An idea to end the water problem (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Now I realise that pricing water at a market rate would not go down well with the people of NSW, but I was thinking on the bus, what if we offered every household an amount of water that gave them x amount of drinking water, enough for 15 mins shower per person, etc, etc at the current rate, then charged any extra water at the current rate + whatever it would cost to construct a water recycling facility to produce that water. This means that anyone filling pools, watering their massive rose gardens or whatever else has to pay the market rate for what is in effect a "non-essential" use of water. This means that people still have water at the current rate for their "needs", but pay what it would actually cost for their "wants", and this discourages water wastage while still being electable policy.

What does everyone else think?

(Yes, I realise that this post is probably a bit incomprehensible due to alcohol consumption, I don't care.)

 

[undalay]

Water recycling and distillation plants is the solution.

Problem is it requires ALOT of power.

Power we'll get from nuclear sources.

I think it would be hard to ration water, much too costly to calculate everything?

 

[withoutaface]

Water recycling and distillation plants is the solution.

Problem is it requires ALOT of power.

Power we'll get from nuclear sources.

I think it would be hard to ration water, much too costly to calculate everything?

Not really, Sydney Water just has to extend the line of code in their system which calculates everyone bill by about 15 characters and we're set. Power is paid for by the extra revenue generated by this system.

 

[undalay]

Even if we cut usage by 50% we'd still have a water problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-drying-up-fast/2006/12/29/1166895479947.html

Based on current consumption patterns of about 1.5 billion litres a day, the water lost could have quenched Sydney's thirst for more than 80 years.

Edit: I agree that we do have to waste less water but that just isn't enough. Many other states besides NSW have harsher water restriction laws then us but still we refuse to follow. The extra revenue to fund more power is a bit useless because money isn't really the issue. The issue is where the power is coming from.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Now I realise that pricing water at a market rate would not go down well with the people of NSW, but I was thinking on the bus, what if we offered every household an amount of water that gave them x amount of drinking water, enough for 15 mins shower per person, etc, etc at the current rate, then charged any extra water at the current rate + whatever it would cost to construct a water recycling facility to produce that water. This means that anyone filling pools, watering their massive rose gardens or whatever else has to pay the market rate for what is in effect a "non-essential" use of water. This means that people still have water at the current rate for their "needs", but pay what it would actually cost for their "wants", and this discourages water wastage while still being electable policy.

What does everyone else think?

(Yes, I realise that this post is probably a bit incomprehensible due to alcohol consumption, I don't care.)

That's pretty simplistic and faces the same problems as every other government that rations anything: Who judges non-essential versus essential use of water?

 

[withoutaface]

That's pretty simplistic and faces the same problems as every other government that rations anything: Who judges non-essential versus essential use of water?

Essential = enough to drink, wash hands, shower, wash clothes and dishes manually in the sink.
Non-essential = gardens, pools, electronic devices for washing things, etc.

The line drawn isn't really that arbitrary, as we have fairly well defined needs and wants in society and if someone's wasteful washing machine is, for example, using 5x as much water as someone's hand washing sink, then they should bear the burden for creating a water recycling facility because the machine is unnecessary.

 

[gerhard]

you must have alot of respect for the electorate if you think that policy is electable.

people wont even vote for recycling water


the electorate pretty much doesnt care how efficient anything is, as long as they dont get the impression it will negatively effect them. of course if its inefficient it will effect them even more because they will have to pay more taxes but people are too stupid to think like this. so just build a million distillation plants. or maybe a massive pipe from lake superior, michigan.

 

[mr_brightside]

If it weren't for the stupid FUCKING IDIOTS whom stand and water their grass in the middle of the fucking day, we would NEVER run out of water.

 

[gerhard]

nah, im pretty sure we would still be running out of water

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

it's not a bad idea. i think we certainly need a way to cut down on non essential water usage (i'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to ever water the garden or use a washing machine but ffs we can live without it pretty easily). I reckon if there was some legally imposable limit as to how much water each household could use weekly/daily/whatever and enforceable penalties for exceeding it then we might get somewhere, but actually putting such a system in place would not be an easy process. one thing everybody shoudl have, though, are those water saving shower heads - we have one and i swear they use so much less water than normal ones. i hate having showers at one of my friends places because the water just buckets down and it feels so wasteful :s even little things like that, if everyone did it, it would make a difference...if only a marginal one.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Water problem? 70% of the Earth is covered in water. If the NSW government refuse to build a desalination plant that is their decision but I am not using less water because of their laziness/stupidity/whatever you want to call it.

