The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A simple solution to those annoying water restrictions > Comments

A simple solution to those annoying water restrictions : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 29/3/2005

Andrew Leigh argues raising the price of water and lifting restrictions is the solution to managing a scarce resource.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Thanks for this Andrew

We see celebrities on TV saying "water is our most precious resource" and I always wonder "If it is so precious, why does it cost a dollar a tonne delivered." Even dirt costs $30 a tonne. If a 1000 Litre rainwater tank costs $500 you would have to fill it 500 times to break even on the water at current prices. You would be lucky to fill it 20 times a year so the tank would need to last 25 years. Unlikely. That does not include the cost of the pump and the electricity to get the water to your garden.

Even so there are other considerations. Comparing the supply of milk and bread to the supply of water is not really appropriate.

Water supply is a government monopoly. When bread makers make a profit they have earned it by producing a superior product in a free market. Government does not face this competition. No second Warragamba Dam is going to be built in competition. Doubling the price of water across Australia would pop a cool $1-3 billion into government coffers every year even if demand did drop. History suggests this would be used for general revenue, not for improving water supply or planning for the future. The cry that it is just another sneaky tax would be hard to argue.

If all the revenue above the current price were set aside for environmental purposes, there might be some consensus in the public to allow the price increase, but governments have not been able to make themselves do this in the past. They want all the money.

I think recycling sewage is an excellent sustainable solution to the problem of water supply. It reduces the pollution discharged to the rivers and ocean and provides a source of water near the consumers who need it. Even so, it will be difficult selling the idea that water is going to cost more and it is going to be recycled sewage, instead of clean mountain runoff.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 12:14:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agood argument Andrew
, albeit from a greenies point of view. I would prefer to see an argument from a realists POV. there is no need to tapdance around what is required. We need more dams,we need planning by government. I think they can do it, as they have done well in some achievments in the past, and I say phooey to those namby pambys who pontificate and dont face reality. As for charging more to reduce usage, this idea smells of ACT type government when they introduced a tax on how many toiletsa house had. Mad idea, but it was in force for a year.Rommel
Posted by rommel, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 8:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinion in two parts to address the word limit.

Andrew Leigh wrote "As the demands on our water supply have steadily increased, Australian governments have imposed ever more stringent rules on water usage." and then proceeded into the bulk of his article AND this is called 'Limiting Context' and this then leads to the next question 'what is your benefit?'.

Opening the context relating to water, the water 'demand' may have increased but the primary problem is the naturally supply has diminished and this primarily from the destruction of the local natural ecosystems i.e. trees.

Trees cause large amount of evaporation on a daily basis and when the number of trees reach a critical level the water density is no longer able to be supported as vapor and rain in the local area develops without which the water available usually runs away from the area in its natural course to the nearest ocean of which amazon forests is the largest example of this and the opposite of it is remove those trees and you get a desert as the soil is poor to naturally sustain growth and the daily heavy afternoon downpours cease causing the greatest river on earth the Amazon to dry up eventually.

Andrew Leigh introduced the word 'government' so what does this exactly mean...

Sam

Contd,,,
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 8:44:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd...

Since the English civil wars of 1600's when ruler Charles 1 executed and Commonwealth of England established under the common person protector Cromwell and the then parliament the common person has reserved the right to decide the existence of the monarch after which Charles 11 invited to re-establish monarchy from exile by the common people of England but with restriction of capacity which is the monarch who being a smaller parter of the greater group called the crown through their 'federal' government can only act on the elected common person ministers 'advice' to rule the country and colonies e.g. Commonwealth of Australia.

In the early part of this century the crown cleared most of the vast swaths of Australian forests by the simple and indiscriminate bulldozer and chain to then release the land after titling for the common person to use which led to the current dramatic increase in desertification and removal of the local water ecosystems leading to the area dependent on long distance weather patterns to bring the occasional rain and the rest of the problems caused liked rising salinification known.

Whats the point here being asked and so the point is water scarcity is only going to get worse with increasing costs and diminishing quantity of use BUT it does not fix the primary problem which is the crown damage to the land that sustains us and meaning the crown now as part of its responsibility now pour its vast monetary reserve to rebuild the ecosystem of Australia than tax the common person even more for its reserves.

A unusual and known but unspoken suggestion this may be but it is the most effective solution to stop the horrendous continuing degradation of land by giving the responsibility to restore back to the causer of the damage before we are living on the worlds greatest man made desert and the land gives up its last breath after then incapable of sustaining us.

Sam.
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 8:46:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All of the comments so far are good, but the main reason why we have permanent water restrictions in the Sydney Basin and Illawarra, with people encouraged to dob in their neighbours for hosing the car or watering the garden on the wrong day, is because of government policies of mass migration at the federal level and lack of encouragement at the state level for decentralisation, i.e. putting the people where the water is. We got these policies because the business mates of the politicians wanted bigger domestic markets, effortless profits from land speculation, and an oversupply of labour, so that they could have a cheap, docile work force. The politicians have delivered handsomely. We now have 16% of the working age population wholly or primarily dependent on social welfare (as opposed to 3% in the 1960s). It takes 8 years of average earnings to buy a modest house (as opposed to 4 years in 1962), with most of the difference due to increased land prices. Working hours are the longest in the Western world. The list could go on. How about real user pays in the form of death duties on the top 0.5% of estates to pay for conservation and other improvements in the water supply? And I'm not that keen on the industrial chemicals and maybe viruses we would get if we were forced to use recycled sewage water for drinking and cooking.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 11:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence - I agree that population drives water restrictions as well as most resource shortages and pollution issues. This is a very difficult message to communicate because population has been increasing while standards of living have been increasing. The conventional wisdom is that we need population growth to keep the economy booming and standards of living increasing. This is the message that the Howard Government, Steve Bracks and many business leaders like Richard Pratt are selling.

