Privatised Rainwater

[OneNamedNameLess]

This is old news but I was just informed about this the other day by a friend. I would just like to hear people's thoughts.

Here are some links:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21057146-421,00.html
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve08/1381desal.html

[Sean]

In the email, National Water Commission chief Ken Matthews says, "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments."

Mr Matthews' email continued: "Governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water.

"However, if rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water."Wow, I thought this was going to be an exagerration. In protest, I would suggest pissing in bottles, mailing it to him and asking for a tax rebate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If I decide to collect rainwater for my own use, how the fuck is it anybody's business other than my own?

[Picky Bugger]

Indeed, this is bollocks.

As Dr Aziz Mazumber has stated, "Having access to clean and safe drinking water is an essential service and a human right". This right is now under threat from the privatisation of public services.

Although it may be a good idea to install rain water collection tanks in homes especially in places such as Australia.

[pastradamus]

I though this post was going to be some sort of exaggeration - But Thats a fucking crime against humanity!

[Kamerat]

This is sick, tax on collected rainwater from your roof? Privatisation of water is not any better. It would not help on the water shortage either since people would not install water tanks to collect rainwater from their roof if they where taxed for it. Insted they would use Melbourne's storages.
As Thwaites put it.

Mr Thwaites said yesterday the Bracks Government opposed any taxes on rainwater.
"We want people to use rainwater to take pressure off Melbourne's storages," he said.
"We are encouraging people to install rainwater tanks and that's why we offer a rebate of up to $1000 on them.
"Greg Hunt is saying private companies should take over recycled water.
"If private companies were allowed to take over water they would seek to maximise profits at the expense of the public.
"Private companies would not want the competition from water tanks and would therefore seek to control tank water or have it taxed."

[Vahanian]

this goes up there right along with privatized roads. whats next, taxing people for the snow that falls in there yards

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Public water facilities exist for the benefit of the community. If individuals horde water for their own use, the public system may become inconvenienced. It's the same as public/private health care. In this case, though, they're saying we can't afford to provide health care, so some people are going to be inconvenienced. If you can afford to manage your own health care, we'll give you some money (most likely less than the the value of the water we would've given you, had we been able to afford it). However, they're still paying public health care costs.

It's a political maneuver. They don't want to raise taxes to properly manage water resources, so they are asking people manage their own water. They'll give them money, amount X, because this avoids asking for public funding, which has political costs. However, this is different from the public/private care example. In this case, monetary funding is not sufficient to maintain public care. The public water system actually needs water, a limited resource, to function.

If everyone X who can afford a private water collection system makes the public system unable to function, those unable to afford X will suffer. Seems unreasonable given that water collection is accessible. However, water filtered through an expensive filtration process, publicly funded, is preferable. So we have this:

1. Everyone willing to setup a private collection system gets money to compensate them for drinking unhealthier water (in some cases) and/or the inconvenience/financial costs of establishing the system in the first place.
2. Private collection is taxed because it risks the efficiency of the public system, putting those who rely on public water at risk.

Honestly, they should just tax the population upfront and increase the efficiency of there systems. However, I understand how politics works. Taxation for the collection of water is not that bad assuming they provide accessible public water. Given that public water is not free, this is interesting. The government is claiming a mandate on natural resources. Well, that's nothing new. It would be unethical to let a person suffer because water costs too much for them, et cetera, but that is a separate issue that could be resolved with government funding.

I'm actually not that against this kind of thing. Natural resources belong to everyone, and they have to be distributed by everyone in an agreed upon way. Arguably, government is the way (as opposed to collectives or individual choice) we do this.

I'm from Canada, and our fish population dramatically decreased because individuals had a "right" to use the land as they please. Water might be a human right. Fish might be a human right. However, remove government. Three people exist. Myself, and person X, enjoy eating apples from our tree. Every year, there are about 100 apples, and we fairly distribute them. Animals regular try to eat our apples, but we shoo them away. Person 3 is an animal. He wants an apple. We have enough to give him some, but that is inconvenient. He offers nothing to us. He lives in a cave by himself. All he does is regularly try to steal our apples. We didn't give the animals some, and we certainly won't give him some.

Arguably, we have some moral obligation based on the original position. We could have been the third human, instead of ourselves. We could have been the other animals, too. Where do we draw the line? It's a difficult question.

The point is that individuals need a certain amount of water to function, and they need a larger amount to be satisfied. If some random animal, who does little or nothing for society, decides he wants some of our water, we say no. Do something for us or go away.

We certainly have an obligation to give to the less fortunate at our own expense, even if we don't do it, but that obligation would extend to all creatures X (or all humans if you want to be speciest) based on a criteria. What criteria?

Do I have an obligation to let someone steal? Maybe
If someone asks for an apple, do I have an obligation to give them one? Probably
If someone asks for three apples, when they only need 1? No
If someone asks for three apples, because I have 3, when they only need 1? Not sure

However, if society is deprived, should we all starve to death? Probably not. We'd agree to some random distribution of necessary resources that minimizes death while allowing us to survive as a species.

