HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER RESTRICTIONS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:58): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) the increasing frustration of South Australians with the inequity of household water restrictions that limit outside use, whilst allowing unlimited use within the home;

(b) the significant potential for abuse of water restriction rules and the reliance of householders dobbing in their neighbours as an enforcement strategy;

(c) the increasing need to reduce water demand in the face of the declining health of the River Murray which supplies up to 90 per cent of Adelaide's potable water during dry years; and

(d) that those with access to the quaternary aquifer that underlies the Adelaide Plains are able to extract unlimited amounts of water for domestic use; and

2. Calls on the government to—

(a) replace the water restriction regime with a household allocation based on occupancy and quarterly meter readings to allow citizens to choose where and how they use their water;

(b) prescribe the quaternary aquifer beneath Adelaide and include domestic bore extraction within the household allocation, whilst continuing to exclude water sourced from rainwater tanks to encourage the uptake of domestic rainwater collection systems; and

(c) change the water pricing structure by increasing the volumetric costs and reducing other charges to provide more incentive for water users to reduce their demand.

This is an important issue, and it deals with how we as a state—and, in particular, in Adelaide—are managing to reduce our water consumption and, in particular, the role of water restrictions, domestic rainwater tanks and bore water.

I think it is well and truly time for us to have a thorough debate around water security for Adelaide and, in particular, the role of water restrictions. I do not believe that the government is doing anywhere near enough. I think it is taking easy and lazy options that sell this state short and, in many ways, treat South Australian citizens as children who cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions in relation to water.

The government is talking about doubling the size of the desalination plant proposed for Port Stanvac, but it is not exploring other options that we know are cheaper and faster and better for the environment in providing water security for Adelaide.

I acknowledge that in many ways this motion is similar to some things the Liberal Party has been saying in recent times, which says to me that it is talking to the same experts I am. I appreciate its support for a more thorough debate, especially in relation to water restrictions and how we reduce demand.

Members might recall that recently I published a report entitled 'Report on sustainable water options for Adelaide.' It was commissioned by me and authored by Richard Clark and Jake Bugden, and it is available on my website. The report rates all the different water supply options on a sustainability scale. I asked the consultants to look at environment costs, social costs and benefits, and economic costs and benefits, and I asked them to weight the different water options. The report showed that the best bang for our buck was demand management and, in fact, reducing demand for water as an alternative to increasing supply, which was a far more cost efficient and environmentally friendly method of providing water security.

When we talk about water security, we are not talking about small change, because the authors' report estimates that the savings could be as high as 64 gigalitres in the context of Adelaide. Members should compare that figure (64 gigalitres) with the 50 gigalitres that is proposed for the desalination plant. With the release of today's State of the Environment Report, they should also bear in mind that we are using only 3½ gigalitres of stormwater in Adelaide.

Clearly, we are on the cusp of a long hot summer. We know that the River Murray is under increasing stress and that, in hot and dry periods, such as we are in at the moment, Adelaide is up to 90 per cent dependent on the River Murray. We are enormously dependent on that fragile and increasingly less reliable source of water. The government's Water Proofing Adelaide Strategy, whilst only a few years old, is already hopelessly inadequate. Members may have followed the commentary today on the release of the State of the Environment Report, and I think it is very clear to many in the community that the government is not doing enough.

Members of the public are increasingly frustrated with the current regime of water restrictions. The approach I propose involves a greater element of goodwill than is currently apparent in the government's measures. I am looking for a more genuine partnership between the government, SA Water and the community. The current system of simply providing restrictions relies on neighbours dobbing in neighbours for compliance.

The restrictions are bewildering, and people are confused about the hours and days they are allowed to water. They are not flexible, and they are often not sensible. For example, if it is raining on their day, many people are out there watering nevertheless because they know that they will not get another chance and that perhaps the rain will stop or it will not rain enough. So it does lead to perverse outcomes. The system of water restrictions is also unfair in that a person may not want to use a lot of water inside their home but may want to use water outside; however, the system is not flexible enough to allow them to choose.

In a nutshell, there is no personal responsibility or ownership of a person's water demand, and we are using a very crude measure of restrictions. The question we have to ask ourselves is: why should SA Water or the government be the ones who decide a household's water use priorities? One outcome of the current system is that it gives rise to some pretty bizarre behaviour, such as the phenomenon of phantom washing as described by Lainie Anderson in the Sunday Mail. She talked about people running empty washing machines just so that they could use the outflow, the greywater (even though it is pretty well pristine tap water), on their garden as a way of avoiding water restrictions. On Monday 24 November, an article in The Advertiser stated:

Homeowners who refuse to abide by water restrictions have led to a surge in the number of fines issued by SA Water. While SA Water says more residents are heeding restrictions, the number of fines has increased by 700 per cent from last year. More than 2,300 households this year have also been sent reminder notices—warning them that they have been reported by a member of the public for flouting regulations. The statistics have raised concerns householders are deliberately ignoring restrictions to keep gardens alive.