Water restrictions are good in one respect. They make it clear that all resources are not infinite and population can't increase forever. If we want higher population we have to accept water and other resource restrictions, and higher prices.

On recycled sewage, the standard of treatment for recycled sewage would be higher than for the existing drinking water supply and testing would be far more rigorous for just the reasons you point out. Plus it would be mixed with Warragamba water. The same industrial chemicals would be used for the sewage as for the Warragamba water. No change. Viruses are trickier but the technology is available and it has worked around the world where there is more population pressure than in Australia.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 12:42:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How to raise more taxes.Make an abundant resource scarce.Charge more for less and stop other industries from competing;e.g.Stop private enterprise from reclycling waste water from our sewerage system.This Govt is not interested in spending on infrastructure,they have too many public servants to keep in their comfort zones.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 31 March 2005 9:19:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric,
My point about the industrial chemicals was not the chemicals that are used in water purification, but all the chemicals such as pesticides and cleansers that legally or illegally end up in the sewers from households and industry. It is hard to see how they could be kept out. There are also the pharmaceuticals excreted in people's urine. Some of these chemicals are hormones or hormone mimics and can latch onto the receptors on the surfaces of cells. Depending on the fit the hormone mimics or endocrine disruptors can block the corresponding receptor and stop the natural hormone from latching on and doing its job or they can fool the cell into reacting as if the hormone were present when it isn't. Deformed fish and amphibians downstream from sewage plant outfalls are well attested, as are high cancer rates in cities such as New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi. Other people may be forced to take their chances with this due to past bad decisions, but it should certainly be avoided if possible.

There is no question that the folk at the top are better off now than 30 years ago, but I question whether it is generally true. I am old enough to remember. A secure job and affordable housing count for a lot. Ordinary families could get by on one income and be very comfortable on 1.5 incomes. Mothers could afford to stay home with their babies and toddlers. Crime rates were among the lowest in the Western world. Ordinary families could have a big garden where children could safely romp and play without constant adult supervision. Childhood obesity was relatively rare....
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 1 April 2005 11:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence -

I understand your fears and I think most of the population shares them. My Mother-in-Law is fond of saying that she does not swim at the beach because "fishies turds are in there." I say "I've got bad news for you, there are fish in Warragamba Dam" (actually Lake Burragorang, the reservoir behind the dam, but you get the idea). She says "I don't want to know that." Not to scare you about Sydney's water, but although the Warragamba Catchment is mostly natural it has industrial, commercial and residential development and all that goes with that including a couple small sewage treatment plants.

I've been in the water business for a long time, so I guess I don't have the sensibilities of a normal person. All I can say is that we have had success getting the chemicals and cleaners out of drinking water overseas and the technology is not that unusual or sophisticated. I'm sure we could do it here. It is not even that expensive because the plant is tacked on to the normal sewage treatment plant that gets rid of the first 99% of the contaminants and the disinfection was already there as well.

In Israel and South Africa they mix the recycled water with the existing reservoir water or groundwater, so nobody thinks that somebody else is getting good water while they are drinking bad water. There was opposition at first, but as it has been used for a few years with no problems, it has gradually been accepted. Now they think of it as an environmental triumph.

I think it will be a difficult proposition to get it working in Australia. Where it has been used, water restrictions were very severe, so the recycled water made a fairly big difference to lifestyle. Plus the people were already paying a high price for water.

If the population in Australia stabilises we might not need it, but that seems like a tricky one as well, with the current government pushing hard for increasing the population.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 1 April 2005 9:00:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
up the price
blackwater for irrigation
greywater for cleaning
dam water for drinking
keep restrictions
We are a greedy wasteful bunch
Our forebears would kick our arses because of how wasteful we are.
Posted by stix, Saturday, 2 April 2005 10:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm all for charging overusers like a wounded bull. But I would hate to see an across the board increase that disadvantages low income earners. How about a per person quota and above that gets a wopping huge bill? Maybe something ridiculous like $20 a litre.
Posted by TheShat, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 3:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’t know if this is worth doing – picking up on a long-dead line of comment. I guess it depends on whether those involved have still got active emails alerts.

It’s a good argument Andrew. But I would argue differently; we should have plenty of room to move with this most fundamental of resources. Yes, we could increase water rates a little – and this is probably a better idea than silly water restrictions, which in my town aren’t policed at more than a token level, unless neighbours dob each other in, and then they have to be caught ‘red-handed’. But I believe water has still got to be easily affordable and available at considerable quantity for all, including the lowest income-earners.

If it isn’t, then the first thing to do is to damn well stop increasing the demand! It is just incredibly stupid to continue increasing the demand on a resource that is struggling to meet existing demand, without increasing that resource. In ALL Australian capital cities and my town, this means mitigating population growth and industrial expansion. I am pleased that Divergence and Ericc touched on this issue.

Andrew, I also worry about one point you made – “Higher water prices have another advantage: they create incentives for the market to discover new ways of increasing supply.” This might be fine if those new ways are akin to better recycling, but with our still-entrenched economic-rationalist pro-expansionist paradigm, this is just as likely to mean new dams. I don’t want any more new dams thankyou very much. Enough is enough in that department.

And for as long as we have continuous expansion in the demand for water - better recycling, more efficient use and/or new dams are not likely to free up the resource for existing residents, they are only likely to cater for more people under the same restrictions.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 21 November 2005 11:13:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy