Just on the issue of plastic bags, I’m curious Legal Eagle, what do you think needs to be done here at the bigger picture level?

If you have the space please consider putting in a rainwater tank besides giving you a measure of independence rainwater makes a much nicer cup of tea and when it comes to washing your hair…

We have a total storage capacity of 13000 gallons and this is enough when used wisely to service a family of four you would not have room for that much but even a 2000 gallon tank could make a big difference.

Best wishes
Iain

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the money to fix the water infrastructure has to come from somewhere. But where?

You say the money should come from general taxation. This either means:
(a) an increase in taxes to cover the cost of the infrastructure improvements; or
(b) taking money away from an existing government service; or
(c) borrowing a large amount of money.

Option (a) - which tax do you think should be increased? How do you stop higher taxation from hurting the vulnerable?

Option (b) - which government service/s do you nominate to have budget cuts so that infrastructure can be improved? which sector of society has to suffer because of need to improve water restrictions?

Option (c) - how does the government pay the money back? Of course, the lender will charge interest rates - do we really want society in general to be paying lender’s interest rates?

I share your disquiet about massive executive salaries in corporations these days. But I think it’s unfair to say that a desire to increase executive salaries is “the reason” behind the BCA’s Report. I think there are some good intentions there, and a desire to fix a system which is clearly flawed. That being said, of course they wouldn’t suggest anything that didn’t have advantages for business. So I don’t swallow the report whole, but nor do I totally discount it simply because it’s from “business”.

As I’ve said above, the BCA’s proposal isn’t perfect. But the money has to come from somewhere. As you can see, there’s no easy answer. All the answers potentially hurt the vulnerable in society: increasing taxes, cutting other government services, paying interest to a lender. Increasing water prices is at least a straightforward answer that leaves everyone knowing exactly where they stand, and understanding the economic value of water.

I agree that infrastructure must be improved to reduce wastage. And research needs to be undertaken so desalinisation can begin to become economical and environmentally sound (to date, it would push up the costs of water services dramatically, not to mention the cost of carbon emissions from the energy-intensive process). However, I believe it is government’s responsiblity through general taxation to provide adequate, fair and equitable water services. It owns all the water businesses in Victoria, and it is its responsibility that an efficient service is provided. Currently, the water businesses rack in millions of dollars of dividends that go directly to consolidated revenue. Some of this should be directed to water infrastructure projects, and it is. The Central Region Sustainable Water Strategy (check out http://www.dse.vic.gov.au) has a number of actions to improve infrastructure. I still maintain it is hardly fair to tax the vulnerable and low-income to pay for the infrastructure costs - this is what would happen if water prices increased. The burden should be shared equally.

Compensating low income families through concessions is a start. But not all vulnerable consumers can access these benefits. Think of an average working family with perhaps 4 or 5 children? They won’t get concessions and will be burdened by increasing water prices and an inability to reduce their usage. Increasing prices will not remind people that clean and fresh water is a privilege - it will just cut off access to it for some of society’s most vulnerable.

Your point about raising the price of water is an interesting one. At least if rich households still use a lot of water but pay more for it, this will result in:
(a) more money to fix infrastructure to prevent wastage;
(b) more money to develop better desalination and recycled water technologies.
Where will the money come from otherwise? In my post, I tried to compensate for any impact on low income families by suggesting concession rates (just as there is for electricity and gas).

That being said, I think it is also good to have a societal consciousness against water wastage, but I really don’t like the “dobbing” mentality as a way to achieve that. And I think you are wrong that the unpleasantness is a beat up - I have had a number of friends and family tell me stories of nasty confrontations.

Access to clean and fresh water is something everyone should have. And it costs money to create clean and fresh water. I think that sometimes in Australia we forget how bloody lucky we are to have it. We are privileged. By increasing prices, it might remind people that it is a privilege to have such good and clean water (unlike much of the rest of the world, which doesn’t have clean water).

The BCA report you quote, Water Under Pressure, is clearly misleading when it argues that water shortages are not due to drought and climate change. Try telling that to the farmers, who will confirm that the drought is really happening.

The BCA’s argument that addtional use of market mechanisms is the appropriate response, such as more developed water markets and increased prices, fails to consider the social impact of blunt ‘price signals’. Water and wastewater services are essential services and access to water is a fundamental human right. You state that you would be happy paying twice the amount for water. Wealthy households will also do this, and it will not result in reduced usage. People will be quite happy to pay more for filling up their pools and watering their lawns. Industrial users will just pass the increased costs onto consumers of their goods and services. Households with limited incomes will feel the signal most strongly, many of whom live in properties with inefficient appliances or with large families, and cannot reduce their usage further. Is it fair to punish the most disadvantaged further?

You are right in saying that household usage isn’t that much compared to overall water use in Victoria. But this fact is misleading. Water systems are largely not interconnected. In the Melbourne system, household use accounts for around 60% of total water use. We must take responsibility for the systems we live in. There is problems with leaking pipes and channels, and we must pursue Government and other users to be more efficient.

I think that restriction policies and water efficiency measures are perhaps the most equitable response to water shortages, rather than price signals. Such policies enable us all to share the burden more equally. I also think the beat-ups by the Sunday Age and the Australian are creating the ‘climate of pettiness and unpleasantness’, not the policy of water restrictions

It is beyond ridiculous to go to stage 4 in rural areas with nary a whiff of an idea as to how we might increase long-term water reserves.

It is no wonder, though, that we’re quick to believe that we are the culprit when it comes to water restrictions - it has been drummed into us from way back. Remember the “Don’t be a Wally with Water” campaign? I was in about grade 2 in its height, and we had some people come out to our classroom to talk to us about it. We had to do a questionaire about how much water we used, and were then told if it was too much or not. I remember being made to feel so guilty about my water usage - and I was only 7 for goodness sakes!

my neighbours children had a wonderful time in their wading pool during last weeks extreme heat and I would not dream of dobbing.

Of course you are right.

The petty restrictions on individuals are ridiculous when compared to industrial usage.

A simple example is supermarket carry-bags: what’s the point when industry shrink-wraps great palletloads of stuff in layers and layers of plastic equal to 100’s of carrybags? Oberve at Bunnings the next delivery of potting mix or similar.

Down at the fishmarkets the taps run full blast all day. If it was really necessary to save the piddling amount of water my garden needs, then fish markets and shops would/should be shut down as well.

I recall the big drought of 1981 - there has been plenty of time for our government to put processes in place.