Figures obtained by The Advertiser show 126 households have been fined so far this year compared to 16 in the same period in 2007. SA Water says that 180 staff have been handing out on-the-spot $315 fines since last October, after witnessing residents breaking the rules. A reminder notice—which does not incur a fine—is issued to householders who are dobbed in by the public for their first breach. A warning can also be issued if SA Water staff see evidence of a breach but cannot prove it. While the number of fines has increased seven-fold, the total number of reminder notices, warnings and fines has decreased.

Clearly, the current arrangements are leading to an enforcement problem, where the authorities are issuing notices and warnings and neighbours are dobbing in neighbours who are doing the wrong thing. More interestingly, The Advertiser editorialised on the same day (24 November) as follows:

There should be no sympathy for those who break the law, but the present restrictions do highlight the need for a significant rethink of how they operate. It is absurd that householders cannot spend more than three hours a week watering their gardens, but can go inside and stand under their showers for the same time and not incur any penalties.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that as the dry spell drags on with no relief in sight, more people are likely to disobey the rules to keep houses from cracking and trees and shrubs alive. It has been proposed water restrictions should be based on the total amount of water used and people should have a choice in how they use that water—and once the quota is reached, a much tougher pricing structure should come into force. People should be given the choice of how they use their water, and draconian restrictions in the 'one-size-fits-all' category clearly are not the answer.

I think The Advertiser is on the money there. What we need to do is come up with a regime that does treat people fairly but allows them to take responsibility for their own water use, and does not have us becoming a complete nanny state.

Another issue raised in my motion and in the water report to which I referred earlier is the use of ground water in Adelaide—in particular, what is called the quaternary aquifer that underlies much of Adelaide. The authors of the 'Sustainable water options for Adelaide' report had the following to say:

As a general principle long-term ground water extraction rates should not exceed the long-term aquifer recharge rates. While recharge rates rise partly to compensate for rises in extraction rates, continued high extraction rates raise the risk of drawing high saline water into the existing usable aquifer zones. While the lower tertiary aquifers are now under prescription, thus limiting the total extraction from them, unconstrained extraction from the upper quaternary aquifer will continue unregulated.

An average of 18 gigalitres per annum rising to 24 gigalitres per annum was withdrawn over the decade 1990-2000 via about 1,200 private irrigation bores over the Northern Adelaide Plains. A similar rate of withdrawal had been in existence for many years previously and is still continuing despite estimates that these rates are many times in excess of the natural recharge rates.

The Greens do not think it is appropriate for those who can afford it to simply drill down and tap into a common resource, thereby allowing them to keep their garden thriving. This water resource is valuable, and in our view it should be left as an emergency source in case we reach a crisis over the next year or so.

Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that bore use for household gardens should be included in any water restriction or water allocation regime. I note that when members of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee discussed this matter with Western Australian water authorities we were told that Western Australia did include backyard irrigation bores as part of its water restriction regime.

If we do not tackle this issue we run the risk of dividing Adelaide between the haves and the have nots. There will be green, leafy eastern suburbs with water and the rest of the city parched and without. The most important thing is that this is an emergency supply that will not be there in an emergency if we continue with unrestricted use.

The report also talked about rainwater and recommended that rainwater should remain out of any water allocation or water restriction regime. We do want to encourage people to take responsibility for collecting the water that falls on their properties and, therefore, that water should remain unregulated. To look at a better and fairer method of allocating water, we can look elsewhere to see the example of other states. The ones that have been talked about the most in the last week have been the newly announced Victorian target—their so-called Target 155—which refers to 155 litres of water per person per day; and Queensland Target 140 which, again, is 140 litres per person per day. The authors of my water report recommended that 140 litres of water per person per day was completely feasible as a target for South Australia.

Between 2005 and 2007, in South-East Queensland, under the Target 140 program, residents managed to reduce their per capita water use from 300 litres per person per day down to 129 litres per person per day. That is a remarkable success rate. An allocation of 140 litres per person per day might not sound a lot but, when you analyse necessary water use, you will find that it is quite a generous allocation. It enables you to run a dishwasher, to run a washing machine, to have a shower, to flush the toilet half a dozen times a day; plus, it is enough water to keep 42 square metres of premium lawn alive—if that is what you choose to do with your 140 litres. So there is more than enough water for inside the home, and sufficient water for outside, as well. Of course, with bigger households, the allocation is bigger.

