-
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: The great water cover up.
Not so sure about that '74. I've been told by a polly, but am happy to be corrected, that the pipeline is being built before the irrigation works so that would mean they are getting water from here rather than the water they've saved. Also once the works are completed Melbourne will still get preference for the water.
Seems a very clever political stunt to claim it's "new" water they'll be taking but if that was the case they'd save the water before they take it. I'm not usually one for signing petitions but think I'll do so in this case after checking out the facts, as well as write to the Govt to voice my disapproval. The people up here have done it too hard for too long. The irrigators even have to pay a percentage of the works from what I've been told, that's on top of paying for water they never recieved this year. Time they got a break.
Interesting the $1,000,000 advertising being spent for this month really leaves us none the wiser. Money that could have been better used than trying to buy votes.
Tiger74 said:
Not so sure about that '74. I've been told by a polly, but am happy to be corrected, that the pipeline is being built before the irrigation works so that would mean they are getting water from here rather than the water they've saved. Also once the works are completed Melbourne will still get preference for the water.
Seems a very clever political stunt to claim it's "new" water they'll be taking but if that was the case they'd save the water before they take it. I'm not usually one for signing petitions but think I'll do so in this case after checking out the facts, as well as write to the Govt to voice my disapproval. The people up here have done it too hard for too long. The irrigators even have to pay a percentage of the works from what I've been told, that's on top of paying for water they never recieved this year. Time they got a break.
Interesting the $1,000,000 advertising being spent for this month really leaves us none the wiser. Money that could have been better used than trying to buy votes.
Re: Weekly water update
This proposal actually came from Shep based irrigators, which is one of the reasons I support it (if irrigators were first to lose water they would not put this up after all as it would go against their own vested interests).
On the timing for construction, cannot comment on that to be fair, but it would make some sense in that much of the irrigation improvements will take less time that the pipeline I imagine (it does need to go over the Great Dividing Range, hence the reason is so bl00dy expensive).
On the water, firstly if Elidon is empty (and it was when I was up there the other week), there is nothing to pump, so the question is irrelevant. IN terms of when it fills, the one thing most people forget is poli's are motivated by votes. It would be suicide to drain the Elidon furthern to get Melbourne off restrictions but keep central Vic on them.
Finally this pipeline will take some time to make, so its not like anything will change overnight. The policy of sharing savings does need to be fleshed out (absolutely), but given the irrigators actually put this plan up, I am hopeful that this will happen.
rosy23 said:Not so sure about that '74. I've been told by a polly, but am happy to be corrected, that the pipeline is being built before the irrigation works so that would mean they are getting water from here rather than the water they've saved. Also once the works are completed Melbourne will still get preference for the water.
Seems a very clever political stunt to claim it's "new" water they'll be taking but if that was the case they'd save the water before they take it. I'm not usually one for signing petitions but think I'll do so in this case after checking out the facts, as well as write to the Govt to voice my disapproval. The people up here have done it too hard for too long. The irrigators even have to pay a percentage of the works from what I've been told, that's on top of paying for water they never recieved this year. Time they got a break.
Interesting the $1,000,000 advertising being spent for this month really leaves us none the wiser. Money that could have been better used than trying to buy votes.
This proposal actually came from Shep based irrigators, which is one of the reasons I support it (if irrigators were first to lose water they would not put this up after all as it would go against their own vested interests).
On the timing for construction, cannot comment on that to be fair, but it would make some sense in that much of the irrigation improvements will take less time that the pipeline I imagine (it does need to go over the Great Dividing Range, hence the reason is so bl00dy expensive).
On the water, firstly if Elidon is empty (and it was when I was up there the other week), there is nothing to pump, so the question is irrelevant. IN terms of when it fills, the one thing most people forget is poli's are motivated by votes. It would be suicide to drain the Elidon furthern to get Melbourne off restrictions but keep central Vic on them.
Finally this pipeline will take some time to make, so its not like anything will change overnight. The policy of sharing savings does need to be fleshed out (absolutely), but given the irrigators actually put this plan up, I am hopeful that this will happen.
Re: Weekly water update
There are plenty of irrigators who rely on the water who aren't Shepparton based. Eildon is really low (8% full) but it still contains around 100,000ML more water than the Thompson Dam, well before today's rains it did at least.
I'm not sure it would be political suicide to siphon water from the weir to Melbourne. This is a National seat and I'm not 100% certain but I think Shepp is a Liberal seat. The cynic in me wonders if the Govt is doing this for votes from other metropolitan seats rather than the few they might lose up here.
