Photo Tree Faerie
Dorroughby resident Alex Heathwood and around another 2,100 homeowners up and down the Rous County Council (RCC) water pipeline are going to be paying around $200 extra on their water bills annually for infrastructure that benefits everyone who uses RCC water.
The properties already have the pipeline running through them, and they get no compensation for any impact the infrastructure has on their properties. Local property owner Mr Heathwood believes the $200 extra fee is an ‘unfair’ burden on these properties.
While the original pipeline was put in place with landholder consultation, ‘in 1983, they put in a new pipeline to carry chlorinated water and they just dictated an easement. There was no consultation,’ said Mr Heathwood.
Land restrictions
Because the water is used by the public, there are strict rules in force as to how the land around the pipeline can be used and there is no compensation to the landowners.
Water integrity
Rous County Council is the regional water supply authority providing water in bulk to the council areas of Byron, Ballina, Lismore and Richmond Valley, serving around 100,000 people.
Approximately 2,100 customers receive water direct from the main water network because, like Mr Heathwood, they have the infrastructure run across their land. RCC has determined that the majority of these connections require a backflow prevention device to comply with requirements of the applicable Plumbing Code of Australia, Australian Standards and other legislation.
Backflow prevention devices work to stop water from customers’ properties from potentially entering the main RCC water network. The devices act to protect the integrity of the water supply and ensure the health and safety of all water customers.
Historically installation, commissioning, maintenance and annual testing of backflow prevention devices have been the responsibility of the property owner. RCC now intends to install the devices at the identified properties and then assume responsibility for managing the annual testing process for all customers’ backflow devices. These maintenance costs will be passed onto the property owner.
Mr Heathwood ‘inherited’ the pipe when he purchased the property around 43 years ago. RCC does not pay a rental fee to use the land the pipeline runs across.
Benefits everyone
‘They expect the 2,130-odd people affected to pay $200 a year,’ says Mr Heathwood. ‘My argument has always been that I think the idea of backflow devices is good, but I think the cost should be shared because the benefit applies to all water users.
‘I wrote to RCC suggesting that the cost be born by all RCC customers. Andrew Logan, Group Manager of Planning and Delivery wrote back in late 2023 stating “yes, that’s an option but not one Rous adopted”.’
A RCC spokesperson said the decision to pass the cost of the backflow devices to RCC customers is based on the benefit that the customers receive from having a reliable drinking water supply in an area that otherwise would not have reticulated drinking water.
However, if the cost was shared between all RCC customers, it would amount to around $4.26 each, annually.
Mr Heathwood says that Rous’s website has a list of things they believe they can achieve.
‘One is to treat people fairly and another is to resolve issues in a good time. I think neither of those applies to this situation.’
Come on mate your having a laugh right ?
you are fortunate enough to have a connection to the rous water main that many rural properties don’t have
you also have your own property worth millions in on of the best places in the world to live
appreciate clean water services you have, its only $200 a year hardly anything to protect the water supply
unappreciative winger boomers go live in a third world country with no clean water
Someone sounds rather jealous lol
Sounds like there’s probably some middle ground here that Rous and the affected landowners should be able to explore , – there’s no doubt that Rous is imposing the requirement because it’s needed for a network-wide benefit, so many are benefiting from the payments of the relatively few. Yet those relative few also benefit from the access to the pipeline. where other rural landholders don’t. A compromise should be sought and found. Otherwise the landholders should be permitted to disconnect without any ongoing cost, and manage their own Rainwater harvesting.
Rous has the power to vary charges and consider hardship, and should do so.