Rain Drops Keep Falling

No.

Wont ACTEW charge you for the water revenue lost?

“Your subsidy was built into the slightly lower price of the land”
Almost choked reading that one caf…seen the prices out here lately??
Anyway, I’m not asking for a subsidy on the 4500 litres required under the development conditions – just the balance that would otherwise be owing for doubling the minimum size.
CMO’s staff replied that the doubling would result in “negligible increased benefit to water consumption”.
The science behind THAT claim was not referenced in their reply.

oops stuffed up that link… should be http://www.snopes.com. I’ll work it out one day.

Is there a user guide available?

I don’t know whether there is any substance to the rumour, but apparently if you apply for a subsidy you then are registered as having water storage facilities and the government (ACT) will/can tax you for it.

Supposedly they can tax you for water which hasn’t been in contact with the ground. Not sure how they calculate how much to tax you, but as said it is a rumour. Perhaps can dispel the rumour?

Your subsidy was built into the slightly lower price of the land, due to the tank requirement on it.

Che, if you build in a greenfield suburb where there is a mandatory tank minimum, you get no subsidy at all – even if you double the minimum.

Our 9000 litre tank – subsidy = $0 Sux!