Existence is not everything. If I don't need 3 apples to make me happy, but 3 makes me happier than 2, or 1, I don't necessarily have an obligation to give anything up.

Consider probabilities in the original position. Could I have been the useless individual who leeches off society to survive? Sure. Am I willing to support leeching at my expense because of this risk. Well, it depends on the probability that I'll leech. 1 in 3, definitely. 1/1000. Probably not if it significantly disadvantages me. Would you take a 1/1000 risk of suffering for an apple? Not of dieing, probably.

Very difficult to solve these kinds of issues, I think, anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Erm, how does collecting rainwater from my rooftop harm anyone else in any way? It would have gone to waste anyway, so why not use it?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Erm, how does collecting rainwater from my rooftop harm anyone else in any way? It would have gone to waste anyway, so why not use it?

The idea is it's a limited resource, and it will be used by someone else "later" if you don't use it. So technically it's not going to waste since it's being saved for later.

I think that is the idea. Not sure I buy into it, but limited resources are a problem society can face. This might not apply to water, is all.

The rain might also naturally return to the atmosphere and go back into the rain collection system. Therefore, collecting it individually makes the rain collection system not work (it's designed to only work when it contains X amount of water). I think this is the idea in the OP link. I'm not sure how their water systems work, so I can't be sure.

If a fish is not being eaten, you don't have a right to eat it. The fish population needs X amount to be sustainable, say, and society wants to make sure it's sustainable. Water might not be sustainable if not mandated and controlled (arguably).

Whether or not this is an issue now, it will become an issue in the future if environmentalist predictions are correct.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea is it's a limited resource, and it will be used by someone else "later" if you don't use it. So technically it's not going to waste since it's being saved for later.

Well in that case, what's to stop me giving the rainwater I collected to local water facilities... after I've finished with it?


The rain might also naturally return to the atmosphere and go back into the rain collection system. Therefore, collecting it individually makes the rain collection system not work (it's designed to only work when it contains X amount of water). I think this is the idea in the OP link. I'm not sure how their water systems work, so I can't be sure.if I remember correctly, in a relatively dry country like Australia, rainfall comes primarily from evaporation off the nearby oceans, which contain approximately 1.35 × 1021 kg of water. I can't be bothered to do the calculations, but I don't think Australians are going to make a significant dent in that even if every one of them collected rainwater.

If anything, it makes better use of available water that would otherwise have gurgled into the local drainage system or the ground adjacent to the roofs, possibly preventing flooding to small degree.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Fair enough. I think the main idea, though, is that they need to increase revenue without increases taxes directly. I'm not sure it has much to do with water, in reality. I could be mistaken, of course.

Given that you could give the water back, it doesn't make much sense with what I know about how water and evaporation works.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Just when I thought Crapitalism couldn't get any worse at this point, they start charging for rainwater. This is violation! :rolleyes:

[Hoxhaist]

If someone doesnt pay does the govt put up tarps over your house to stop any rain? If we all start using solar panels will the govt tax sunshine???

[LOLseph Stalin]

If someone doesnt pay does the govt put up tarps over your house to stop any rain? If we all start using solar panels will the govt tax sunshine???


Who knows? Maybe they will. Those Capitalist pigs. They just can't run out of ways to steal money from us. As Alan Woods said, they're all gangsters!

[Hoxhaist]

Penalizing environmentally friendly activities like using rainwater as opposed to draining lakes is an activity to be rewarded not taxed. This so self-defeating as environmental policy

[butterfly]

I was going to make a post on this a couple of weeks ago. Not only do they tax rainwater but electricity generated by household solar panels, this, however is only the case if one was to claim the government rebate which is designed to assets families less well off.

Melbourne's damns are at a record low, with an estimates 500 days of supply left while it is unlikely we will see the results of the desalination plant until 2011. And still we don't have the green infrastructure to supply the plant with renewable energy to this necessity will exacerbate the problem.
Due to consistent government neglect spurred on by dominant bourgeoisie interests, the acidity at the lower end of the Murry-Darling Basin threatens the viability of the entire basin.

In another blow to individual efforts in combating Climate Change, under the new proposed Emissions trading Scheme (a total cut of 15% in comparison to 1990 levels), not only will these efforts be in vain but directed towards supporting the very industries we are trying to oppose.
Emission savings from the individual States will add to the amount of Carbon Credits held by industries such as coal, allowing them to excessively pollute.

Fundamentally the scheme will See no reduction in Co2 emissions on Australian soil; Most of these reductions will be 'outsourced' and the enthusiasm surrounding individual and community initiative will go ignored.

As a continent that is experiencing the early,(yet severe) signs of Climate Change, Australia should be at the leading edge but the existence of capitalism is a malaise that seeps into any attempt at action and disables it's effectiveness.
Government agenda of late is , of course, is a reflection of the economic crisis but what they are ignoring in place of frenzied attempts to jumpstart the economy is yet another accumulation of toxic assets.

[Pogue]

This isn't suprising, when you consider someone has claimed they own the water we drink to survive, the gas in the air, pretty much everything else etc.

[NecroCommie]

This is blasphemy! This is madness!

[El Rojo]

comming soon: the oxygen tax