There is a proposal for Orange to harvest there stormwater to treat and add
to the main water supply. The outlet for the stormwater exits about a
kilometre below the main dam. At present Orange dam levels are at 30% with
level 5 restrictions. With a new 1000 block subdivision recently approved
there will be more runoff. The present stormwater causes localised floods
during heavy rain/storm events. Many of the new home are built with tanks
but the roof is only a small part of the runoff area with all the roads,
driveways & paths surrounding the built-up area. Units are the worst where
they build 4 to 6 units on the old large house blocks and concrete
everything. This is the same creek Orange sewage works drains to and there
is much debate about the effects on the downstream area.
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Dave Torr
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2008 12:01 PM
To: Peter Shute
Cc:
Subject: Water tanks and wildlife (Victoria)
Interesting point Peter - I believe some cities (part of Adelaide from
memory?) actually recycle the stormwater and it has been proposed for
Melbourne as an alternative to some of the other schemes being proposed. I
guess you are right in that it would reduce the flow into local areas and
increase the concentration of pollutants. But on the other hand if it
reduces consumption in the home then we will need to take less from the
catchment areas so could improve the flow in major rivers?
2008/8/25 Peter Shute <>
> 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:
>
>
http://www.theage.com.au/national/desal-and-water-tank-wars-20080824-41et.ht
ml
> 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
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
