Owen Richards
Australia is in the grip of a water shortage crisis. In NSW and Victoria, water usage restrictions were introduced to combat the crisis in October and November of 2002.
The NSW mandatory restrictions, for example, which replaced the previous voluntary restrictions, apply across Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. They stipulate certain acceptable times for watering gardens and legislate appropriate backyard pool levels, as well as making the use of sprinklers, watering systems and the hosing of hard surfaces illegal. Fines of $220 apply if the restrictions are violated.
The state government introduced the low-level restrictions in order to slow down the decline in Sydney's stored water reserves. Currently it is estimated that Sydney's water storage could run out in about two years. The supply is declining by 0.4% per week and in August was below 46% full.
Australia is of course currently in the grip of a long drought, the second in a decade.
Water is a precious resource, and attempts to use it more efficiently are always welcome. However, any serious discussion of water shortages needs to identify where it is going: and it isn't mostly down domestic sinks, into our gardens or swimming pools. Some key issues are being glossed over in the current climate of water panic.
An August 16 Sydney Morning Herald Eco environment lift-out, is typical of most of the coverage. Claiming that, "Sydney is a thirsty city", it asserted, "Homes ... are responsible for more than 70% of all water used".
Almost the entire Eco lift-out focused on "do-it-yourself" water-saving devices such as water-efficient shower heads; efficient hot water systems; grey-water treatment systems and rainwater tanks. It even provided advice on which plants people should buy to make their gardens "less thirsty".
None of these are bad things in and of themselves — although without any form of public subsidy, they risk simply blaming those too poor to afford new fittings for "our" water crisis.
But the Herald's approach — shared by Sydney Water — that household consumption is the decisive area for water preservation efforts — is misleading. The Sydney consumption figure looks very different when placed alongside national and statewide statistics.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian households consumed only 9% of the 24,909 gigalitres consumed in 2000-01. The agriculture industry, on the other hand, consumed 60% of this total — an amount equivalent to more than 33 Sydney Harbours.
In NSW, over the same period, the agricultural industry consumed 78% of the total consumed water volume. Total household consumption was just 7%.
The figures are fairly even across the states. In Victoria, the dairy industry and the electricity and gas industries together accounted for 73%. Households consumed 11%.
In Queensland, agriculture alone accounted for 73%. Households consumed 11%.
In South Australia, agriculture consumed 79%; households 11%. In Tasmania, agriculture and manufacture guzzled 72% between them. Households consumed 14%.
Western Australian agriculture and mining consumed 54%, while households consumed 17%. In the Northern Territory, agriculture consumed 44% of the territory's 160 gigalitres, while households accounted for 28%.
These figures raise new questions: why is the government and media campaign focused on household consumption? And is the solution really a new showerhead and a brick in the cistern?
The household culpability argument may be a prelude to more drastic measures than mandatory restrictions and water saving devices. Behind arguments that people aren't valuing water enough are claims that water is "grossly underpriced". Some Â鶹´«Ã½ of big business have an eye for water privatisation in Australia.
But commodifying water is heading in the wrong direction. Hopes for a market solution to water shortages are unfounded. What is needed is more planning and democratic control of vital resources like water, not less.
The main focus of concern needs to be shifted from household consumers to the real guzzlers of Australia's precious water supply — the agriculture, mining and manufacturing giants.
Where household consumption is concerned, governments should be supplying and installing free of charge the showerheads, grey-water systems and other water-saving devices that it is promoting.
After all, according to the Herald's Eco lift-out, it would cost each household between $118 and $366 to install the showerhead, cistern converter, tap aerators and grey water diverter it recommends.
More significantly, federal and state governments need to make serious efforts to reverse the key environment crises making Australian extremes even more extreme.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, September 29, 2004.
Visit the