email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Why is it that when we want someone to not do something, we first let them do it, then we charge them money for doing it, then we leave them free to do it again?!
Water use over limit by billions, shouts the headline in The West Australian, on 6 Sep 10. The Department of Water has found that "96 of the 436 licence holders [licensed to pump a limited amount of water from the Gnangara Mound] ... had exceeded their limits." So an already over-drawn source of water has people draining it even more, by stealing water.
What will we do about it?
Probably, nothing at all. Look at our record:
An alumina refinery pollutes. They deny that they polluted. For the day on which pollution was measured, they claim that it was a one-off, that it will never happen again. They are, perhaps, fined a small amount which will hardly affect their annual profits.
I say, they broke their environmental agreement. The refinery should be closed down.
An oil well burns, explodes, leaks oil into the environment. I say, they broke their environmental agreement, written or implied. They should pay every cent of cleanup then the company should be banned from every drilling in the area again.
A tourist resort pumps tourist sewage to... somewhere... near a dolphin sanctuary. Raw sewage leaks into the dolphin sanctuary. I say, they broke their environmental agreements, the resort should be closed until the operator can guarantee that no more raw sewage will leak into the environment.
People and businesses put the environment at risk. Businesses do it in order to make money. An official smack on the wrist does not affect income. A fine can be written off against profits and is probably tax deductible.
A business agrees to not damage the environment. It then damages the environment. The business cannot be trusted. It should be closed down.
If you want to be nice: The business should be closed down until (a) all damage has been fully repaired and (b) clear action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. If (a) takes a long time, well, that's why it should not have happened in the first place. If (b) is expensive, well, that's a valid consideration when the business considers its future financial viability.
What about the Gnangara Mound?
Now businesses -- or individuals, or councils -- are drawing well beyond their licence limit of water. This affects all of us, because Water Corporation also depends on Gnangara Mound for metropolitan water supplies. It also affects the environment because drawing on the Mound lowers the water table which kills plants in the area.A smack on the wrist is pointless. A fine is simply another cost to the business, to be passed on to customers. The bores must be turned off.
Someone draws too much water. So stop their bores. Now! To be kind, just stop their bores until consumption has caught up with their licensed allowance. You drew twice your allowance for this year? So you draw no water at all for the next year.
This is not about the cost of water. It's about the use of water. There is a limited supply. It must be managed.
Avoid fines and punishment
The real point is, we must use less water. (The obvious answer is, we should have less people needing to use the water. That's another debate.) At the very least, each of us must use no more than a fair share of the available water.So put a limiter on each bore. When the annual (or weekly, or monthly) limit is reached -- the bore stops pumping. Start with the people who have already exceeded their limits. They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
Forget about punishment. Aim for prevention.
The rules are in place. The limits have been set. People who cannot work within those limits have been identified. Prevent them from -- help them to avoid -- future illegal pumping.
Prevention is better than cure. Water wasted today will never come back.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment