Home > Economic policy, Environment > Water, water everywhere

Water, water everywhere

March 30th, 2010

There’s been a lot happening in water policy lately, and for once, most of the news is good. Most importantly, it’s been raining, a lot. The total volume of the recent rains has been estimated at around 6000 Gigalitres. Even after diversions, evaporation, absorption by the soil, refilling of water tables and so on, there will be somewhere between 600 and 1000 GL to flow down the Murray and stave off the disaster threatening the Lower Lakes, as well as many upstream ecosystems.

Meanwhile, the Rudd government’s decision to bite the bullet and start buying water from irrigators willing to sell has been thoroughly vindicated. The money has been a huge benefit to farmers keen to move out of agriculture, or from irrigated agriculture to dryland, and has done a lot to soften the impact of the drought. Most recently, a couple of irrigation districts have voted to sell en masse with a resulting saving in the cost of irrigation channels and other infrastructure. In a situation where too much water had been allocated to irrigation, and where (despite the current rain) there is likely to be less in the future, this is a necessary part of the adjustment process.

The government has copped some flak (recently in the Fin, for example) because the prices it paid last year were higher than in previous years (when the government was not in the market) or this year, following the rain. I’m surprised to see the Fin ignorant of basic principles of supply and demand. It’s obvious that, once environmental values are taken into account, the demand for water will rise, and therefore so will the price. And it’s equally obvious that plentiful rain is going to reduce the market price of water entitlements. This effect will be biggest for temporary (annual) entitlements, but it will also be present for permanent entitlements.

Buying water is much more cost-effective, in most cases, than public engineering projects aimed at saving water. Given a market price for water, farmers and irrigation suppliers have every incentive to find the cost-effective solutions themselves. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Victorian government’s Food Bowl Modernisation project. I was one of a number of economists interviewed by the Sunday Age, all of whom said this was a silly idea. In fact, I was more sympathetic than most, since I recognised the political constraints on the government – even after paying something like $4000/GL saved, they are still facing resistance to supplying any of this water to Melbourne.

It now seems likely that the government can, if it chooses, buy back 1500 GL of entitlements for the environment (the highest level considered in the Living Murray exercise that was killed off under Howard) and still have plenty of change from the $10 billion allocated under Howard’s National Action Plan. Rather than dissipate this in engineering works in the Basin, where we already have a functioning market, I’d like to see at least some of it allocated to the problems of North Queensland, where runoff from agriculture and urban development is one of the major stresses (along with climate change and fishing pressure) threatening the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

Categories: Economic policy, Environment Tags:
  1. Fran Barlow
    March 30th, 2010 at 14:57 | #1

    Thanks … interesting piece.

    Typos In your link above PrQ [districts] for districtions

    Ultimately, I’d like to see wider land buy back and an attempt to restablish something like the biomes that existed prior to clearing and wholesale irrigation on parcels of land encompassing marginal agricultural operattions. Such projects would obvisously require substantial ongoing maintenance and I’d have no problem with the idea that the farmers who had once lived on the land being trained to do this work instead, and allowed to live as tenents on the houses they occupied before sale to the government.

  2. Salient Green
    March 30th, 2010 at 15:44 | #2

    I’m trying to sell 20ML to the Government to fund replanting and the Government fees for each transaction are $6000. Extortion I call that. Bad enough if you’re selling 100ML at around $2000 but cruel on a $40,000 sale. I wonder if the lawyers had to tender for the job. Another shift of wealth from the poor to the rich by the ALP.

  3. Vern Topp
    March 30th, 2010 at 16:09 | #3

    To Salient Green @2

    Just out of curiousity, what were you irrigating with your 20ML – perrenials/annuals etc? Were you using flood irrigation or spraying? If you were spraying etc, what do you think you will do with your unused irrigation equipment?

  4. Salient Green
    March 30th, 2010 at 16:52 | #4

    Vern Topp, in effect I was not irrigating anything. When our irrigation area was rehabilitated from open channels to pipeline our water right was changed from a number of hours to a number of ML per property according to existing plantings and the district average application.

    My water right was 54ML per year. Due to my own efforts of water efficiency my maximum usage was never over 26ML per year. I therefore had a substantial portion of my water right unused until recent times when we have been subject to restrictions. Our allocations have been a percentage of the water right and the large unused portion meant in my case that I have not had to buy in any water. With the improving water situation and the need to replant and a desire to reduce debts I have decided to sell the mostly unused water right.