I note here that the water security minister has been asked by the media and others why we do not go down this path. The response is that it is too hard. I say that it is not too hard. SA Water has 1,500 employees and there is a large recurrent and capital budget with huge amounts being siphoned from SA Water into state revenue—we can do it. This is how the Greens say how our proposal would work: households will initially be given a water allocation based on an assumed number of residents, with households able to apply for higher volumes for larger household sizes, for example.

In Queensland a four-person household was assumed and they were only contacted by the authorities if they exceeded a 200 litres per person per day level. If a family had more than an average number of people then, of course, they should be able to apply to get a higher allocation. The proposal involves meters being read quarterly and the allocation being averaged over the year which, of course, would probably result in greater use in summer and less in winter.

However, key to such a scheme would be a major water literacy campaign. That would be necessary to inform residents about how to keep track of their water use—how to read their meters, for a start. We would probably need, over time, to replace meters with ones that are more user-friendly. The water literacy campaign would provide for considerable help to be given to households to help them keep within their allocation.

We certainly need more information on our water bills so that we can compare how we are travelling as against, for example, the neighbourhood or the city as a whole. At present, we really do not have any way of judging our performance against our neighbours or the rest of the city. Such a program must be supported by a well-funded and comprehensive residential water efficiency upgrade program. In terms of such a program, people always talk about the expense but, given that we are about to spend over $1 billion on a desalination plant, if that amount of money was allocated to such a program, it is about $2,500 per household. So, there are considerable amounts of money that could be used for this sort of program, and that would help people with water efficient appliances and rainwater tanks far more than the fairly miserly incentives currently available. The way the Greens see this program working is that, if households consistently go over their allocation, water advisers could be sent to the home to check for and fix leaks, for example, to implement water efficiency improvements and help householders reduce their water consumption.

We do not support sending in police officers but prefer to send in plumbers. However, for those who continue to deliberately flout the system—people who refuse to fix leaks or modify their behaviour—it may be appropriate for there to be consequences. In Queensland, for example, they have a stepped scheme where they go through different processes. First, the home owners are notified through the normal billing process and are sent an information package and, secondly, they can be notified again and asked to explain why their water use is so high. A water adviser is sent out to check for and fix any leaks, implement any water efficiency improvements and provide help to reduce water consumption and, lastly, if the deliberate flouting continues, there can be financial penalties, which include a stepped price increase. Flow restrictors have been installed, and there is a possibility in Queensland for totally banning outside water use. Whilst that sounds draconian for the tiny minority of deliberate flouters, the experience of the Queensland scheme overwhelmingly has been that it is a success.

The final part of my motion talks about shifting away from static or property-based charges to volumetric charges. That is an issue close to the heart of the Hon. John Darley, who has raised that issue many times before. Presently, with water priced at about $1 a tonne, there is little incentive to reduce consumption. Certainly, the new stepped tariffs are a little higher, but the increases are most heavily weighted towards the lowest water users compared with the higher water users. This effectively disadvantages more efficient water users.

Pricing for commercial users also needs to be addressed. Based on an average residential consumption per household in the metropolitan area of about 246 kilolitres, the direct unit charged for water supply would be only $203 per annum. However, the overall cost of water is much greater than the unit charge. There are annual fixed supply charges for water supply of $160 and sewer at $1.42 per $1,000 property value. Based on a median house price of $420,000, the fixed charges total $756, which is almost four times the variable cost. A 50 per cent reduction in household water use was targeted in Queensland and, if it was done here, the average householder's water bill would reduce by only 10 per cent. Again, this provides little incentive for householders to reduce use and would likely soon reduce the momentum of any demand management plan. Redressing the balance between fixed and variable charges is urgently required.

In conclusion, it is possible to come up with a better system. Many of the same arguments used against a water allocation system are the same arguments that could be used against the system we have currently. The benefits of a shift are worth exploring. It may be that we do not introduce such a measure holus-bolus but trial it in a number of suburbs. The critical point is that we need to give control back to citizens and give them ownership over the task of reducing their water consumption.

In Queensland they have regularly been doing better than the target the government set. Behaviour change theory suggests that we need to bring down these matters to an individual level in order to make it as easy as possible for people to make the right choices. We can put trust in the community. Most people want to do the right thing and, if we make it easier for people to save water, the results will follow. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT