Thought of the day...

[lirion]

I was having a conversation with someone recently about rainwater tanks - I think it might have been at Midsummer?
There was a thought that the government might then try and charge you for water colelcted in the tanks. I was arguing that as they had invested no money in the infrastructure I didn't think they legally could (not to mention measuring how much you'd collected etc). That said another recent conversation has brought up the far more likely conclusion - they can't charge you for the water you collect, but there is nothing stopping them from taxing the tank itself :( How they'll do this could be interesting though - at the moment they'll only know you have a tank if you claim a rebate. Unless they propose bringing in registration for buying one...

Edit: For the record this was an argument put forward by someone else, i'm not sure how much I agree with it, but it's an interesting conversational piece

Comments

[sly-girl.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine why either a State or Federal government would want to put a tax on rainwater tanks. Given that the whole idea of the rebate is to encourage people to install them and save water from catchments, applying a disincentive would be a ludicrous thing to do.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

Using that argument though why would they offer a rebate for covnerting your car to LPG when they know full well they are going to up the tax on it in a year and hence increase the price of the gas....

Though I do agree, I don't see the benefit of taxing people who are actually making the effort to conserve water and take some of the strain off the dams...

I'm not sure how convinced I am of this yet, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless and I was basically wondering what others thought...

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely convinced that its in the State Government's interest to put any financial penalties in place if you collect rain water. The alternative is that we build more damns, and that's expensive, both in cash and public opinion (in terms of wiping out areas of virgin bush).

[lirion.livejournal.com]

Re building more damns, putting aside the expense for a moment, unless building a new dam is going to magically make it rain more, what's the point?

Surely we'd do better to find a way to make better use of storm water than shoving it out to sea?

Define 'interest' though? Governments like to make money, and the less water we use, the less money intot heir coffers from that income stream. So are they going to try and prop that up from the alternate source fow ater people are turning to?

I dunno, but I was after covnersation about it and I'm getting it so... I won't be entirely surprised if they try and tax it but I think the logistics of it will be too difficult to make it worthwhile.

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

More dams are a bulwark against the /next/ time this happens - that's how we got the Thomson in the 1st place I believe. Its not a good solution, but its "doing something" - a maxim that seems to be all the rage amidst current governing bodies.

re: storm water. It used to be a given that you /had/ to put water down the pipes to keep them clean and unblocked :)

Interest = remaining in government. Currently when you pay for water, some of it is skimmed off by the billing company, and the rest goes to Melbourne water, which is a corporation. ... A solely government owned corporation, sure, but still. (FWIW: people doing water recycling impacted on the amount of water being used and thus on MelbWater's income to a significant degree).

I don't believe that the current situation - water restrictions, low dam levels, etc - are condusive to a tax on tanks. True, governments do insane things in the name of income, but rebating with one hand and telling everyone to be careful with water and then taxing with the other seems a career limiting move for a State Government

Local councils, I'm not so sure on.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

The thing is it's an expensive 'doing soemthing', and there is a lot of "but if we have no rain it's just going to be another empty damn sentiment". that said, if the restrictions get much worse I think you'd find that the cost in public opibion for destroying the forests might not be as high as it once was...

Maybe so, but at the moment, it's criminal to see how much water runs away to no beneift after a rainstorm...

And if we need to use less water stillt hen the bottom line is going tos tart getting shaky for Melbourne Water...

I think it might depend on what they said the tax was going towards as to how much people would complain about being taxed for water tanks.

But yes I think there would be an argument if they rebated and then taxed. Depends on how much time between cutting off the rebate and insituting the tax too.

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

I doubt that building a new dam is an attractive idea for the current government. Don't ask about the liarberals.

Some of that water has to run off, to get to waterways and all. There's a lot of work going on to try and make holding ponds so that it doesn't surge too much down the creeks and rivers. The trick is to find a balance - more runs off at the moment than "should" because concrete and ashphalt aren't that absorbant. So, if we collect what falls on houses and let what hits the road run off, it might make a workable balance. (and avoid stuff like this.)

Its more likely that water costs would increase, I think, to help balance Melb Water budget...

If the situation changes - we're not on water restrictions any more, and the damns fill up, then a tax might be possible. I just don't see it now :)

[madefromstars.livejournal.com]

Recently I heard someone talking about getting a government rebate on rain water tanks. It was just overheard though so I don't know if it's true and i think it may have been when I was in Queensland.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

Nah we (Victoria) are offering rebates for tanks too. Is just cynicism that prompts people to wonder if the government are then going tot ry and make money off the non government water you are now collecting with said tank...

[(Anonymous)]

How could they possibly measure it?

[madefromstars.livejournal.com]

twas me.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

That's the question really. Hence the theory of taxing the tanks rather than the water itself. I don't know that they can legitimately tax rainwater - in fact I'm pretty darn sure they can't - but the tanks themselves. it's whether it's beneficial enough to do it. And whether it's practical to implement

[(Anonymous)]

I recall seeing a report on TV about someone getting into trouble for setting up rainwater catchment devices and bottling and selling the water. It was however being done on a commercial scale so presumably was considered to affect the water rights of people downstream.

[mireille21.livejournal.com]

I will have to check with my aunt who has had rainwater tanks for ages, but they used to charge or tax you extra if you installed a tank, if I recall correctly. It is the reason why my auntie did it on the hush hush, and why someone else I was speaking with recently (perhaps my other auntie over Christmas dinner) said they had decided against installing a tank years ago, because it wasn't a financially appealing thing to do. Now of course they have reversed all of that.
I don't see them bringing taxes or changes back in directly on the tanks, as it's too obvious. I would not however underestimate the possibility of serious water rate hikes for urban dwellers under the argument that it will be an incentive to make people use less.
There are outcries at the moment to reduce the charges being paid by farmers as they really are getting a raw deal at the moment. They have paid (and continue to) some steep levies for water access under arguments that it was more costly to devise and run systems to irrigate and supply water to remote areas. All very true but a very raw deal for the farmers, especially as the drought had meant some of them aren't even getting what they are paying for.
Looks like another solution may be to rethink our farming and move some agricultural industries to areas better supplied with natural waterflow (rather than tryign to fight against nature, which is essentially what irrigation is doing), but that of course is frought with very sensitive issues. :)

[fraerie.livejournal.com]

My main concern regarding rain water tanks is they suffer the same problem as dams - they need rain to fill them.

When we are in a period of low rain fall (like we are currently) chances are your tank would have emptied long before the dams were at warning level.

Efforts to recover grey water to use for gardens/car washing/ maybe laundry depending on the source/processing would be far more effective in reducing our overall consumption.

[nephthys-secret.livejournal.com]

my dad was just telling me (he's a country boy) that the government started trying to tax farmers for their rain water tanks (as they do dams) for the same reasons, the water you are catching in them means it is water that is not then flowing off your property and into the rivers or local water catchments. Apparently there was a huge uproar and I don't think it actually got through at the time. But that isn't to say it wont get through later down the track.

[whirled.livejournal.com]

I think I remember hearing something on the radio about how if you're actually in a catchment area and set up a water tank, technically you're taking water away from what would otherwise end up in the catchment. I can't remember if it just meant you couldn't get a rebate on the money spent on the tank, and/or you would get fined/charged for the water that's 'taken'.