WHILE I fully agree with the need for water restrictions, I wonder why there are not set levels of restrictions across the state. Why do our levels differ vastly from that of Orange, for instance?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I feel there should be a designated Drought Management Plan restriction under “enforced restrictions” denoted Level 2. Currently, Level 2 is just combined with Level 1 under “encouraged actions”. The main change could be restricting watering lawns and gardens to a one-hour period each day under the odds and evens scheme, with pools restricted to one hour each day also under the odds and evens scheme.
Under the current proposal of enforced restrictions, watering gardens and lawns is limited to odds and evens for a period of half an hour each permitted day.
Read also:
That’s no problem if the current and foreseeable state of the dam warrants such severe restriction. However, lawns, and especially gardens, contribute to the environment. That is obvious. If you come around to my place on a hot summer day and experience the cool under the 19 or so trees and dozens of large shrubs around my current dwelling, it will be obvious.
So why, under these severe restrictions aimed at gardeners, are pool owners permitted to waste water for three hours each day, seven days a week, when pools do nothing for the environment? There are no restrictions under the odds and evens scheme and they are the only ones to waste water on the 31st of each month, which is designated a non-watering day for all gardens and lawns.
The average pool would be serviced by a water connection of at least 25 millimetres in size, which is twice the size of the average garden hose, with some up to 36mm.
This equates to a water usage of up to eight times the volume of water used each day which gardeners are permitted to use.
This then equates to more than 56 times the volume of water permitted to be used by those gardeners contributing to the health of the environment as opposed to pool owners over the course of a week – or 224 times the volume of wasted water over a month.
There is currently a clause saying pool owners have to use a pool cover. So what? It should say that a pool cover has to be in place at all times when the pool is not being used.
Pool owners should be restricted to the same time limitations, including being limited under the odds and evens scheme, because if their pool is covered at all times of non-use, one hour every second day should be sufficient to maintain a suitable level of water in the pool.
Under such severe restrictions, why are garden features such as fountains (with a high level of evaporation) permitted to be filled?
Water restrictions need to be fair and equitable for all. Will all councillors request these common-sense alterations to the current restriction levels as detailed in the Drought Management Plan?
