goes to growing something useful then it is water saved (and CO2 emissions probably as well). Grass and general shrubbery doesn’t count though. People pour amazing amounts of water into keeping their lawns alive.
ambigulous @ 20 – if I’m to believe the gardening gurus on radio, its generally better to water deeply less often than a little bit regularly.
Craig Mc @ #15 wrote: “There is no hope for sensible water policy from an ALP state government.”
Hello. Haven’t you heard of the SE Qld Water Gris: SE Qld’s recycling project, mandated tanks, subsidies …?
Well, here’s some introductory reading:
ABC news 30 April 2008: “SE Qld water grid nearing completion” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2232031.htm
” SEQ Water Grid” MAP. http://www.qldwi.com.au/OurWaterSituation/SEQWaterGrid.aspx
There’s the SE Qld Water grid: http://www.qwc.qld.gov.au/Water+Grid
There was, of course initial resistance:
“Qld: Govt committed to water recycling despite public rejection” has links to Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-126887351.html
But even Toowoomba Region has accepted water recycling: http://www.toowoombarc.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=944:toowoomba-regional-council-welcomes-wivenhoe-pipeline-project&catid=9:newspublications&Itemid=21
There’s the Gold Coast desalination project (due to be in operation before the end of the year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_desalination_project
QUT’s “Sustainability South East Queensland site, opening at Sustainability Directory: Saving and Recycling Water with other sites: http://www.sustainableseq.org.au/water/save_recycle/save_recycle.shtml
Try “Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines. Sec 7.6 Using recycled water to supplement drinking water supplies.” (This whole policy etc is divided into several parts; this is one)
http://waterfutures.blogspot.com/2006/05/queensland-water-recycling-guidelines.html
Queensland State Government is Labor! And this was achieved with no real support (and a lot of negativity and verbal sniping) from the Howard government.
Why have none of the other states sp Victoria (wants to pump water from the Murray) and SA (expects the Rudd government to “do something” about the Coorong Lakes”) done likewise?
DeeCee – rainfall in SE Qld is rather a lot higher than in Victoria or SA. So rainwater tanks are a more effective measure there.
joe2: I have an extreme bias against the idea that small, distributed solutions are always going to be environmentally superior to large scale centralized infrastructure.
The private car is a classic example where the decentralized approach is an environmental disaster.
Furthermore, as Chris says, the cheap gains in water are efficiency, not extra collection. If the money that has been invested in water tanks in Melbourne had instead been invested in front-loading washers and retrofitting high-efficiency toilets, we’d have saved a hell of a lot more water. But because you can’t use water saved by doing so on your garden, there’s no incentive to make the more effective water saving investment.
that is another thing that shits me, not being able to use grey water!
On water efficiency, In SEQ we are now 3 weeks into Target 170 after a year on Target 140. so far water usage has gone up from 120 lpppd to 129. I’m betting that every other capital city uses more than double that.
I have it on good authority that there has been an outbreak of gammy shoulders amongst older folk who’ve been lugging water to their precious plants.
Generally speaking I agree with Robert M. Tanks sold like hot cakes for about a year after the big dry. About a year ago when all the tanks filled someone worked out that they held about one day’s supply.
I’ve seen quite a few installations and there are problems in most cases. The main one is that the tank is too small to last through the dry periods. Many installations here are 3000L or less, which is about enough to keep your pot plants alive and not much else.
The second biggest problem is that many tanks are not draining much of the roof. Most companies are just happy to take your money and connect a pipe to a gutter. In some cases the amount of roof draining into the tank has been pathetic. It can be quite expensive to rejig the guttering and round up all the water.
I think a free or subsidised advisory service funded by the taxpayer to design an appropriate installation would be useful.
In SEQ there is a $20 water audit service available subsidised by the taxpayer. For that you get a new shower rose, limiters attached to your outlets, all your washers checked and fixed, plus advice on water saving.
Jovial Monk, we can use grey water here, but conditions apply. I think you are not allowed to store it and it has to be applied underground through a soaker hose system, but I’m not certain.
