Corin at 100% as the Cotter Catchment exceeds capacity!

Captain RAAF said :

Water restrictions are for fools! It falls from the sky FFS! It’s free, you pay tax that is used to hold onto it, use it!!! Just don’t waste it!

I don’t have very green grass but the spa is always full, my trees are always watered and my cars always cleanish. If I want to wash my pergola floor, I will, if I want to wash my windows, I will but only when they need it not for shitz and giggles.

This east coast could be in flood (which I predict to happen in the next 12 months) and the gummint will still be telling us to save water….it’s a con, wake up sheeple!

+5000

Water restrictions are for fools! It falls from the sky FFS! It’s free, you pay tax that is used to hold onto it, use it!!! Just don’t waste it!

I don’t have very green grass but the spa is always full, my trees are always watered and my cars always cleanish. If I want to wash my pergola floor, I will, if I want to wash my windows, I will but only when they need it not for shitz and giggles.

This east coast could be in flood (which I predict to happen in the next 12 months) and the gummint will still be telling us to save water….it’s a con, wake up sheeple!

For people interested in seeing numbers on inflows into reservoirs for the ACT, see http://www.actew.com.au/WaterSecurity/Research/responding_to_climate_change.aspx

A couple of key points:
– historical average inflow 1871-1993, 208 GL/year
– average during the Federation Drought (1901-1914), 103 GL/year
– average between 1994 and 2006, 98 GL/year.

Always base your data on average inflows. Hey what could go wrong?

Now, now, chewy14, you can’t fault his logic. The trend line for rainfall since 1871 at the Q’beayn Bowls Club is flat. Well, unless you factor in the recent, very slight downturn – aka the worst drought in recorded history, which was strong enough to drag the trend line down since 1950 (or the entire 20th century, if you ignore the freak, off-the-chart drenching we got when the Nazis came to power, damn their secret weather technology).

Wow, tamd. I can’t believe ACTEW haven’t hired you to solve all our water problems.

tamd’s Solution:

Build Tennant (or Cotter) dam 16 years ago. Costs haven’t increased at all in that time have they?

Average rainfall equals average inflow

Always base your data on average inflows. Hey what could go wrong?

Downstream rivers should be left to die. It’s natural.

tamd said :

…Looks like market rorting anywhere else and makes Dick Pratt’s alleged price fixing look like a public benefaction.

Maybe South Australia is AMCOR and dobbed on the water users upstream so it could escape prosecution, even though the price fixing was their idea! Oops, looks like I went on a bit of tangent there.

Rainfall in the region was recorded from 1870. It is a myth that is it has significantly changed and no one can, on the basis of the facts to date, argue that rainfall will diminish. In any case, if you believe the climate change theory, years ago CSIRO predicted global warming would increase rainfall in eastern Australia. All we can say far is no evidence of any change.

What is happending is the Government is forcing us to send our water (which we paid to store) downstream to water the gardens of Adelaide, help the ricefarmers en route or evaporate in Lake Alexandrina. They pay NOTHING for our water infrastructure.

I like South Australia but, please, why can’t we use some of the water first before sending it on its way?

And if it falls here who do we have to pay more then 10 times what irrigators downstream pay?

Looks like market rorting anywhere else and makes Dick Pratt’s alleged price fixing look like a public benefaction.

Haha, yeah, I figured that, I was being a smart arse. 😛

tamd said :

1. ACT rainfall has not changed significantly since 1870 (a minor statistically insignificant increase)

I’m pleased to learn the rainfall of the ACT was being recorded some 40 years before it existed.

Hello!

May I suggest people go and read some of the papers written on ACT water supply (such as the Future Water Options papers and earlier papers buried on the ACTEW website). The following are facts.

1. ACT rainfall has not changed significantly since 1870 (a minor statistically insignificant increase)

2. The ACT has enough water for a 1 million people even with 60% or so of inflows reserved as environmental flows

3. Water usage of 40 Gigs a year is less than 5% of average annual inflows.

4. The ACT dams were built to supply 450,000 people with no restrictions at 1960s per capita consumption levels.

5. Massive outflows have been allowed from the dams throughout the drought creating the crisis even though rivers would have run dry in the natural course of things anyway. We have created artificial Eurpoean rivers for the carp through the policy of emptying the dams.

6. Massive environmetal realease are still going on… and will be required even after new Cotter is built. Cotter will have to empty out about a seven of its storage capacity every year.

