Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Stormwater storage?

By johnboy 1 August 2008 38

Andrew Barr’s having a busy day. He’s just announced that the ACT government is going to start pumping stormwater into aquifers for use watering ovals.

    The Government will tomorrow release a draft variation to the Territory Plan which will allow for storm water to be stored in aquifers and recovered for irrigation use when required.

    Members of the community are invited to comment on the draft Variation which can be viewed from tomorrow at www.actpla.act.gov.au. The period for public comment closes on 11 September 2008.

Soooo.

1) They’re going to re-cycle our wee for drinking but the storm water can only be used on ovals?
2) This worse-than-wee storm water is going to be pumped into the water table?
3) At the moment the storm water makes up a percentage of our environmental flows. Are we going to have to release drinking water from storages to make up environmental flows because we’ve diverted stormwater into aquifers for putting on ovals?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
38 Responses to
Stormwater storage?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Thumper 8:27 am 04 Aug 08

It went wrong because the damn building had been built to withstand a nuclear explosion within line of sight

Indeed. I think a lot of people forget this fact. The old girl was built to last that’s for sure…

Granny 12:59 am 04 Aug 08

That is my point exactly!

: )

johnboy 12:31 am 04 Aug 08

They decided to detonate the hospital after 100,000 drunks had brought in the new year watching a casino come down.

There was a lot to suggest it would be a fun event worth promoting.

It went wrong because the damn building had been built to withstand a nuclear explosion within line of sight.

It went doubly wrong when the demolishing crews realised how strong the building was but refused to revise their tender.

It was a complicated problem gone wrong.

Granny 12:23 am 04 Aug 08

Maybe my brain is hardwired to get it wrong, but my family were nowhere near the hospital implosion that day. It sounded stupid to me. Everyone said I was being silly. I’d rather be silly.

miz 7:25 pm 03 Aug 08

Caf. We should have had the Tennent Dam online years ago. It is a much better economic option than the ones Actew keep proposing. See here

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/well-drink-to-that-unlimited-water-for-150-a-year/135465.aspx

sepi 3:32 pm 03 Aug 08

I went on a tour of an overseas nuclear reactor, and the guide spent the whole time raving about the safety of that particular reactor, while slagging off most other reactors in other countries as dangerous.

It didn’t make me a fan of nuclear power.

caf 3:21 pm 03 Aug 08

Not every nuclear reactor is going to chuck a Chernobyl, but I would not house my family anywhere in the vicinity of one ever.

All that shows is that you suffer from the same well-documented inability to dispassionately evaluate risks as the rest of us (the human brain appears hardwired to get this wrong). The same reason we tend to be more afraid of dying in a aircraft accident than a car accident.

miz: Part of the strategy is indeed to build a new dam wall about 50 metres downstream of the existing Cotter Dam wall, which will increase the volume of the Cotter Dam from about 4GL to about 78GL. See here.

miz 2:09 pm 03 Aug 08

“If there’s more than one possible outcome of a job or task, and one of those outcomes will result in disaster or an undesirable consequence, then somebody will do it that way” – and then the government will charge everyone for the privilege.

eg, let’s think of any number of complicated and expensive ways of having a so-so water supply, instead of *gosh!* building a dam and letting it fill it up with pure, clean rain from the sky.

Fair dinkum. Where’s ockham’s razor thinking in all this crazy ACT government water policy?

ant 11:17 am 03 Aug 08

smokey4 said :

Has anyone info on how HQJOC has gone with their bores? I still feel this is a risky path to rely on.

The HQ Joc bloke told us that primarily, they’re capturing their water from the roof and routing it into tanks and a couple of dams. Roof is pretty big. We expressed doubt that enough rain fell out here to do the job, and he said they’d studied some lenght of time’s rainfalls (forget the time period) and it should be ample.

However, where they are is down on the flat, which looks to be a river valley, so there’s probably a good underwater source too (like Canberra, which has an underground river called The Red under it). Although I imagine they’d use that for the toilets and grass, as bore water tastes like…. bore water. Bores out here are pretty good I must say, the big mountains around have water coming down off them through the rocks.

Thumper 11:10 am 03 Aug 08

What’s next, green grass tax? Oxygen tax?

A carbon tax.

Granny 11:04 am 03 Aug 08

If a bridge is going to collapse, there is an excellent chance that I will not be driving on it at the time.

If somebody buggers up the water supply, it is almost inevitable that I will be affected.

If this system is vulnerable to human error, then I consider that the risk outweighs the benefits.

Not every nuclear reactor is going to chuck a Chernobyl, but I would not house my family anywhere in the vicinity of one ever.

Sorry, but I’m with Murphy on this one:

“If there’s more than one possible outcome of a job or task, and one of those outcomes will result in disaster or an undesirable consequence, then somebody will do it that way”

caf 11:01 pm 01 Aug 08

Although of course to do so, you’d have to use a car (designed by “experts” so clearly not to be trusted) and drive over bridges (designed by more “experts”, it’s a wonder they haven’t collapsed already).

caf 10:59 pm 01 Aug 08

Granny: Why don’t take a short drive and ask the burghers of Gundagai how they’re going with it?

Granny 9:33 pm 01 Aug 08

It’s the Titanic principle really.

A bunch of experts reckon they’ve got a ship that won’t sink. Should you believe them?

A bunch of experts reckon its completely safe to implode a building. Should you believe them?

A bunch of experts reckon the Chernobyl nuclear reactor is failsafe and foolproof. Nothing in this universe is proof from fools!

And now a bunch of experts would have us believe it’s completely safe to drink the contents of our own toilets … and worse still, other people’s! Should you believe them, I say! Should you believe them! And again I say, I even ask very rhetorically, should you believe them!!

smokey4 7:32 pm 01 Aug 08

Requires a bit more than a piece of ag pipe Thumper. An area about 3 metres square in each street. Black polly sheet at the bottom, some ag pipe and a thick layer of course gravel. I watched the guys setting this up in Sandringham. Have seen similar work being done at Edithvale. Not sure of the results as I cannot find more info on the net.
Is the recycled water at Southwell Park up to Class A standard Thumper? My assumption is that it would have to be at least class A.
Has anyone info on how HQJOC has gone with their bores? I still feel this is a risky path to rely on.

miz 7:10 pm 01 Aug 08

If we can use stormwater on our gardens, there should be plenty of drinking water for inside the house. Why then do we need to imperfectly recycle sewage, then drink it, at great expense? This seems more like a conspiracy to me!

GottaLoveCanberra 7:07 pm 01 Aug 08

Call me naive but how on Earth are the Govt ever going to be able to justify taxing water that falls from the sky into a bloody water tank?

What’s next, green grass tax? Oxygen tax?

Thumper 3:26 pm 01 Aug 08

Bit of ag pipe and off you go…

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site