Robert, FHX
stormwater benefits come from the first flush and is related to volume and rate. It is worse for hard surfaces where catchment modification becomes flashier. It is rated to the 5-10 year return period rainfall event. Often the worst impacts comes from shared jurisdiction i.e. when the trunk system is owned by one entity and intakes by another. Reducing the initial rates into stormwater reduce the capacity needs. Buildings or any other surfaces that delay the first flush improve the volume and quality. Tanks, green roofs and any other slowing factor will do this. As will semi pervious pavements, urban design. The city that slows the speed of runoff from flashy catchments will manage storwater better under climate change when intesne rainfall is likely to increase, even if averages decline.
In 2006 Marsden and Associates did some work on urban design for Turnbull. They costed augmentations to urban water supply using data from Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Newcastle. They were:
Catchment thinning $0.22 to $0.25
Irrigation licence purchase $0.63 to $1.30 (will be higher than that now)
Demand management $0.00 to $1.45 (should go into the negative i.e. benefit not cost)
Stormwater re-use $0.10 to $1.50
Groundwater $0.20 to $1.58
Indirect potable re-use $1.68 to $2.61
Seawater desal $1.15 to $3.00
Dams and Surface water $0.15 to $3.00
House design $0.30 to $4.00
Loss reduction $0.06 to $5.00
Tanks $3.00 to $5.60
Non-potable re-use $0.08 to $6.00
Long-distance pipelines $1.30 to $9.30
A big spread.
Re economic efficiency. It isn’t everything. The hysteria over added costs to house prices fades into ridiculousness when we think about what goes on and into many houses. The marginal benefits of water are very high for many people – certainly worth tanks, even at the above prices.
Even in a drought, much of Melbourne’s rainfall for example is not too bad in terms of reliability. I have seen too much manipulation of water figures by governments in recent times to not believe what they say unless it comes through independent research.
But if the many small benefits from tanks was not worth it for supply in the long run, then neither would dual flush toilets provide such benefits. Climate change and other changes may force large-scale changes in the urban form. Creative methods of water storage may be part of that. But that thought is a long way from adding tanks to the house in its current form, and as retrofit.
Robert @26
I see your bias against distributed solutions and raise you the point that it ain’t just about engineering and cost but about power and control. We ignore the latter two factors in social constructions of water supply and use at our peril. I’m not linking the current trends in governments that think they should wrest control from their citizens in all sorts of ways. Centralised management is fine if there is sharing of information and ongoing involvement of the community in decision-making but that’s not what is happening.
Let me guess: these water-tanks fire water-cannon?
Concur with the anti tank people here. As someone who uses water tanks as a short term water storage (we fill one from rain, the other from the river), I know how often we have to refill them. These are BIG tanks, we are small water users (I refused to water the garden at all over the last few years – we’re not on restrictions, have a huge license but I felt it was immoral to water a garden in the circs).
If it doesn’t rain, our very big tank lasts us perhaps a fortnight, three weeks at most. If we water the veggie patch, it empties within a couple of hours (and that’s the kind of good soak efficient watering needs).
Desal is meant to be the back up solution for lack of rain. If there’s rain, then your normal water storages should be doing OK.
laura: I agree – our water tank is primarily for veges and fruit trees, NOT for lawn watering. Having lived at a different place where tank water was our ONLY source, we very quickly learned to give the green lawn low priority (no priority at all).
Chris (a different one): yes, you’re right. What I meant was partly this: just because folk are restricted to watering on two days in seven, doesn’t necessarily mean their weekly water use will be lower.
Robert Merkel wrote: “If the money that has been invested in water tanks in Melbourne had instead been invested in front-loading washers and retrofitting high-efficiency toilets, we’d have saved a hell of a lot more water.” Well, Robert, for many home owners and renters, it’s not ‘EITHER/OR’ : people are doing all three – new front loading washing machines, better toilets, tanks plumbed to laundry; many are watering gradens less, planting drought hardy species, using less water in the shower, putting mulch on garden beds, etc etc
Those are the kind of small actions by individuals that I was referring to in post [1] above. Increments, increments, increments. There’s no single, magic solution, Robert. I’m confident you know that.
cheerio
Some people are doing all three.
