Water Act revision

[Varangian (John)]

I have a friend who has an advisory role with DSE. I will not state who they are and what their position is. A discussion they overheard recently was that DSE are developing a new Water Act and that they intend to install meters on people's rain water tanks, enforceable by law. WTF! The argument appears to be that the Feds own rain now (I am 100% serious). Needless to say that we are both quite shocked by this. My understanding is that this proposed regulation to a (revised) Water Act is not common knowledge.

My main issue is what service is being provided here that we should now be paying for capturing nature's goodness?

[cventer]

I heard they were going to seal off our houses. Put meters on air intake valves and charge us for air next ;-)

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by Varangian

I have a friend who has an advisory role with DSE. I will not state who they are and what their position is. A discussion they overheard recently was that DSE are developing a new Water Act and that they intend to install meters on people's rain water tanks, enforceable by law. WTF! The argument appears to be that the Feds own rain now (I am 100% serious). Needless to say that we are both quite shocked by this. My understanding is that this proposed regulation to a (revised) Water Act is not common knowledge.

My main issue is what service is being provided here that we should now be paying for capturing nature's goodness?

If true ....that is political suicide ...people will not tolerate this sort of ' big brother ' tactics ...they obviously don't want to be in Government for very long.

How stupid is this ...

Flash ..!!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Varangian

I have a friend who has an advisory role with DSE. ... The argument appears to be that the Feds own rain now (I am 100% serious).

The DSE is state government in Vic not Federal.

Mike

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by Varangian

I have a friend who has an advisory role with DSE. I will not state who they are and what their position is. A discussion they overheard recently was that DSE are developing a new Water Act and that they intend to install meters on people's rain water tanks, enforceable by law. WTF! The argument appears to be that the Feds own rain now (I am 100% serious). Needless to say that we are both quite shocked by this. My understanding is that this proposed regulation to a (revised) Water Act is not common knowledge.

My main issue is what service is being provided here that we should now be paying for capturing nature's goodness?

They can't be serious, surely!

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The DSE is state government in Vic not Federal.

Mike

Apologies that should read the State.

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

They can't be serious, surely!

I agree but I have it on very good authority. My contact sits as a 'round table' advisor (advising DSE on matters under another Act) and is reliable, I repeated my question many times that this is just not possible (as Flash says it amounts to political suicide) and was quite honestly left speechless by the claims.

I guess we'll see. Is it usual for this type of amendment or regulation to go out for comment? Surely it must go to the various Departments that are affected Dept Planning and Community Development, what about Farmers Unions and Water Authorities etc? What about providers of rain water tanks? Who would have an opportunity to comment the revision?

I am struggling a bit with this one, but I am concerned because I trust my source.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by Varangian

I have a friend who has an advisory role with DSE. I will not state who they are and what their position is. A discussion they overheard recently was that DSE are developing a new Water Act and that they intend to install meters on people's rain water tanks, enforceable by law. WTF! The argument appears to be that the Feds own rain now (I am 100% serious). Needless to say that we are both quite shocked by this. My understanding is that this proposed regulation to a (revised) Water Act is not common knowledge.

My main issue is what service is being provided here that we should now be paying for capturing nature's goodness?

Sorry John, old news I heard about this years ago and it hasn't happened yet.

Here is a 2007 article from the Herald Sun:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archives...-1111112828043

As the article states "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments." If this is true and they make this claim go through, does that mean they are also responsible for any damage that water does? It would probably make an interesting court case, maybe

I doubt it will happen any time soon, as the cost of implementation on existing tanks would be prohibitive, and if they make the householder of existing tanks pay for the installation of meters, there would be a huge outcry, I suspect? But then again, maybe not, as there wasn't much of an outcry, here in WA, about restrictions on the use of bore water.

However, one thing is certain, governments will always find ways to make you pay.......more!

I am almost certain there is a guy, in a dark little room in a basement somewhere, whose sole job is to think up ways to rip our guts out through our wallets!!!! That's what governments are for?

