• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

An idea to end the water problem (1 Viewer)

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Household water consumption will be of little/no problem with the introduction of recycled water. It would be fairer to create a two tier water tax system but it seems like a very complex system for a situation where there will be little problem.

Your arguments are based on the idea that water sold at the market rate would be ridiculously expensive, when in reality at the moment it's less than $1 per 1000 litres, so it wouldn't be a tremendous burden on anyone regardless.
Not really. The majority of his argument was pointing out that you'll have a large, complex beaurocracy for something which works fine without it.
 
Last edited:

walrusbear

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
2,261
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
LOL

an issue comes up and waf follows his familiar thoughts:
'how can hardline market principles apply here?'
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Sheesh... how much water do some bastards use? It's no wonder we're running out of water at this rate. Personally, I only use what I need. I actually feel guilty when I leave the shower running while I shave, or leave the tap running while I'm cleaning my shaving blade. Anybody who wastes water should be ashamed. We need to do something like 'P-Diddys' Vote or Die campaign. Except, 'waste water and we'll waste you' campaign. Catch my drift? Or, 'fill a pool and we'll fill you.' Or, 'play with a hose in the summer, and you'll die like crack hoes in the gutter.'

Desalinisation plants? Yes please.
Nuclear Energy? Yeap.
Recycle water? Yes.
Water restrictions? Duh...

Has anybody else noticed the taste of tap water in the last few years? When a $1,000 filter system still leaves water tasting like shit, you know something is wrong.

[Unless we plan on bathing and drinking our own urine in the next few decades, measures need to be taken.]
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
walrusbear said:
LOL

an issue comes up and waf follows his familiar thoughts:
'how can hardline market principles apply here?'
If I were doing that I would've suggested the government sell off Sydney Water to private enterprise and then not set up any regulations on its activity, as has been mentioned at least 15 times in this thread.
 

Skater_bum

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
125
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
my idea.


nuclear power ----------> desalination plants----> Bury the nuclear waste under state forest to discourage logging .


been saying that for years.
 

SiZmOs

"Shaken, not stirred."
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,493
Location
Bass Hill
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I think everyone needs to get a bucket, put it underneath their air conditioning units, and bathe/drink/whatever in the water which is collected from them. There we go. My air conditioner puts out a litre or two of water for every hour it is on.
 

Sparcod

Hello!
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
2,085
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Recycled water has been used worldwide in "thirsty" places such as in Southwestern United States. They don't seem to have a problem becuase that's the best way they can obtain water for domestic usage in an area with very low rainfalls.

Singaporeans also drink recycled water because they find it cheaper than desal. and more obtainable than rainwater tanks and other sources. I'm also pretty sure that Singapore and USA provide really good quality water for its citizens.

Take a note that less than 1% of water is used for drinking. I know that the quality of recycled water is a bit worse than other sources but will still be drinkable if it meets safety and health regulations. Good idea given that we are in a dry country.

I support recycled water rather than the desal. Cheaper and easier.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Wasn't that a weird creepy movie, a la A Clockwork Orange?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Sparcod said:
Take a note that less than 1% of water is used for drinking. I know that the quality of recycled water is a bit worse than other sources but will still be drinkable if it meets safety and health regulations. Good idea given that we are in a dry country.

I support recycled water rather than the desal. Cheaper and easier.
I'm sorry, worse quality? It's water. Water is water is water, as long as it doesn't have a huge sediment content and is, you know, clean. Which as far as I know, recycled water is cleaner than your average tap water.

You haven't tasted shit-tasting water until you've tasted desalinated water.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Wasn't that a weird creepy movie, a la A Clockwork Orange?
Nah basically it's a movie about an overpopulated future world where there's scarce food other than the government rationed 'soylent' products. Anyway to spoil the ending, the new product 'soylent green' turns out to 'be people' :)
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Kwayera said:
And what do you suppose we eat, then?
Either:
a) Crops from the more efficient farmers who manage to survive the drought; or
b) Crops from overseas, if it's cheaper to import than grow locally.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Sparcod said:
Recycled water has been used worldwide in "thirsty" places such as in Southwestern United States. They don't seem to have a problem becuase that's the best way they can obtain water for domestic usage in an area with very low rainfalls.

Singaporeans also drink recycled water because they find it cheaper than desal. and more obtainable than rainwater tanks and other sources. I'm also pretty sure that Singapore and USA provide really good quality water for its citizens.

Take a note that less than 1% of water is used for drinking. I know that the quality of recycled water is a bit worse than other sources but will still be drinkable if it meets safety and health regulations. Good idea given that we are in a dry country.

I support recycled water rather than the desal. Cheaper and easier.
Actually recycled water is the better quality than current drinking water. It should be the same as desalinisation.