A lot of people are doing the only one that lets them water their garden (tank, often not plumbed in) when the other options would have been far better for them and the environment under a sane water availability and pricing regime.
A lot of the pro-tank people here are missing the point. We’re not talking about whether tanks for those who choose them are Good or Bad things – they’re usually Good Things, no argument.
We’re talking about involuntarily imposing costs on people in order to save piped water. The point is that if you need to save piped water you can do it while imposing much lower and much less arbitrary costs by pricing the piped water properly rather than by making people fit tanks. The pricing lets people reduce demand in the way that best suits their own circumstances, and you can use the extra money you raise to increase supply a bit. Just as with energy, if the price is right people will soon discover the virtues of conservation for themselves.
Not only is this cheaper, Roger, it gives far more “power and control” to individuals than a mandated solution. Surely mandating a particular solution in the form of water tanks is, like mandatory water restrictions, an example of “governments that think they should wrest control from their citizens in all sorts of ways”.
fair points, M. Derider
Robert, the problem as I see it with your views, is that you seek the ABSOLUTE optimum, where in day-to-day life we sometimes have insufficient information to choose that (and a few weeks later relative prices have changed and the optimum may shift in any case).
Robert, “the good is not the enemy of the best”.
But point taken about compulsory steps, Monsieur Derider
Robert Merkel said,
“Some people are doing all three.
A lot of people are doing the only one that lets them water their garden (tank, often not plumbed in) when the other options would have been far better for them and the environment under a sane water availability and pricing regime.”
Yes, and water restrictions will move more to install water tanks (thereby lowering their use of centrally-provided water in all likelihood), and mooted higher prices for piped water will get more foklk moving to lower useage and new equipment [toilets, washing machines] probably; and the subsidy rules on water tanks may yet see more tanks plumbed to houses; and grey water…. and water recycling….
Golly, there’s just NO progress being made, eh?
People are just so STEW-PID !!!
In Roberts’ world, water police would be around to peoples’ houses to check whether they have one of those…. water tanks.
Funnily, some of this is actually happening , already.
Water companies wanting to know why you have not used enough of the water that they have plans to increase in price by well over 100% in the next 5 years.
joe2
this can change quite quickly – “corporate culture” – in the early 80s the old SECV was looking at growth scenarios of electricity consumption in Vic. New power station at Driffield, up against constraints of local crerekas being inadequate to supply water for cooling…
Within a few years after that, SECV was advocating power savings in the home, advising households on reducing power consumption.
The rebate we got on installing our water tank 2 years ago was paid by the local water company (though sourced from Vic Govt and local shire?).
DD
agreed, and I wasn’t buying into mandated solutions precisely, unless it was part of a whole set of standards, properly thought through.
The current set of big solutions are not well though through, and neither are the small neccessarily. Voluntary solutions may be good for individuals but will not be enough.
Personally, if I am hit by a cost I want it to be a “good” cost. We are not having this debate in the current environment because the policy makers do not want one.
Integrated catchment management is a foreign concept to governments at present – they are limited to what they can imagine, which isn’t much.
Derrida Derider says that pricing water properly is the better way to reduce water consumption. But nobody is proposing that.
The tank solution is actually competing with other massive engineering solutions which cost lots of money and cause lots of CO2 pollution and/or environmental damage.
If we stick to what’s actually on the table tanks are a better bet. Better than CO2 polluting desal and ecology destroying pipelines.
This is a very informative thread.
I water a lot of my food plants with grey water when it’s what’s available (from the front loader mainly, with Euca washing powder in it.) All the fruit trees (lemon, mandarine, guava, three pears, two apples, an apricot and an avocado) the raspberries and blueberries, and any other plants that you eat the fruit or seeds of rather than leaves or roots (tomatoes, beans, peas, passionfruit, cucmber, zucchini, pumpkin, capsicum, corn.)