    I use a combination of drippers and low level micro sprays, the waterbird type, irrigating Apricots, mandarins, oranges and winegrapes. Some of the other orchardists in the district have sold all their water and pushed out plantings. There is not much of a market for things like used polypipe, stakes, sprinklers, vine trellis posts etc. The rest of us are surviving, hanging on untill retirement but the district is still alive.

  5. Sam
    March 30th, 2010 at 17:35 | #5

    Hi John,
    Good post, and I hate to be the single issue commenter here, but the elephant in the room is still population growth. Given that we have a shortage, should we invest in the most efficient possible water-saving projects first? Absolutely. Should government use market mechanisms to do this? Sure. But none of this will matter in the long run if our population keeps growing.
    Also, if all our cities were now half their current size, we wouldn’t need to do any of this. We wouldn’t have to do either the “food bowl modernisation project” or “water buy-back,” because Melbourne’s existing water supplies would be sufficient. Australia doesn’t have a water problem. It has a population problem.

  6. robert (not from UK)
    March 30th, 2010 at 17:50 | #6

    Just out of curiosity, will there be a Monday Message Board this week, or has that been held over this time (Easter hiatus, perhaps)?

  7. jquiggin
    March 30th, 2010 at 18:00 | #7

    @robert (not from UK) I hit Publish on that, but WordPress didn’t put it up. Happens quite a bit unfortunately. Fixed now

  8. Salient Green
    March 30th, 2010 at 18:01 | #8

    Sam.
    “We must alert and organise the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises – exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.”
    – Jacques-Yves Cousteau

    “Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we posses. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim.”
    – Martin Luther King, Jr

  9. Sam
    March 30th, 2010 at 18:08 | #9

    @Salient Green
    Guess I’m in good company then! Has MLK Jr ever said anything that doesn’t send shivers down a person’s spine?

  10. Salient Green
    March 30th, 2010 at 18:38 | #10

    Sam, your post prompted me to go searching because I am getting a little tired of writing the same old stuff over and over again on blogs and to politicians and who the hell is Salient Green? Here is the link for some more wisdom from much smarter people than myself. Cheers.
    http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/population-quotes.htm

  11. Sam
    March 30th, 2010 at 19:14 | #11

    @Salient Green
    Yes, repeating oneself can get a bit tiresome. That is to say, it can be tiresome to repeat oneself..
    It’s an issue that gets nowhere near enough attention. Almost no environmental problems would exist if we had fewer people. John, I’ve never heard you express a position on this, what do you think about the population debate?

  12. Salient Green
    March 30th, 2010 at 20:07 | #12

    Sam if I remember correctly JQ has stated that resource depletion will be a greater problem in the short term than AGW. The Greens are now reasonably overt in their position on overpopulation. The movement against overpopulation is growing very quickly.

  13. John Armour
    March 30th, 2010 at 20:50 | #13

    “The movement against overpopulation is growing very quickly.” (SG @ #12)

    Wayne Swan seems to be aware of it too but still doesn’t quite get it: “the answer isn’t to stop growing but to grow differently”

    What the hell does that mean !

    Is it possible to grow smaller ?

  14. March 30th, 2010 at 21:36 | #14

    Salient Green@#12 said:

    The movement against overpopulation is growing very quickly.

    My comment privileges do not extend to making substantive analysis about this trend, apart from saying “I told you so”.

  15. robert (not from UK)
    March 30th, 2010 at 21:37 | #15

    “The Greens are now reasonably overt in their position on overpopulation”, writes Salient Green. But what about their position on mass immigration? I had the distinct impression that ever since the Hawke era and the Blainey affair, the Greens were terrified of touching this subject for fear of being called “racist”.

  16. Salient Green
    March 31st, 2010 at 07:44 | #16

    Robert, here’s the full statement by the Greens.
    http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/set-population-infrastructure-environment-capacity-through-national-inquiry
    And the relevant paragraph.
    “In fact Australia should increase its humanitarian immigration program, but we need to reduce our skilled migration program and balance that reduction by investing in skills training for Australians.

    You are right about them being terrified of touching the subject and with good reason. Anyone else who did was vilified although some were truly racist.

    Young Jack Strocci, you are entitled to your ‘I told you so’ you certainly earned it.

  17. March 31st, 2010 at 09:06 | #17

    Interesting article John, a topic I was not overly familiar with. But it shows how governments can make positive changes to resource use.

    So, what do we make of Abbots proposed “plant’s a heap of trees” to tackle climate change policy?