 

[banco55]

I know that here in the ACT they charge for "excess water use" already but I don't know how they calculate it and I don't think the price difference is enough to make anyone change their habits.

In Singapore water is charged at "market rates" because they get most of their water from malaysia so it is a security issue for them as the more water they use the more leverage malaysia has over them. But bit of a different situation as they all live in apartments and they do whatever their government tells them to with minimal dissent.

 

[undalay]

Okay, for everyone that ignored my post completely and failed to read:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-drying-up-fast/2006/12/29/1166895479947.html

Ill sum it up for those of you that can't be bothered to read it.

In the last 3 years Australia has lost 46 Cubic kilometres of fresh water.

At our CURRENT fucking wastage rate 46 cubic kilometres SHOULD of lasted us 80 years rather then just 3.
Our water shortage is BEYOND mere water restrictions.

Secondly:
Desalination plants are being constructed but mass desalination plants are uneconomical unless you have nuclear power.
Desalination requires too much power. Our current methods gaining power are mainly burning fossil fuels, which cause immense amounts of damage to the environment.

 

[banco55]

I always liked the idea of having individual water/petrol/electricity rations entitled to all. The poor who use minimum resources can sell their rations to the rich thus rewarding minimal consumption plus promoting social equality.

How would that promote social equality? It would just make it obvious to poor how badly off they are when they have to sell their water entitlements to richer people.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Desalination plants are being constructed but mass desalination plants are uneconomical unless you have nuclear power.

Also the fault of the government. It is their responsibility to convince all the morons out there that think chernobyl as soon as nuclear power is mentioned and start building the things. We need desalination plants and we need nuclear power. There is no water problem.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Every Australian uses 1000m³ of water per year, of which only 70 is the part that comes out of the taps at your house.
To grow a tonne of rice takes 1500m³ of water... an average meal amounts to about 5000 litres. So we'll ration food too.
Every MWh of Electricity you use... there's another 2m³, that's okay, we can ration electricity.
Want a house? Well one cubic metre of wood takes 400m³ of water, and a ton of steel will be another 2.5, so we have to ration construction materials too.
Read the paper? Takes 0.3m³ of water to make that, so we have to ration...
Fuck it, let's just pay people in government vouchers they can exchange for fixed quantities of goods.

Or instead we can start by damming every river in the country at every feasible location until no more water can be obtained. If that's not enough we can start building desalination plants with nuclear power (too expensive!).

Even if water is rationed we're still going to have to do that, considering the population is growing and water levels keep dropping even with stage 17 code red restrictions or whatever they're up to now.

 

[P_Dilemma]

allocating a certain amount of water per household isn't a viable solution, i think. It'd be difficult to enforce such measures.

I reckon recycling is the way to go. Desalination seems a big fat waste of money in comparison.

-P_D

 

[Slidey]

Even if we cut usage by 50% we'd still have a water problem.

Uh, perhaps, but that's definitely not a justification for NOT cutting water consumption back by 50%!

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Uh, perhaps, but that's definitely not a justification for NOT cutting water consumption back by 50%!

Water restrictions are not a solution. We shouldn't have to limit the water we use because our elected representatives are cheap and lazy.

 

[Ingoesout]

Dramatically enfoced water RESTRICTIONS.
My idea simply goes as follows: Each household is assigned a certain ammount of water that they are allowed to use (water is given equally and according to needs, priviledge can not buy benefits/exemptions). Once you exceed your limit water is CUT OFF. yes, that's right, no water for j00!

Raising the cost of water wont work imo, people wil still pay as it's still ridiculously cheap.

Also why the hell aren't we better at recycling water? England recycle theirs 6 times right (correct me if im wrong) before discarding it. And why the fuck is treated drinking water used to flush out toilets? AND over 1/3 of all water is simply LOST through faulty/poor quality piping. We're a new country, that's ridiculous. Fix the fucking problem!

Yeah ok.

edit: ok, idea not totally thought through, but you get the idea. No easy solution is going to stop me from having 20 minute showers or going to make me adopt the "if its yellow let it mellow if it's brown flush it down" motto.