Menu

Serious, system-wide water efficiency or another dam?

Professor Stuart White, University of Technology Sydney. Photo supplied.

Professor Stuart White is the Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at UTS in Sydney. He also has a keen interest in the future of water in the Northern Rivers.

Recently, Professor White gave a presentation to Rous County councillors and staff about system-wide water efficiency as an alternative to the proposed Dunoon Dam.

Echonetdaily asked how his presentation was received by Rous.

‘Some of the councillors seemed to respond well to the arguments,’ he said. ‘They could see there was new thinking there, so that was a positive response. The questions were good, insightful for the most part.’

Professor White has a long history with water in this region. In 1997 he co-authored this 368 page study of water efficiency for Rous, when he was a Churchill Fellow and had a consultancy based in Lismore, Preferred Options Pty Ltd.

At that time, both the Chief Engineer at Rous and Lismore City Council’s Water and Sewerage Manager were in California investigating water treatment plants, and accompanied White to research water efficiency programs at utilities there.

This led him to complete similar work at places including Kalgoorlie-Boulder in WA, Lismore, Byron Shire Council and utilities across Australia since then.

Graph from Professor Stuart White’s submission – an indicative program.

Walking the talk

Professor White said that a recurrent problem is ‘traditional institutional inertia, with people not really being aware of what real water efficiency is. People go “okay sure, we’ve done that,” though in fact they haven’t.

‘Many people think of it as being brochures and rebates, you know, rather than a serious investment of multi-millions of dollars. That’s the difference,’ he said.

Fortunately there are numerous examples of system-wide water efficiency delivering spectacular water savings. This includes the addition of almost one million additional customers in Sydney. Total demand has ‘flatlined’ by auditing and stopping waste at each step on water’s journey, and doing more with less.

‘Yes, and that’s not just Sydney,’ said Professor White. ‘Los Angeles, Frankfurt, you name it. Cities around the world have had the same experience with demand per capita rising during the ’50s and ’60s, peaking in the ’80s, ’90s, and then dropping, often for different reasons, but there are some similar patterns.

‘One of them has been the improvement in the efficiency with which fixtures and appliances use water, pricing reform, urban consolidation, a whole lot of different factors,’ he said.

‘As people get wealthier, they don’t flush their toilet more often, and their toilets and washing machines tend to be more efficient as time goes by, so there’s a lot of reasons, and consciousness.

‘After the Millennium Drought, people became much more aware of their water use. The bottom dropped out of water consumption, per capita. It has crept back a little, but nowhere near to what is was before.’

In South East Queensland, Professor White worked with both councils and the state government when the drought bit hard.

‘It was like rolling out the Sydney program, but in a few months,’ he explained.

‘Because in Sydney the motivation started before the drought, it was actually an operating licence target. When Sydney Water became corporatised, part of the condition was that it reduced the demand per capita by 25–35 per cent, from 1991 figures. That was a significant shift, a stretch target.

‘So we at UTS were commissioned to put in place and design the program that resulted in that reduction. We achieved the target well and truly, overshot it. This was before the Millennium Drought (there’s been a few since), but that drought cemented the achievement. There was a more rapid rollout, a significant increase in water awareness and a significant investment, so it was achieved easily.’

Graph from Professor Stuart White’s submission – an indicative program.

What about climate change?

Professor White said, ‘We do know for sure – and this is probably true everywhere – that things will be even more uncertain. They were always uncertain, but now more so.

‘The averages are one thing, and often these impacts are quantified through averages, and that’s quite problematic, because it’s not really the averages that get you, it’s the extremes and changes, such as longer periods of drought, more extreme and more frequent.

‘And the models are not very good in some ways. It’s one thing to downscale a global climate change model to say in this region you will become on average, hotter and drier, south east Australia for example, and in this region you will become hotter and wetter, say northern Australia.

‘But it’s quite another thing to say, in these regions your extremes will change like this. That’s very difficult and the models don’t do that well at all,’ he said.

‘So in one sense, by just taking an average, which is what’s been done in the modelling, and saying we will have a one third reduction in the yield of the (current) Rocky Creek Dam, from 2020 to 2060, is pretty crude, and the consultants acknowledge that. It’s highly uncertain. But when you draw it, it looks like a fixed straight line on a graph.

‘That’s quite problematic, because you then spend $150 or $200 million addressing that fixed line on the graph.’

How to deal with uncertainty?

Professor White suggests, ‘The best way is to have a series of contingency plans, based on risk and probability, like insurance policies. What the dam represents is an insurance policy with an extremely high premium, but what you want is something with a much lower premium and a really high excess!

‘You want options you could roll out very quickly, even if they cost quite a lot, if things got so bad. The one thing a dam doesn’t do – because it’s rainfall dependent – is get you through a more severe drought than the one you’ve planned for. Even if it’s the worst one on record. Our record in Australia is relatively short, it’s only 150-200 years, and that’s where the paleo-climate data comes in.

‘That data purports to show what’s happened over thousands of years, and that data gets really scary, because you’re talking about droughts of decades, not two years. A dam that stores five years is not going to cut it. There’s no dam you could build that would be big enough.’

Echonetdaily asked Professor White to comment on what role water restrictions play in helping people value water properly.

‘We did a major study for the National Water Commission after the Millennium Drought in 2009, which was a review of the effectiveness of water restrictions, across Australia. The variation of the effectiveness of restrictions was quite large, depending on how they were implemented and what the rules were, and what accompanied them, what associated activities and so on.

‘Restrictions have been around since the year dot, and they’re very tried and true – the way they’re operated as a matter of course in regional Australia is uniquely Australian. You don’t find it in other countries in that way.

‘As a result, it’s not like they’ve kept up with best practice either. There are opportunities to make them much more effective, much less painful – to the extent that they’re painful at all. Indeed, they’ve got very strong public support, if you do surveys. But you can increase their effectiveness significantly by combining them with a range of other measures.’

Graph from Professor Stuart White’s submission – an indicative program.

Marginal cost

Critics of the Rous Future Water Project 2060 have pointed out that the consultants who prepared the reports for Rous County Council have made some mathematical mistakes, which have skewed the calculations. These include errors relating to ‘marginal cost’. Echonetdaily asked Professor White to elaborate.

‘Unfortunately this mistake is common in some areas,’ he said. ‘When you do a marginal cost calculation, broadly speaking you’ve got a numerator and a denominator, so the top of the ratio is a cost, and typically that’s the present value cost, so the capital plus the operating cost over a certain period of time at a certain discount rate.

‘You divide that by a volume, a volume of water, so you get a dollars per megalitre figure.

‘The controversial question is what that denominator is. Many places just use the total volume that can be supplied by the source, if it’s a source of water, but that’s meaningless, because if you only use a fraction of water from that source, you should be dividing by the amount of water that you actually use.

‘In my presentation to the Council I used this analogy: if you were building a factory to manufacture mobile phone handsets, let’s say Blackberries, then let’s say, the factory will cost $500 million, and it could produce a million handsets a year.

Blackberry Curve. Photo Wikipedia.

‘Now let’s say you have intelligence that the quantity of Blackberries you can sell would actually be only 100,000 per year, so what is the cost of each Blackberry in case one or case two?

‘In case one, if you can sell all million, then the cost of each handset is roughly fifty dollars. If you can only sell 100,000 Blackberries from that factory, then the cost of each handset is $500. That’s the difference.

‘And Rous have already said they can only sell (or use, productively) a small fraction of the water produced by that dam.

‘If it’s built in 2029, sure it can provide say, 12,000 megalitres per year, but they’re only using 1,000 at the beginning, and perhaps 2,000 at the end. So that’s a perfect analogy with the Blackberry factory.

‘There’s another analogy as well, which is the reason why Blackberry failed. They failed to recognise that people don’t want handsets, people want the services that handsets provide, which are the apps, and the convenience and efficiency they bring in going about their daily lives,’ said Professor White.

‘That’s exactly what’s happening in the water (or for that matter the electricity) sector; people don’t need electricity or water, they need the services that those things provide.’

What about growth?

‘If you look at it, there are 50,000 connections in the region,’ said Professor White, ‘and according to the estimates – big caveat – there’s 900 new connections each year, dropping to 400 new connections each year by 2060, so let’s say 500 connections each year.

‘So, 50,000 connections now, 500 new ones each year, where’s the issue here? The issue isn’t the growth, the issue is the existing customers.

‘You could say clearly growth’s the issue because that’s adding to demand, well, not necessarily, because each new house that’s added is more efficient than the old houses, because of BASIX [Building Sustainability Index] and because of changes in technology.

‘And that’s even before you try to do something innovative, which you could. You could make them net neutral. Net zero addition to demand, that’s what they’ve done in parts of California. So the growth issue is a distraction,’ he said.

‘There may be other reasons like biodiversity or land use or whatever reasons you might want to suggest to mitigate growth, that’s a completely separate argument. It’s got nothing to do with water.’

Graph from Professor Stuart White’s submission – an indicative program.

