🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:27:58 +1000, "Geoffw" <gwinnet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Petzl" <de @hotmai.cxm> wrote in message
>news:987kn0d5ta9bqoi8lodmftnr6b7cg6ih1k@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:46:59 +1000, "Geoffw"
><gwinnet@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >peopel still do not pay the real cost of existing water
>> >supplies, perhaps a combination of cost increases and
>> >restrictions can provide a significant buffer.
>> >
>> >Water re use - just do it and over time people will
>accept
>> >it.
>> >
>> >Subsidy for tank water should just go, we live on about
>400
>> >litres per day (family of 3 adults) and if we run out we
>> >have to pay $$ for a tanker from the town supply - we did
>> >not run out this year.
>> >
>> >Supplied water should be paid for by the litre, no
>problem
>> >currently with 100 litres a day per person being free,
>after
>> >that charge a real cost - there will soon be an attitude
>> >change
>> >
>> >Geoff
>>
>> It has been known at least 20 years ago that Sydney was
>consuming 60
>> giga litres more water than the catchment area could on
>average
>> provide
>>
>> It was then (20 years ago) decided to build the " Welcome
>Reef Dam" to
>> provide for an extra 8 million people
>>
>> Bob Carr decided it was a better option to have the water
>drain out to
>> sea. This is after billions of public money had been spent
>on the
>> project
>
>some of the figures aside it was the correct decision
>
>>
>> The whole thing has now become another revenue earner for
>Bob Carrs
>> private and growing army (water Police, TransportPolice
>etc.) in
>> fining normal law abiding people
>
>nobody will be retiring soon on this income stream
>
>>
>> In the meantime the 600 gigalitres flowing out dialy to
>sea as
>> untreated sewage (already causing a red algea bloom from
>Wollongong to
>> newcastle) continues
>
>re use is a serious option, some people however seem not to
>like the idea
>
>catering for increased consumption at a highly subsidised
>cost is not an option, the mentality that we can just keep
>expanding ins the wrong one. If the real cost of water was
>taken into account there would soon be a major shift in
>attitude. You don't see people washing their cars with
>bottled water as there is a percieved value to it eg it cost
>a couple of dollars for the bottle of water, apply this
>perception to the water meter instead if re inforcing the
>attitude that water (and many other resources) are cheap and
>are so taken for granted
>
>>

The figures did NOT support a"green" rable rousing in stopping
construction of Welcome Reef dam
<http://tinyurl.com/5xplv>

There is no dout that this 600 megalitres should not be pumped out to
sea and as I have written about before could be usedfor a massive
(other side of  Dividing Range) This would drought proof Australia as
well as provide timber resources for emploment



Petzl
--
Vote 
One Nation first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"