7. Actew around 1994 estimated a Tennent Dam could supply water at an operating cost around 9 cents per kl after a capital cost of $150 million. We are now paying FOUR DOLLARS PER KL! – and stuck with servicing twice over a capital cost of $1.5 BILLION!

OBSERVATIONS

1. ACTEW is a vicious monopoly which should be destroyed – its advertising and community grant patronage shield it from proper scrutiny.

2. The ACT Government are water racketeers and profiteers

3. People in Canberra have been well and truly duped and their goodwill abused by ACTEW and Govt.

4. There is no rational basis for water restrictions.

If I have to pay for it I should be able to use it in any way I see fit. As we get less of it put the price up. When there’s more, drop the price.

captainwhorebags said :

What, in simple terms, is the benefit of having a corporation supplying the water (and other) utility in the A.C.T.? Isn’t the government the shareholder anyway?

ACTEW Corporation is the successor to the former statutory authority – ACTEW – which is 100% Government owned. ACTEW Corporation owns the water and wastewater/sewerage assets, and has a half share of the ActewAGL Joint Venture (electricity). ActewAGL is the “operator” of the water assets, and your water bill will still say ActewAGL which is operating as agent for Actew Corporation.

At the time of privatisation there was much angst about a private company owning the water assets – think “what about the safety of the water” etc. So the Government retained ownership of the assets even though they are operated by ActewAGL. Very complicated!

In terms of benefits, that’s debateable.

Thanks for posting Mr Sullivan (I presume).

Can you explain some of the science of determining water restriction levels? Why is not as simple as having a lookup table that says “if water levels are less than X% in the month of YYY then we will implement Level Z”.

Why have a system that APPEARS to allow political considerations?

caf said :

DawnDrifter: After the Cotter Dam, the Cotter River flows into the Murrumbidgee, and from there the water leaves the ACT towards the north-west. The next dam downstream is Burrinjuck. The ‘bidgee eventually joins the Murray west of Balranald.

It appears to me that ACTEW wants to increase water charges to cover major infrastructure work, shouldn’t this be covered by a component of our water bills from the past X years?

Since the new infrastructure wasn’t supplying water in the past, it doesn’t make sense for it to have been paid for then, either.

Presumably its debt-funded, and the increases will cover the repayments – this seems appropriate, as it means that the infrastructure will be paid for by revenue from the water supplied by that infrastructure.

Quite ironically we have been paying for the Cotter Dam enlargement and pipelines for some time, except the money ended up in consolidated revenue. Now they are being built we are paying a 2nd time.

DawnDrifter: After the Cotter Dam, the Cotter River flows into the Murrumbidgee, and from there the water leaves the ACT towards the north-west. The next dam downstream is Burrinjuck. The ‘bidgee eventually joins the Murray west of Balranald.

It appears to me that ACTEW wants to increase water charges to cover major infrastructure work, shouldn’t this be covered by a component of our water bills from the past X years?

Since the new infrastructure wasn’t supplying water in the past, it doesn’t make sense for it to have been paid for then, either. Presumably its debt-funded, and the increases will cover the repayments – this seems appropriate, as it means that the infrastructure will be paid for by revenue from the water supplied by that infrastructure.

The purpose of shifting to a private enterprise utility provider was originally to line the purses of the politicians responsible for the move and their mates who got to run the new company. This was during the “privatise the lot” fanaticism of the Howard government (ie: privatisation was the fashion despite the economic facts that electricity distribution, water supply and sewage are natural monopolies, with no savings to be made from “competition” in the market).

White paper from a bunch of boffins who were ignored by the Carnell (Liberal) government at the time available here: http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/Reports/ACTEW98.pdf

What, in simple terms, is the benefit of having a corporation supplying the water (and other) utility in the A.C.T.? Isn’t the government the shareholder anyway?

I see all of this talk about falling revenue and that being used as a reason to increase water prices, but does the revenue stream (har har) from water supply need to exceed the cost of supplying the water? Is it for future works?

It appears to me that ACTEW wants to increase water charges to cover major infrastructure work, shouldn’t this be covered by a component of our water bills from the past X years?

I’m not advocating either direction here, just curious as to the reasons behind the structure of our public/private utility supplier.

only if Rain should be prescribed to lift someones mood lol how good is it that our water levels are so high :))

So for example if the Cotter fills up. where does the water flow too from there if all our dams are full? are we hogging water to the detriment of our downstream friends?

Can we please now remove the water restrictions/ dam level temporary roadside billboards? I know the Gov’t loves those things (do we have invested funds in Coates Hire or something?) but it looks pretty dumb (particularly to interstate visiors) to see a huge flashing sign on major roads saying WARNING! We have more water by far than we’ve had in the last decade are using way less than our daily targets.

