2018-04-30
Rob Delves
Im part of a household of four and our last few 60-day water bills have averaged $300, so our annual water bill should total about $1800, which equates to 3% of my gross salary. Quite obviously, my gardening-crazy partner lavishes far too much water on our trees and other plants. Her response is that I dont complain about their cooling and beautifying effect, so how about I shut up, especially as my 13 years of living in England has resulted in an aversion to taking a shower. My response is that this saves water and money – except that, on reflection, the daily underarm deodorant is more expensive than a two-minute shower. On such compatible conversations is a beautiful relationship based.
Two-thirds of the total bill is the standard water and sewerage service charge, while only about $100 is for two months of water use (c1,000 litres per day). So, is 3% of gross salary for water and sewerage too cheap? Absolutely – how can a two minute shower be cheaper than a ten second deodorant swipe! Perths water is way too cheap. Or perhaps I should add, way too cheap for a reasonably well-off older male with “house and kids all paid off.”
One thousand litres (one tonne of water!) costs just $1.68. Surely no product comes close to that sort of cheapness. And that base level price covers a ridiculously generous volume ‒ our quite wasteful use of 60 kL every two months doesnt even take us close to the second tier of pricing. The $2.24 per kL price doesnt begin till you reach 83 kL for two months. How can any household use 30% more than us? Presumably by attempting to create a tropical wetlands garden in our semi-desert summer, while everyone in the house takes two 20 minute showers every day.
Yet Im aware that $300 every two months would be a solid whack for a low-income household with “house and kids definitely not paid off.” A solid whack for something that is the bedrock not just of good health, but of life itself. So, whats with WAs water pricing? Too cheap for the reasonably well-off, but also too costly for those doing not so well?
How do our Greens policies deal with this? The Greens (WA) Water Policy contains four statements that relate to putting a price on water:
- continued public ownership of essential scheme water infrastructure;
- appropriate forms of subsidy for scheme water customers in the interests of equity and social justice, recognising that water is a necessity for life;
- ensure that prices for water at the minimum allocations do not penalise people living on low incomes;
- ensure that water use charges for all water users reflect the true cost of monitoring, managing and protecting our water resources and send a clear price signal to profligate users.
So, in a nutshell, because water is so precious and essential, it must be priced high enough to deter profligate use, while at the same time being affordable for lower-income households. What follows is my take on how these four policy statements might guide our responses to practical supply and pricing issues that have arisen in recent years.
Nearly all of these issues have arisen from the inconvenient reality of having to deal with our drying climate, which has seen inflow into Perths dams drop from the long-term average of 338 gigalitres per year to less than 80 gL today. Before this drying trend became apparent around 1980, Perth received 90% of its water from the ten dams. Now even 20% is looking problematic. Dam water is incredibly cheap: much less than one dollar a tonne delivered to your front door (or taps just inside that door). But its becoming incredibly non-existent.
1. Price water much more cheaply for the basic essential uses
In my opinion, the most effective way of achieving The Greens twin aims of sending a clear price signal to profligate users and ensuring affordable water for even the poorest households is to start with a very low price for the minimum amount everyone requires. That minimum volume would be subject to negotiation and if possible should be adjusted for household number. However, for a household of four like mine it should surely be much less than the current 83 kL for two months.
This base volume would be calculated on how much water is needed for essentials such as drinking, food preparation and keeping bodies, clothes and dishes clean. This base tier of pricing should be very cheap indeed. Kate Raworths excellent book, Doughnut Economics, lists many places with ultra low base prices, none more so than Durban:
In Durban, South Africa, where access to water is recognised as a basic constitutional human right, each days essential supply is provided free to all low-income households.
2. Price water much higher for everything above essential uses
Households consuming above that minimum volume would face a much steeper inclining set of price steps than at present. Our Water Corporations present steps are far too few and too lenient in their price rises:
- Up to 83 kL = $1.68 per kL
- 83 – 433 kL = $2.24 per kL
- Over 433 kL = $3.17 per kL
Changing the pricing so that lavish users pay much more than at present would send a strong price signal to people who feel they are entitled to very cheap water for a lifestyle far beyond having enough water for good health and sanitation: swimming pool, abundant European gardens, English-style green lawns in the Perth summer, luxuriating in long showers, washing your three cars twice a week, etc… The price per kL would rise exponentially or in a series of steep tiers, like our 1950s progressive income tax rates.
Steeply rising tiered pricing is justified by both the social justice and environmental Greens pillars. It has many advantages. It provides essential water for low-income households. It rewards conservative or wise water use. It doesnt require any government regulations. It demands that you pay much more for non-essential water use such as an English lawn than for basic human needs. It has a proven track record in taming wasteful use.
3. Make sewerage service charges even more progressive
My 60-day water service charge is $41.85 and its the same for every household. My sewerage service charge is $153.46. This cost is based on the propertys rateable value. For us thats $22,360, which to my limited understanding of how rateable value works, is roughly based on the $400 -$450 per week that is the going rate for rental around here.
