Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Tap to stay closed on recycled water

Tap to stay closed on recycled water

Somerset Dam

Somerset Dam

As I have said on earlier occasions the notion that recycled water should be returned to our dams has always concerned me. However I can’t help thinking that the massive expenditure on the “water grid” here in Queensland may just prove to be a very expensive white elephant.

Completed before the Government backflipped on its recycled water policy last November, the pipeline was still commissioned, with the operator, Watersecure, testing it for leaks and signal faults.

The 1.2m-diameter pipe is now full of recycled water, ready to deliver it down a 100m cascade into the dam.

Premier Anna Bligh last November reversed her position on putting recycled water into the region’s drinking water.

After insisting for months during the region’s drought that there was no other option than to top up southeast Queensland’s then shrinking dam system with recycled water, she announced the Government would only use it as a last resort.

Something that ultimately proved to be an overly elaborate solution to a “problem” that has been grossly over estimated…
Cheers Comrades
😉


21 Comments

  1. Phill says:

    Iain recycled water is inevitable in Australia. Anna Bligh backed down on the scheme because her political ambition exceeded her common sense.

    But this is connected to the G.W. debate No?

    My family has grown oranges on the river Murray S.A. for fifty years, due to the water shortages it is becoming unsustainable.The citrus growers are removing trees and vines at an alarming rate, and if you travel the area it is starting to look in parts like the Gibson Dessert.

    But back to Queensland, the people of this state who live in the bush, are akin to the hillbilly’s that live in some of the southern states of the U.S., the fact that recycled water was rejected is not surprising. A state that gave us the most corrupt government and police force in this countries history, and the likes of Joe Bjelke Peterson, and Russ Hinze were treated like deity’s,and the turn out at the fundamentalist knees up on Sundays, really needs no further explanation.

    Suffice to say, not much has changed.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Phill
    I have no problem with the use of recycled water in industry or agriculture but I fail to see why it has to be returned to the Dams.
    However this is a rather academic issue fro me because I have lived in a place with water tanks fro more than twenty years and personally I think that every house should collect and store the rain water that falls on its roof.

  3. Evan Diebeh says:

    That’s a bit rich, Phill, blaming opposition to recycled water on Joh, Russ and ole time religion. I just think it’s a case of fear and mistrust in science. I don’t think people here in Victoria would accept it either.

    Not sure why you’d need recycled water up there anyway with all the floods you’ve been having. Or did all the crocs p*** in it?

  4. Phill says:

    Well I agree with you Iain. Maybe the Rudd stimulus would have been better spent subsidizing rain water tanks than pink bats?

    Even Diebeh, what people will or wont accept is a debate that even has intellectuals baffled.As I said previous it is inevitable. Most people wouldn’t pay taxes if they had the choice.

    People in most parts of Europe have been drinking other people recycled piss for fifty years.It will come sooner or later.

  5. Phill says:

    “I just think it’s a case of fear and mistrust in science.”

    I almost forgot, well you’ve made my point for me haven’t you?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Well Phill
    one thing the recent drought up here demonstrated was that people in our cites can be much more efficenmt in the way that they use water something that I have advocated for a very long time.
    When it comes to the “inevitability” of the addition of recycled sewerage into our potable water I sort of think that we have a very long way to go before it can really be justified.

  7. Phill says:

    “one thing the recent drought up here demonstrated was that people in our cites can be much more efficient in the way that they use water something that I have advocated for a very long time.”

    Tooooo bloody true.Iain I can remember living in the days they shut the water off completely. I n Adelaide during the sixties it was a requirement in those days to fill your bath up in the morning, the water was then fit for drinking after time to settle.

    Most people think I am bullshitting when I tell them about it.

    But most people who have never worked or lived in the country think corn flakes grow in them natty little boxes,and cows give milk straight into the cartons.

    My brother still has his farm, fortunately for me I left years ago to join the armed forces, BUT he tells me that recycled water for drinking is not that far off.Unlike the so called experts you say know SFA about G.W. he has the dirt under his nails and skin that looks like it came from a Rhino.He not only talks the talk, he has and is walking the walk.

  8. Evan Diebeh says:

    Even Diebeh, what people will or wont accept is a debate that even has intellectuals baffled.As I said previous it is inevitable. Most people wouldn’t pay taxes if they had the choice.

    Intellectuals are often baffled by people because people aren’t intellectuals – they think and do as they please, often based just on instinct or emotion. Recycled water may well be “inevitable” but I don’t think it’s inevitable that the public has to approve of it first. When did European countries hold their plebiscite on recycled water? Answer: there wasn’t one, governments just went ahead and did it.

    As far as taxes go, they’re a necessary annoyance. Nobody is happy to pay them but they’re how we get our schools, hospitals, roads, defence, police, prisons, welfare and so on. Let’s have a referendum: “Would you rather have all those things or would you prefer not to pay tax anymore?” Which way would you vote Phill?