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

Sorry John, old news I heard about this years ago and it hasn't happened yet.

Here is a 2007 article from the Herald Sun:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archives...-1111112828043

As the article states "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments." If this is true and they make this claim go through, does that mean they are also responsible for any damage that water does? It would probably make an interesting court case, maybe

I doubt it will happen any time soon, as the cost of implementation on existing tanks would be prohibitive, and if they make the householder of existing tanks pay for the installation of meters, there would be a huge outcry, I suspect? But then again, maybe not, as there wasn't much of an outcry, here in WA, about restrictions on the use of bore water.

However, one thing is certain, governments will always find ways to make you pay.......more!

I am almost certain there is a guy, in a dark little room in a basement somewhere, whose sole job is to think up ways to rip our guts out through our wallets!!!! That's what governments are for?

Thanks Peter, I wasn't aware of the former leak. Looks like it is back on the agenda, at least in Victoria.

[scagman (John)]

They introduced a rebate scheme a few years ago. I thought then they only did that so people would register they had a tank. So now the govt know how who has tanks. Makes it easy now to tax them.

Cheers.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Just to add a bit more .... going to make us ' pay ' for water that has fallen ' free ' from the sky .... given to us free by nature.

The utter stupidity of people in our Govt' system . ..State or Federal.....They live in a fools paradise.

The mind ' boggles ' at the though of it..!

PS ...I just had a thought ...If I buy more astro gear ....the clouds will roll in ... more rain ...water tank fills up ....their gonna charge me for the water that's going to be used from my tank.
Solution .....cease from buying anymore astro gear....... ....... ( no more rain ).......I'll go thru' withdrawal symptoms.....

Flash ..!!

[koputai (Jason)]

I suspect someone is stretching a story. I'm not saying the OP is, but somewhere along the line, a minor stupid thought has turned into reality on the grapevine.

Cheers,
Jason.

[rmcconachy]

The story is fun but how about we inject a couple of facts into this thread?

Relevant article from "The Age" newspaper.

[pmrid (Peter)]

I have been of the understanding that in Qld at least, the claim of ownership to water arises when it hits the ground - not while it is in the air. The ownership of water on the ground and in streams is then made subject to various exemptions for rural dams and tanks and the like. I haven't looked at this act for a long time so I concede things may have changed. But I would have thought it impossible for any giovernment to claim owvership of something that is not fixed on the earth and therefore arguably subject to the reservations under the opriginal crown grants - like mnerals etc.

To claim ownership of rain that is falling (which I would think would include rain landing on your roof and going straight into your tank) would be legally unsustainable. I can see some meaty challenges to this sort of nonsense.

If it were possible to claim ownership of rain still in the sky, then it would necessarily include uncondensed rain (i.e. water molecules not yet formed into droplets as well as the clouds they form - whether they ever fell as rain or not. Now, how could one State claim ownership to something that usually arises in the deep ocean, travels by wind over international waters followed by one or more states and then, finally lands in one of them. On that thesis, and notwithstanding that it arises in international space, it would follow that it could then be claimed by each and every state over which it passed before it fell - and whether it fell as rain or not. The level of nonsense this suggests in monumental.

Peter

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

I have been of the understanding that in Qld at least, the claim of ownership to water arises when it hits the ground - not while it is in the air. The ownership of water on the ground and in streams is then made subject to various exemptions for rural dams and tanks and the like. I haven't looked at this act for a long time so I concede things may have changed. But I would have thought it impossible for any giovernment to claim owvership of something that is not fixed on the earth and therefore arguably subject to the reservations under the opriginal crown grants - like mnerals etc.

To claim ownership of rain that is falling (which I would think would include rain landing on your roof and going straight into your tank) would be legally unsustainable. I can see some meaty challenges to this sort of nonsense.

