Topic Area: Water Conservation
Geographic Area: Australia
Focal Question: What are the results of AustraliaÕs most recent efforts to
improve water availability?
Sources:
(1) McMahon, T. Finlayson, B.
ÒDroughts and anti-droughts: the low flow hydrology of Australian rivers.Ó
Freshwater Biology; July 2003, Vol. 48 Issue 7, p1147-1160, 14p.
(2) Nowak, Rachel. News
Review 2007: Australia's drought crisis. New Scientist; 12/22/2007, Vol. 196
Issue 2635/2636, p17-17, 1p.
(3) Quiggin, John. ÒKey issues in
Australian water policy.Ó Australian Research Council Federation Risk and
Sustainable Management Group. University of Queensland. 22p.
(4)
Bi, Peng. Parton, Kevin A.ÒEffect of climate change on Australian rural and
remote
regions:
What do we know and what do we need to know?Ó
Reviewer: Robert Gorman, Colby College '08
Review:
Australia is currently
dealing with its worst drought in approximately 1000 years. In the ten years
since the drought began it has transformed numerous aspects of Australian
culture. In particular, climate change threatens AustraliaÕs significant
competitive advantage relating to superior grasslands and associated crops
(Peng 2). While periods of adequate rainfall preceded this most recent drought,
warmer and drier weather have been the general trend since 1970 (Quiggin 4).
High temperatures lead to high levels of evaporation and decreased stream
levels at given levels of rainfall. These stream levels are the largest
indicators of falling access to water in a given area. Rainfall itself has
decreased in Southern Australia as a result of drier conditions. According to a
number of studies, increased heat and resulting impacts on the environment are
almost certainly due to global warming caused by humans. Quiggin remarks, Òthe
observed pattern of changes in rainfall is broadly consistent with the
predictions of climate modelsÓ (4). Regardless of the source, policy will need
to adapt to new conditions.
Due to the recent extended
drought, water restrictions are currently in place in all of AustraliaÕs
mainland capitals (Quiggin 12). These restrictions have brought the current
cost of a kiloliter of water to 70 cents. While this is fairly inexpensive in
relation to other basic human necessities, a decrease in the supply of water
can greatly increase water prices at the margin due to high pumping and
transportation costs (5). Because supply is difficult to regulate, effective
strategies often decrease demand. Most economic studies suggest that the most
effective way to regulate demand is to change prices (12).
The Australian governmentÕs
conservation approach has been three-pronged. First, the government has
encouraged construction of a number of dams and irrigation projects in order to
increase supply. Projects in the past have generally been heavily subsidized
and were rarely subjected to economic analysis. In 2005, for example, a
3700-kilometer canal from Kimberleys to Perth proposed by the Tenix Corporation
was supported by influential government leaders. A state election removed these
leaders from office, but later analysis determined that water would have been
delivered from the canal at a cost of $10 per kiloliter, several times the cost
of other sources. In fact, shipping water by tanker would have been cheaper
(Quiggin 5). It would even have been cheaper to move farming north then to move
water south (6).
The maximum amount that
people would realistically spend for a kiloliter of water is $1.50, the
approximate cost of desalination and water recycling. Irrigated water is
generally cheaper than this, but meeting a personÕs basic water requirement of
around 50 liters per day is feasible (Quiggin 14). Melbourne is currently
constructing a US$ 2.6 billion desalination facility (Nowak 1). A recently
constructed desalination plant in Perth provides water for $1.16 per kiloliter.
Desalination is fairly energy-intensive, and it is therefore largely dependent
on energy costs. Recycling costs less, but people tend to be concerned with the
health implications of such practices (Quiggin 6).
The Australian national government and several state
governments have made efforts to implement tradable water rights that will help
to put an effective price on water. The ÔNational Water InitiativeÕ was
announced in 2004, and the program has had little success for a number of
reasons. First, the government allocated far too many rights. Users were given
their traditional allocations regardless of whether they were using them or
not, and the new market for these credits made it profitable for users who were
not using their credits to sell them (Quiggin 8). As the system was being
implemented, owners attempted to capture water that would later become valuable
to them, increasing overall water demand (9). On top of this, different regions
encountered fairly different situations regarding the amount of water they had
access to. New South Wales and South Australia agreed to standardize their
trading credits, but, on the whole, trading markets were not fully developed
and people and companies were left unsure of just how reliable water rights
were (9, 11). While some bodies called for federal regulation, climate
differences and water transportation difficulties between states made
standardization implausible.
The cap did, however, decrease the number of
large-scale extractions, which tend to have a number of harmful environmental
effects. First, free extraction on a large scale tends to be very wasteful
because users have no reason to limit their consumption. Average flow of
streams decreases due to these extractions while variance decreases because of
planned releases during times of low flow (Quiggin 17). As mentioned
previously, the summer months have always been periods with little water, and
species in Australia have adapted to these differences. Current management of
water levels now brings flows to their peak during the summer months because
these are the months when demand for water is the greatest. Native species that
are not adapted to these conditions now face the difficulty of new
surroundings, and the changes may lead to the dominance of introduced species
(17). Analysis by McMahon reveals that natural Australian ecosystems are more
than prepared to deal with the extended dry periods that have been occurring
and calls inconsistency through time Òan important feature of Australian
riversÓ (McMahon 1,18).
Attempts to implement block-pricing strategies have
also met with difficulties. Household expenditure on water grows in proportion
to income. This being said, water demand is fairly inelastic at low levels of
consumption. The government would therefore like to increase prices at the
margin without significantly increasing overall expenditure. Block tariffs
accomplish this, but tend to discriminate against large families whose
additional members will use more water by nature (Quiggin 14).
A study commissioned by the Australian government came
to the conclusion that 1,500 gigaliters was the minimum increase that Australia
needed to its median natural flow of 10,000 gigaliters. The National Water
Initiative, while a start, committed to increase flows by just 500 gigaliters
per year (Quiggin 18-19). Australia will only fix its problems when it can drop
supply and/or demand to effective levels in the short and long run. Permanently
high prices will make it profitable to invest in water-saving technologies and
for the lifestyles of individuals to adjust. Longer time periods will ease
transition, and these adjustments are difficult to make in the short run.
Conversely, restrictions on quantity tend to work very well when people and
companies are feeling the pain of water shortages, but not in the long run when
people have time to adjust their lifestyles in order to work around imposed
restrictions. Prices therefore appear to be the ideal long-term solution, while
quantity restrictions can help governments deal with short-term shocks (14).