Dialogue: Best way to save water is to give away free loos

CLIVE PINFOLD* says the Waikato water-supply pipeline would be superfluous if overseas practices to reduce water usage were adopted.

It is nearly impossible to believe but also incredibly true: Auckland's water crisis had almost nothing to do with the weather. Our water problems and the Waikato pipeline are the result not of too little rain but of too little astute political leadership.

Measures used overseas to reduce water demand have neither been adopted nor even discussed in public, but they would likely provide at least as much supply and security as the pipeline.

There are more environmentally and economically sustainable approaches that have the potential to save Auckland hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Deputy Mayor, Bruce Hucker, in a Dialogue page article, tried to convince Aucklanders that the Waikato pipeline (which aims to increase water supply by about 15 per cent, or 50,000 cu m a day) is the best option available.

Aucklanders were meagre water users by international standards, he wrote. The average daily consumption was 195 litres, compared with Wellington (250), Christchurch (284), Sydney (351) and Adelaide (364). A great deal had already been achieved in reducing water demand in Auckland and, therefore, the opportunity for additional savings was relatively small.

Two recent sources - a Government review into urban water systems and last year's OECD environmental policy committee - report figures that contradict Dr Hucker's Watercare-sourced data. The Government provides much lower figures for Australia - Sydney (215), Melbourne (200) - and the OECD report provides international comparisons with France (156), England (153) and Germany (129).

Auckland residents are, in fact, not particularly thrifty water-users by international standards.

The opportunity for savings does not seem to be as small as suggested, either. Many overseas cities have faced similar problems to Auckland over the past 20 years but instead of increasing water supply, have chosen to reduce consumption, successfully and with impressive savings.

These cities use simple measures such as conservation-based pricing, giving residents free toilets that use about one-third of the water that older toilets use, reducing network leaks (a significant portion of the 12 to 15 per cent of supply lost) and regulations that ensure all new houses are built using water-efficient plumbing.

These measures have little or no impact on daily life but have environmental and cost benefits. Reductions in daily demand of more than 15 per cent are common.

New York City spent $US393 million ($873 million) giving away free water-efficient toilets which reduced its daily water demand by 7 per cent and saved $US605 million by delaying and dropping infrastructure projects.

Auckland wastes more than 13 Olympic swimming pools of water a day because of old and replaceable toilets. The New York programme suggests we could supply over half the pipeline capacity (and save money) by simply giving away toilets. This is one example only of an overseas approach to demand management. These conservation measures are used because they work, save money and reduce water and wastewater bills.

Another cheap option to reduce demand is an Aucklandwide review of the water and wastewater charging system, with the aim of all wastewater being separated from rates and charged on usage. It is a sensitive issue, often confused with a move to privatisation. But New Zealand remains one of the last countries in the OECD yet to fully adopt charging for water and wastewater consumption based on use.

Correctly pricing water and wastewater is recognised as one of the most effective ways of promoting water conservation. In Auckland, we meter and charge directly for water use but most councils still "hide" the cost of the wastewater portion as a uniform annual charge.

In England, meters were installed on 50,000 properties and annual consumption fell by 21.3 per cent. Metered water and wastewater allow residents to reduce consumption and save money, something they cannot do when charged a flat rate.

Conservation-based pricing does not mean we will pay more but gives us the opportunity to use and pay less. There is potential for some demand reductions by separating wastewater from rates. The meters and structures are in place. Why not use them?

The recent Government review of water issues claims problems are the result of "no use of economic instruments to modify demand, no customer choice, and social and political policies affecting pricing without transparency." Water, it said, was both underpriced and undervalued.

Feasible alternatives appear easily capable of matching the volume of the Waikato pipeline and will save not only the $155 million pipeline cost but leave Aucklanders millions of dollars richer each year in reduced treatment costs. It is rare that an opportunity for the potential rates savings arises, but this is a very real one.

The Auckland City Council seems to believe that too much time and money have been invested in the pipeline to abandon it now. But the idea that the pipeline, if found uneconomic, is worth finishing because of the time and money invested so far belongs to a gambler, not public officials.

We can save money by not building the pipeline and simply adopting more cost-effective measures such as charging people the true cost of water, fixing leaking networks and giving away toilets.

These options, however, require visionary and informed leadership. It is not engineers but politicians who should be solving these water problems.

* Clive Pinfold, an engineer for 10 years, has just completed an economics degree at the University of Auckland.