Water
Oct 1st 2005, 4:03 am
#1
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,487
Water
As you may know there is quite a debate going on in Redlandshire about level 2 water restrictions being introduced here, even though we are well stocked with water (in fact they let fresh water pour into the sea). Apparently its to show 'solidarity' with the rest of Brisbane and SEQ.
Anyway, there is a letter in the "Redland Times' yesterday which made me laugh, cos it sounds like one of my rants. So if I may, I'd like to produce a few quotes from it (I promise I didn't write this letter! )
Interesting logic, we get the same restrictions as the rest of SEQ, but none of the subsidies to cope with the restrictions that the rest of SEQ get 
Can't argue with his logic there...
I think at that point he had to lie down in a darkened room to calm down. 
A funny interesting and true letter. And a great rant!
Anyway, there is a letter in the "Redland Times' yesterday which made me laugh, cos it sounds like one of my rants. So if I may, I'd like to produce a few quotes from it (I promise I didn't write this letter! )
We have no water shortage in the Redlands. All unused water from the Stradbroke Island aquifer goes into the sea. Unretained. Gone. Kaput.
We have no water shortage in the Redlands.
The council therefore will not provide assistance for the installation of water tanks - because we have no water shortage in the Redlands.
We have no water shortage in the Redlands.
The council therefore will not provide assistance for the installation of water tanks - because we have no water shortage in the Redlands.
Water is pouring into the sea at a greater rate now that we are using less in the Redlands. I'm sure the fish appreciate it.
If the infrastructure is built to use the aquifer to top up Brisbane's needs, good. It should be. But while water pours into the sea, shouldn't we be able to use it?
If the infrastructure is built to use the aquifer to top up Brisbane's needs, good. It should be. But while water pours into the sea, shouldn't we be able to use it?
I will gladly restrict my water use if I see it assisting the future of the shire/city/state. My point is that right now, it will only line the Council's pockets with fines. We cannot offer the resource as it stands now, to others in the future, because it is pouring into the sea and getting all salty.
We can't save it for anybody. If we do not use it we lose it. Its not retained for future use. It is lost.
We can't save it for anybody. If we do not use it we lose it. Its not retained for future use. It is lost.
A funny interesting and true letter. And a great rant!
Oct 1st 2005, 5:38 am
#2
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Back in Aus
Posts: 721
Re: Water
Gold Coast is just the same; water restrictions become tighter from Monday, and the Hinze dam is around 80%:
Just cos Peter Beattie cannot use his lawn sprinkler obviously means we are not allowed to either!
It isnt really such a bad thing to get people to be a little more careful with water.
Still, we only have so much here on the GC, yet council still approves large developments. This area of Australia is one of the fastest growing, yet the basic infrastructure (water supply) hasnt really been adressed.
Just cos Peter Beattie cannot use his lawn sprinkler obviously means we are not allowed to either!
It isnt really such a bad thing to get people to be a little more careful with water.
Still, we only have so much here on the GC, yet council still approves large developments. This area of Australia is one of the fastest growing, yet the basic infrastructure (water supply) hasnt really been adressed.
