Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

Gardeners are evil: Stanhope

By Ari - 1 December 2006 68

In his report outlining the latest attempt to bash us on the head with water restrictions, the CT’s Graham Downie includes this interesting snippet.

About 20 years ago, when Canberra’s population was roughly half the present figure, daily summer consumption was about 400ML. The average daily target for this November was 145ML.

Over the past several weeks, consumption has increased from about 152ML to 168ML.

So it seems the Canberra population has responded to water conservation measures to the extent that our current average use (including the recent “expansion”) has dropped 58% from 20 years ago – even though the population has doubled.

Yet we’re still being told we’re profligate – particularly those evil gardeners.

It seems the real failure is that complacent government has used this long-term trend to avoid having to do anything about securing additional supply and is now being blindsided by extended drought.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
Gardeners are evil: Stanhope
smokey2 2:23 pm 01 Dec 06

Bugalugs – whats your credentials?

I spent the last 3 years working for a large water authority replacing water meters for usually high volume users. I also spent the last 30 years living totally on tank water. In that time I purchased water twice. Once after a bushfire wrecked my supply and a couple of years ago when my wife used to much.
I’ve been wingeing to my local member to upgrade recycled water to class A back home and I have helped to bring him up to speed on this and hopefully this will make a difference.

Changes to prices will only affect the disadvantaged and raise revenue.

I have not got a degree in water engineering but it does not mean I am not informed.

snahon 2:21 pm 01 Dec 06

With all due respect, but these people who have more of an idea evidently aren’t doing much are they ? – hence why we are in this situation in the first place ?

seepi 2:20 pm 01 Dec 06

There seems to be hardly any difference between stage 2 and Stage 3. The only difference being you cna’t hand water your lawn thru the week, but can still water it once a week with sprinklers.

I don’t think this change is going to save much water at all.

Bugalugs 2:11 pm 01 Dec 06

This lack of water if you pulled your heads out of your respective arses is a national issue.

D o you realise by increasing water prices the media would have a field day over a “tax increase”?

Maybe a long term multi layered solution to the national water problem instead of making cheap uniformed pot shots.

I’m sure the people who work with this have more of an idea than 33 year old Braddon flat dwellers

johnboy 12:18 pm 01 Dec 06

During the last water panic we paid for a capacity to pump water our of the Murrumbidgee into the ACT’s water storage.

Effectively it means that, for the right price, we have access to the entire snowy storage.

It would mean we’d need to charge a sensible price for water use (no bad thing in itself).

But the price would still be under a cent a litre.

Not as much fun as organising advertising campaigns (effectively bankrolling the re-eleciton campaign once favours are accrued) and telling people how to flush their toilet obviously.

Pandy 12:11 pm 01 Dec 06

smokey2 yes. Read yesterdays CT.

Ari, the sellers of water to the MIA have stopped selli9ng water except for some summer crops. They have little water to send down the river for them.

Pandy 12:10 pm 01 Dec 06

The rich do not give a rats arse about costs. they need to have punitive prices for anything above a basic allocation.

As for exemptions, I heard Mr Costello say on the radio that it is very unlikely that they will give further exemptions on the basis of medical grounds above the general exemptions of Stage 3. Fracking good I say. BTW all other exemptions under stage 2 will cease on 16 December.

Ari 11:46 am 01 Dec 06

The ACT is a net exporter of water to NSW – i.e. more water leaves the ACT than enters it from NSW – Sonic said so just last week.

There’s already been feasibility studies into damming the Naas River – for example – but it’s slipped off the radar of late.

It’s just so much easier to blame the population for govt failure.

smokey2 11:42 am 01 Dec 06

Ari when are you going to realise that securing additional supply means taking it off someone else and this means someone in the ACT. No one in NSW is going to give you any extra water as it is already used.
Has anyone got any extra information on the proposed changes to storm water drains turning some into natural wetland water courses.

toastie 11:35 am 01 Dec 06

they have to start charging more for water if they want people to react properly. nobody will water their lawn if they can’t afford it.

che 11:30 am 01 Dec 06

Stage 3 from 16 Dec
and heres what ACTEW have to say about it

Ari 11:19 am 01 Dec 06

It seems Sonic was surprised by the strong reaction from gardeners (and perhaps he read the email I sent him and didn’t want 50m of dripper pipe dangling from his arse).

Binker 11:16 am 01 Dec 06

read 16/12/06

Binker 11:16 am 01 Dec 06

Stage 3 from 16/12/66 but still an exemption for drippers (odds and evens) and sprinklers (sat and sun)

Thumper 10:52 am 01 Dec 06

“It seems the real failure is that complacent government has used this long-term trend to avoid having to do anything about securing additional supply and is now being blindsided by extended drought.”

Indeed Ari, I’ve been saying this for yonks.

Lazy, incompetent goverance.

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site