The problem with all this is, that it's not necessarily raining far less than it has previously done so, but that the government is being more careless as to essential, efficient practices. As Steve Bracks persists on rapidly increasing the population of Melbourne, local governments continue to allocate even more subdivision and sprawl than necessary infrastructure to support it all.
Everyone knew we needed a new dam long ago, what was the last time a good dam was built? 30+ years ago? And don't get me started that there's supposedly too much 'money' involved for a desalinization plant, imported water and/or giant pipeline, as Australia should be one of the last countries worrying if this problem ever arose globally. But instead the Howard Government now is so out of touch it doesn't take a breath before throwing away millions.
What are just some of the things they decided to waste our hard-earned money on?
- $1 billion on political advertising;
- More than $13.5 million spent on flying the Prime Minister and his entourage around the world over the past nine years;
- $115 million spent on private recruitment agencies last year;
- An estimated $10 million spent on media monitoring last year; and
- $89,000 spent on massages for public servants last year.
No, what our money needs to be used for, and immediately, is to have imperative issues fixed such as mandatory underground water-tanks installed free-of-charge (or even for a few hundred dollars with government contribution) into every effected home in Australia (We have no less than 3 large ones, which are probably one of the greatest investments we've ever made), have subdivision cut down, and have a large pipeline and a desalinization plant ready if necessary.
What the country's main priority should be is to sit down and access a
national feasibility study in order to keep Australia becoming
desolate in the future. And what the
hell is wrong with local and national councils? In order for individuals to even attempt to build
crucial dams on their property is a
nightmare; all permits concerning water-saving devices should
never have come to this, they need to be simplified if not abolished if Australia is ever to subdue such water-shortage problems in the
future.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
A few points:
-It's raining plenty here in Sydney (right now as I write, it's been raining 3 days, looks like continuing)- guess where all that water is going? - down the drains and out to sea.
-We have been spoilt for a long time: water is dirt cheap, despite it being precious and scarce. We use fresh, drinking quality water to flush our toilets and water our gardens!!
-There are plenty of things we can do to capture/ re-use/ re-cycle water: it just takes governments with vision to do it. 💡
BTW: A study was recently done that showed that if every household had a water-tank provided by the government: it would be cheaper than the proposed de-sal plant, and we would not need another Dam for 20 years!!
-I agree with you about the governments- I deal with local councils in my line of work, and I can tell you first hand that councils are populated with people that are too incompetent/ lazy/ stupid/ irresponsible to make it in the private sector. It's actually quite sad, bacause the good ones are frustrated/ often end up leaving. It's the ones that stay there the longest that get promoted, not the best/ smartest/ most suited (hey- it worked for John Howard right?) they typically lack any sort of vision, can't bring themselves to excercise discretion, and never seem to take initiative/ responsibility - only interested in what happens while they are in power!
-Howard (as you most likely know) has done close to ZERO over the last 10 years when it comes to the environment, water, renewable energy etc, always saying that it's too expensive/ not good for the economy- now the consequences of that inaction is going to cost us much more-many times over. I guess you can't expect an old school bean counter to take into account what they call 'externalities' into their equations - social, environmental issues are put aside and not considered in his economic rationalist model. I can't get over how arrogant and ignorant someone can be to expect that everything else will be Ok if their balance sheet adds up.
-Development and increased population can occur perfectly well- if it is properly managed/ planned for. Rolling out carpets of suburbs over great farming land (eg. Kellyville in Sydney's West) is absurd- food production should occur near city centres where possible- cuts down on transport requirements, fuel, we get fresher food, etc etc.
-Higher density is important and helps to save water too: the cul-de-sac suburban model is un-sustainable: it arose from post-WW2 US, and is seriously failing throughout the world where it was taken up. (I guess I'm part of the problem, as I live in a (established-so slightly better) suburb
Increased densities/ cities have worked all around the world for many centuries: it works extremely well, but again, only when its done properly. Governments can't expect for large sections of the population to live in little shoe boxes, give up their yards etc. without providing something to compensate, like: more public spaces/ parks/ gardens/ plazas/ markets etc. In summary: in an ideal high- density city, when you step out of your door, you are should be in a vibrant community (this also avoids a lot of social problems- such as the elderly being isolated for instance). Unfortunately, in a typical suburb: you step out of your door and... you are in the middle of a street. You have to get in your car to go anywhere!!
Sorry- I just realised I was going a little off-topic here
