Australian Water Use

[woodbe]

Looking at water use in Australia, after the Australian let slip that just 9% of water is used in households, and I did a bit of searching and came up with this site:

http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/water/do...Water_Use.html

Why is domestic use lumped in with Industry? (I haven't been able to find a site that separates Domestic and commercial city use yet)

Given that
goundwater is generally not an option for domestic consumption, I did some numbers on the surface water use from that site:


(GigaLitres):
Irrigation: 15,354
Urban/Industry: 3,303
Rural: 451
Total:19,109

If 'Rural' is households in rural areas, Agriculture is using 15354/19109 or 80.34% and the City is using 3303/19109 or 17.28% and that INCLUDES commercial/industrial use.


Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be conserving water in the city, but something is wrong here. I don't see or hear of any campaigns to minimise consumption in Agriculture. A 20% saving in the country would equal the ENTIRE city consumption. According to the Australian, a 10% Ag saving would approximate the entire household consumption!



??? Someone point out where my maths is wrong please.




woodbe.

[Clinton1]

I don't see or hear of any campaigns to minimise consumption in Agriculture.

Its been a major focus of the CRC's (co-operative research centres - industry funded research organisations with some Govt. funding support) and DPI research for a very long time.
Some flood irrigation systems are averaging between 95 - 99% total efficiency (i.e. 95 - 99% of the water entering the paddock goes into the ground) and have been doing so for quite a few years.
Contrary to popular perception, the Cotton industry has been leading the way in spending on research and implementing better irrigation practices, very proactive.
Google will find more, search Australian sites for ' crc + research + cotton '
Its an interesting field.

The greatest potential gains are in reducing evaporation from the storages.... nothing is being spent there at all.
If you can find the evaporation rates for Menindie Lakes and compare to the water use of Cubbie Station - interesting numbers.

[Harry72]

With irrigation look at it another way... do you like aussie produce on your plate?
There are some crops that shouldnt be grown here in Oz

[ribot]

If your looking for culprits you can start with ESSO offshore oil rigs.
I can't quote the quantity, however farmers flood irrigating are using a mere pittance compared to ESSO.
What they do is pump FRESH water from underground aquifers to raise the oil up. Everywhere else in the world the water is recycled but here in Oz they just leave it where it is.
Loy Yang coal power station can be put in the same bag as ESSO for fresh water consumption.

[johnc]

I don't see or hear of any campaigns to minimise consumption in Agriculture.


woodbe.

Woodbe,

You are right off the mark when it comes to on farm water use, for starters who is really consuming the water, the farmer or the end consumer. It is not an easy answer but if you want cheap vegies on the table it comes with cheap irrigation water.

More to the point go and have a look at the benefits of lazer grading, reuse dams, salinity control, irrigation water runoff control, micro sprays, drip irrigation and the list goes on. An enormous amount is being done at the farm end to minimize water use and to make water go further. Money is also being spent to make sure farm runoff is stopped in its tracks to prevent high nutrient loads hitting the waterways and causing blue green alge and other problems. Farmers are doing a lot but the current water trading that the Federal Government thinks is a panacia is just a smoke screen to cover how little they have done, the states have been more proactive on this one.

The cities may not be into underground water but that is where our town draws its supplies from, as do a number of other towns across the country.

In the end if you think about it, you and I Joe Blow householder are the ultimate consumers of the products industry and the rural community produce and to make changes it will come at a cost to all of us at the end of the production line.

We have to be more savvy with water use, at home, on the farm and in industry, and only a combined approach will work. So I guess we need to start thinking about recycling, efficiency and collection. As far as farm use goes there is probably more lost in evaporation and delivery than actually gets to the farms. What we need is a massive infrastructure fund to concrete line and cover the channels for a start. We really need to recycle water efficiently which would include grey water at home used for the garden, as well as industry recycling for its own use. Some of this has already started, we need to move towards encouraging through financial incentives a greater effort on the part of households, farms and industry. Forget about new dams, they are expensive compared to improving the efficiency of the existing catchments and their delivery systems and improvements at that end should give a better outcome anyway.

If we are going to become more efficient it will come at a cost and that cost will be bourne by a combination of taxpayers and consumers, which is one and the same.

John.

[garymalm]

John
I agree with you almost completely.
As the population rises, so will water usage, even with more efficient usage.
Dams collect and store water. More dams means more collection and storage.
I am aware of the problems with and resistance to new dams, but forgetting about them eliminates one part of a very broad problem that will need everything that we can come up with.
As you have clearly pointed out,this is not a one solution problem.
To help, I'm drinking my scotch straight nowadays,
All the best Gary

[Shedhand]

Successive state and federal governments have made some very stupid decisions over the years regarding water use. Chief among them is encouraging farmers to grow water hogging crops such as rice and cotton. These crops just don't belong here. And allowing multi-nationals like Esso to plunder our natural resources with little regard for the long term environmental impact. I'm no damn greenie but I don't wanna die of thirst just so politicians can keep farmers and industrialists happy. rant over.

[woodbe]

Firstly, please, I'm interested in understanding what's going on with water, not having an argument about it. Of course, we all have to conserve it better than we do now, and believe me when I say I'm doing what I can at home, and will do more as I can.

Yes, we eat food. I don't see that as consumers of food we have a choice of inefficient irrigation over efficient, but happy to be shown where I'm wrong there, and modify my purchasing accordingly.

I hear what you say about the cost, and the writing has been on the wall now for some years. We live in a very dry country, and it will cost to do anything about these issues. We may not like it, but we have to take our medicine

Maybe with all the technologies mentioned, the usage has improved since 1996/97, but at that time, Ag use was increasing faster than anything else?

Figure 25. Change in mean annual water use in Australia between 1983/84 and 1996/97



This table linked from the article linked in my first post. Anyone have more recent information?

woodbe.

[journeyman Mick]

Woodbe,
what the graphs don't show, and what a lot of people don't grasp, when irrigation usage (and cost per Megalitre) is discussed, is that in a lot (most?) cases irrigators are building most of the required infrastructure themselves whereas most domestic and industrial consumers have it piped to their front door. Not suggesting that by doing so that it excuses them from being more careful with water use though.

The increase in irrigation water use could also be partly explained by an increase in population:
More people = more mouths to feed = more food to grow.
plus less rainfall:
Less rainfall = greater need for irrigation.

As our society has become more affluent consumers have been able to afford, and have demanded, fruit and vegetables that in the past have been grown on a smaller scale because they needed more irrigation and therefore cost more. If greater efficiences are required or irrigators are charged higher license fees etc then costs will rise and ultimately demand will decrease.

That's my take and 2c worth, anyway.

Mick

[Shedhand]

The other thing that bugs me is that in my municipality water is not metered so there is no excess water rate. Talk about stupid. And the council's reason for refusing to do so? Because about 10% of the population live in rural areas (on farms) and wouldn't like it.

[Iain]

What peeves me is the bandaid 'buy a tank' campaign, advertising something the size of two wheelie bins for $800, just how far do people think it's going to go?
Unfortunately most urban dwellers have no concept of how much water they use, and these little tanks would barely last a couple of days.
We want to put in tanks and I estimate we need three 27000 gallon jobs to last us, and rainfall during the year to keep them topped up, when we lived near Beechworth we had 40000 gallons of rainwater and three dams to supply the house and we just got through, the rainwater was for the kitchen only and dam water for the bathroom and laundry.
The point I am trying to make is that a 100 gallon tank is only going to serve to make your sense of pride feel a little better, your wallet a lot lighter and apart from that pretty much bugger all else.

[Howdya do that]

Myth:

Irrigators use more than 70% of all the water in Australia.

Reality:

Irrigators use about 70% of the total amount of water that is used in Australia. Of all the water that’s available in NSW, the amount used by irrigators is about 19%.

Myth:

Irrigation has resulted in hundreds of threatened fish species

Reality:

In NSW, The Fisheries Management Act provides for the protection of threatened aquatic species. Under NSW statutes, only 2 fish species are considered endangered, and a further 3 considered vulnerable. 1 ecological community is currently considered as threatened

Myth:

Irrigators use their water irresponsibly

Reality:

Irrigators, like everyone have a responsibility to ensure that what they do doesn’t adversely impact on others. Specifically, irrigators need to have approvals from the State Government to irrigate land. For example, to grow rice, landholders have to meet strict standards and get a permit. In major irrigation areas, growers must comply with Government approved land and water management plans to even receive the water that they are entitled to.

Myth:

Irrigators want to privately own water

Reality:

Irrigators believe that water is a public resource that must be shared among different users including the environment, town water supply, industry and agriculture. Irrigators are seeking secure access rights to their share of the available water.

Myth:

Irrigators don’t pay enough for their water

Reality:

In NSW, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal set the prices for water, for both urban domestic consumption and for industrial and agricultural use. The price of water for irrigators depends on the type of licence they hold and location, but like urban residents consists of a fixed service fee plus a usage charge, and takes into account the full costs of providing the water. When the capital cost of developing
irrigation farming systems are added to these fixed and floating charges, the cost of accessing water is about $1000ML.

Myth:

Irrigators are inefficient users of water

Reality:

Irrigators in NSW are some of the most efficient producers in the world, and as our farming techniques and irrigation technology continues to refine, this efficiency can only improve. As an example, since 1996, rice growers have improved their efficiency by more than 60%3, while Australian growers use 1 megalitre of water to produce 227 kilograms of cotton lint and are far more efficient than their American (138kg), Egyptian (136kg) or Pakistani counterparts (59kg)4.

Myth: Irrigators are the major causes of salinity

Reality:

The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality identifies dryland salinity as a particular cause for concern. In the last 10 years, communities in the major irrigation areas have implemented management plans to deal with issues such as rising groundwater tables, and the quality of runoff.

[Christopha]

What peeves me is the bandaid 'buy a tank' campaign, advertising something the size of two wheelie bins for $800, just how far do people think it's going to go?
Unfortunately most urban dwellers have no concept of how much water they use, and these little tanks would barely last a couple of days.
We want to put in tanks and I estimate we need three 27000 gallon jobs to last us, and rainfall during the year to keep them topped up, when we lived near Beechworth we had 40000 gallons of rainwater and three dams to supply the house and we just got through, the rainwater was for the kitchen only and dam water for the bathroom and laundry.
The point I am trying to make is that a 100 gallon tank is only going to serve to make your sense of pride feel a little better, your wallet a lot lighter and apart from that pretty much bugger all else.

YE GODS! You must have a family of thousands Iain!!! I have 12,000 gallons of water, 4000 of that I keep "in reserve", apart from the toilets that has kept a family of 4, including auto washing machine and dishwasher, going no worries. Once in 25 years we have had to tap into our reserve..... the garden and dunnies areconnected to the bore. To those of you who begrudge the cocky his water I have only one thing to say.... STARVE!

[outback]

I won't respond to this idiotic thread. I'd get into trouble by a newly appointed deputy sheriff, have my post deleted, and receive another infraction.

[Iain]

YE GODS! You must have a family of thousands Iain!!! I have 12,000 gallons of water, 4000 of that I keep "in reserve", apart from the toilets that has kept a family of 4, including auto washing machine and dishwasher, going no worries. Once in 25 years we have had to tap into our reserve..... the garden and dunnies areconnected to the bore. To those of you who begrudge the cocky his water I have only one thing to say.... STARVE!

But part of our business is the training and re education of horses, bloody big ones too.
On a hot day they can easily consume 40 litres each and at present we have 10.
Yes, they do pay, but we have to feed and water them to make this a sustainable business, not any different to cattle or sheep, just a different high dollar value animal at the end of the day.