  18. Fran Barlow
    March 31st, 2010 at 09:42 | #18

    @Salient Green

    The movement against overpopulation is growing very quickly.

    I accept tjhat this would not be your view, but this claim is either incipently xenophobic and murderous or vacuous.

    Ruling out xenophobia, democide and other brutal coercion (which I assume you oppose), there can be no meaningful movement against “overpopulation” that goes beyond slowing growth and stabilising it at some manageable figure on the way to slowly reducing it. That is something that cannot be achieved non-coercively over a period of time spanning several generations i.e longer than most people are likely to be alive and engaged in politics.

  19. wilful
    March 31st, 2010 at 09:43 | #19

    SG, the $6000 fees, are they stamp duty? Are they administrative fees introduced recently? Seem very steep on a $40 000 transaction. Where do the fees go, to Gov’t? in which case how are they “to the rich”?

    But to answer one question, yes absolutely all external legal advice is through competitive tender to a panel.

  20. Fran Barlow
    March 31st, 2010 at 11:02 | #20

    oops … should read

    That is something that cannot be achieved non-coercively over a period of time shorter than one spanning several generations

  21. Michael
    March 31st, 2010 at 11:38 | #21

    Fran Barlow :
    Ruling out xenophobia, democide and other brutal coercion (which I assume you oppose), there can be no meaningful movement against “overpopulation” that goes beyond slowing growth and stabilising it at some manageable figure on the way to slowly reducing it. That is something that cannot be achieved non-coercively over a period of time spanning several generations i.e longer than most people are likely to be alive and engaged in politics.

    It seems obvious to me that population growth puts pressure on resources, but like you I can’t see an easy fix for it. The topic of population control is a minefield. Historian Professor Matthew Connelly of Columbia University gave a very interesting lecture on what can go wrong with population control efforts – and he is a supporter of birth control.

    The population problem becomes a kind of unhealthy obsession for some people. It’s a real issue, but one that shouldn’t be used as an excuse for not dealing with the damage our current lifestyles are doing or past lifestyles have already done.

    It’s also a debate that quite frankly attracts people who are racists and xenophobes (even if they are good at hiding it, sometimes from themselves as well). Of course a lot of people concerned about population aren’t. I sensible place to start would be to tackle the phoney issue (IMHO) of the “ageing population” requiring a higher birth rate to Ostrayin mothers. Is there any rigorous analysis of the stats to establish the effect of the baby bonus?

  22. Salient Green
    March 31st, 2010 at 13:33 | #22

    Wilful, I was told it went to lawyers for the Government. There are title searches for one thing so I suppose it’s some sort of conveyancing but your question make me more curious and I will look into it.

    Fran, a movement against over-population or population growth is simply a group of people willing to speak out and educate and influence those in power to stop encouraging it. I really don’t understand what you are going on about with all this offensive “xenophobic and murderous or vacuous” stuff. Read the link I posted from the Greens and have a look at Kelvin Thomson’s 14 point plan. Nothing xenophobic or murderous that I can see and if you think it’s vacuous throw a party for yourself but I think it’s one of the most important issues of our time.

  23. Michael
    March 31st, 2010 at 13:57 | #23

    @Salient Green
    Kelvin Thomson’s plan seems reasonable to me as a casual reader. Is the baby bonus really a significant motivator for people to have children though? Certainly it would be reasonable to divert the money directly into improving the welfare of children whose parents are in difficulty. Do you really not see the strains of xenophobia in at least a minority of the people advocating cuts in immigration as the solution to everything?

  24. Fran Barlow
    March 31st, 2010 at 14:07 | #24

    @Salient Green

    I took a look at Kelvin’s 13-page proposal and most of it seems at worst to be the starting point for a discussion, although:

    I’d like to have a humanitarian intake that covered all resettlement as proprtion of world demand rather than a fixed number.

    I doubt in practice that Australia’s population would stabilise at 26 million on these measures alone.

    I don’t see Kelvin’s proposals as doing anything meaningful on GHG abatement. Where emissions take place is less important than the total net emissions.

    There are lots of things we can do to reduce the human footprint that don’t entail the kinds of population targets he is talking about.

    I think you are naive if you believe a population policy would not quickly map to “keep out the [fill in preferred rude word for non-anglo foreigners you most despise]”

    MDG policies are a good start and would make a difference but we need a vehicle for breaking the cycle of effectively forced pregnancy in developing countries and if resettling them in more supportive locations (not necessarily first world) helps, then so be it.