Since it is better drinking water - they mix it up in the dam.
 

brightsea

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
43
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
withoutaface said:
Your arguments are based on the idea that water sold at the market rate would be ridiculously expensive, when in reality at the moment it's less than $1 per 1000 litres, so it wouldn't be a tremendous burden on anyone regardless.
The "fly in social circles" argument is based on this. However, if water at market rate "wouldn't be a tremendous burden" what's the point of having water quotas? People won't be discouraged from using more than their share of water.

For the rest of it, Not-That-Bright nutshelled my argument nicely (and also gave me a sex change....either that or I've been seriously misled ;) )
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
No, the difference wouldn't be tremendous, but if you have any party coming into an election saying that they're gonna do it you then have the opposing party painting pictures of people being unable to afford drinking water, hence not highly electable policy.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,198
Location
Northernmost Moonforests of the North
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
withoutaface said:
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.)
Maybe it works differently in the big smoke, but we're already charged differently for different tiers of water usage here. The only way this really seems to deviate from your suggestion is that to the best of my knowledge the money is not being put towards a solution, it's just used as a deterrent.

Don't know the specifics which make up each tier, but I'd expect that they are based on approximations similar to what you've mentioned.

As for the viability, not so convinced. As a further deterrent against waste (or perhaps as a reflection of the increasing severity of the water shortage here), the base price of water has almost doubled, and yet somehow people still think they should be allowed to waste as much as they want, and accordingly, do so.

The other thing with monetary restriction of water usage that peturbs me is that it simply creates a situation where those with money to burn can afford to waste as much as they'd like, and in doing so they create problems which affect everyone.
 

brightsea

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
43
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
WAF, I'm not sure I completely understood the point of your last response....

withoutaface said:
No, the difference wouldn't be tremendous, but if you have any party coming into an election saying that they're gonna do it you then have the opposing party painting pictures of people being unable to afford drinking water, hence not highly electable policy.
Like I said, if the difference between the quota water price and the over-your-quota water price won't be tremendous no one's going to give a stuff and abide by it. Therefore, why bother implementing a large, complex and bureaucratic system that will be almost impossible to run effectively?

As for the electability of the issue, I agree. No party that has this kind of policy would get elected. It would be political suicide to even hint at it.

My social circles comment assumed that water quotas had be implemented and people with unusual living circumstances (eg. divorced couples with children) were getting more than their per person share of water, for which I'm sure people would cry foul.
 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Murray water crisis sparks ban
April 19, 2007 - 10:30AM

No water will be allocated to irrigators in the Murray-Darling basin for the coming year unless there is substantial rain in the next six weeks, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

Mr Howard today described the situation as "unprecedentedly dangerous", following a report of state and federal officials that examined water availability in the Murray-Darling system.

"Unless there are very substantial inflows - and for that read heavy rain leading to runoff into the catchment areas - prior to mid-May 2007, there will be insufficient water available to allow any allocation at the commencement of the 2007-08 water year for irrigation, the environment or for any purposes other than critical urban supplies," he said.

"If it doesn't rain in sufficient volume over the next six to eight weeks, there will be no water allocations for irrigation purposes in the basin."

Urban supplies not at risk

Mr Howard stressed urban water supplies were not at risk.

It would also be possible for some farmers, particularly those with riverside properties, to draw water for their own personal need but not for their stock, Mr Howard said.

He said all the farmers were receiving support under the government's Exceptional Circumstances (EC) drought assistance program.

"I will be urgently examining what additional assistance might be appropriate at a Commonwealth level,'' he said.

Mr Howard said he was consulting states on releasing the report which contains some commercial-in-confidence material.

"This underlines the critical situation that we face if there is no significant rainfall over the next few weeks,'' he said.

"Even if there is significant rainfall, and that of course is very much in the lap of the gods ... it may not be possible until late July or well into August to determine whether that rainfall has been adequate, sufficient enough to allow some allocations to be made for irrigation purposes.''

Critical for irrigation businesses

Mr Howard warned the irrigation industries would be in a critical condition unless there was substantial rainfall.

"You are simply not going to have enough water, consistent with the obligation to supply critical human needs to town communities along the river system, you are not going to have enough water to provide any allocation for agriculture,'' Mr Howard said.

"The impact that this is going to have on industry, on the horticultural industry and crops like grapes and stone fruits and other primary industries that rely on irrigation including the dairy industry, is very critical indeed.''

Mr Howard said it was too early to start trying to calculate the impact a continuation of the drought would have on economic growth.

"We know already that the drought has taken up to three-quarters to one per cent of our growth. The longer it goes on the harder the impact,'' Mr Howard said.

"These are just stark facts. I'm not gilding the lilly. I wish I had another story. I would like to be talking optimistically about the drought, rather than relaying this kind of story.''

Mr Howard said there would be no irrigation for grapes and stone fruit crops if the drought continued and that there was no guarantee of carryover water.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top