The State Government and its ineffective, semi-privatised Department, SA Water, are becoming ever more immersed in complex regulatory schemes which have now spread to debatably inequitable subsidisations. Little or no concern is being shown for the reward of individual effort and sacrifice.
Documentation of the ever changing details of these idiotic regulations and processing claims for subsidies diverts an inordinate number of highly paid people and costly resources from the solution of real problems. Unfortunate farmers and others in unserviced locations who need to devise their own water supplies are left out of this loop which distributes largess funded by taxpayers, all of whom are paying for this indefensible nonsense.
While the Government’s Ministers and henchmen fiddle with papers, opportunities with fantastic potential are being ignored. Take the Salisbury Council Storm Water processing scheme as offering but one example. Salisbury storm water now supplies most of the nearby major industries, 18 schools and 3 sub-divisions with water of lower salinity and more cheaply than the SA Water product. But has the SA Govt. or SA Water done anything except peep over the fence? No!
Worse still, the Minister has been peddled really misleading and bad advice, as evidenced by her claim on ABC radio that the Salisbury scheme was still in the planning stage. Colin Pitman, the Master Mind behind this successful and still expanding scheme must have been hopping mad when he heard the Minister’s statement, but political niceties undoubtedly required him to keep his mouth shut. That’s the way a modern society run by political factions, rather than by proven facts and common sense, appears to operate.
We need to remind ourselves that in spite of this potential for self-sufficiency, Salisbury is one of the driest parts of metropolitan Adelaide. Before we prove to the world that we are the dummest State, not only the driest, in Australia, we should extend the benefits of the Salisbury solution to other suburbs. Most importantly, before we allow some of the last remaining urban areas suitable for wet-land development to be built upon, as seems to be the intention for Cheltenham Racecourse, we should encourage and finance thorough hydrological studies of the Adelaide Plains.
A more complete appreciation of the coupling between rainfall, surface run-off and underground water would stop politicians from happily being able to claim that there is no need for controls on bore-water use in the eastern suburbs. By all means let us keep Adelaide looking as green as possible, but we should know where water is being applied and where it comes from. Since SA Water’s meters, because of that Government instrumentality's inappropriate charging policies, are not being put to any sensible use for the surveillance of water consumption , perhaps they could be more gainfully employed to measure the rate of withdrawal from ground water reserves.
5 things for the South Australian Government to do:
1. Always ensure that local resources are used sensitively and appropriately with the guidance of accurately researched information. These facts need to be comprehensively researched for all locations and in particular need to discover the dynamic relationship between surface and underground water as well as evaporation. The work needed to achieve this fundamental aim cannot be simply carried out by people slumped in front of computer screens in air-conditioned city offices.
2. Realise that rural, including most importantly horticultural, and urban water supply needs are fundamentally different. Important as the needs of a State capital are, they do represent only a small fraction of the total volume of water to which the State as a whole has been accustomed in earlier years. Current desalinisation technologies will not help irrigators!
3. Help people to understand what is happening and what is being done, then confidently charge realistic prices for water, whether it is delivered by pipes, surface or underground streams. But set differential charges which should weigh the relevance of the use and the value of any social benefits as might flow from primary and industrial production. It is important to ascertain whether such activities help in de-centralising S.A.'s population.
4. Help people to make decisions on how best to achieve economies and thus allow them to decide whether to invest in rain-water tanks. Confidence must be created by firmly endorsing the following rules: (i) Rain cannot be taxed, as long as it is used on a given property, because if taxation were attempted, the Government would imply ownership and hence could be sued in case of damaging over-abundant supply in a storm! (ii) Water running off from such private property becomes a public asset (iii) Underground water, like any valuable mineral, is also publicly owned and as such its use may be monitored and charged for.
5. Devise subsidisation schemes to support ethical social and environmental policies rather than strew funds over the entire community, irrespective of need.
Documentation of the ever changing details of these idiotic regulations and processing claims for subsidies diverts an inordinate number of highly paid people and costly resources from the solution of real problems. Unfortunate farmers and others in unserviced locations who need to devise their own water supplies are left out of this loop which distributes largess funded by taxpayers, all of whom are paying for this indefensible nonsense.
While the Government’s Ministers and henchmen fiddle with papers, opportunities with fantastic potential are being ignored. Take the Salisbury Council Storm Water processing scheme as offering but one example. Salisbury storm water now supplies most of the nearby major industries, 18 schools and 3 sub-divisions with water of lower salinity and more cheaply than the SA Water product. But has the SA Govt. or SA Water done anything except peep over the fence? No!
Worse still, the Minister has been peddled really misleading and bad advice, as evidenced by her claim on ABC radio that the Salisbury scheme was still in the planning stage. Colin Pitman, the Master Mind behind this successful and still expanding scheme must have been hopping mad when he heard the Minister’s statement, but political niceties undoubtedly required him to keep his mouth shut. That’s the way a modern society run by political factions, rather than by proven facts and common sense, appears to operate.
We need to remind ourselves that in spite of this potential for self-sufficiency, Salisbury is one of the driest parts of metropolitan Adelaide. Before we prove to the world that we are the dummest State, not only the driest, in Australia, we should extend the benefits of the Salisbury solution to other suburbs. Most importantly, before we allow some of the last remaining urban areas suitable for wet-land development to be built upon, as seems to be the intention for Cheltenham Racecourse, we should encourage and finance thorough hydrological studies of the Adelaide Plains.
A more complete appreciation of the coupling between rainfall, surface run-off and underground water would stop politicians from happily being able to claim that there is no need for controls on bore-water use in the eastern suburbs. By all means let us keep Adelaide looking as green as possible, but we should know where water is being applied and where it comes from. Since SA Water’s meters, because of that Government instrumentality's inappropriate charging policies, are not being put to any sensible use for the surveillance of water consumption , perhaps they could be more gainfully employed to measure the rate of withdrawal from ground water reserves.
5 things for the South Australian Government to do:
1. Always ensure that local resources are used sensitively and appropriately with the guidance of accurately researched information. These facts need to be comprehensively researched for all locations and in particular need to discover the dynamic relationship between surface and underground water as well as evaporation. The work needed to achieve this fundamental aim cannot be simply carried out by people slumped in front of computer screens in air-conditioned city offices.
2. Realise that rural, including most importantly horticultural, and urban water supply needs are fundamentally different. Important as the needs of a State capital are, they do represent only a small fraction of the total volume of water to which the State as a whole has been accustomed in earlier years. Current desalinisation technologies will not help irrigators!
3. Help people to understand what is happening and what is being done, then confidently charge realistic prices for water, whether it is delivered by pipes, surface or underground streams. But set differential charges which should weigh the relevance of the use and the value of any social benefits as might flow from primary and industrial production. It is important to ascertain whether such activities help in de-centralising S.A.'s population.
4. Help people to make decisions on how best to achieve economies and thus allow them to decide whether to invest in rain-water tanks. Confidence must be created by firmly endorsing the following rules: (i) Rain cannot be taxed, as long as it is used on a given property, because if taxation were attempted, the Government would imply ownership and hence could be sued in case of damaging over-abundant supply in a storm! (ii) Water running off from such private property becomes a public asset (iii) Underground water, like any valuable mineral, is also publicly owned and as such its use may be monitored and charged for.
5. Devise subsidisation schemes to support ethical social and environmental policies rather than strew funds over the entire community, irrespective of need.
+Moss+Gardens+Fall.bmp)
No comments:
Post a Comment