Letters to the editor and radio talkback up here indicate people are Dam angry about the Govt robbing Peter to pay Paul and are concerned at increased water rates, the costs of funding the project and ongoing water restrictions in towns along the Goulburn system.
There are plenty of irrigators who rely on the water who aren't Shepparton based. Eildon is really low (8% full) but it still contains around 100,000ML more water than the Thompson Dam, well before today's rains it did at least.
I'm not sure it would be political suicide to siphon water from the weir to Melbourne. This is a National seat and I'm not 100% certain but I think Shepp is a Liberal seat. The cynic in me wonders if the Govt is doing this for votes from other metropolitan seats rather than the few they might lose up here.
Letters to the editor and radio talkback up here indicate people are Dam angry about the Govt robbing Peter to pay Paul and are concerned at increased water rates, the costs of funding the project and ongoing water restrictions in towns along the Goulburn system.
Re: Weekly water update
dont disagree with your last statement Rosy.
need to remember two things though
1) Labour has done very well in rural centres recently, and cannot afford to be seen as "anti-bush".
2) Nationals were pounded internally by the Libs for being disloyal when they supported Vic Labour in demanding changes to John Howards water plan. Dont be surprised if negative Nat campaigns are all inference based to create anti-labour sentiments prior to the election. we are already seeing labour play games on state based IR issues outside Vic (its irrelevant to us), so I am expecting many faux issues to arise to support the Federal parties as we approach the election.
3) I honestly believe the irrigators will be looked after. Their business is extra-ordinarily important, and both major parties are big supporters of industries operating in the food bowl. I know Ag is seen as traditionally being only supported by the Nats, but with big business now integral to the region (i.e. Natfoods, Nestle, Simplot, CCA, etc...) serious liberal contributors have a vested interest, and the same companies are massive rural employers (which Labor loves to see because of union hiring benefits).
A good example of this is cotton and rice growing. Both waste massive volumes of water, and are stupid to be done in this country. Both employ farmers, workers, and are run by significant donors, so there is no way in Hades either party has the balls to reign them in.
I should point out one thing though, the days of over allocations are gone. I know much of the north lived on 200-300% allocations, but until this drought is absolutely b1tch slapped from our memories and the irrigation infrastructure is significantly improved, the days of unlimited cheap water for inefficient farmers are gone. Thankfully Vic farmers have adapted faster than the rest, so much of our "pain" has already been had.
rosy23 said:
dont disagree with your last statement Rosy.
need to remember two things though
1) Labour has done very well in rural centres recently, and cannot afford to be seen as "anti-bush".
2) Nationals were pounded internally by the Libs for being disloyal when they supported Vic Labour in demanding changes to John Howards water plan. Dont be surprised if negative Nat campaigns are all inference based to create anti-labour sentiments prior to the election. we are already seeing labour play games on state based IR issues outside Vic (its irrelevant to us), so I am expecting many faux issues to arise to support the Federal parties as we approach the election.
3) I honestly believe the irrigators will be looked after. Their business is extra-ordinarily important, and both major parties are big supporters of industries operating in the food bowl. I know Ag is seen as traditionally being only supported by the Nats, but with big business now integral to the region (i.e. Natfoods, Nestle, Simplot, CCA, etc...) serious liberal contributors have a vested interest, and the same companies are massive rural employers (which Labor loves to see because of union hiring benefits).
A good example of this is cotton and rice growing. Both waste massive volumes of water, and are stupid to be done in this country. Both employ farmers, workers, and are run by significant donors, so there is no way in Hades either party has the balls to reign them in.
I should point out one thing though, the days of over allocations are gone. I know much of the north lived on 200-300% allocations, but until this drought is absolutely b1tch slapped from our memories and the irrigation infrastructure is significantly improved, the days of unlimited cheap water for inefficient farmers are gone. Thankfully Vic farmers have adapted faster than the rest, so much of our "pain" has already been had.
Re: Weekly water update
Great to hear of all the rain.
The Lord/Science works in mysterious ways.
I'm in Qld on leave for a few days, a bit of rain on Tuesday, but fine since.
I'll be happy when Melbourne's reserves go above the 60% mark.
Great to hear of all the rain.
The Lord/Science works in mysterious ways.
I'm in Qld on leave for a few days, a bit of rain on Tuesday, but fine since.
I'll be happy when Melbourne's reserves go above the 60% mark.
Re: Weekly water update
The Thomson dam has received it's second largest ever intake over the last day or so, and the whole system it's largest ever, 19.5 billion litres, almost the equivalent of the entire Maroondah reservoir. Capacity has gone up to 29.7% today, should be over 30% soon.
