ON a daily basis we hear the following two statements repeated in relation to water in Australia: 1. That Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth; and 2. That water is very scarce in Australia and we must take immediate action to conserve it. It is time we took a closer look at these assumed facts.
If we convert the average annual rainfall into megalitres and do the same for the other continents, then yes, Australia does receive the least precipitation of all of the inhabited continents. This is exemplified by comparing some average runoff data. Of all of the rain that falls on Australia about 11% finds its way to the sea via our river system, which on average amounts to 290 million megalitres per year from mainland Australia. Another 50million megalitres runs to the sea from Tasmania. By comparison the Mississippi river alone in USA averages a discharge of 560 million megalitres annually – almost double all of the rivers from mainland Australia. The Yangtze Kiang in China discharges 690 million megalitres annually and the Amazon in Brazil nearly ten times that amount.
So, yes, Australia does have meager water supplies compared to the other continents, but these figures lack relevance unless we consider two other vital factors. Australia is the smallest continent and much more importantly we have a miniscule population in comparison to other continents and countries.
If we look at a comparison of water availability per head of population, which is much more relevant, we get a dramatically different picture. Water per person from annual precipitation from various countries:
Australia: 130 megalitres
Brazil: 121 megalitres
United States 29 megalitres
China: 11 megalitres
Japan: 5.9 megalitres.
United Kingdom: 2.6 megalitres.
Leaving aside ground water for now, Australia has another source of water. Because most of our cities and towns were originally built on river estuaries, for obvious reasons and because no thought was given to the collection of runoff from roofing and pavement, most of our storm water runs into the sea. While the quantum of this is not known, estimates of around 40 million megalitres annually are considered reasonable.
So, how much water do we need?
For each Australia household to have all the water we need to live what we consider to be the Australian lifestyle. That is, have a garden with lawn on which we wash the car when we feel like it, have a pool for the kids and generally not have to be concerned about water. We need 110,000, litres per person per year. That includes all domestic use, Council and industrial use, but does not include Agriculture and Mining. Therefore for every 9 people in Australia we need 1 megalitre of water per year.
Let us assume that with some rational planning we did the following:
A. Collected and recycled just 5% of urban runoff = 2M megalitres
B. New dams to collect just 5% of river runoff = 14 M megalitres.
Total 16 million megalitres = sufficient for 144 million people.
So, Australia is not short of water, but incredibly short of practical planning and intelligent use of this resource.
Radical environmentalism has distorted our capacity to make rational decisions on how we harvest and recycle this resource in the interests of all Australians.
Let us look at this from an extraterrestrial viewpoint.
If there were intelligent aliens orbiting the earth and looking down on Australia, they would certainly recognize that a large part of our continent is dry and a rugged place to live. But they would also note that the coastal strip from Adelaide to Cairns was sparsely populated with beautiful clean cities and towns, enjoying a wonderful lifestyle. All built on river and creek estuaries.
They would note that while these rivers did not have huge mountain catchments like other continents, they nonetheless had mostly pristine catchments that delivered regular stream flows.
They would also observe over time that the streams that served this naturally wonderful area in which to live, regularly had excess flows and on an irregular basis carried huge floods to the sea.
They would then learn from our media that these beautiful cities and towns were regularly short of water.
They could only conclude that the people who lived in this wonderful part of the world. Lacked basic intelligence! They could not reasonably come to any other conclusion.
Should you think this is a harsh criticism, let me give you an example from my home area on our wonderful coastal strip at Coffs Harbour.
Since arriving here in 2002 most of the towns both north and south of Coffs Harbour have had water restrictions. Coffs Harbour uses approximately 5,500 megalitres of water per year.
Since our arrival in this wonderful part of the world, the Bellinger River (a small river, average discharge 240,000 megs/year.) has been in flood three times. In March 2006 a flood in this river was flowing over the top of the bridge at Bellingen at the rate of 72.000 megalitres per day, sufficient flow if harvested to keep Coffs Harbour in water for 13 years.
This is just one small example of the water harvesting opportunities that can be shared with hydro electricity generation in Australia on many streams.
It needs to be shouted from the rafters and repeated over and over, that in the Australian environment, correctly sited, properly engineered and sensibly managed dams and water storages are never other than a plus for the environment.
There is no environmental downside.
Properly managed water storages, augment stream flow in drought, they do not deplete flows. Water saved from flood flows is there for mankind to use to best advantage, for the environment, for community consumption, for hydro power, for agriculture and fishing and for leisure activities.
Water is not scarce, it is perpetual.
Australia is not short of water, but we are short on practical planning and the intelligent use of a basic resource.
Ron Pike
Coffs Harbour, New South Wales
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Oh, dear.
Absolutely true, Ron.
We live in the sticks where it is easier these days to provide our own water than [as used to be the case] living in cities, where you are now mostly very restricted in water consumption.
The Gold Coast is possibly the newest large city in Australia and the Hinze Dam was built fairly recently.
Building such dams is a huge advantage to such a city not only for water but the catchment supplies large areas of vegetation for heat moderation, open space for recreation, wildlife habitat and farming all close to the city where otherwise there would be just more suburbia in this same catchment.
The stormwater runoff from modern, small-block “affordable” cluster housing where almost the whole estate is sealed [roofs, driveways etc.] and every vestige ovegetation is removed seems to be, sadly, the way of the future even though they create an urban heat island like you wouldn’t believe and these large catchments with so much to offer are a vital necessity to counteract this.
It needs good planning and political will.
Oh dear squared. And it’s all the fault of environmental radicals. Of course it is. We are entitled to have a garden with lawn on which we wash the car when we feel like it, have a pool for the kids and generally not have to be concerned about water. It’s our right as Australians!
We need 110,000, litres per person per year. Try doing that on rainwater tanks – I’d like to see that!
Once again SJT and Slim demonstrate the utter cluelessness of the enviro halfwits.
Not even relevant comments and no Slim, he wasn’t talking about doing the 110,000 litres per person per year from rainwater tanks as you would have found out by reading the article.
Thanks, guys.
It’s not cluelessness – it’s sarcasm.
Of course you can’t get that much water from rainwater tanks – I’ve lived on the edge of rainforest with tanks – you just don’t get that much rain. My obvious point is that 110,000 litres per person requires taking the water from somewhere else rather than managing with what we have.
That’s the same old divide here – taking more from somewhere else vs making the best of what you have – be it carbon fuel sources or water. I want more than my sustainable share so I can wash my car on the lawn whenever I feel like it, and hose down the driveway for good measure!
Slim: Maybe you need another tank, maybe your shed just ain’t big enough, maybe you’re on the dry side. Maybe an unknown someone is using more than their fair share…. hmmmm. These are all possibilities! I’ve never ran out of tank water when the taps weren’t left on!
No, WJP – I was musing on the prospect of rainwater tank collection of 440,000 litres for a family of four. I’m sure there are many rural families who would love to have that much water for domestic use each year. An ambit claim of 110,000 litres per person is simply wasteful and unsustainable, and undermines the salient points being made about recycling stormwater etc.
The days of washing cars on well-watered lawns and hosing down driveways are long-gone. Get over it.
The article ignores that most of the population inhabits SE Australia, which has sufferred persistent drought for 8 years. Water per capita should be related to where it is used and readily accessed. Coff’s Harbour is but one place, and while the Bellinger River may have been in flood 3 times recently, in Sydney, where more 4 million live, the Hawkesbury-Napean hasn’t flood for decades, and hasn’t had significant regular flooding since the later 70’s. Agree that better planning and infrastructure could make water water available, but why bother when the governement could cease immigration today?
It is important to recognise that water is not used in the sense of used up, it is simply redistributed. Most of the water “used” when we wash a car, or water a lawn, or fill a swimming pool comes from reservoirs holding water that otherwise would have flowed into the sea. Australia is almost certainly a wetter greener continent supporting more life now than it did before European settlement. With a bit of thought and effort we could “use” more and be greener still.
I live in a rural area and use my 57 square roof to fill two 50,000 litre tanks. Although this year has seen a lot less rain than usual my tanks have overflowed many times – I wish I had the dough to put in another 50k tank, it would also have filled and overflowed.
I estimate my family of six (plus regular visits from profligate water using ‘city folk’) uses around 100,000 litres of water a year – the rest of the water we capture eventually runs out of the tank overflows – tanks that are rarely less than 80% full because that’s the way I like them.
We don’t wash cars or water gardens, but we do keep a 50,000 litre swimming pool full.
Oh, and we all shower daily – four minutes each – though because I’m a bit suss about the health aspects of water off a bird shit covered roof I only drink water after it’s been filtered through Shiraz grapes or hops.
Well, not much to respond to really.
Just a couple of points. The 110,000 litres per person per year, does include public property ( parks, gardens and playing fields), and industry, as I made clear.
Agriculture and mining are not included but I will present a note on this later.
In responce to Robert, I specifically addressed my remarks to the coastal fringe where most Australians live. What I and many others who have some practical knowledge of water harvesting and reuse recognise, is that there is huge scope for the catchment, storage and future use of excess flows throughout this coastal strip.
I only used the Bellinger river example because it was the most recent I have studied.
You may be surprised to learn that I know of at least two towns that since their establishment in the early twentieth century have always harvested every litre of water runoff and then reused it for both town and farm use.
