-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Water threads [Merged]
- Thread starter pahoffm
- Start date
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
You'd think so, but judging by the content of recent local papers and the following website:
http://www.vicrainforest.org/Melbwater.php
barty boy said:
You'd think so, but judging by the content of recent local papers and the following website:
http://www.vicrainforest.org/Melbwater.php
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Thought this was an interesting article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2308190.htm?section=world
If a 700km gas pipeline to Port Moresby can be built, why not a water pipeline from Tasmania to Victoria?
Thought this was an interesting article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2308190.htm?section=world
If a 700km gas pipeline to Port Moresby can be built, why not a water pipeline from Tasmania to Victoria?
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
That would require cooperation between the states and the political willpower to act in the best interests of the citizens of this great nation. Just like building a new dam.
Of course, those who say new dams aren't the answer might like to have a moment to think about the crap we would be in now if the Thompsom had never been built.
Phantom said:
That would require cooperation between the states and the political willpower to act in the best interests of the citizens of this great nation. Just like building a new dam.
Of course, those who say new dams aren't the answer might like to have a moment to think about the crap we would be in now if the Thompsom had never been built.
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
That would be a massive part of it.
What price is fair for Victorian consumers that makes it cost effective compared to desal and recycling?
What price should Tasmanian taxpayers be entitled to extract from Victoria, given they are our poorest state and their water is an in demand commodity?
What happens if drought demands mean priorities are protecting Tasmanian water consumers and their valuable hydro power assets? Can Victoria act without supply guanantees under this circumstance?
craig said:
That would be a massive part of it.
What price is fair for Victorian consumers that makes it cost effective compared to desal and recycling?
What price should Tasmanian taxpayers be entitled to extract from Victoria, given they are our poorest state and their water is an in demand commodity?
What happens if drought demands mean priorities are protecting Tasmanian water consumers and their valuable hydro power assets? Can Victoria act without supply guanantees under this circumstance?
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Extremely worrying.
One month into our 4 month rainy season and we just don't seem to be lifting.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/weekly_water_update/zoom_graph.asp
We ignore Tasmania's offerings.
We're still only in the planning stages of the recycling centre......
Get off your arse Brumby!
Extremely worrying.
One month into our 4 month rainy season and we just don't seem to be lifting.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/weekly_water_update/zoom_graph.asp
We ignore Tasmania's offerings.
We're still only in the planning stages of the recycling centre......
Get off your arse Brumby!
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Absolutely must have official stage 4 introduced in the next month or so!...Should be a higher restriction come dry season...some people just don't get it!
Luckily the family property appears to have scored just enough to get us through this year...we finally fell within the belt....
Absolutely must have official stage 4 introduced in the next month or so!...Should be a higher restriction come dry season...some people just don't get it!
Luckily the family property appears to have scored just enough to get us through this year...we finally fell within the belt....
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Well, here we are nearing the end of September.
Just to maintain ourselves at this last year's levels we needed to be up at 40%.
We didn't even reach 35%, we've now plateaued at 34.4%.
This means that by June 2009 we will be down to around 25%.
It's a disaster.
We're now 2 years down the track from when the State government were announcing big plans for water recycling, new pipelines, etc, and it has all added up to talk only.
This is more than just very disappointing.
Well, here we are nearing the end of September.
Just to maintain ourselves at this last year's levels we needed to be up at 40%.
We didn't even reach 35%, we've now plateaued at 34.4%.
This means that by June 2009 we will be down to around 25%.
It's a disaster.
We're now 2 years down the track from when the State government were announcing big plans for water recycling, new pipelines, etc, and it has all added up to talk only.
This is more than just very disappointing.
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
C'mon Phantom give them credit...they're addressing the problem by building a billion dollar pipeline to take water that doesn't exist from the Goulburn River. Doesn't matter that they turn the food bowl into a dust bowl as long as a few more dunnies can be flushed in Melbourne.
