PLEASE FOLLOW GOVT WATER RESTRICTIONS MEASURES

[Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud]

Considering that the worse is still to come, those water restrictions are

TO BE ENFORCED NOW THROUGHOUT THE LAND UNTIL MY HOPEFUL RETURN SOON !!!


I_ PAVED AREAS, CLEANING;

Water must not be used to clean a paved area unless it is necessary to do so
as a result of an accident, fire, hazard to health or the environment, or
other emergency

II_PRIVATE GARDENS, WATERING;

1.. A garden or lawn must not be watered.
2.. A watering system or hand-held or trigger hose must not be used.

III_PUBLIC GARDENS WATERING;

1.. Lawn must not be watered;
2.. A garden must not be watered except by a hand-held or trigger hose
between:
1.. 5 and 8 am; and
2.. 8 and 11 pm.

IV_PRIVATE & PUBLIC GARDENS, FILLING OR TOPPING UP PONDS AND LAKES.
a..
1.. The level of water in a pond or lake which:
2.. has previously been filled with water; and
a.. sustains either or both of fish and birds,
1.. may only be topped up or maintained with a bucket or watering can
filled directly from a tap (and not by means of a hose).
2.. Any other pond or lake must not be topped up, maintained or filled.


.... at the present time at La Rochelle 22nd March, 7 am, it is falling a
sustained and thick rain, which has lasted all through the night, and which
will keep on all day, until my garden is sufficiently soaked .
.... I have asked for it and it came? as it always does for the RAINMAKER
.... Thanks for asking.!

Brought to you by courtesy of :
_______________________

--
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Exploration Geologist
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer, Kintyre & Nifty Mines
The Great Sandy Desert of Australia

Founder of the True Geology

Mobile +33 (0)6 68 99 43 84


~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~

[Cripes]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:28:51 +0100, Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud wrote:

>
> I have asked for it

With any luck, you should get it.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:28:51 +0100, "Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud"
<aquarius_master@removecaramail.com> wrote:

>
>Considering that the worse is still to come, those water restrictions are
>
>TO BE ENFORCED NOW THROUGHOUT THE LAND UNTIL MY HOPEFUL RETURN SOON !!!
[snip]
Sydney water restrictions and repotable page for fines of $220 for the
10% of Sydney's domestic users are here
<http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/>

**90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**

<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/09/1086749777408.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true>
or <http://tinyurl.com/5nmnu>

In 2002, Carr locked up land that had been set aside for the planned
Welcome Reef Dam on the Shoalhaven River to Sydney's south. He created
a 6000-hectare (not 600 as I inadvertently wrote last week) nature
reserve from land that had been acquired by state governments over
almost 40 years. The abandonment of the dam, near Braidwood, was
accompanied by a green propaganda campaign, that claimed Welcome Reef
was hopelessly dry and that the dam would destroy endangered species
and ancient eucalypts, ruin the Shoalhaven gorge and take a decade to
fill.

But John Brown, the civil engineer and hydrology specialist who did
the original environmental impact study on the Welcome Reef Dam, said
yesterday that none of those criticisms were borne out by his study.
The study was carried out by the Snowy Mountains Engineering
Corporation for the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board
(now Sydney Water) between 1975 and 1979, with the EIS completed in
1980. Brown says although the report is old, little about the
landscape has changed.

He said scientists from the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research and
NSW State Fisheries conducted "very detailed field surveys over a
12-month period in which a census of bird species was made at monthly
intervals at 17 sites and augmented by monthly counts along a
24-kilometre strip. Mammals, reptiles and frogs were identified in
nocturnal and daylight surveys as well as by the use of live traps.
Vegetation was identified and classified. It was concluded that none
of the species of fauna identified was endangered or relies on
habitats unique to the area that would be inundated, and all the plant
species identified have a wide distribution outside the same area."

As for "ruining" the Shoalhaven Gorge, Brown says that "after the dam
is constructed the same quantity of water, less evaporation losses,
would flow through the gorge. There would be a change in its temporal
distribution with the flow during dry periods increased and that in
high flow periods and floods decreased."

Brown also scoffs at claims the dam would take a decade to fill. He
found there was only a 10 per cent chance it would not fill to its
minimum operating level in four months. The whole point of a dam is to
capture and store water during periods of high rainfall to be used
during low rainfall.

The most damaging claim - that the site is in hopeless rainshadow -
Brown also thumps. Yes, it is in a "bit of a rainshadow" but so is
much of Warragamba's catchment area. Welcome Reef still gets 800 to
1000millimetres of rain a year. Of all the possible dam sites he
examined, Welcome Reef was by far the best, and the least
environmentally sensitive.

Brown worked on the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme, and says it
never would have been built today because of opposition from green
groups. The irony is that the Snowy scheme provides clean green power,
eliminating the need for more coal-power and associated greenhouse
gases. The benefit of hydro-power, Brown says, is available at the
turn of a tap, unlike coal-burning generators which take time to stoke
up.

Welcome Reef deserves more investigation. Brown says there is no
reason for dam to be a four-letter word. "From the earliest time,
civilisation has been based on the diversion of water into dams.
Without it we would still be cavemen." Which is exactly what the green
beast wants.



Petzl
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of a message.
Q: Why is top posting a sloppy form of writing?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

[Sylvia Else]

Petzl wrote:

> **90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**

Why do people say such things when it's so trivially easy to demonstrate
that they're false.

This page

http://tinyurl.com/6lktr

is the most recent Sydney Water bulk water and storage supply report.

It gives the average daily supply during the week as 1557 ML

Taking Sydney's population to be a round 4 million people, gives a
percapita daily water consumtion of 389 litres. If 90% of this were for
commercial use, then it would leave just 38 litres for domestic use by
each person.

I come from England, but even I wash more than that.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud wrote:

> Considering that the worse is still to come, those water restrictions are

entirely unnecessary. We just need to offer desalinated water at $2.20
per kilolitre to people who could then do as they like with the water,
just as they can do as they like with other commodities for which the
price they pay is properly related to the true cost of supply.

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:13:06 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>
>
>Petzl wrote:
>
>> **90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**
>
>Why do people say such things when it's so trivially easy to demonstrate
>that they're false.
>
>This page
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6lktr
>
>is the most recent Sydney Water bulk water and storage supply report.
>
>It gives the average daily supply during the week as 1557 ML
>
>Taking Sydney's population to be a round 4 million people, gives a
>percapita daily water consumtion of 389 litres. If 90% of this were for
>commercial use, then it would leave just 38 litres for domestic use by
>each person.
>
>I come from England, but even I wash more than that.
>
>Sylvia.

Sydney's Domestic water use *is* 10% of total Sydney's use if it works
out as 38 litres then that's what Sydney domestic population is
presently using?

Perhaps Sydney Water could tell use how much of the usage is domestic
and how much is Commercial. You don't find it strange that this is not
disclosed


Petzl
--
Vote
One Nation first,
The Opposition Member second
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

[B J Foster]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> Petzl wrote:
>
>> **90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**
>
>
> Why do people say such things when it's so trivially easy to demonstrate
> that they're false.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/372480889969a1d9ca256b35007ace09/Body/0.2898!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Households = 10%

>
....

[Sylvia Else]

B J Foster wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> **90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do people say such things when it's so trivially easy to
>> demonstrate that they're false.
>
>
> http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/372480889969a1d9ca256b35007ace09/Body/0.2898!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
>
>
> Households = 10%

I think I see the source of the confusion then.

Australia overall uses a lot of water, but most of it does not come from
the potable water supply. Depending on your area of interest, this
figure of 10% may be the correct one, or may be totally misleading.

Sylvia.

[tsunami_australia]

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud wrote:
>
>> Considering that the worse is still to come, those water restrictions are
>
>
> entirely unnecessary. We just need to offer desalinated water at $2.20
> per kilolitre to people who could then do as they like with the water,
> just as they can do as they like with other commodities for which the
> price they pay is properly related to the true cost of supply.
>
> Sylvia.


I have said for many years now that eventually the only way to continue
the water supply and running of necessary rivers with the continuing dry
is to install some large desal plants and pump to the west (river
tributries).

If the rivers continue to drop, fish spawning and other such activities
will drop as well, making the overall effect disasterous.

Water restrictions are not the answer when we have all this salty water
to use, especially since the polar caps are alledgedly melting, we
should even be able to fill the center of Australia once again so we
could have plenty of access to water.

Yes it all comes at a big monetry cost, but the cost not only keeps a
steady water supply for human usage, it also helps keep the water table
high and fresh (we are having major problems with this everywhere now),
and will continue to support the animals that rely on the water courses.
So considering all, the cost to jobs, nature and the land should outway
the cost of money.

--
*******************************
Glen O'Riley
Penrith, NSW, 2750
********************************
ACREM - NSW Operations Coordinator
NSW Rural Fire Service - Firefighter
NSW State Emergency Services - Member
Angel Flight - Earth Angel
Storm Chaser
********************************

[Sylvia Else]

Petzl wrote:

> Repost
> Sydney Water has long known that usage was more than supply we have
> long now been using 10% more water than the catchment can provide.

Except that over the last six years, it has been 100% more, not just 10%
more.

> The
> fix was to enlarge the catchment area to more than make up for this by
> the constrution f the "Welcome reef" dam This project was stopped by
> the loon Bob Carr (trade union Scab) and his NSW Labor Government

The only time you have a use for a dam is when the current supply
exceeds the current consumption. The dam then provides a place to store
the surplus was against a future time when consumption exceeds supply.

However, at the moment, our consumption hugely exceeds supply. To the
extent that there are other water supplies that might be fed into a
resevoir behind a new dam, that water supply can simply be consumed
immediately, and substitute for water being removed from the existing
(less than half full) reservoirs.

Increasing the volume of reservoirs provides an increase in tolerance of
a period of drought. However, Sydney's current tolerance appears to be
between six to nine years (from the point where the reservoirs are
full). Just how much tolerance should Sydney have? In particularly, how
long does a drought have to be before we accept that maybe it wasn't
really a drought at all, but a climatic shift?

Sylvia.

[Roy Marshall]

The best bit about drought conditions is that the construction railway
at Cataract Dam re-surfaces. There - we are back on topic!

Cheers Roy

In <42452f91$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
> Petzl wrote:
>
>> Repost
>> Sydney Water has long known that usage was more than supply we have
>> long now been using 10% more water than the catchment can provide.
>
> Except that over the last six years, it has been 100% more, not just
> 10% more.
>
>> The
>> fix was to enlarge the catchment area to more than make up for this
>> by the constrution f the "Welcome reef" dam This project was stopped
>> by the loon Bob Carr (trade union Scab) and his NSW Labor Government
>
> The only time you have a use for a dam is when the current supply
> exceeds the current consumption. The dam then provides a place to
> store the surplus was against a future time when consumption exceeds
> supply.
>
> However, at the moment, our consumption hugely exceeds supply. To the
> extent that there are other water supplies that might be fed into a
> resevoir behind a new dam, that water supply can simply be consumed
> immediately, and substitute for water being removed from the existing
> (less than half full) reservoirs.
>
> Increasing the volume of reservoirs provides an increase in tolerance
> of a period of drought. However, Sydney's current tolerance appears
> to be between six to nine years (from the point where the reservoirs
> are full). Just how much tolerance should Sydney have? In
> particularly, how long does a drought have to be before we accept
> that maybe it wasn't really a drought at all, but a climatic shift?
>
> Sylvia.
>

[Petzl]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:46:57 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>
>
>Petzl wrote:
>
>> Repost
>> Sydney Water has long known that usage was more than supply we have
>> long now been using 10% more water than the catchment can provide.
>
>Except that over the last six years, it has been 100% more, not just 10%
>more.
>
>> The
>> fix was to enlarge the catchment area to more than make up for this by
>> the constrution f the "Welcome reef" dam This project was stopped by
>> the loon Bob Carr (trade union Scab) and his NSW Labor Government
>
>The only time you have a use for a dam is when the current supply
>exceeds the current consumption. The dam then provides a place to store
>the surplus was against a future time when consumption exceeds supply.
>
>However, at the moment, our consumption hugely exceeds supply. To the
>extent that there are other water supplies that might be fed into a
>resevoir behind a new dam, that water supply can simply be consumed
>immediately, and substitute for water being removed from the existing
>(less than half full) reservoirs.
>
>Increasing the volume of reservoirs provides an increase in tolerance of
>a period of drought. However, Sydney's current tolerance appears to be
>between six to nine years (from the point where the reservoirs are
>full). Just how much tolerance should Sydney have? In particularly, how
>long does a drought have to be before we accept that maybe it wasn't
>really a drought at all, but a climatic shift?
>
>Sylvia.

<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/09/1086749777408.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true>
or <http://tinyurl.com/5nmnu>

The statistical data for more than 20 years ago showed Sydney using
10% more than the water catchment area was able to support.

For over twenty years Sydney has been lucky in that rainfall was
exceeding the 10% over usage. This luck has now run out and the
continuation plan of using the Welcome Reef dam is not there (although
paid for)

While there may of been other options it is more than a bit late to
just start considering those options now. In fact no decisions have
been made to start increasing Sydney's water supply even now

The realistic option is to immediately restart the work on the Welcome
Reef dam, it as a foolish error of judgement to stop it and Sydney is
now paying the penalty. Even before the work started on this dam all
considerations were "chewed" over


Petzl
--
Vote
One Nation first,
The Opposition Member second
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

[Michael]

Hey Turdball,

What happened to that big tsunami you promised Sydney a couple of months
ago?

"Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud" <aquarius_master@removecaramail.com> wrote in
news:d1po8m$j34$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:

> Brought to you by courtesy of :
> _______________________
>
> --
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud

[Horratio Forthingham-Smythe]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:30:15 +1100, Petzl wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:28:51 +0100, "Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud"
> <aquarius_master@removecaramail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Considering that the worse is still to come, those water restrictions are
>>
>>TO BE ENFORCED NOW THROUGHOUT THE LAND UNTIL MY HOPEFUL RETURN SOON !!!

> **90% of Sydney's water use is for commercial purposes**

In an outrageous development it has been revealed that 69% of the
commercial use of water in the greater Sydney metropolitan area is being
used by a shadowy company identified only as Pretzdil Industries.

The only product produced by Pretzdil Industries is an industrial grade
foam product known as "Monorailium". This is reputed to be used in vast
quantaties in usenet.

Recent research by Professor U. R. A. Boffon of Sydney Universities
prestigious "Institute of Foam Research" has revealed that "Monorailium"
can be linked to the death of several innocent kittens.

I attempted to speak to God for his reaction to the death of innocent
kittens, however he told me to "sod off" as he was in the process of
teaching trainee priests how to have sex with little boys.

--
Horratio Forthingham-Smythe.
Purveyor of C2H6O flavoured usenet.

[Sylvia Else]

Petzl wrote:

> The realistic option is to immediately restart the work on the Welcome
> Reef dam, it as a foolish error of judgement to stop it and Sydney is
> now paying the penalty. Even before the work started on this dam all
> considerations were "chewed" over

Can you explain in some detail how this dam would help?

Sylvia.

[Wally Anglesea™]

On 26 Mar 2005 19:38:37 +0800, Michael <mk@n3t5tra.com.au> wrote:

>Hey Turdball,
>
>What happened to that big tsunami you promised Sydney a couple of months
>ago?

He predicted a giant tsunami would was away the Sydney Olympics in
2000.

I've noticed a pattern.

Every time JP Turcaud posts about the drought, within 24 hours,we get
rains

Every time JP Turcaud posted predicting floods and tsunamis, we get
fine weather.



>
>"Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud" <aquarius_master@removecaramail.com> wrote in
>news:d1po8m$j34$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>
>> Brought to you by courtesy of :
>> _______________________
>>
>> --
>> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

[Petzl]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:10:24 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>
>
>Petzl wrote:
>
>> The realistic option is to immediately restart the work on the Welcome
>> Reef dam, it as a foolish error of judgement to stop it and Sydney is
>> now paying the penalty. Even before the work started on this dam all
>> considerations were "chewed" over
>
>Can you explain in some detail how this dam would help?
>
>Sylvia.