If the levels drop to the point where we get to level 3 restrictions again then bring them back, til then we can find the info anytime on teh interwebz.

Pork Hunt said :

The La Trobe and Hunter valleys are the heartland of coal fired power stations, what does rainfall matter to them?
Perhaps you were thinking of SNOWY HYDRO?

As JC has pointed out, coal fired power stations use a considerable amount of water in operation. That’s why they’re always close to rivers / lakes. The Snowy would have some effect on electricity prices – they don’t generate a huge amount, but what they do generate is at the top of the market, so the effect that they have is difficult to calculate.

Postalgeek said :

We should save the water for a rainy day.

🙂

I would prefer longer Garden watering times, and handwatering only for lawns.

people seem to have got over expecting to have a bowling green lawn, and those with kids who really want one could do some hand watering.

yet ACTEW are offering us extended opportunities for watering lawns, but we still have to wait til after dark to water actual gardens, flowers, trees and vegies.

An interesting discussion. Yes there is a transfer facility from Mt Stromlo to Googong and it is being utilised as much as is possible. It utilises the main water trunk system so water is treated and then untreated at Googong. Several gigalitres of water have been transferred over the year. Cotter is down to 89.7% as we try and lower this dam as a flood mitigation measure for the new Cotter Dam. 1.3% of old Cotter is about 50 mg of water. This stategy involves transfer to Googong and environmental flows. Rivers have had a huge refresh as a result of rain. Over 10 gl has flowed over the top of Cotter this spring and is part of the reason why Burrinjuck has continued to fill.

Water pricing is a science. In the ACT it is set by an independent regulator five years in advance. There has to be a case for a more contemporary system of pricing which reflects scarcity. Restrictions inhibit revenue for ACTEW but there will be no knee jerk release of restrictions. Permanent Water Conservation measures are the fall back position still promoting responsible use of water.

Agreed droughts happen and this is the worst in recorded history with sustained inflow reductions far worse than Federation drought or WW2 drought. But CSIRO’s climate change scenarios are scarily right and I think we should be wary of anyone saying things are back to “normal”. For what seems a big rain year we are looking at a repeat of 2005 in terms of inflows (about 150 gigs). That year was followed by the worst in history. Caution is a good word

If you are planning on grass have a read of the “grassroots” work on ACTEWs website. Good info on alternative grass types and irrigation. I know many want that patch of grass and you can do it in a waterwise way.

Keep up the discussion and debate. It is read with interest

We should save the water for a rainy day.

ghughes said :

Last night I was contacted by Newspoll, the questions included ACTEW advertising, and my responses to rain, water restrictions, outdoor watering and the like.

So it would seem – Water restrictions are like all environmental issues – a little bit of science (rainfall, dam levels, consumption levels) and a little bit of populist vote.

Same here. Of course they first confirmed that I didn’t work for ActewAGL. It will, however be interesting to see what the total percentage drops to when the expanded Cotter dam comes online and is counted in the overall storage capacity.

Does this mean I can fill my pool up !? =P

welkin31 said :

Yes it will increasingly become a problem for the Govt to explain – sky high water prices when dam levels are high.

Yes, because all the infrastructure being built that you mention directly below this comment is actually free.

welkin31 said :

One thing we can be absolutely clear on – the higher dam levels will result in greater “environmental flows”.

Yeah screw the rivers, they should all be left to completely die.
And the fact that environmental flows are significantly reduced during periods of drought is no reason to increase them when there is more water in the system.
It’s all an ACTEW conspiracy to make us pay more.

#20 kakosi has a good handle on water issues but I am sorry to see many other posters have been influenced by years of govt, green, doomster and special interest propaganda beating up greehouse, drought and mis-reporting rainfall.
kakosi said
[They’ll keep the restrictions so that they can keep the price up. Then when we don’t use enough water and profits go down, they’ll loosen the restrictions to encourage us to water and pay high prices for it.

The whole situation right now is a matter of having convinced people that levels will never rise (which was obviously false) and that we’ll be in drought again soon. It’s not real but people have been convinced it is. Fear tactics have successfully been used to change general public perceptions and gain massive profits through massive price rises and extra supply taxes.]

