The trouble is that in areas where you always have the option of
reverting to mains water when the tank runs out, there's a strong
possibility that people will simply use the tank water for things they
aren't allowed to use mains water for, like their lawn. If they water
it efficiently, only a fraction of the water will end up leaching
through to the creeks, etc.
I.e they will treat it as free water, when in fact it may be water they
have diverted from their local wetlands.
For some people, their storm water runs directly to the sea, and it's
probably a good thing that it is diverted. For others, it gets to the
sea via creeks and wetlands. The point is that very few people will
know what effect their tank is having.
I think that rather than simply encouraging people to have a tank,
people might need to be informed about where their free water is being
diverted from.
Peter Shute
wrote on Monday, 25 August 2008 2:07
PM:
> Chris has gazzumped me as I begin to
> write so I will
> just add that perhaps if the structure of charges for water
> were changed so
> that excess water ( say in excess of 150 litres per day per occupant)
> incurred a far, far greater fee, use of water tanks would
> become a more
> viable choice. As one who has lived for nearly 4 years under water
> restrictions greater than Melbourne's present situation, one
> learns to live
> comfortably with a more judicious use of this resource. And
> using tanks is a
> valuable learning tool; (as Chris says) a means to learn
> frugality and
> responsibility.
> - Brian
|
