Comments on: No Shortage of Water in Australia

By: chris oats

chris oats — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:18:32 +0000

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.

By: BillinTownsville

BillinTownsville — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:34:42 +0000

I found this site while trying to find out how much power the Burdekin Dam Stage II could generate. Maybe StuinBris could help there?

By: StuInBrisbane

StuInBrisbane — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:24:59 +0000

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.

By: StuInBrisbane

StuInBrisbane — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:24:36 +0000

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.

By: Ian Mott

Ian Mott — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:05:09 +0000

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.

By: Ron Pike

Ron Pike — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:16:23 +0000

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.

By: PeterW

PeterW — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:32:49 +0000

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.

By: Walter Starck

Walter Starck — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:14:43 +0000

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.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:55:46 +0000

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?

By: Slim

Slim — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:11:13 +0000

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.