UNE > News and Events > Browse by article > Country cousins "hold solution" to cities' water woes

Next Violent crime worse in the bush: new figures November 30, 2006  

Previous New flexibility for Bachelor of Nursing degree program November 28, 2006 

Country cousins "hold solution" to cities' water woes

November 29, 2006

JByrnes.thumb.JPGSome of Australia’s largest cities should buy water from their country cousins rather than investing in costly recycling or desalination schemes, researchers have concluded.

The researchers – Joel Byrnes from The University of New England’s Centre for Local Government and Dr Lin Crase from La Trobe University – presented these controversial findings at a national urban water conference in Brisbane today.

They argue that the cost of buying water from nearby irrigators represents only a fraction of the money and energy consumed in recycling waste water for domestic use or in building and operating a desalination plant.

“Melbourne could buy water from irrigators for around 50 cents a kilolitre, whereas water from a desalination plant would be supplied at a much higher cost of something like $3.30 a kilolitre,” said Mr Byrnes (pictured here). “The cost of recycling is much harder to pin down, but estimates range from around $3 to $4 a kilolitre. Melbourne residents currently pay around $1.20 a kilolitre for their water. Clearly, for Melbourne, the cheapest option for securing urban water supplies in times of drought is to buy water from irrigators upstream.”

Mr Byrnes and Dr Crase suggest that the current enthusiasm for water recycling is driven by “politicians’ search for a ‘silver-bullet’ solution to Australia's ‘water crisis’”.

“Many State governments and the Federal Opposition have set water recycling targets either for the nation, entire States, or capital cities,” Mr Byrnes said. “Considering the current evidence, meeting these recycling targets may actually squander taxpayers’ dollars while a cheaper alternative exists in simply buying water from irrigators. Opposition to such schemes in Australia usually rests on claims that farmers’ livelihoods would be put at risk by transferring water from rural to urban communities. However, recent research by the Productivity Commission has shown that a small transfer from irrigation districts to urban communities may be adequate to meet urban water needs.”

He pointed out that, in California, a metropolitan water authority had recently entered into an options contract with a surrounding irrigation district to buy water from irrigators from time to time. Rather than decimating the irrigating communities, these arrangements had led to 70% of rural land remaining in production, while those farmers who had entered options contracts had received more income per hectare than they otherwise would have.

“Farmers are not forced to give up their water,” Mr Byrnes said. “They sell it only when the price is right, and for the period of time that suits them. It’s a flexible solution because urban communities simply pay the market price for that time instead of investing in fixed infrastructure.”

The conference – “Urban Water Sustainability: Securing Australia’s Urban Water Future” – continues in Brisbane tomorrow.

Posted by Jim Scanlan at November 29, 2006 04:30 PM