  25. derrida derider
    March 31st, 2010 at 14:32 | #25

    Michael, you’ll be interested to know that a higher birth rate now would take many decades before it significantly slowed the problems associated with population aging (which are, in any case, often greatly exaggerated in popular – as distinct from professional – discourse). That’s because for several decades working-age people would have to support more youth, as well as you’d just be adding a youth dependency problem to your age dependency problem. Immigration also doesn’t work very well in slowing population aging simply because migrants when they arrive here are so careless of their duty to their new home that they choose to grow old at the same rate as everyone else.

    I think world overpopulation is a problem, but in the long enough run it’s a self-limiting one. Experience in every single country that has escaped mass poverty to date is that the birth rate plunges as soon as per capita income reaches about $US8K a year. Based on this UN population forecasts are for peak population to occur about 2050, with a quite rapid decline afterwards. Some demographers reckon that the world could have less than half its current population in about 150 years time – and that’s assuming continued rises in life expectancy worldwide.

  26. Sam
    March 31st, 2010 at 14:51 | #26

    For alcoholics, the first step towards getting sober is admitting you have a problem. So it is here. Let’s have the debate in two parts.
    First I want to convince people (our leaders especially) that overpopulation is a problem, both environmentally and economically. I want people to realize that economic costs arising from resource constraints are far higher than that from an aging population. I want people like Fran Kelly to stop repeating the ludicrous claim that population growth “saved us” from a GDP recession last year. We had a GDP per capita recession, and population growth obscured it. I want Wayne Swan to stop warning that a halt to population growth would “endanger” our GDP growth. GDP doesn’t matter, only GDP per capita does.
    Second I want to convince people that there are population policy levers, and that at the moment they’re pushing the wrong way. The baby bonus is a deliberately pro-natalist policy. Remember “One for the father, one for the mother, one for the nation?” If we scrapped it, people would have less babies. The immigration rate is under direct government control. If we reduced it back down to say, the 1990 level, the population would grow more slowly. How is that racist? Who is advocating for immigration restrictions based on ethnicity? Neither of those measures are particularly draconian, xenophobic, murderous or vacuous. They might or might not allow us to achieve a 26 million cap, but we would be in a lot better shape than if we do nothing.

  27. Michael
    March 31st, 2010 at 15:00 | #27

    @derrida derider
    What forces do you attribute the success of the exceptance of the issue in the press? The super industry?

  28. Michael
    March 31st, 2010 at 15:14 | #28

    “The fact that Australia already has one of the highest rates of foreign-born persons in any developed society and that most of our migrants come from non-English-speaking-background (NESB) countries with little cultural affinity to that of Australia does not seem to have been considered.”
    from
    “The Risks of high migration, A growing population threatens our quality of life, warns Bob Birrell”
    Maybe not xenophobia, but spurious reasoning.

  29. wilful
    March 31st, 2010 at 15:16 | #29

    The population debate appears to have decamped to this thread, so I’ll just repost what I said there this morning:

    Neither Fran nor I are growth fetishists, we would both wish for a sustainable and stable world population at a level probably well below the current level. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. By nature I self-identify as a pragmatist and I’m sure Fran does as well (dunno, never met her). Given that the world population will likely exceed 9 billion, and given that we as Australians both are and should be part of it, Fran and I both think that it’s not only fanciful but wrong to try and achieve population reductions in Australia at this time. If and when the external environment changes, then it would good to aim for a more idealistic target.

    In the meantime, for those concerned, I suggest you take up the final offer.

    Not that I would presume to speak for Fran.

    BTW, I know lots of recent parents. I don’t know one of them that has ever remotely suggested, even jokingly, that the baby bonus made a scintilla of difference to their decision.

    I do know several that found parenting (who am I kidding, mothering) extremely difficult to juggle with work.

  30. March 31st, 2010 at 15:38 | #30

    deleted

  31. wilful
    March 31st, 2010 at 16:20 | #31

    Fran, Jack doesn’t believe in miscegenation.

  32. Sam
    March 31st, 2010 at 16:20 | #32

    We are getting off topic, and I apologize for starting this. I just wanted to make a quick comment about racism in the population debate. Many people believe that “population growth skeptics” are really just using high-sounding environmental principles as a cover for their secret populist racism.
    The alternative view I want to suggest is that populist racism (usually) only arises when people have to struggle for scarce resources. Most people are happy to “celebrate diversity,” until they experience the real economic problems that overcrowding causes. When they have to compete ever more fiercely for a share of the pie, it’s natural to blame newcomers.