Yes it will increasingly become a problem for the Govt to explain – sky high water prices when dam levels are high. More of a problem when the “no-brainer Cotter enlargement” is installed – more of a problem again when the Angle bend to Googong pipeline slots in. The beloved media concept of the eternal “greenhouse worst drought ever” has taken a pounding this year. But it will not rollover and die quickly. Droughts here and there are cyclic features of our climate that we have to live with – and the last several years in the ACT has not been as dry as a period in the 1930’s and 40’s. Then it was worse again pre WWI.
JC #1 asked about the Cotter to Googong pipeline – an issue that I am not clear on too. I have asked ACTEW for data – no luck so far.
One thing we can be absolutely clear on – the higher dam levels will result in greater “environmental flows”.
ACT people could be better informed about water supply issues if the Govt would just routinely put much more water supply data online in a timely manner.

Last night I was contacted by Newspoll, the questions included ACTEW advertising, and my responses to rain, water restrictions, outdoor watering and the like.

So it would seem – Water restrictions are like all environmental issues – a little bit of science (rainfall, dam levels, consumption levels) and a little bit of populist vote.

Pork Hunt said :

The La Trobe and Hunter valleys are the heartland of coal fired power stations, what does rainfall matter to them?
Perhaps you were thinking of SNOWY HYDRO?

Quite a lot actually. Burning coal produces heat, which heats WATER, which turns to steam to turn the turbine. So no water=no steam=no electricity.

Build another dam ….

Pork Hunt said :

caf said :

Tool: There’s no bulk electricity generation in the ACT – just a couple of boutique installations. The rainfall that really matters for electricity prices is that in the La Trobe and Hunter valleys.

In the eastern states, electricity is a freely traded commodity. The price is determined (at 5 minute intervals) by a free market – in this case, the National Electricity Market, managed by AEMO. You can see the wholesale price data yourself.

Electricity in the ACT is “contestable”, which means you can switch retail providers (eg, to Country Energy). The only price rigging going on is the imposition of a regulated maximum price – if the existing retail providers were charging above the odds, then more providers would have entered the market and undercut them.

The La Trobe and Hunter valleys are the heartland of coal fired power stations, what does rainfall matter to them?
Perhaps you were thinking of SNOWY HYDRO?

If that’s the caf I think he is, he knows more about electric power in Canberra than everybody else here combined. He could probably draw the entire power grid from memory.

They’ll keep the restrictions so that they can keep the price up. Then when we don’t use enough water and profits go down, they’ll loosen the restrictions to encourage us to water and pay high prices for it.

The whole situation right now is a matter of having convinced people that levels will never rise (which was obviously false) and that we’ll be in drought again soon. It’s not real but people have been convinced it is. Fear tactics have successfully been used to change general public perceptions and gain massive profits through massive price rises and extra supply taxes.

They even tax the water flushed down the system from tanks that people install on their own homes – little meters that count how much free rainwater goes down the drain.

Even without using a single drop of water each bill I get has over $152 in “supply” charges now and it keeps going up.

caf said :

Tool: There’s no bulk electricity generation in the ACT – just a couple of boutique installations. The rainfall that really matters for electricity prices is that in the La Trobe and Hunter valleys.

In the eastern states, electricity is a freely traded commodity. The price is determined (at 5 minute intervals) by a free market – in this case, the National Electricity Market, managed by AEMO. You can see the wholesale price data yourself.

Electricity in the ACT is “contestable”, which means you can switch retail providers (eg, to Country Energy). The only price rigging going on is the imposition of a regulated maximum price – if the existing retail providers were charging above the odds, then more providers would have entered the market and undercut them.

The La Trobe and Hunter valleys are the heartland of coal fired power stations, what does rainfall matter to them?
Perhaps you were thinking of SNOWY HYDRO?

Tool: There’s no bulk electricity generation in the ACT – just a couple of boutique installations. The rainfall that really matters for electricity prices is that in the La Trobe and Hunter valleys.

In the eastern states, electricity is a freely traded commodity. The price is determined (at 5 minute intervals) by a free market – in this case, the National Electricity Market, managed by AEMO. You can see the wholesale price data yourself.

Electricity in the ACT is “contestable”, which means you can switch retail providers (eg, to Country Energy). The only price rigging going on is the imposition of a regulated maximum price – if the existing retail providers were charging above the odds, then more providers would have entered the market and undercut them.

I agree we need to conserve this resource carefully and some simple measures to ensure that. However I must agree with other posters, I would like the right to choose to spring clean and high pressure wash my windows and deck every now and then.

I think we need to continue finding improvements and utilising water tanks where possilbe to water gardens as such.

No point reducing the water restrictions, the dam levels are only going to go downwards again sometime soon.

