Andrew Bolt made a claim last June about dams - "if we built more like it we'd have -- guess what? -- more water."

June is an interesting time for his rant, because, here in Melbourne, it was the driest June in 148 years.

I visited the Grampians back in December, and took this shot of Lake Bellfield - the local water supply:


Note the optimistic water markers that don't quite reach the actual water. Perhaps building more of these empty reservoirs would magically create water? Apparently it's storage "dangerously low".

This photo was taken a month before half the dry national park spontaneously combusted.

Water falls all over the place - "About 90% of our water supply comes from uninhabited catchment areas." This works wonderfully - the farmers get the water that lands on them. But what about the water that lands on inhabited areas, like suburbia, or city areas? It's not exactly convenient to remove the local football oval or park to build a dam. What we need is to somehow devise a way so that inhabited areas can catch water without great expense, or demolishing existing amenities. There has to be some solution that fits these guildlines, because it would solve our entire water problem.

We can call them mini-catchments - I know - we could use existing roofs as some sort of collection-plate, and the existing gutters could be used to collect the water into a pipe that could, instead of dumping the water away from the property, could store the water in some sort of local water repository - we could make them out of polypropylene, or even galvanised steel!

My God, I am a freakin' genius - my mini-catchment idea is brilliant! It uses catchment devices that are already in place, requires only simple plumbing and a water repository (if mass-produced they should be incredibly cheap) - catches water where it is needed, doesn't require environmental destructive dams, doesn't harm farmers water supplies in anyway (in fact, they can get more of the storage water if we use it less), and provides clean un-treated rainwater to anyone with a roof! I'm going to be rich!

Oh, I just did some research - apparently it's already been done, but people just don't like the general "idea" of collecting their own water - and that seemingly weak argument is more important than all the above positive points.

Apparently, from scouring his forums, Andy side-steps any direct suggestion that water tanks are a bad idea, he only hints at it, but his argument revolves around dams being both cheaper and more effective than tanks.

Every house that uses a water tank is using water that is not drained from existing supplies. They way I see it, there's three solutions: We can have greater water restrictions, increases in the cost of water to reduce demand, or reduce the demand for dam water through an increased number of homes with water tanks.

But who stands to lose if water tanks are built, instead of dams? It's free, so there's no profit to be made - but it's not like water is a commodity.

Oh wait, it is. Thanks state and federal. I'm guessing farmers are going to have to beg for their water back after having it purchased by investors.

Oh wait, they already are:
"water trading policies are destroying rural communities"
"farmers were forced to sell water or leave their farms"
"The water is seized upon by the vultures of farming, large corporate investment funds and transferred away to new irrigation developments"
"the water market should be scrapped" (Bill Heffernan)
"Some farmers have resorted to mortgaging their water to stave off the collapse of their businesses"

And remember - this is the "farmer-friendly" Nationals-Liberals coalition that introduced this.

I love how we have farmers mortgaging their water. And how, with voting preferences, they asked for it. I can just see rural Australian's bending over, spreading their cheeks and asking "please Sir, I want some more."