  33. Sam
    March 31st, 2010 at 16:29 | #33

    @Fran Barlow
    The reason I want to stop population growth is precisely because I fear death and misery will follow if we don’t. Death and Misery are things to be avoided. If we caused them to happen in order to stop population growth, we wouldn’t achieve very much. So we’re agreed on that. Let’s not kill people in order to achieve population goals. Let’s instead, as a first step, stop trying to increase our population as fast as possible.
    Are you happy to remove the baby bonus?

  34. March 31st, 2010 at 16:46 | #34

    Deleted. Jack, you are banned for a week. When you return, please respect my request to post nothing whatsoever that mentions race, IQ, immigration or population in any way, directly or indirectly. This is your last warning.

    Could other commenters please refrain from responding to Jack.

  35. Salient Green
    March 31st, 2010 at 17:10 | #35

    Fran, fear of being seen as xenophobic stifled necessary population debate for decades. It doesn’t wash anymore. You are becoming offensive and strident. It doesn’t help your case that’s for sure. I thought you were hot on protecting the environment and as it’s too many of us Humans that’s doing the damage I am surprised at the position you have taken. If there are xenophobes getting a lift from this issue so what? A thirsty man doesn’t stay at the pub doorstep because he has a few flies on his back. The importance of the issue is far greater and far above xenophobia. And political ideology.

  36. jquiggin
    March 31st, 2010 at 18:20 | #36

    OK, nothing more on population, please. I propose a post on this topic soon, which I will police very closely, while allowing for a broad-ranging discussion. In the meantime, there’s plenty to talk about with water.

  37. Sam
    March 31st, 2010 at 18:47 | #37

    @jquiggin
    Ok. By the way, how would you propose to deal with the issue of urban water runoff hurting the reef in North Queensland? What do you think of storm-water harvesting? Also, are there any credible plans you know of for mangrove swamp reforestation, in order to prevent the nitrates getting to the reef?

  38. Fran Barlow
    March 31st, 2010 at 18:53 | #38

    @Salient Green

    I thought you were hot on protecting the environment

    Absolutely

    and as it’s too many of us Humans that’s doing the damage I am surprised at the position you have taken.

    Actually, you are exaggerating. Yes, one can say that both the aggregate demand on ecosystem services and the patterns of demand from humans in concert are a serious contributing factor to the problem. As an egalaitarian, a humanist and a humanitarian it’s incumbent on me to reconcile this problem with the ethical claims implied.

    If there were some magical way of unwinding the last 64 years of policy on a world scale and having it over then I’d be there, but there isn’t.

    It seems to me the main difference we have is not population at all, but where the problem lies, and the question of burden sharing.

    For mine, the problem lies almsot entirely outside of Australia, and what we ought to be doing is everything we reasonably can to foster equitable and sustainable policy in places where the birth rate is at odds with stabilisation. If that resulted in a non-coercive and equitable policy that stabilsied at, say, 8.5 billion of which Australia had 40 million, I’d count that as a success for humanity and as reflecting well on us. You, presumably, would not.

  39. March 31st, 2010 at 18:54 | #39

    @jquiggin

    Sorry PrQ ,,, didn’t see this before I posted …

  40. April 1st, 2010 at 08:42 | #40

    for several decades working-age people would have to support more youth, as well as you’d just be adding a youth dependency problem to your age dependency problem.

    But DD, the baby-boom period of the late 50s and 60s (ie. an extreme level of “youth dependency”) has gone down in history as a time of burgeoning prosperity.

    I have a feeling the “problems” expected from the ageing of the population oh noes!! are vastly overstated, but admit I have no proof. Still, the high youth dependency in the 60s didn’t seem to hurt the economy any.

  41. April 1st, 2010 at 11:24 | #41

    Sorry, what Fran said. Delete that, if you can be bothered!

  42. wilful
    April 1st, 2010 at 11:40 | #42

    To be slightly fair to John Brumby, much of his water agenda is ‘democratic’ as he is basing his actions on what the affected people clearly want. Which doesn’t help that it’s mostly pretty wrong. Of course, the issue is that there are a small class of badly affected potential losers, and a large class of slightly affected potential winners. Losers make much more noise.

    Still, that’s what government’s for, isn’t it?

    Sometimes it would be nice to live in a technocracy.

    I still can’t quite fathom what the problem is with recycling waste water to human consumption standards, and why desalination is considered preferable.