There might be consequences for the soil down the track and this worries me. But the most concerning health risk is the possibility of injuring myself lugging buckets of water around, as Brian noted. I’ve fallen over twice, holding heavy buckets, on the concrete laundry floor when it was slippery with drips of water.
I don’t have a rainwater tank yet because the roof needs replacing (this summer I hope.)
Actually can I ask for some advice? Is a solar hot water system a good idea?
We love our solar hot water system. Love it. In winter, as long as I do the washing in the morning after showers, we can get everyone (2 kids and 2 adults) through the showers with heaps of hot water left. In summer I can wash any time of the day and there is still heaps of hot water. Even though you are further south than us, I’d still reckon solar hot water would work for you. We need to use the booster for cloudy days, but not very often and usually only during winter.
Simple question. Complex answer, in part because of the regulatory complexities both now and in the future.
If you’ve got piped gas, that’s lower-emission than solar-electric. Solar-gas is the lowest of all, but a modern gas system isn’t too bad.
The second complication is what the response of the rest of the Australian energy sector to your solar hot water system. As Barry Brook was discussing here, most people sell the “renewable energy credits” they receive when they put in a solar hot water system. If you do so, that’s fewer REC’s that the power companies have to buy from other sources, such as wind farms. Yep, putting in solar hot water means less wind farms get built.
So, if you can afford it, if you’re going to install a solar hot water system and you don’t want to displace other renewables, don’t sell your RECs. However, this adds substantially to the cost.
When the ETS kicks in, something similar is going to occur. If you voluntarily take actions that reduce your carbon emissions, this means that there will be more permits on the market for somebody else to use.
What this means is that the only way for you to reduce Australia’s net carbon emissions and ensure that you’re not just displacing emissions (at least domestically) is to buy ETS permits and stick them under the bed.
When we bought ours the company bought the RECs back from us, effectively reducing the cost of the system. So, the company can pretty much sell and buy back the same RECs. However, using less of other power sources to heat our water was the big idea for us. Swings and roundabouts, but in the short term you quarterly electricity bill is less.
Good answers, thanks.
And Laura as Robert said, if you have piped gas, 5.5 Star Energy Ratings, are very good and much easier on the initial up front costs when you have a roof to replace.
http://www.bosch.com.au/content/language1/html/4188.htm
Laura,
I looked into what you asked about on solar hot water recently and was concerned about the need/expense of an electrical pump to run the water to the panel. If you live in an area where there are frosts, they told me, the panels can pop. Just sayin…and no shares in product above that seems to heat water for when it is needed rather than have hot water heated all the time, like ours.
My main interest in water tanks stems from the fact that we are running out of catchments. In most of the bad years this century we’ve have 150,000 litres or more fall on our roof, not counting the shed and the carport. The catchments in SEQ tend to be further inland where the rain is less, and less reliable. You also have to wet the catchment (usually 50mm) before you get any runoff. The costs quoted by Roger Jones bring tanks back into the frame.
I’d like to think there could be a subsidy equivalent to the cost of supplying bulk water from the dam. It should apply whether you are connecting to the house plumbing or not because having a garden is park of the amenity of living.
There is an argument abroad that says you shouldn’t privatise your water. Today on Bush Telegraph Maude Barlowe put the point very strongly. She cited an urban slum in South Africa where a million people couldn’t afford town water so they were drawing it from a local river ignoring the cholera signs.
She then cited Chicago where 42,000 residents, mostly black and poor, were cut off.
The future of household water tanks is not in question. We keep importing people and the rainfall keeps decreasing. Blind Freddy can see that this issue is not going to go away.
I installed a 30 000 L undergound tank a year and a half ago which I then turfed over. Not only do I have plenty of garden water, but I am helping the community by not putting my stormwater onto the street to cause erosion and cost tax dollars to deal with. Best feature is that no-one knows that there is a tank on the block.
MY PREDICTION: In decades to come this will be the norm. The tank will be under the house and new houses will be constructed on top of the tank. A win-win. My tank cost about $12 000. It was an after-thought. Designing as an integral part of the house would have brought down the cost and provided solid foundations.