Comments on: Stage 3A: Playing Politics with Water

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:39:20 +0000

This is a seriously flawed piece of analysis. The increased supply capacity from the pipeline and desal plant can not be ignored. And yet this is precisely what you have done.

By: sreychilli

sreychilli — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:06:53 +0000

I can see why we were allowed to revert back to Stage 3 after April 2010. The water levels now are slightly more than that of 2007.

As you have mentioned in your article, there are other considerations that must be taken into account by water authorities when deciding upon what stage we should be. Perhaps, it’s because we are facing winter and therefore, our water demands are less than if we were to face summer.

However, personally, I do find it quite foolish to revert back to stage 3 while we are all able to save water. At least until our reservoirs reach the volumes in 2003 to ensure that our water does not run out.

Overall, an interesting article. You’ve highlighted some interesting and contradicting facts. And I do agree, it is most probably a political ploy.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:55:33 +0000

No doubt the decision is political but by the end of 2011 there will be a need for us to use enough water for the desalination plant’s owners to make a profit. Meanwhile, treated waste water just flows out to sea.

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:52:49 +0000

Interesting entry, Adam.

A few points:

It does seem like a strange time to lift water restrictions given all that you have mentioned plus the fact that we’re heading into the colder months when household water usage reduces, especially in the garden.

Dam levels have also been boosted over the past two years due to flow restrictions placed on the Thomson and Yarra rivers.

The desalination plant as well as the north-south pipeline are both atrocious projects that may secure our water supply but are environmentally irresponsible.

The good thing to come from the restrictions is that a lot of people have changed their water usage habits. Let’s hope it continues.

By: isobel

isobel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:16:05 +0000

A thoughtful and indeed, thought provoking blog,with your usual well researched comments making us think more deeply on the “decision” just approved.

By: Cafrine

Cafrine — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:20:16 +0000

The politics of it all goes over my head, but I will say that as a person from a country town where we struggle with a lack of water (which can not even be remotely compared to the limits of people further north west) we become furious at every report on Melbourne’s use of water. It is foolish to change or reduce restrictions when supplies are still so low. Severe restrictions need to be put into place and kept for many years until the threat ACTUALLY eases. If its a gamble for more votes, it backfired. This is enough for me to vote the other way.

Don’t get me started on the people on the news who complain when water restrictions increase. (Oh, you’re sad your lawn might die off? Poor thing. Why don’t you think about that when you can’t shower and the water becomes undrinkable. Ugh.)