The towns are Leeton and Griffith. Both planned and layed out by people who understood this principle in the 1920s.
Sydney, despite having no practical planning in place, still could have huge supplies of recycled storm runoff.
But what are the fools in Government and planning doing?
They are building a foolishly expensive desalination plant that requires huge amounts of electricity (WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE!)
“Oh, but we are going to power it with GREEN POWER.”
Which we also do not have. The little we have has to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of 200%
So how do our Masters justify this nonsence?
They convince people that water is scarce and therefore has to be much more expensive.
I am prepared to go right out on a limb with this claim:
There is not one city or town on the coastal fringe from Adelaide to Cairns that with reasonable planning could not have adequate water for the foreseeable future at a fraction of the cost that is now looking likely.
There are many qualified people in the field who recognise this, but there views are being drowned out by radical environmentalism.
I’m sorry to those who may be offende by this, but sadly it is true.
I believe I am a third generation environmentalist and also believe that most Green opion is well intentioned, but sadly misinformed on this issue.
I am happy to correspond directly with anyone who feels strongly about this topic from either viewpoint.
My motivation is to achieve practical outcomes in the best interests of future generations.
Pikey.
Spot on Pikey. For the record, the average household consumption is about 250Kl a year, the average household has 2.6 people so yes, it is about 100kl per person. In Brisbane there has been a drought where the dams are but no drought over the rooftops with a consistent 1000mm each year. This means that the average roof area of 250m2 will deliver the 250kl of runoff needed by the average household every year.
When we analyse the annual rainfall spread over the year we find that this 250kl will be most efficiently captured by a 13,500 litre tank. In essence, a full tank can capture no additional water while an empty one can deliver no water. So the solution is a tank that, when partially full, allows sufficient storage for supply security while having sufficient spare capacity to capture most of each rainfall event.
A tank smaller than 13500 litres will not store enough in dry times and not capture enough in wet times. Hence, it would need to draw more from the public supply, in its rightful role as a supply of last resort.
Most of the water-illiterate public simply do not understand that water tanks fill up a number of times each year so they cannot comprehend the fundamental efficiency parameters of domestic storage.
And as for the wider water budget, lets not forget that in a normal year, the much hyped Murray River discharges 5 million megalitres of valuable water over the barrage into the sea. As the barrage is a fixed barrier between fresh and sea water, this outflow no longer performs any ecological function. By adding another small impoundment outside the barrage, this water could be pumped to a whole network of “Cubbie Station” style turkey nest dams, to irrigate more than a million hectares of farm land, at zero ecological cost.
The hidden tragedy behind Pikeys national data is that every drop of water, apart from the first day or two of a seasonal flood (for species breeding purposes) that is allowed to blend with salt water, is a complete waste.
Following on from Ian’s comments, the dams in Nth Queensland are like the water tanks described.
The Burdekin Dam was spilling the capacity of Sydney Harbour over the wall every 5 hours. The main Brisbane dam, Wivenhoe, is still less than 1/3 full today.
Surely, with all the money KRudd is handing out for plasmas and the like, we could build a pipeline from the north to the South. Carry it on into NSW and right through to Victoria if necessary. I’m sure Melbourne could use some. It must surely be cheaper in the long run than the $3.1 BILLION Brumby has spent on the desal plant. That’s just to install it; then you have to power it.
Following on from Ian’s comments, the dams in Nth Queensland are like the water tanks described.
The Burdekin Dam was spilling the capacity of Sydney Harbour over the wall every 5 hours earlier this year. The main Brisbane dam, Wivenhoe, is still less than 1/3 full today.
Surely, with all the money KRudd is handing out for plasmas and the like, we could build a pipeline from the north to the South. Carry it on into NSW and right through to Victoria if necessary. I’m sure Melbourne could use some. It must surely be cheaper in the long run than the $3.1 BILLION Brumby has spent on the desal plant. That’s just to install it; then you have to power it.
I found this site while trying to find out how much power the Burdekin Dam Stage II could generate. Maybe StuinBris could help there?
Hi to stu from brisbane have you taken a flight over brisbane the number of pools all losing water to evapoation and green yards and so on I think it is about time the governments of Australia wake up and stop the urban cancer that is the cities of the eastern austraila. Yes the Burdekin is a big dam yes lots of water does run over it spillway if you want the luxury of being able to water your yard get the hell out of the city and move to the bush. I live in small town in the central highlands and you think you have problems our town is sourrounded by coal mines yet we have had water restrictions like you people in brisbane would never know like the fact the town water was brown and undrinkable. As for a pipline to southern Australia look up the frictional loss in a pipeline that long the water would be cheaper in tankers from PNG.