C'mon Phantom give them credit...they're addressing the problem by building a billion dollar pipeline to take water that doesn't exist from the Goulburn River. Doesn't matter that they turn the food bowl into a dust bowl as long as a few more dunnies can be flushed in Melbourne.
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
People will kick out any govt that tries to get "poo water" up.
Just look at the storm that occured in Toowoomba. They had 2-3 buckets left in the dam, and the voters STILL voted against it.
This debate drives me batty because everyone knows what method they are against, but few people are actually saying "I want this", unless there is virtually no impact upon them.
Phantom said:
People will kick out any govt that tries to get "poo water" up.
Just look at the storm that occured in Toowoomba. They had 2-3 buckets left in the dam, and the voters STILL voted against it.
This debate drives me batty because everyone knows what method they are against, but few people are actually saying "I want this", unless there is virtually no impact upon them.
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
'Poo-water' recycling is also fine as far as I'm concerned.
Labor governments are notorious ditherers abd Brumby seems to be out dithering the lot of 'em.
The most sensible and sustainable ideas are the pipeline from Tasmania and really subsidisng houshold water tanks.Tiger74 said:
'Poo-water' recycling is also fine as far as I'm concerned.
Labor governments are notorious ditherers abd Brumby seems to be out dithering the lot of 'em.
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Don't underestimate the stupidity of the average voter Phantom.
They proposed recycling water at Eastern, pumping it to the power stations, and diverting the drinking water they currently use for city use. Latrobe Valley voters we up in arms because they wanted access to the clean water 100%, AND they wanted to know why they had to accept poo water when Melbourne doesn't. The only serious argument against it I heard is apparently poo water is too clean, and it was going to have to be altered somewhat so as to not damage the equipment at the power plants (don't know the details, just remember hearing R&D was needed).
As for industry, the idiots don't like that too:
1) you want to water my crops with poo water - why don't we just completely contaminate our food (this was a serious argument against it being used on crops - I don't think they have any idea what many fertilizers are made of)
2) you want to use poo water in factories - thin end of the wedge, its a covert means to get public drinking water converted.
I know some of the water recycled at Werribee and Carrum is used locally by industry (and Sandhurst off memory), so it is already being used, just not on a serious scale. I am a big supporter of this, and nearly break my steering wheel when I hear the people advocating bans on it.
I do remember laughing though when someone rang up the radio during the debate on this issue, and asked how the anti-recycling peoples had successfully stopped possums and kangaroos pooing in catchment areas to avoid similar contamination :hihi
Phantom said:
Don't underestimate the stupidity of the average voter Phantom.
They proposed recycling water at Eastern, pumping it to the power stations, and diverting the drinking water they currently use for city use. Latrobe Valley voters we up in arms because they wanted access to the clean water 100%, AND they wanted to know why they had to accept poo water when Melbourne doesn't. The only serious argument against it I heard is apparently poo water is too clean, and it was going to have to be altered somewhat so as to not damage the equipment at the power plants (don't know the details, just remember hearing R&D was needed).
As for industry, the idiots don't like that too:
1) you want to water my crops with poo water - why don't we just completely contaminate our food (this was a serious argument against it being used on crops - I don't think they have any idea what many fertilizers are made of)
2) you want to use poo water in factories - thin end of the wedge, its a covert means to get public drinking water converted.
I know some of the water recycled at Werribee and Carrum is used locally by industry (and Sandhurst off memory), so it is already being used, just not on a serious scale. I am a big supporter of this, and nearly break my steering wheel when I hear the people advocating bans on it.
I do remember laughing though when someone rang up the radio during the debate on this issue, and asked how the anti-recycling peoples had successfully stopped possums and kangaroos pooing in catchment areas to avoid similar contamination :hihi
Re: Melbourne's Water Update
Well put Evo! Don't forget the great line from Bill Shorten (I think) that went something like... "In the 40's and 50's politicians did things for the benefit of the community, now it seems politicians do things to be seen to be doing things and the bigger the better." Whilst that was far from word-for-word IMO his sentiment is 100% on the money, with very few exceptions.evo said:
