How much do you value water?
The value of water is a hot topic. How much do you value water? When we don’t have water, we really value it; however, in many places people expect water to be cheap, after all it falls from the sky and there are lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans of water. Yet, we tend to forget what it takes to make sure the water at our tap is reliable and safe. In addition, many people balk at the thought of reusing water. I recently was reading an article from the southeast part of the US that said it just isn’t cost effective to recycle water. Our challenge in these stressful economic times is to plan for the future and make the right decisions to guarantee our future water supplies even when it might not be “cost effective”. Living without water is not an option and living with restricted supplies won’t be much fun either. We need to value water now.
Posted by Cindy Wallis-Lage
Gerry O'Toole
That’s a big question Cindy. I am sure you, like me, do not want to pay more for your water than you need to – especially in these uncertain days. Personally I’d rather spend it on a new guitar. So I feel that the price of water should be as low as possible, but I understand that the tariff should reflect the real cost of collection, storage, treatment and distribution.
Ideally of course it should not be subsidised. But that is probably naive – as it ignores politics and the fact that people in poorer countries and on low incomes will not be able to afford it even if they eventually get access to it.
We ‘tend to forget’ because we have not done a good job of educating the public on water treatment and the setting of their water tariff. If we do, most people will get it – but we tend to treat them as if it is beyond them. The image of certain of the world’s water providers is also seen as wasteful – especially if there is major evidence of leakage etc. It’s hard to convince people that water tariffs need to be raised when treated water is allowed to leak away. Money down the drain literally.
Will privatisation of major water facilities make a difference in minimizing water tariff? Possibly. The Sembcorp Changi NEWater plant in Singapore is a good example of where private involvement reduced the end user’s cost of production and this is reflected in reductions in tariff. However, taking the UK as another example, where the water industry was privatised in the late 1980s, there is still a feeling that big business is ‘fleecing’ the general public and their ownership has only increased the cost of water – especially as some water companies are owned by overseas institutions – including banks.
Water reuse will be a major tool going forward – especially as it can be reused more than once. Does not seem like that article in the US takes account of this – and it would be interesting to see their cost analyses.
Like oil, one major element going forward will be reducing consumption – making do rather than finding access to more. We are so wasteful.
Jim Howlett
Gerry, good comments. Water is after all limited, there’s not much “low hanging” fruit as far as water sources are concerned. If a new power station comes online and needs water, then chances are it will have to take the water from already allocated sources. As populations continue to grow competition for water increase. Tough decisions will have to be taken on where the priorities lie. I would have thought one of the paths of least resistence is to persuade people to use less water. In Australia through a combination of severe water restrictions, as a result of drought, and education communities have made impressive reductions to their water use. What’s interesting to me is that those people that have had to live under those restrictions have changed their behaviour. Now they take 4 minute showers wherever they are. Granted it’s easier to make people change their water usage when faced with a severe drought. But as you point out education is a key point here, if more investment is made in educating the public on how their water supply is managed then that would help to raise the value people place on water. As we’ve seen on this blog, Singaporeans are pretty savvy when it comes to water issues. Your average cab driver is pretty clued up on water issues, why? he/she has been exposed to water issues in the mainstream media ever since Singapore declared independence in 1965. It’s a national security issue here. My belief is that water conservation measures and public education will become increasingly seen as an important component of water utilities to manage their water supplies better.
Roger Middleton
Jim & Gerry,
Thanks for these thoughts, all good and mostly fundamental to human nature.
First a little history: a lot of people think Singapore fell to the Japanese in WW2 because “the guns were pointing the wrong way” i.e. over the naval harbour instead of over the Johore Straits. I understand the Aussies were quite happily defending the north of the island, until the island ran out of water. Then, as until recently, most of Singapore’s water came from Malasia; all the Japanese had to do was turn off the tap and wait. So the lesson was slightly earlier than 1965!
An update: at a conference in the UK last year it became clear that the UK Government still have a vision of unlimited clean water for everyone at minimal cost (preferably free), without regard to the population distribution, or even the total population. This may be a nice vision, but it has never been tenable. In the past, even if a King built his castle in the wrong place, without a good water supply for his army, his castle would fall at the first siege. Check the current issue of National Geographic: there are suggestions that the Cambodian temples at Angkor fell because of water supply problems.
The future: I agree with the implications that financial regulation only brings financial benefits and economics treats water as a commodity to be traded. Trouble is that limits to any resource are externalities: to be ignored until the market falls apart. The parallels between the banking industry and environmental management are alarmingly close.
I also agree with the sentiment behind Gerry’s statement on access to clean water being a basic human right. But both parts of the demand side of the equation have to make sense. We can reduce our demand per head, especially if we are personally aware of a drought situation, and we have the technology to pump water long distances efficiently. But if we put too many people in the wrong places we simply won’t have the energy in future to pump water. And if there are so many people on planet Earth that the available water per head is insufficient, the maths are simple and the answer can only go one way.
Humans only have rights if we exercise them responsibly.
Gerry O'Toole
All good stuff Roger. I see that OfWat does not agree that UK water companies should be allowed in general to raise water tariffs to the extent requested over teh coming 5 years. While that probably hurts our business in the UK, it is hard to see much sympathy coming from Joe Public in these times.