The Water Corporation uses a pricing system as follows: 4.198 cents per dollar up to a rateable value of $20,500, then 3.1cents per dollar above that. Distinctly non-progressive, so that people living in cheaper properties are faced with a large cost. Why couldnt this charge be made progressive, with a very modest base rate followed by exponential increases ‒ like the water use system I described earlier?
4. Subsidise rainwater tanks
Ive been a huge and hopelessly biased fan of rainwater tanks ever since1969 in my first teaching job, when I lived in a “granny flat section” of a large farmhouse in Gippsland in Victoria. The rain tanks were the only water source and they provided abundantly for the four of us living in this house, thanks to the large roof area and the 900mm annual rain that was “on average” spread across all months. However, at the end of my second year the rains stopped in December and by February we were instructed to make do with a 20 cm bath and only twice a week ‒ what turned out to be a sort of warm up for my bathing aversion that started in England a few years later.
What really impressed me was that the tanks filled to overflowing when just 20 mm fell in one day in late February. Of course I was also impressed by the zero water bills. On further reflection, rain tanks are also huge winners in terms of efficiency – in a big contrast to dams and aquifers, every drop that falls goes into the tank. The energy use is frugal as well. They are also an important demonstration that “big pipes in - big pipes out” isnt the only way with water – maybe not even the smartest.
In The Economics of Rainwater Tanks, a 2007 report for the ACF, year-round rainfall cities such as Brisbane and Sydney are quoted as lowest-cost places to install rain tanks. Perth is less ideal because it rarely rains from November to April. However, Adelaide has a similar climate to Perth and it gets 7% of its water from the 40% of homes with rainwater tanks.
5. Get more water from cheap underground sources CAUTIOUSLY
The Gnangara Mound and Jandakot Mound, our local Perth aquifers, cover a huge area and depth, while further south the Yarragadee is much bigger still. However, The Greens approach is to be cautious about increasing our reliance on underground sources, especially given that we have limited scientific understanding of the complex working of these systems. One thing we do know is that recharging of the aquifers has slowed dramatically with the drying climate. Scientists are unsure about the size of the aquifer and what constitutes a sustainable drawdown.
My reasoning from our Greens policy principles is that we need to rely on these aquifers, especially the local ones, but use them cautiously and monitor relentlessly – a classic case of the Precautionary Principle. Its also time for even tighter regulation of the use of private bores.
6. Desal v Kimberley Pipe
Which is the lesser of these two evils? I cant see how we could do anything other than recommend Desal #5 and Big Pipe #6 on our Greens HTV where six water source candidates are in the race. Both are expensive, energy wasteful and environmental vandals, but Desal is much cheaper, uses less energy per kL and does less damage to the environment (that includes considerations of Aboriginal sites and pastoral lands). The detailed comparisons are in any number of reports and books.
7. Change the mindset that we are entitled to as much as we want
This Greens approach will be rejected by the many people who believe that they are entitled to as much cheap water as their economic aspirations demand. They are used to the success of science and technology in triumphing over the harsh, dry environment to “make our semi-desert bloom.”
The Greens absolutely support better technology: making our appliances more water-efficient, improved technologies for recycling water. But in addition we are asking people to rethink their relationship with water, to temper their water needs to ensure there is sufficient water and a healthy environment into the future and to ensure everyone has enough water regardless of income. And also to acknowledge that public assets have a high priority in water allocation. Im thinking of things like public parks and gardens and especially sports fields, which are important for a healthy lifestyle and also an essential “social glue” in community life. I think a Greens pecking order would be the basics for all homes and businesses, then enough for all public places, both well ahead for any demands by less essential private uses.
Perth has had some success in educating people to change the “endless consumption” mindset, when restrictions on outdoor water use were introduced. First of all, there was good consultation with the nursery industry, to factor in their concerns. Secondly there was lots of education in water-wise gardens, especially the presentation of clear scientific evidence that 15 minutes twice a week is enough for gardens to survive the harsh summer.
We should argue that technology is important, but more diversity of supplies and conservative use are much more important if our communities are to become more resilient in the reality of a climate that is certainly drying, but with unpredictable swings thrown in. Adopting the language of our Peace and Non-violence Greens pillar could be useful here: Instead of always battling to change the environment to our needs, lets learn to live in peace within its ecological limits.
A final word. Ive neglected the fourth water statement in The Greens (WA) Water Policy: public ownership. It derives from our core value that water is not an economic commodity, but rather a human right and a public trust. Therefore, in my view at least, we should always hold that water privatisation is incompatible with that core value.
WORTH READING:
Asa Wahlquist, Thirsty Country: options for Australia
Ruth Morgan, Running Out? Water in Western Australia
Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist
Maude Barlow, Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming battle for the Right to Water
Header photo: Mundaring Weir. Rob Delves