 | Queensland Government Strategy to Reduce Oil Demand | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Big boost for solar rebates in South Australia |  |
11 comments on The Bullroarer - Saturday 16 February 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
You usually find that the ones saying we should build more dams and all will be well are violently against water recycling for human consumption, and are a bit iffy about it for industrial and agricultural use, too.
A few years back I was told by a mate that Victoria will never use recycled water for human consumption. By this I knew it was inevitable; he's a sort of anti-prophet, he said that the invasion of Iraq would go alright and within a few years they'd have a peaceful democracy, that Sheriff Johnny would win the Nov 2007 election or at the very least keep his own seat, etc.
Bring on the recycled piss, I say.
Nothing wrong with drinking recycled water - so long as you don't mind growing man-boobs due to all the hormones in it of course :-)
Many years ago I was living in London (with all expenses paid courtesy of my employer at the time) and along with my co-workers developed mild paranoia about (a) lead piping, and (b) recycled water (there is a widespread belief that on average London drinking water has passed through 7 other people before it gets to you) - as a result we used Perrier for almost everything - including cooking rice and pasta (but not showering).
On a serious note, I'd also add that rainwater tanks should be made mandatory for all new buildings - this would also do an immense amount for making our existing dam water supplies stretch a lot further.
Do you not see the irony in decrying new dams, then with the next breath advocating rainwater tanks? Why is one device for retaining rainfall bad, and the other good? Forestalling the obvious rejoinder, note that new-dam advocates are not saying they should be in already-tapped catchments: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen...
The issue here is one of scale and circumstance.
Placing a (large) dam in the catchment (if there are available sites) removes that water from use further downstream. This is one of the issues regarding environmental flows... eg the Snowy River. Secondly, what is the point of said large dam if it doesn't rain OR if the climate changes rendering that investment moot?
RE Rainwater tanks.
Given that 80 - 90 % of Australians are urbanites and mostly located in the big capitals... rain falling in our cities by and large just goes straight down the drain and out to sea. Streams and rivers receiving stormwater run-off are degraded from the flashy flows. The rain caught in tanks in urban environments can serve a dual purpose. Relieving stress on the drinking water supply by using rainwater for the garden and toilet (if you don't feel like drinking it) and potentially leading to partial rehabilitation of urban streams by catching a portion of the runoff thus reducing the intensity of flash flows (which also periodically drown people).
All the paving and hard surfaces in cities has changed the local hydrology. In Melbourne the extensive dry period has led to drying of soils (which receive less infiltration from rain) which has led to cracking of walls.
And here I was believing I was the only one to think that generalisation ;-)
If we can't remove "all those hormones" with a little activated carbon...
My "argument" when confronted with anti recyled water rants is to point out where the source water for most Australians comes from (ie rivers and lakes) and to simply make the observation that insects, fish and birds all piss and shit. And if you live inland on any of the major tributaries of the Murray, you are already drinking recycled water... where do you think that treated effluent goes?