Chaz said :

let’s have a looksee at the aussie constitution

when the Commonwealth gets around to imposing water restrictions on you (rather than the state, or state ‘equivalent’ in our case) you can be the first in line to the High Court.

How much irrigation water is taken from our rivers? And how much water are ‘we’ letting through our dams – is the ACT keeping everything and not letting much through? I presume the snow melt is still to come, at least in part, so there should be plenty of water around for everyone.

let’s have a looksee at the aussie constitution

Nor abridge right to use water
100. The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

with that said. my garden looks wonderful 🙂

Now that the water is so plentiful I am sure the electricity prices will revert back to what they were like before the drought price hike right? Because the cost of electricity would have reduced proportionately according to their reason for the rise right?

Umm, while I’m as excited as anyone to see that our water supply is actually looking healthy for a change, I can’t help but wonder how the Cotter Dam being 89.7% full according to ACTEW translates to all three Cotter River dams being 100% full?

Semantics aside though, maintaining some water restrictions permanently is the only way to go. Just look at the 5 year graph on the ACTEW site, and look at what happened in 18 months from 2006 to mid 2007 – from around 70%, to below 30% (very rough figures taken from a pretty sketchy graph there!) Here’s hoping that this time, even if the rain drops off again, the fact people are used to water restrictions works in our favour and we don’t see such a dramatic fall.

Freddyp said :

It broke my heart to see my beautiful, lush green lawn reduced to dirt and weeds during the drought, but I’m damned if I’ll ever rehabilitate it. There’s nothing more certain than that the drought will be back – all this rain is an anomaly in a long-term pattern.

Wind back the restrictions a notch, sure, but don’t imagine that the wind-back will be permanent – at least until we get the new Cotter dam built.

I really do like being able to wash my car, though!

Why do we need to wait for the new cotter dam? Have a look through the historical useage data on ACTEW’s website and you will see that even if we had NO rain what so ever and used water at the high levels we did back in the late 90’s that we already have enough water to last 3 years. Now be realistic and add in the average yearly rain fall of the last 10 years and you could safely assume we could go a good 10 years before getting too worried.

The key is to not go stupid, but to use water wisely.

Plenty of dams downstream yet…

Gerry-Built said :

I am pretty sure it was mooted several years ago that we’d never be going back to the “ways of old”… I think that’s a good thing. Responsible water usage is good practice. Well, that and a Slip and Slide…

Correct it has been enacted in legislation and is called permanent water conservation measures. Really all it does is reinforce common sesne and this is what we should be on now.

http://www.actew.com.au/SaveWaterForLife/permanent_water_conservation_measures.aspx

Freddyp said :

It broke my heart to see my beautiful, lush green lawn reduced to dirt and weeds during the drought, but I’m damned if I’ll ever rehabilitate it. There’s nothing more certain than that the drought will be back – all this rain is an anomaly in a long-term pattern.

Cover the dead lawn in weed mats, a few cubics of dirt, some quality chip, and plant flax and natives.

I did that 10 years ago and I never needed to water my “lawn” since. I just need to water my plants once a week.

I am pretty sure it was mooted several years ago that we’d never be going back to the “ways of old”… I think that’s a good thing. Responsible water usage is good practice. Well, that and a Slip and Slide…

It broke my heart to see my beautiful, lush green lawn reduced to dirt and weeds during the drought, but I’m damned if I’ll ever rehabilitate it. There’s nothing more certain than that the drought will be back – all this rain is an anomaly in a long-term pattern.

Wind back the restrictions a notch, sure, but don’t imagine that the wind-back will be permanent – at least until we get the new Cotter dam built.

I really do like being able to wash my car, though!

Well I be damned…

I don’t think we’ll ever see water restrictions go away, which isn’t a bad thing as I think we need to learn to be more conservative with our diminishing resources.

Perhaps the local ovals could get a regular sprinkle now and then now.

nhand42 said :

Where’s the option “I should be allowed to water my garden, but not the lawn or the driveway”?

+1

I’m all for a level where I can water productive things (fruit, vegies) as much as I want.

Where’s the option “I should be allowed to water my garden, but not the lawn or the driveway”?

I would be happy if we were allowed to go to level 1, which allows freedom to actually have a garden and lawn, whilst maintaining some restrictions on people watering during the day.

The way it is at the moment the city looks crap, time we all got some pride back into our places.

One thing I am curious about though is I had thought ACTEW built a pipe line from the Cotter river dams to Googong in the mid 2000’s (as opposed to the planned pipe from the Murrumbidgee). If they did then it appears as if they haven’t used it, otherwise you would expect Googong to be slowly rising.