Employment possibilities

Based on his experience in other jurisdictions, Professor White suggests local employment is a big winner if system wide water efficiency is chosen, compared to building dams, with many tradies involved in testing and repairing leaks, and switching to more water efficient appliances in industrial and domestic situations.

He draws the analogy with the energy sector, with the ’employment benefits of customer-side demand management as distinct from major supply-side. The thing is that construction of a dam might give you a work force of contractors for a brief period – it’s like a sugar hit – but too little, too late, and temporary, whereas this would be ongoing, and would up-skill the region.’

Unlike a dam, White argues water efficiency ‘would help the locals more than civil engineering contractors from outside the region.’

While some might suggest that it’s unrealistic for four local councils and Rous County Council to coordinate and agree to a major system-wide efficiency program, Professor White said, ‘The irony is that if you built a dam you would have to spend the money from all of those five councils, in a pool, to do a major complex civil engineering program. And no one says that’s impossible, how would you possibly get the coordination to do that?

‘And yet when it comes to something like water efficiency or smart meters, or leakage detection programs, or even broadscale re-use programs, then they say oh no, the coordination of the problem is a barrier.

‘The other thing is the state government will subsidise the dam, but at the moment it’s not policy for them to invest in water efficiency,’ he said.

‘That’s completely wrong. The state government should treat them equally.’

How long would it take to know if you were right, if Rous did everything you’re suggesting?

Professor Stuart White. Photo supplied.

‘A year,’ said Professor White.

‘It’s a bit like a clinical trial. Let’s say you want to get 40,000 of the 50,000 customers over four years, you don’t need to do them all at once, but you do 10,000, you measure them after a year and say how did we go?

‘You might say with this one, the savings weren’t quite as expected because of X, Y or Z. With this one the savings were much greater.

‘Okay, we’ll tweak the program for the second year and then we roll it out. But you will see the reduction, because you can measure it.

‘We’ve done statistical measurements of half a million households in Sydney that have implemented water efficiency programs, and we measured it to within a decimal place, what the savings are,’ he said.

‘I should stress that what you’ve seen so far, in terms of modelling an indicative program, was done in a day, my analysis of the situation, but it’s based on what we’ve done in dozens of other places around the world – if you did that you would start to see the effect after less than twelve months.’

No regrets with extra efficiency

Professor White said, ‘The efficiency options that I’m talking about are no regrets options. They should be done anyway, in the sense that they’re probably cost effective relative to the cost of producing water, and they’ll probably be needed anyway.

‘Even if you pressed go on the construction of a dam after starting in December with a decision, you’ve got EISs, you’ve got planning approvals, design, construction – so the idea that they can do that and get it operational by the time that was published in the consultants report, which was 2029 (by which time according to the data presented they would already be at supply-demand deficit) – is probably unrealistic.

‘In other words, the dam can’t be produced in time, according to their own consultants’ projections. In which case the water efficiency options that I’ve put forward, and which continue on from 1997, should be done anyway. They will probably be needed anyway, and would definitely be a risk mitigation option.

‘It’s quite possible that if that was done, then you would find they would have such an impact that they would keep the demand below the secure yield, even as the secure yield drops, because of the assumptions regarding climate change.

‘I’m absolutely confident that’s possible,’ said Professor White.

Rous County Council Chair Keith Williams told Echonetdaily there has been ‘just short of 750’ public submissions so far in response to the Rous Future Water Project 2060, with more still coming in.

 


More stories about the Dunoon Dam

Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


5 responses to “Serious, system-wide water efficiency or another dam?”

  1. gary says:

    Rous was a leader in implementing water efficiency programs in the 1990’s – Stuart White should know as he was a consultant to Rous at the time. There was no identifiable reduced water use arising from the water efficiency programs implemented at that time.

    The main driver of reduced water use over the last twenty years is clearly price increase, which because of elasticity of demand when the price goes up, demand goes down.

    Based on previous work the claims of water efficiency are overstated e.g.
    Programs to replace inefficient Washing machines and pay local plumbers to install water efficient devices in homes were in place in the 1990’s and showed no identifiable reduction in water demand.
    Outdoor use presumably means water tanks. Owners of older homes that want a tank should have one from previous programs to subsidise tanks, and most new houses have tanks, and after a few months of dry weather the tanks are empty.
    Leakage and pressure management – in the late 1990’s Rous investigated the entire water system including the local Council areas (e.g. Ballina, Byron, Lismore, Evans Head) for leaks and found one leak in the entire system, which they knew about anyway and had let the leak run for a day to see if the testing identified the leak. Pressure management reduces the level of service (lower pressure, power water quality, reduced system redundancy, reduced fire flow capacity), and can cost a lot to implement, while showing no cost effective water savings – this is because water systems in Australia are generally sound already (existing trunk metering means there are no large ongoing unidentified leaks).

    In fact Rous’ water efficiency program in the 1990’s was more courageous and ambitious that that proposed here and included the Perradenya direct potable reuse scheme.

    If Rous implements the water efficiency program (excluding price increases) it will likely produce no water savings and in the next dry period Rous will again be panicking and the customers will get more poor service and increased cost.

  2. John Revington says:

    Rous wants to spend over $200 million to build a dam that will trash rare rainforest, destroy Indigenous heritage sites and devastate the habitat of endangered species. It wants to do so without even trying a far cheaper, less destructive alternative recommended by an expert with a proven record in reducing the demand for water in cities around the world. Dr White says it would take 12 months to test if he’s right. If you try water efficiency measures and they don’t work, you’ve lost some money and you can go back to the drawing board. If you build a dam and then find it’s not needed, how do yo get back the $200 million? How do you fix the Indigenous heritage sites? How do you get back the rainforest? How do you restore the habitat of endangered species?

  3. Jim Richardson says:

    Recently the NSW Productivity Commission released a wide ranging green paper on increasing productivity in our state, which I suggest Rous Councillors and staff would do well to understand.
    It can be found here: http://productivity.nsw.gov.au/green-paper
    𝑨𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔:
    𝟱.𝟯 Improve water governance and planning
    𝟱.𝟰 Unlock efficiencies and opportunities through coordination and collaboration
    𝟱.𝟱 Address the barriers to using new water sources
    𝟱.𝟲 Improve the performance of local water utilities in the regions
    𝟱.𝟳 Keep improving efficiency in our day-to-day water usage

    Item 5.7 is exactly what Stuart White is on about, and it’s clearly the thinking in NSW Treasury too.
    Item 5.5 is all about water harvesting and RE-USE, not new dams.
    Items 5.3, 5.4, and particularly 𝟱.𝟲, should be a wake-up call to Rous to seize the opportunities this new efficiency approaches offer, or they will be found wanting, both by their community and the State government. On the other hand, because of Rous’s previous solid work , and their location in a ‘clean and green’-aware region, they are ideally placed to lead in 21st Century water services.

    The bottom line : With strong community opposition to a dam, and both the Productivity Commission, and world experts suggesting there are better ways, the State government is 𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒍𝒚 𝒖𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒚 to be funding this dam. That means a f̳o̳u̳r̳f̳o̳l̳d̳ increase in water rates for Rous customers – not just in droughts, but ongoing!

  4. Richard Swinton says:

    Gary denigrates the role tanks play in water savings. As I said in my comment on tanks in my submission, the residential or commercial tank is not there to provide water in a dry spell; its there to reduce the amount of water we extract from Rocky creek and other existing supplies in ‘normal’ times so that more water is left in the dam for the dry spell.
    Remember that roof catchments will provide significant water to the tank after even a small shower, but such a shower will make NO difference to Rocky Creek Dam unless the catchment is already wet – in which case we wouldn;t be worried anyway. It is this rapid response of water tanks to rain that enables them to save extraction from the dam.
    In a dry catchment, it takes quite large rainfall events to lead to inflows into the dam.
    I believe that we should allow tanks to supply the whole house usage – exactly the way anyone not on town water manages their own supply. Its much simpler if you run entirely on tank water, and only turn on the town water when the tanks are close to empty. Much too complicated to have half the house on town water and the rest on tanks and then which tap do I have to turn off and which on? – etc. I have non return valve on the pump outlet and all I have to do is turn on the tap at the meter when we need town water – and then after a shower fills the tank, I turn of the main. Simple!
    The health issue is hogs wash, else you’d see a stream of sick rural people lining up outside medical clinics – and you don’t!! I should know – I was a farmer for 30 years, and even now I live in Clunes with Rous water supplied, but usually turned off at the meter. I use tankwater for more than 90% of our usage and only turn on Rous water for a few weeks in really dry periods.
    Just to set the record straight, we are a couple with a large garden including vegetables and fruit trees and, while we try to be ‘efficient’, we don;t scrimp on water use.
    And on another point, I am strongly in favour of recycling waste water back into the system. Many cities and countries now do this – and its only a managed part of a natural process. All water recycles eventually anyway – its called the hydrological cycle – remember from back at school?? And modern treatment plants are extra safety minded.

  5. Water tanks for all usage is the answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.