The Thomson dam has received it's second largest ever intake over the last day or so, and the whole system it's largest ever, 19.5 billion litres, almost the equivalent of the entire Maroondah reservoir. Capacity has gone up to 29.7% today, should be over 30% soon.
Re: Weekly water update
Grrr @ the govt offering $1000 rebate on water tanks for those connected to domestic supply but nothing for rural people who have to orgainise their own water.
Our local township doesn't even have a water supply so the people living there can't get the tank rebate. Maybe the govt should do something about providing a water supply for the town if they aren't willing to subsidise people organising their own.
We have to pay for water in the creek that flows though our property yet we can't get the rebate for a new water tank so in effect we're slugged twice.
Grrr @ the govt offering $1000 rebate on water tanks for those connected to domestic supply but nothing for rural people who have to orgainise their own water.
Our local township doesn't even have a water supply so the people living there can't get the tank rebate. Maybe the govt should do something about providing a water supply for the town if they aren't willing to subsidise people organising their own.
We have to pay for water in the creek that flows though our property yet we can't get the rebate for a new water tank so in effect we're slugged twice.
Re: Weekly water update
This needs to be sorted out.
JFYI you are actually not alone. Anyone in the urban areas with a watertank is POTENTIALLY able to be billed for the water that they collect. Understand from the rumour mill that they have considered this, but the poli's on both sides have told them to pull their heads in because it would be political death with the electorate.
The current system has been established on old principles, and does need revisiting. I understand the theory behind it (making sure that those who dam water in catchment/runoff areas that the "community" would have benefited from have to pay for it), but I think they need to make exemptions for any residential building.
rosy23 said:
This needs to be sorted out.
JFYI you are actually not alone. Anyone in the urban areas with a watertank is POTENTIALLY able to be billed for the water that they collect. Understand from the rumour mill that they have considered this, but the poli's on both sides have told them to pull their heads in because it would be political death with the electorate.
The current system has been established on old principles, and does need revisiting. I understand the theory behind it (making sure that those who dam water in catchment/runoff areas that the "community" would have benefited from have to pay for it), but I think they need to make exemptions for any residential building.
Re: Weekly water update
For anyone who buys a water tank... dont claim the rebate. In the future the government will charge you for rain. Insane but true. They can only do this if they know you have a water tank. How do they know you have a tank? You applied for the rebate.
For anyone who buys a water tank... dont claim the rebate. In the future the government will charge you for rain. Insane but true. They can only do this if they know you have a water tank. How do they know you have a tank? You applied for the rebate.
Re: Weekly water update
Businesses up here are really concerned that once water is piped to stock up Melbourne's reserves water activity here could be banned. Fishing, skiing, houseboats etc. Sounds impossible but who knows.
Td they monitor which properties have dams etc from the air. I bet they'd do that to tax backyard tanks too.
Businesses up here are really concerned that once water is piped to stock up Melbourne's reserves water activity here could be banned. Fishing, skiing, houseboats etc. Sounds impossible but who knows.
Td they monitor which properties have dams etc from the air. I bet they'd do that to tax backyard tanks too.
Re: Weekly water update
That doesnt surprise me Rosy.
I read an article a few years ago that the government were charging land owners for rain that fell on their land.
Thats pretty smiled up. The government doesn't own the rain!
Anyway, I devised a schem to get around it. With my system the rain never actually hits the ground and therefore, technically speaking, the rain doesnt actually fall onto your land but is collected before it can.
That doesnt surprise me Rosy.
I read an article a few years ago that the government were charging land owners for rain that fell on their land.
Thats pretty smiled up. The government doesn't own the rain!
Anyway, I devised a schem to get around it. With my system the rain never actually hits the ground and therefore, technically speaking, the rain doesnt actually fall onto your land but is collected before it can.
Re: Weekly water update
actually they do own it - as per earlier post, they claim rights to all catchment falls. This is why farmers for years in ctahcment areas if they build a dam have had to pay for the water they collect. This is because if their dam had not existed, the water would have flowed into a river or reservior that is used for urban water supply or irrigation.
actually they do own it - as per earlier post, they claim rights to all catchment falls. This is why farmers for years in ctahcment areas if they build a dam have had to pay for the water they collect. This is because if their dam had not existed, the water would have flowed into a river or reservior that is used for urban water supply or irrigation.
Re: Weekly water update
I actually disagree
The Govt claim ownership of the resources under the ground, so this is just an extension of this.
More importantly, there is a valid basis for it.
Lets say Rosy was a real b1tch, and had a large farm on an important catchment. If she deliberately made dams to prevent water flows down to rivers and/or reserviors so she could monopolize the water over other uses, she would have a massive advantage to sell "her" water at high costs to downstream users. This principle is to try and share an entire water systems resources with all parties.
An example of where this can go wrong is with QLD at the moment. They are actively selling water entitlements upstream while downstream users are suffering record shortages. Those upstream say "its my water, we can do with it what we like", but them those downstream lose access to the resource permanently.
This is why the national plan for co-ordinating all water plan is important, as it will mean eventually a joint approach to managing water resources up and down stream.
Also refer to my earlier posts. The issue of urban water charges for rain collections is still possible, but govts at this stage are baulking at letting their water authorities go this far. My hope is that once we get a national dialogue happening, the rebates and so forth on tanks will extend to a guarantee that urban water collected for private use is uncharged, but if you decide to onsell, then you get a visit from Yarra Water etc...
I actually disagree
The Govt claim ownership of the resources under the ground, so this is just an extension of this.
More importantly, there is a valid basis for it.
Lets say Rosy was a real b1tch, and had a large farm on an important catchment. If she deliberately made dams to prevent water flows down to rivers and/or reserviors so she could monopolize the water over other uses, she would have a massive advantage to sell "her" water at high costs to downstream users. This principle is to try and share an entire water systems resources with all parties.
An example of where this can go wrong is with QLD at the moment. They are actively selling water entitlements upstream while downstream users are suffering record shortages. Those upstream say "its my water, we can do with it what we like", but them those downstream lose access to the resource permanently.
This is why the national plan for co-ordinating all water plan is important, as it will mean eventually a joint approach to managing water resources up and down stream.
Also refer to my earlier posts. The issue of urban water charges for rain collections is still possible, but govts at this stage are baulking at letting their water authorities go this far. My hope is that once we get a national dialogue happening, the rebates and so forth on tanks will extend to a guarantee that urban water collected for private use is uncharged, but if you decide to onsell, then you get a visit from Yarra Water etc...
Re: Weekly water update
That scenario you mentioned requires a 'fair use' type policy. By that I mean a guideline or framework, that constitutes what a property might need in terms of number of dams that are required to provide 'fair use' per head of cattle/acreage of crop etc.
I maintain that a government charging people for rain is ludicrous. In some ways it is like me charging you 50 dollars for reading this post. Sure my posts are one of the furthest things you will get from a 'resource', but regardless of what you do, my post happened anyway.
50 dollars please.
That scenario you mentioned requires a 'fair use' type policy. By that I mean a guideline or framework, that constitutes what a property might need in terms of number of dams that are required to provide 'fair use' per head of cattle/acreage of crop etc.
I maintain that a government charging people for rain is ludicrous. In some ways it is like me charging you 50 dollars for reading this post. Sure my posts are one of the furthest things you will get from a 'resource', but regardless of what you do, my post happened anyway.
50 dollars please.
Re: Weekly water update
you idea will not work. Implimenting it for residential is one thing, but Ag is another.
Have you had a look at the Cuddy travesty up in QLD? Why that is allowed, when it is one of the most inefficient damming and irrigation systems known to man, AND it is being used for a water intensive crop like cotton baffles me. But under current arrangements they pay bugger all for their water, and under yours they would pay nothing.
Water is a scarce resource, and it needs to be managed accordingly. I for one am wrapped its finally getting a proper economic value, because it will lead to more efficient farming practices (already happening), more efficient business use (has been coming in for some industries already for several years), and more efficient household use (in its infancy). If water is free-for-all, those who can will bottle it up, and sell it to those who cannot for overly high pricing. While I support an economic cost for water, gouging is not helpful.
you idea will not work. Implimenting it for residential is one thing, but Ag is another.
Have you had a look at the Cuddy travesty up in QLD? Why that is allowed, when it is one of the most inefficient damming and irrigation systems known to man, AND it is being used for a water intensive crop like cotton baffles me. But under current arrangements they pay bugger all for their water, and under yours they would pay nothing.
Water is a scarce resource, and it needs to be managed accordingly. I for one am wrapped its finally getting a proper economic value, because it will lead to more efficient farming practices (already happening), more efficient business use (has been coming in for some industries already for several years), and more efficient household use (in its infancy). If water is free-for-all, those who can will bottle it up, and sell it to those who cannot for overly high pricing. While I support an economic cost for water, gouging is not helpful.