If it were possible to claim ownership of rain still in the sky, then it would necessarily include uncondensed rain (i.e. water molecules not yet formed into droplets as well as the clouds they form - whether they ever fell as rain or not. Now, how could one State claim ownership to something that usually arises in the deep ocean, travels by wind over international waters followed by one or more states and then, finally lands in one of them. On that thesis, and notwithstanding that it arises in international space, it would follow that it could then be claimed by each and every state over which it passed before it fell - and whether it fell as rain or not. The level of nonsense this suggests in monumental.

Peter

Ditto ...I agree ..!!

[Nico13 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

I have been of the understanding that in Qld at least, the claim of ownership to water arises when it hits the ground - not while it is in the air. The ownership of water on the ground and in streams is then made subject to various exemptions for rural dams and tanks and the like. I haven't looked at this act for a long time so I concede things may have changed. But I would have thought it impossible for any giovernment to claim owvership of something that is not fixed on the earth and therefore arguably subject to the reservations under the opriginal crown grants - like mnerals etc.

To claim ownership of rain that is falling (which I would think would include rain landing on your roof and going straight into your tank) would be legally unsustainable. I can see some meaty challenges to this sort of nonsense.

If it were possible to claim ownership of rain still in the sky, then it would necessarily include uncondensed rain (i.e. water molecules not yet formed into droplets as well as the clouds they form - whether they ever fell as rain or not. Now, how could one State claim ownership to something that usually arises in the deep ocean, travels by wind over international waters followed by one or more states and then, finally lands in one of them. On that thesis, and notwithstanding that it arises in international space, it would follow that it could then be claimed by each and every state over which it passed before it fell - and whether it fell as rain or not. The level of nonsense this suggests in monumental.

Peter

Well said

[Varangian (John)]

Originally Posted by koputai

I suspect someone is stretching a story. I'm not saying the OP is, but somewhere along the line, a minor stupid thought has turned into reality on the grapevine.

Cheers,
Jason.

Yes, your comments mirror my thoughts and I stated as much when I heard them. I thought IISers might like to add useful/clarifying comment because I was a bit at a loss by what I had heard.

[Varangian (John)]

Good post. I guess the crux of your arguement is the supposition that rain is still falling when it is sitting in your tank.

Originally Posted by pmrid

I have been of the understanding that in Qld at least, the claim of ownership to water arises when it hits the ground - not while it is in the air. The ownership of water on the ground and in streams is then made subject to various exemptions for rural dams and tanks and the like. I haven't looked at this act for a long time so I concede things may have changed. But I would have thought it impossible for any giovernment to claim owvership of something that is not fixed on the earth and therefore arguably subject to the reservations under the opriginal crown grants - like mnerals etc.

To claim ownership of rain that is falling (which I would think would include rain landing on your roof and going straight into your tank) would be legally unsustainable. I can see some meaty challenges to this sort of nonsense.

If it were possible to claim ownership of rain still in the sky, then it would necessarily include uncondensed rain (i.e. water molecules not yet formed into droplets as well as the clouds they form - whether they ever fell as rain or not. Now, how could one State claim ownership to something that usually arises in the deep ocean, travels by wind over international waters followed by one or more states and then, finally lands in one of them. On that thesis, and notwithstanding that it arises in international space, it would follow that it could then be claimed by each and every state over which it passed before it fell - and whether it fell as rain or not. The level of nonsense this suggests in monumental.

Peter

[koputai (Jason)]

I would estimate that at least half of the tanks installed are well inside closed private property, with no access for the meter reader to do his job.

My back yard for instance is up a 4 meter vertical rock face, with the only access actually through the house. There is no possibility of access if we are not home, or don't let the person through the house.

Cheers,
Jason.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Varangian

Good post. I guess the crux of your arguement is the supposition that rain is still falling when it is sitting in your tank.

Scientifically it is still falling as the rain has still got potential energy like water in a damn. I am amazed at the argument going on in Victoria about the desal plant being a waste of money and the current government saying they will never use it I mean do these people seriously think they will never run out of water ever again.