  43. Fran Barlow
    April 1st, 2010 at 11:56 | #43

    There’s no problem at all recycling water. In most cases the water will be of a higher standard than what one gets out of dams. It’s especially silly since the bulk of water is used for washing ourselves, our clothes, our cars and flushing our toilets. Throw in the fact that much urban water is used in settings where how potable it is doesn’t count — manufacture, swimming pools, water grounds and really, it’s just silly.

    The real constraint to doing recycling is not the availability of water but the cost and complexity of the infrastructure needed to deliver it. Having parallel recycled, greywater, desal and conventional water systems would simply not make sense in cost-benefit terms. What you really would want to do is to take all of the water you have, get it to the minimum standard you need for all purposes and deliver that through one set of reserves and pipes and pumps. Collecting stormwater is not easy, and cleaning it even less so.

    Conceivably, if there were concentrated large scale industrial estates, one might be able to shift grey water in bulk to them and even create some recylcling facility that was cost effective. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, you might be able to create housing estates that were able to collect their own run off and sewage, and pump it to a local treatment plant that could then be fed back into the system via the nearest reservoir. But the engineering and planning would not be a simple thing.

  44. wilful
    April 1st, 2010 at 12:27 | #44

    Fran, my concerns relate to the political rather than the practical concerns with recycling. Coming out of the SETP, much of Melbourne’s water would be well placed to be pumped back to Cardinia reservoir for reuse.

    A goodly proportion of class A water is used coming out of Werribee, but the farmers have apparently had some genuine problems there.

    Stormwater recapture and recycling is a bit of a myth I’m afraid. Too many outlets, carrying too variable a flow, with too pricey a real estate for treatment plants. The good people of St Kilda and Brighton can’t fit treatment plants on the foreshore, this is a simple fact.

  45. Michael
    April 1st, 2010 at 12:51 | #45

    @Fran Barlow
    Has the cost of residential water tanks for flushing toilets and watering gardens been compared with an estate level water treatment system with dual supply? I wonder if residential water tanks have had any measureable impact on water use levels? One would think that residential water tanks would be a lot more expensive per litre, but then again the costs of building infrastructure in Australia seems to have blown out to fantastic sums – $600 Million to increase traffic at one intersection!

  46. Michael
    April 1st, 2010 at 12:55 | #46

    @wilful

    “Most of those in the northern suburbs who use this water are unaware that it is recycled sewage produced by other Melburnians living around Lilydale. The Winneke purification plant has operated without customer complaint for almost 30 years on the principle that what the people don’t know won’t hurt the politicians.”

    from “Undrinkable water is the next problem”

  47. April 3rd, 2010 at 00:47 | #47

    Fran Barlow, there are huge problems with recycled sewage. Please refer to my article “Courier Mail misreports water recycling to demand early election” of 5 Jan 10.

    Paradoxically, Murdoch’s Australian newspaper reported accurately on that question at the time, whilst the information, contained in the Australian‘s articles, was not conveyed to Murdoch’s Courier-Mail‘s readers.

  48. Alice
    April 3rd, 2010 at 18:53 | #48

    Recycling water is fine as long as the government doesnt disintegrate under mountains of debt. Then Id trust the government more than I trusted the water supply, and thats saying something. The problem is the “lower our taxes and lower them again” mobs keep baying…In that case I want real water thanks…than the ffluent that might just come through my drinking taps.

    I think its time to get real on recycled water – givernmets cant even manage current catchments – what makes you think they can manage recycled water supply? Its pretty disgraceful really – in Australia our population is relativcely small but you would think we have breached all manageable limits

    Perhaps according only to the greedy who want their taxes lowered further – but Im damn sure if you asked every european or every US citizen – they might just say – “what sort of an inept government is planning these things in Australia”?

    Welcome to roos and robotsville.

  49. April 3rd, 2010 at 22:11 | #49

    Your post is spot on, Alice.

    If we could trust the water recycling technology to work precisely as it is intended 365×24 and it doesn’t have to deal with any unexpected and exotic highly toxic materials such as can find their way into our water drains from hospitals, then it just might be OK.

    But in the real world we can expect the operators, particularly if they are private operators, to cut corners and make mistakes and have to deal with unexpected contingencies.

    It is criminally stupid for our political rulers to force us to rely on such expensive and complex technology to supply such a basic need.

  50. April 3rd, 2010 at 22:14 | #50

    D’oh.

    I botched the link back to Alice’s post.

    My apologies.

Comments are closed.