water restrictions & management

[dedja]

There's been quite a lot of debate recently about relaxing our level 3 water restrictions in Adelaide, especially since reserviors were overflowing just 4 weeks ago.

I used to work for SA Water so here's my take on it all.

The water restrictions were originally implemented more as a policy stunt than as good policy. The amount of water that is consumed watering gardens is a relatively small percentage of overall water use. It's approx half of domestic consumption but domestic consumption is around 10% of all water use in the state. So we are experiencing draconian restrictions to manage about 5% of our water resources! The fact that indoor use and swimming pools are exempt also makes a mockery of the policy.

If you flout the water restriction laws, the chance of being caught is negligible. SA Water originally started with 2 water inspectors, and I hazard a guess they have no more than a dozen now, and they are extremely lenient even if you are caught. But to be caught they have to catch you in the act ... very unlikely.

The damage through lack of water in the garden has a couple of significant effects. Large trees and shrubs are in distress and many have died. This is counter-intuitive to that great 'other' debate - global warming. Also, significant damage is being done to houses in the form of cracking as the moisture content in the soil around houses changes. The State Government appears to not have taken these issues into consideration.

Not withstanding all that, there are some sensible measures in the policy like watering early in the morning or later in the evening.

I personally would like to see the following water management measures considered:

- a water allowance per household to be managed as the householder sees fit, with consumption over this limit incurring a significant surcharge

- changes in water pricing to encourage water saving. The current pricing structure is basically a large water and wastewater tax with a very small consumption component.

- a strategy to eliminate the use of Murray water to supplement Adelaide's water supply (Murray water use is between 50%-90% of Adelaide total consumption and the first Murray pipeline was built 50 years ago so we have been unsustainable for over 50 years) - yes, a combination of desal and stormwater

- SA Water to show what percentage of reservior holdings are Murray and natural catchment (people will be shocked when they see the numbers)

- at least double Adelaide's catchment holding capacity from 1 to 2 years (yes, we can only hold 1 years supply in our reservoirs)

- encourage (or even mandate) more self management at the household level (larger mandatory tanks - not 1000 litre - and better utilisation of non-potable water - stormwater - for toilet and garden use)


Anyway, here endeth the rant.

Your thoughts?

[Psyber]

For now, I'd say no easing of current water usage rules, but that is only until a total scheme package is devised.
I agree with your proposals in principle, Dedja.

I would like to see the government, as part of the package, subsidise much more substantially meaningful sized tanks - say 10,000 litres plus - to encourage their installation.
Over years I expect this investment would pay for itself in savings - it may be some years I accept from your figures.
I'd like to see more analysis of the pros and cons of the storm-water run off sequestration in the aquifers idea, too.

Some years ago I think SA Water, or their previous manifestation, was opposing household tanks on the basis that the water quality in them could not be guaranteed, unlike the delivered supply, and this posed a liability risk to them and the state if tanks were encouraged. [At the time I lived on a small farm whose total water supply was rainwater collection in tanks - 135 Kilolitres -and a 4.5 Megalitre dam for farm and garden use.]

[dedja]

Some years ago I think SA Water, or their previous manifestation, was opposing household tanks on the basis that the water quality in them could not be guaranteed, unlike the delivered supply, and this posed a liability risk to them and the state if tanks were encouraged.

Just to clarify, the issue with this is if non-potable water is introduced into the pipe network. In this case a back flow prevention valve must be used to isolate the non-potable water from potable. That restriction still exists today, it's just that SA Water (EWS) were more anal about approving them in the past).

If you had no mains water then they were just being anal, full stop.

[Psyber]

Some years ago I think SA Water, or their previous manifestation, was opposing household tanks on the basis that the water quality in them could not be guaranteed, unlike the delivered supply, and this posed a liability risk to them and the state if tanks were encouraged.

Just to clarify, the issue with this is if non-potable water is introduced into the pipe network. In this case a back flow prevention valve must be used to isolate the non-potable water from potable. That restriction still exists today, it's just that SA Water (EWS) were more anal about approving them in the past).
If you had no mains water then they were just being anal, full stop.

They didn't get any say in my situation as there was no alternative supply, but it seemed they wanted to oppose household tanks in normal home situations, even with the use of a back flow prevention valve.
Now you have reminded me, I think this was presented as "in case the valves failed", but perhaps it was also to preserve their total control, and unionist job expansion...
[I think there was a push on to dump the CFS in favour of only having full time firemen about the same time.]

[dedja]

It's one of life's great ironies that the State Government is belatedly trying to encourage water tanks and plumbing them into the household system for toilet use but SA Water are obtructive and unco-operative in allowing you to actually do it. The regulations around this and back flow prevention are quite onerous.

Yes it's important to make sure that back flow prevention is effective but there must be a better way to regulate it. It must drive the plumbers crazy.

[smithy]

I think a lot of people are forgetting that whilst the reservoirs may be at 85%, the restrictions were also brought in to ease reliance on the Murray River.
Currently below lock 1, the river level is 1.8 - 2 metres below what it should be, riverbank slumping is getting worse because of the low levels, with almost no sign of improvement to the point where some shack owners at Caloote and Sturt Reserve have been told to evacuate their homes for fear of them falling in the river.
We were recently told that their is 300 billion litres of water saved upstream in case of emergency, yet for the river to return to normal levels, we need 1400 billion litres.
This is currently the hottest November ever and will be the 17th driest year on record yet people want to hose their cars.

Maybe it's the shack owners with their un-metered supply of water who continue to water their lawns up to 5 times a week with impact sprinklers are the ones who are complaining about restrictions?

So when thinking of relaxing water restrictions, don't just think about the reservoirs, think of the River Murray and how bad condition it is in.
I voted no.

And for what it's worth, SA Waters feeble effort to patrol non-compliant watering is pathetic.

[Psyber]

I've been looking at the issue of rinse water from the kitchen and laundry and diverting them, but the structure of the place - double brick on a concrete slab - makes the logistics tricky.
It would be potentially expensive if it is not to become an eyesore...
I've started pouring the water from my condenser dryer in the laundry into a bucket I keep next to it, now that the garden is dry enough to need watering.
The automatic sprinkler system was off all winter and I set it going again last weekend, after checking its settings matched the regulations - it hadn't been set to them by the previous occupants.

[dedja]

agreed Smithy ... that's why I had this statement ...

- a strategy to eliminate the use of Murray water to supplement Adelaide's water supply (Murray water use is between 50%-90% of Adelaide total consumption and the first Murray pipeline was built 50 years ago so we have been unsustainable for over 50 years) - yes, a combination of desal and stormwater

We in Adelaide should stop compaining about others upstream using the Murray when we're totally dependent on it and haven't really been serious about reducing that dependancy.

[fish]

I believe that in some states or regions a backflow prevention device is fitted as part of the water meter, at the property boundary. Not sure if SA Water has adopted this strategy for new water meters?

This strategy means that the water authority need not worry about rainwater, bore water or recycled water finding its way into the mains network.

[dedja]

That would be too sensible for us fish.

[smithy]

agreed Smithy ... that's why I had this statement ...

- a strategy to eliminate the use of Murray water to supplement Adelaide's water supply (Murray water use is between 50%-90% of Adelaide total consumption and the first Murray pipeline was built 50 years ago so we have been unsustainable for over 50 years) - yes, a combination of desal and stormwater

Yes, the very same pipes which are unable to pump excess reservoir water back into the river !

[Punk Rooster]

I remember this theory put across- Adelaide had a lot more wetlands than it currently has now.
Since settlement, we have increased the amount of fresh water flowing into Gulf St Vincent- via storm water drains.
This is not good for Gulf St Vincent, & is a waste of a natural resource.

Also, I believe it is illegal for a property owner to harvest all stormwater on their property- some must be diverted into the street.

So my question is- why are we wasting so much water?
Prudently managing the water we currently waste is more of a solution.
Houses that harvest rain water into large tanks should be rewarded with green gardens, & the freedom to use this water as they please.

Diverting into stormwater into natural catchment areas, which after natural filtration, can be pumped back into our reservoirs, which would then be processed into a drinkable state.