Wednesday 7 July 2010

Water Strategy Misses the Point

Actually, the grass is greener on our own side of the fence. So why should we work so hard to dig it up? wonders Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems?
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In today's West Australian newspaper there is an opinion piece on future water supplies for Western Australia (Water strategy is to hope it rains, 7 Jul 10). The opinion is that of Robert Taylor who -- according to Inside Cover several months ago -- writes in an "ironic" style.

Let's hope that Taylor was being "ironic" as he discussed water supplies. The alternative is that he is being "stupid".

Some people, he writes, find it hard to believe that a Government would sacrifice a scarce water resource for boating. He's referring to Logue Brook Dam.

Logue Brook Dam has been a recreation area for many, many years. It has never supplied drinking water to Perth. A few years ago, the government of the day -- on the advice of Water Corporation -- was ready to sacrifice a recreation area in order to provide for the increasing demands of the over-grown metro area. Why should people be allowed a recreation area when industry and economists demand expansion, expansion, expansion?!

The attempt to destroy the recreation value of Logue Brook Dam was a typical exercise in political cynicism. Check out the section headed The facade crumbles, for a description of the false premise of the government's so-called "public consultation" on the political decision.

Given that Logue Brook Dam has been a recreational facility for as long as it has existed. Given that the Perth metropolitan area has outgrown all of its own water resources. Why would Taylor refer to the "sacrifice [of] a scarce water resource"? The real problem is, that the government wants to sacrifice a public recreation area!

The problem is not water supply

Taylor quotes objective number one from a Water Department planning document: "ensure security of water supply for the current and future needs of all water users".

The problem is not water supply. The real problem is with water demand. There is plenty of water -- if only we will manage our use of that water. This is true of the Perth metro area. It is also true of the entire state.

There are several aspects to the real problem:

  • There are too many people. People use water. More people use more water. If we are really worried -- stop population growth. If we are afraid to do that, move on to the next point.
  • Each person uses too much water. Find out how much water was used, per person, 100 years ago: it's a lot, lot less than now. If we are afraid to reduce per-person water consumption, move on to the next point.
  • A huge proportion of our good drinking water is used by industry. Stop wasting water in industry! Or is that also, too difficult...

In Karratha, Taylor tells us, between one third and one half of the good, drinkable scheme water is used by "big miners". Used for what? To damp down the dust of their operations! What an absolute waste of water.

In Perth, Water Corporation are expected to draw even more water from the Gnangara Mound underground source. This is going to dry out wetlands and kill native flora and fauna. This sacrifice of our natural environment is likely, according to Taylor, to "get a fair hearing". By "fair hearing", does he mean that Water Corporation will be told to bugger off and stop destroying natural resources? I doubt it.

Here are some answers

Western Australia has enough water to support industry and a good lifestyle for a reasonable number of people. Water "shortages" are one indication that we are exceeding that reasonable number.

Should we continue to destroy our environment and erode our lifestyle? Is profit for the rich more important than life for everyone? Sure there is a flow-on benefit from industrial growth. The bulk of the benefit flows on to people who come to an area because of the industrial growth. So the benefits per person are heavily diluted.

Water supply is fine. Water demand is excessive. Here are some answers:

  • Limit population growth. The first rule of quality is, make sure that you have the resources before you commit to the project. How many people are already in WA? Only start projects which can be run by those people.
  • Reduce water use per person. Water Corporation have already reduced water pressure in some suburbs. This slows down the use of water. Extend this to all suburbs. We will adapt, even if the lawns all die.
  • How serious are we? Each house / dwelling could have a water restrictor. The house is designed for X people, you can draw enough water per day to support X people. Expecting visitors? Plan ahead, or buy expensive water from an external source. Are we really that serious about saving water?
  • Allow each industry enough water to support the number of its employees. Not enough for that industry? Perhaps it is the wrong industry for the area.
  • Encourage alternative solutions. There is dust from iron ore? Use a tarpaulin! Look to better solutions: There is a serious dust problem with wheat storage but they don't damp down the wheat with scheme water... Find out what wheat farmers do and adapt it to iron ore.
  • Limit the number of projects and industries. As above, if we don't have the population / water / money / time to start a new iron ore mine -- then don't. Do we need to make all possible profits now?! Take a ticket and wait your turn.

We don't have a problem with the available supply of water. We have a problem with unfettered demand for the available water.

Manage the demand.

Solve the actual problem.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought:
email nick leth at gmail dot com

No comments: