Water Restrictions - Purely Political Propaganda?

[Ecky]

Can anyone find any flaws in this argument? I was browsing through SA Water's website (http://www.sawater.com.au) and was actually quite surprised what conclusions I reached when combining their facts together...

I have come to the conclusion that these water restrictions must be a political thing to win the "green" vote. The amount of water that they plan to save is so insignificant that it is a complete joke.

On average ~50% of Greater Adelaide's water is from reservoirs, ~50% is from the Murray
On average only 0.36% of water diverted from the Murray goes to Adelaide. The vast majority is used for irrigation upstream. Even if we didn't rely at all on reservoirs (i.e. it basically never rained here), this fraction would still be less than 1%.
45% of Adelaide water use is by Residential users
40% of residential use is for gardens and other outside use.
The water restrictions aim to reduce this 40% by some small fraction....

Hence these restrictions aim to cut back about 0.065% of the water used from the Murray to some smaller fraction (0.05% at the very least say, being very generous)

The same impact could be made by reducing the amount of water used by irrigation by some miniscule percentage (well under 1% - don't know exactly as exact figures aren't given on the website).

So surely resources should be spent on improving irrigation practices, rather than bothering little old Adelaide on how its residents should use their water

[Booney]

One could argue,why bother with any environmental managment as by the time any great impact is felt I will be worm poo? What a narrow minded an totally self centred argument.But this is not about today,but the future.

I can see your point Ecky,and you have some facts to back it up.I think the water restrictions should be put more on big business and corporations,up stream farmers on the Murray,as they,no doubt would suck more water out than all the front lawns in Adelaide put together.One of the main problems is the flow of the Murray has dried up (as we have seen from aerial photographs of the Coorong) considerably over the last decade or so,if this continues to happen the hardy,yet fragile eco system that supports the Murray will be lost for ever,giving us one,and only one water source,rain.As we have seen this,and past years,rain is at a premium and droughts are taking longer to break and are having a greater impact on all life in Australia,especially rural living.Now if we were to rely on rains and rains alone to survive,well,deep shite indeed.

So what do SA Water have to say about desalination plants? Lots of water between here and the pole at the bottom,if you guys can make it drinkable.......?

[JK]

Im not ultra clued up on this issue so Im sure I will be corrected, but my understanding is that the major drain on the Murray comes from the Rice and Cotton farmers in Vic and NSW, so I guess our local government don't have the jurisdiction to directly stop or reduce the amount thats being taken ... Perhaps lobbying to the Fed's will one day result in it being addressed? (I for one won't be holding my breath though)

[Pseudo]

A work acquaintance of mine is involved in "irrigation engineering", for want of a better term, among other things. Earlier this year I heard him deliver a talk in which he suggested that only 10% of water consumption was due to residential usage. Industry accounted for 20 or 30% (I forget which) and agriculture for the rest.

I don't doubt that home water savings are important, but they are a drop in the ocean (or the reservoir in this case) compared to other potential savings.

[Dissident]

A work acquaintance of mine is involved in "irrigation engineering", for want of a better term, among other things. Earlier this year I heard him deliver a talk in which he suggested that only 10% of water consumption was due to residential usage. Industry accounted for 20 or 30% (I forget which) and agriculture for the rest.

I don't doubt that home water savings are important, but they are a drop in the ocean (or the reservoir in this case) compared to other potential savings.

I can't remember the amount, but apparently the volume of water that leaks from pipes and other systems equates to an enormous percentage of the state's water usage.

[Dissident]

Can anyone find any flaws in this argument? I was browsing through SA Water's website (http://www.sawater.com.au) and was actually quite surprised what conclusions I reached when combining their facts together...

I have come to the conclusion that these water restrictions must be a political thing to win the "green" vote. The amount of water that they plan to save is so insignificant that it is a complete joke.

On average ~50% of Greater Adelaide's water is from reservoirs, ~50% is from the Murray
On average only 0.36% of water diverted from the Murray goes to Adelaide. The vast majority is used for irrigation upstream. Even if we didn't rely at all on reservoirs (i.e. it basically never rained here), this fraction would still be less than 1%.
45% of Adelaide water use is by Residential users
40% of residential use is for gardens and other outside use.
The water restrictions aim to reduce this 40% by some small fraction....

Hence these restrictions aim to cut back about 0.065% of the water used from the Murray to some smaller fraction (0.05% at the very least say, being very generous)

The same impact could be made by reducing the amount of water used by irrigation by some miniscule percentage (well under 1% - don't know exactly as exact figures aren't given on the website).

So surely resources should be spent on improving irrigation practices, rather than bothering little old Adelaide on how its residents should use their water

Where exactly did you find those figures on the site?

[Ecky]

Have a look through the first 4 pdf documents here:

http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/AboutUs/Publications/

[TroyGFC]

At work they are legally allowed to fill up and drain 6 massive vessles (the size of a swimming pools each) every week, not to forget other water tanks around the factory.

[Ecky]

At work they are legally allowed to fill up and drain 6 massive vessles (the size of a swimming pools each) every week, not to forget other water tanks around the factory.

So when they shut down Mitsubishi, all our water problems will be solved! Hooray!

[mick]

Media Mike acting decisively I feel so much better

[mal]

I have been a good samaratin all week, after the kids bath[no soaps etc]
I then empty the water outside on veges and plants and lawn.
I am not a scab , but thought i would recycle the water and do my bit.
After reading Professor Eckys post, why should I bother any more.

[Squawk]

Definitely political spin. They probably save more money with less pumping from the Murray - ie electricity costs.

Here's my analogy. Every time a house is built or sold, hard wired smoke detectors must be installed. How many people have had inspections and how many have been fined for non-compliance? ZERO.

Why not just make the same conditions requiring rainwater tanks or 5-star taps and the like for houses whenever a new place is built or an old place is sold?

The govt don't want to take on big business as they rely on employment growth and are essentially a left wing liberal govt pandering to business where they can. It's easier to ask the masses to use their sprinklers less than it is to ask the big users to cut back. The irony is that there is already a model in place that allows large electricity consumers to get cheaper contracts if they agree to having their supply limited on high-demand days. The same principle could be applied to big water users in dry months.

[Dutchy]

Definitely political spin. They probably save more money with less pumping from the Murray - ie electricity costs.

Here's my analogy. Every time a house is built or sold, hard wired smoke detectors must be installed. How many people have had inspections and how many have been fined for non-compliance? ZERO.

Why not just make the same conditions requiring rainwater tanks or 5-star taps and the like for houses whenever a new place is built or an old place is sold?

The govt don't want to take on big business as they rely on employment growth and are essentially a left wing liberal govt pandering to business where they can. It's easier to ask the masses to use their sprinklers less than it is to ask the big users to cut back. The irony is that there is already a model in place that allows large electricity consumers to get cheaper contracts if they agree to having their supply limited on high-demand days. The same principle could be applied to big water users in dry months.

already done...every new house needs to put in a rainwater tank

[Ecky]

already done...every new house needs to put in a rainwater tank

But not when a house is sold...

[Ian]

Im not ultra clued up on this issue so Im sure I will be corrected, but my understanding is that the major drain on the Murray comes from the Rice and Cotton farmers in Vic and NSW, so I guess our local government don't have the jurisdiction to directly stop or reduce the amount thats being taken ... Perhaps lobbying to the Fed's will one day result in it being addressed? (I for one won't be holding my breath though)

Cotton, farmers in NSW have beeen using drip irrigation, instead of flood irrigation for some time now, which has reduced water usage by over 80%, and last year acctually put water from the Medindie lakes back into the Darling (which flows(?) into the Murray). QLD cotton farmers refuse to change, and the QLD government won't force them to change, for a number of years now there has been little or no flow in the Darling south of the QLD border, their attitude is, if it falls in QLD, they can do what they want with it. Strangely enough, one of the biggest share holders in QLD cotton farms is.........the QLD Government