Water tanks and wildlife (Victoria)

To: "Peter Shute" <>
Subject: Water tanks and wildlife (Victoria)
From: "Dave Torr" <>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:45:13 +1000
True - there are winners and losers in most things. It is clear that our
current use of water (at least in the Melbourne area and its catchments) is
unsustainable with a growing population and probable decrease in rainfall.
Desalination will involve getting very expensive water and lots of energy
use. Taking it from farmers will cause an outrage and raises issues of food
security. Improving irrigation channels by cutting losses will help - but
again if all irrigation channels were covered to stop evaporation then
wildlife would suffer. Sensible solution of course is to consume less.....

2008/8/25 Peter Shute <>

> But that means the major rivers would benefit at the expense of smaller
> waterways that aren't part of the catchments.
> Peter Shute
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   L&L Knight 
> Sent:   Mon 25/08/2008 12:02 PM
> To:     Peter Shute
> Cc:     
> Subject:        Re: [Birding-Aus] Water tanks and wildlife (Victoria)
> Taking roof loads out of the stormwater system would certainly reduce
> the flash flooding in urban waterways.
> Presumably the water in residential tanks would to some degree replace
> water that is extracted from the waterways feeding the urban water
> system.
> Regards, Laurie.
> On 25/08/2008, at 11:47 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> > There is, apparently, a proposal to "drop" water tanks as part of
> > Victoria's water strategy.  This is front page news in today's Age:
> >
> > and there is a full page about it in the Opinion and Analysis
> > section of the paper (not online yet).
> >
> > They suggest that previous studies underestimated the amount of
> > water household tanks could collect by 2/3, so their installation
> > should be encouraged, not halted.
> >
> > The main article says:
> > "Tanks can be important in reducing stormwater run off, which
> > damages and pollutes waterways."
> >
> > Does this sound right?  I would have thought that if you remove the
> > fairly clean roof component of the flows in urban waterways, but
> > still allow runoff from the roads, then the water that does reach
> > the local creeks will be far more polluted than before.
> >
> > I've been wondering what effect it would have on the volumes
> > reaching local waterways if all roof runoff was removed, as the tank
> > proponents seem to be advising.  I'm guessing at least a 10%
> > reduction, far more in inner urban areas.  So are we really "saving"
> > water by doing this, or just stealing it from the local crakes and
> > rails (etc)?
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts about this, and whether I need to
> > worry about it at all?  Should this issue be part of the water tank
> > debate, or is the possible effect too small to matter?
> >
> > Peter Shute
> >
> >
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU