Har­vest­ing wa­ter to save costs

Te Awamutu Courier - - News -

Good on Den­nis Pen­nefa­ther — a con­stant critic of the WDC.

He has en­sured his wa­ter sup­ply will not be a prob­lem.

Please bear in mind that most ru­ral dwellers have to find our own wa­ter un­aided by coun­cil — town dwellers take it for granted.

We have not been bar­raged by mock wa­ter bills.

In De­cem­ber 2014 I wrote here a so­lu­tion to re­duce wa­ter de­mand from coun­cil. It was, I thought, sim­ple and cost sav­ing.

About half the prop­er­ties in Te Awa­mutu/Ki­hik­ihi could har­vest roof wa­ter for non potable use (toi­lets, gar­den, car/house wash­ing, swim­ming pools, per­haps laun­dry).

Tanks and pumps are avail­able from 1000 to 25,000 litres at a rea­son­able cost.

The pro­posal to spend $90 mil­lion over 10 years is lu­di­crous. Even if half of houses (and busi­ness) were sup­plied wa­ter tanks and pumps, the cost ($5000 per unit) would be in the or­der of $12 -15 mil­lion. Why throw our hard-earned rates money at a dead dog?

Coun­cil could fund in­stal­la­tion of rain­wa­ter tanks in­stead of wa­ter me­ters (an un­pro­duc­tive cost mea­sure). This would use re­sources (trades­men) and ma­te­ri­als bet­ter utilised mak­ing plumb­ing mod­i­fi­ca­tions to har­vest and retic­u­late wa­ter at premises able to col­lect free wa­ter.

A bonus would be nil treat­ment of non potable wa­ter re­duc­ing treat­ment ca­pac­ity.

Cam­bridge ap­pears to have no wa­ter short­age — let’s spend the money in this area not waste it.

Why do we em­ploy peo­ple on coun­cils un­able to think out­side the square?

As for wa­ter com­pa­nies — the thin end of the wedge for easy rid­ers on fat direc­torate fees.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.