An environmental impact statement was released to this effect in
March 1980, and for over 30 years successive State Governments have
been buying land in the area with the intention of building the dam.
Water from the dam would be sent downstream to Tallowa Dam, which was
built in the 1970s. From there, it would be pumped up the escarpment
into metropolitan dams as does water from Tallowa Dam presently. The
full capacity of the proposed dam is 2680 gigalitres – 600 billion
litres more than stored in Warragamba Dam.

The water shortage is not only a problem for Sydney so extra water
storage would also benifit others in NSW

Sydney has a finite supply of water, with a sustainable yield from its
catchment sources of 600,000 ML per year. However, this yield may be
reduced with the introduction of greater environmental flows for the
Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Whilst the supply of water is static or
potentially decreasing, the population of Sydney is increasing at a
rate of around 50,000 people per year. To avert a water supply crisis
in the longer term it is evident that the amount of water consumed per
capita needs to be reduced, or a new dam built. Sydney Water has in
its operating licence two benchmarks to reduce per capita water
consumption. It is unlikely the first benchmark in 2005 will be met,
and considerable work will need to be done to achieve the 2011
benchmark of a 35 per cent drop in per capita water consumption.

With a finite supply of water, we need to ‘think smarter’ about
managing the urban water cycle. Modern concepts of urban
sustainability point to greater integration of reticulated potable
water, waste water and stormwater. How these three resources are best
utilised will vary according to locality and community. It is evident
that government leadership and a strong community partnership is
required for sustainable urban water management to come to fruition.



Petzl
--
Vote
One Nation first,
The Opposition Member second
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

[Sylvia Else]

Petzl wrote:

> An environmental impact statement was released to this effect in
> March 1980, and for over 30 years successive State Governments have
> been buying land in the area with the intention of building the dam.
> Water from the dam would be sent downstream to Tallowa Dam, which was
> built in the 1970s. From there, it would be pumped up the escarpment
> into metropolitan dams as does water from Tallowa Dam presently. The
> full capacity of the proposed dam is 2680 gigalitres – 600 billion
> litres more than stored in Warragamba Dam.

This is all very well, but my question was not about whether it was
desirable for Sydney to have a greater supply of water, but how the dam
would help. Dams do not increase the supply of water, they only increase
the ability to store it. How would increasing the ability to store water
help given that our current reservoirs are half empty, and haven't been
full for seven years?

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:00:19 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>
>
>Petzl wrote:
>
>> An environmental impact statement was released to this effect in
>> March 1980, and for over 30 years successive State Governments have
>> been buying land in the area with the intention of building the dam.
>> Water from the dam would be sent downstream to Tallowa Dam, which was
>> built in the 1970s. From there, it would be pumped up the escarpment
>> into metropolitan dams as does water from Tallowa Dam presently. The
>> full capacity of the proposed dam is 2680 gigalitres – 600 billion
>> litres more than stored in Warragamba Dam.
>
>This is all very well, but my question was not about whether it was
>desirable for Sydney to have a greater supply of water, but how the dam
>would help. Dams do not increase the supply of water, they only increase
>the ability to store it. How would increasing the ability to store water
>help given that our current reservoirs are half empty, and haven't been
>full for seven years?
>
>Sylvia.

Simply this water just runs out to sea and is not being used

Of course retaining a further 2680 gigalitres (Warragamba is 2,031 GL)

You think Sydney could do without Warragamba? The Welcome Reef would
not only supplement Sydney It would also be of use for much of the
rest of NSW

Sydney is increasing at a rate of around 50,000 people per year. To
avert a water supply crisis in the longer term it is evident that the
amount of water consumed per capita needs to be reduced, or a new dam
built. While there is some saving to be made by more efficient use of
water the only permanent solution is more storage. The Welcome Reef
dam was already passed and approved as needed and also passed the
Environmental Impact concerns.

The decision to stop Welcome Reef's construction by Bob Carr in 2002
has proved disastrous as predicted by those who started to build it

Petzl
--
Vote
One Nation first,
The Opposition Member second
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

[Sylvia Else]

Petzl wrote:

> Simply this water just runs out to sea and is not being used

So all we really need is to do is to consume the water as it arrives.
Why do we need to build a huge dam? A weir would do.

Sylvia.