  9. Phill says:

    “As far as taxes go, they’re a necessary annoyance. Nobody is happy to pay them but they’re how we get our schools, hospitals, roads, defence, police, prisons, welfare and so on. Let’s have a referendum: “Would you rather have all those things or would you prefer not to pay tax anymore?” Which way would you vote Phill? ”

    Evan Diebeh.

    Please spare me telling me the obvious, If I had control of the world, people at the top of society would be paying a lot more tax than they presently do. The Packers and notwithstanding the benevolence of some people like Pratt, in my world nobody would be allowed to accumulate that much wealth.In the socialist twisted latte sipping world I live in, I find it obscene.

    What I have found in the time I have been on this planet, people only want referendums on what they don’t like, most people don’t like wearing seat belts they think it is an infringement on their liberty, unfortunately half wits have to be protected from themselves,and the cost to society from head trauma when one of these imbeciles, goes out through a windscreen.I would take a flame thrower to casinos, I could go on.

    If the governments of all stripes had been doing their job, instead of wasting money taking trips to Vienna and other exotic holiday destinations, under the guise of studying the water problem from a Gondola with some swarthy looking oarsman serenading these lazy pricks, recycled water would not be necessary, however we keep voting for these cretins expecting a different result.

    The only difference from how I think and conservatives is, I know they are all useless bastards, I just go with the slightly lesser of the two evils.

    Having a referendum on every issue is ridiculous you would spend half your life at a polling booth some where.

    We pay these half wits to govern let them govern.

  10. Evan Diebeh says:

    Please spare me telling me the obvious

    Then stop stating the bleeding obvious to support an unrelated point.

    If I had control of the world, people at the top of society would be paying a lot more tax than they presently do.

    It’d be the same if I were in charge, Phill, but the sad fact is that you and I don’t control the world – in fact it’s controlled by the very people you mentioned. They’re about as likely to vote for higher taxes for the rich as Iain adopting an Afghani fresh off the boat.

    Unfortunately half wits have to be protected from themselves,and the cost to society from head trauma when one of these imbeciles, goes out through a windscreen.

    You should read what Iain’s got to say about speed cameras, he thinks they should be abolished, which would do no end of good for the road toll.

  11. Phill says:

    “Then stop stating the bleeding obvious to support an unrelated point.”

    Was is obvious to you may be lost on others.

    “Speed Cameras” Ah what I wouldn’t do to excessive speeders.

    So where we at, Is recycled water going to be a reality or not?

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Phill
    FYI my beef with speed cameras is two fold, firstly they are not what they seem (and what we are told is their purpose) they are nothing more than a method of taxing motorists for relatively minor infractions of the speed limits. If governments were more serious about road safety and moderating excessive speed they would have the old fashioned speed traps that pull over those who speed or speed cameras that are very well signed as is the case on the Pacific Highway in northern NSW.

  13. Phill says:

    Iain your comments I can’t argue with because I agree with them.However, if they were not there, people would be driving around the suburbs like maniacs. I can’t speak for any where else except Perth,but the hooning that goes on here with young men, and I use the term men loosely, is dangerous.

    Would speed cameras fix the problem? probably not, will it catch some of them? no doubt, and that’s the whole purpose.

    I have had my drivers license since 1967 I have been caught speeding once! Ah a goody two shoes you say, lucky maybe? No I am aware of the law and abide by it it.Simple don’t break the law and you wont have to pay government extra taxes.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    The trouble is Phill that most of the people caught by these evil devices are not the speed mad idiots but ordinary people who only just exceed the arbitrary speed limits. But for the record I am also a very cautious driver who tries very hard to “do the right thing” at all times.

  15. Evan Diebeh says:

    None of that matters, Iain. The fundamental purpose of speed cameras is to reduce excessive speeding and save lives. If it does that, then I don’t really care if you are caught doing 105km/h in your Oldsmobile and are fined $105 or whatever it is.

    Do governments deploy speed cameras in ways that maximise fines… and do they rely on the revenue from these fines? I’d say yes to both counts. But that’s not an argument against speed cameras, it’s an argument against the ways they are used. There is plenty of evidence that speed cameras save lives and you describing them as “evil devices” is just plain insulting to people who have lost loved ones because of lead-footed idiots.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Hmm this argument is beginning to sound all too familiar…

  17. Evan Diebeh says:

    Is that what passes for a response these days?

    If it sounds familiar it’s probably because it’s a view held by sensible thinking people.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Evan
    of all of my opinions that you could have gone off topic on why did you pick speed cameras?

  19. Evan Diebeh says:

    Because I was reading through your older stuff and your opinions on speed cameras struck me as being particularly stupid.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Really? All am am saying is that governments are being dishonest in their claims about why they so love speed cameras. I would have thought a lefty like you would appreciate anyone denouncing government dishonesty. 🙄

  21. Evan Diebeh says:

    I’m all for it, Iain. But ending government exploitation of speed camera revenue doesn’t necessarily mean ending speed cameras. Your position seems to be (and you can correct me if I’m wrong) that speed cameras should be abolished nationwide, which is folly.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: