First of all, apologies to all for the stray post earlier. The response to Perseus should have read:

I think there are two distinct issues here. One is whether the provision of water should stop being a public service, and become a commercial enterprise, the other is whether we are doing enough to conserve a scarce resource, given there appears to be little incentive to do so in the present environment.

The two are often conflated, in order to put a case that reads "only when we have to pay for it will we value it properly." What is totally ignored in this argument is that it isn't necessary to shove the entire industry into the hands of private enterprise in order to achieve this objective.

Instead, we have a form of institutionalized cowardice, in which the government moves the problem - making the electorally unpopular decision to charge an appropriate rate for the service - into the private sector, rather than risk losing their pensions.

Having avoided the key decisions for decades - whether we need more and better reservoirs, investing in better delivery systems - governments now seek to get themselves off the hook. And anyone who thinks that water will be a) cheaper b) purer or c) less prone to drought restrictions as a result of a move into private ownership, is kidding themselves.

People will make alternative arrangements wherever they can, whether the supply comes from the public or the private sector, should price be a factor.

The basic economics of the supply side won't change whether public or private. But if you have to factor in the cost of a bloated overpaid Board, and the dividends they need to pay out to support the share price, they will.

Pericles,
You may have overlooked one point, while I agree with your last post, there will also be a need to pay a C.E.O. 63 times the average working person to perform the duties than a much less rerumerated General Manager of the 1970's was paid. In fact C.E.O's have enjoyed a 570% increase in remuneration since 1990. Those who think water should not be a public service have $ signs in their eyes.

As mentioned, overheads will not change with privatisation, except for the though having to be made larger, which requires money, where will the money come from, us of course. When I collected my superanuation, the first task was to price solar energy, I nearly had a heart attack, next was to price a rainwater tank, a small stroke followed. On the driest continent on Earth, we have water shortages because we cannot afford to do otherwise, as the ordinary working persons wage is in the process of being forced down.

To my knowledge the last MAJOR Dam built was the Burdekin Dam in North Queensland, which was completed in 1987 by Bob Hawke. This is a disgraceful situation, especially when we have a Government sitting on a $14 billion surplus.

Shonga, what is a disgraceful situation?

Are you really in favour of lots of new big dams?

While travelling in the UK in 1997 and again in 2002 I noticed that there was considerable debate about the supply of water especially to London. Apparently since privatisation the company concerned spent very little on maintenance of the distribution system. Estimates were that about 40% of water was lost annually. The company's proposed solution was that the Government should resume land and build a new dam to increase supply. They had no intention of repairing the infrastructure.

Privatising water supply in Australia will do nothing for infrastructure development or planning. It will only result in higher prices.

Witness the problems in Brisbane at the moment as Sunwater continues to supply water to the Gold Coast despite their published lack of need AND to the Tarong power station despite their possession of their own dam. Both these deals 'contracts' were made when there was a problem but the nature of private contractural arrangements mean that they continue despite the lack of need. Full privatisation as opposed to the current 'corporatisation' will only make these kinds of problems more common. Instead, elected governments should take responsibility and make the decisions the people expect them to make.

The Snowy River Alliance (http://www.snowyriveralliance.com.au) received some coverage on Radio National this morning. They are one group which is opposed to the privatisation of the Snowy River Hydro scheme. If you wish to help, then get in touch.

--

I am with both SHONGA and with Ludwig on the question of dams. The failure of our Governments to invest properly in infrastructure, thanks to the stifling influence of 'small government' economic (so-called) rationalist ideology, should be considered a first order political scandal.

However, we should only build infrastructure which does not cause significant further harm to our environment and which does add to the overall sustainability of our society.

The overall record of dams does not appear to be very good, so we need to think very very carefully before we build any more.

As an example, I have heard that the Mekong Delta has largely been ruined thanks to some dams built further up the river using some expertise from Australia's own Snowy Hydro Authority. As a result of the loss of water flow, fish stocks are no longer available, so the local people now have to, instead, damage the forests to keep themselves fed. (I still need to obtain further confirmation of this particular story, but there are countless similar stories of the effects of damming projects from other parts of the Third World. For some corroborating information, see http://www.hawaii.edu/hga/gaw01/workshop/Mekongdam.html and http://www.searin.org/Th/Mekong/Mek_dam_nE3.htm)

---

Arjay, I agree with much of what you have written about the NSW Government, but this is not the place to push your ideological barrow against social welfare and public servants.

If the NSW public service is indeed so bloated why was it so hard for so many other people in their 40's to obtain employment there? It was put to me by a current middle manager in the Qld public service that she, herself, would not be able to be employed so restrictive have job opportunities become.

On the question of social welfare, this has been discussed in threads in response to articles by Professor Peter Saunders of the CIS :
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3556#8784 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173.

Pericles, you raised some interesting issues. We need to distinguish between the public's 'right' to have clean (potable) drinking water and kitchen water, their 'need' for clean but not necessarily potable showering water, and their 'desire' for garden water and pool water. It has been assumed that these should all be delivered through the one pipe and on an as-needed 'just in time' basis. And this assumption has then demanded that even garden water must be potable.

At the same time, we have treated the whole lot as an entitlement to a public service without any sort of means test or, more importantly, without any requirement to take reasonable and practical steps to help ourselves before the hand goes out. Almost every other element of government expenditure has a requirement that we try to help ourselves first as our duty to the community. The work test for the dole is a good example. If we are not actively trying to help ourself by seeking a job, then the dole is not paid.

And it seems clear that we should apply the same standards to the supply of water. The ultimate safety net should be an allocation of all reasonable requirements for potable drinking and kitchen water on an as-of-right basis.

But after that we have both needs and desires that could be met by reasonable and practical steps to help ourselves. And these would vary depending on circumstances. Residents of highrise buildings clearly have limited scope to help themselves while detached urban houses have a great deal more options.

The economics of this can also be influenced by differential pricing so the portion of supply for the 'need' for showers would be priced higher than the potable drinking water but lower than the 'desired' water for the garden