In the game of state politics, grass roots pressure
can still change a government's mind. So much was demonstrated
when an accidental coalition of citizens groups, local government,
scientific and technical advice and media analysis defeated the
plans by the New South Wales Government to impose an expensive
and environmentally damaging desalination plant on the city. In
an age of managerial government, it was a victory for democracy.
Ever since retiring NSW premier, Bob Carr, announced plans for
the desalination plant on Sydney's Kurnell Peninsula, opposition
had been building. Scientists pointed out that meeting the energy
demands for the plant would boost the state's contribution to global
warming.
There were other objections. The cost of water would increase.
Saline discharge from the plant would damage the marine environment.
And most importantly, since the cross-city tunnel put such arrangements
on the public nose, the project was to be of the public-private
type (PPE).
Combined, these factors took only a few months to turn what the
government had trumpeted as a final solution to the city's water
woes into an electoral nightmare. Significantly, Premier Morris
Iemma said as much in “shelving” the plans. Now, they
are only to be revived if the city's water supply falls as low
as 30 per cent.
This is how democracy is supposed to work. When a government demonstrates
its disinclination to heed public opinion, lobby groups and the
general public have to put their message in a form that most governments
readily respond to - that which threatens electoral survival. Lemma
read public opinion.
Already smarting from blows exposed in the city's media about
questionable arrangements made to build the cross city tunnel,
and by claims that it had instructed police to go easy on Lebanese
youth even before the Cronulla riot and the subsequent mini-Interfada
(a term inscribed on a road by vengeance-seeking Lebanese) of the
revenge attacks on the city's eastern suburbs, Lemma cancelled
what had so unexpectedly become a liability.
Now the government is belatedly paying attention to what critics
of desalinisation have said all along - that there are significant
gains to be made in conserving the city's rainwater and in processing
wastewater to a standard fit for human consumption.
In a country in which around 34 per cent of our fresh water is
used to irrigate gardens and a further 20 per cent goes to flushing
toilets, there is clearly a potential to utilise second-grade water
for those purposes. Sustainability advocates have been saying this
for decades and a few householders have experimented with the reclamation
of household kitchen and laundry water.
The demonstration reedbed greywater systems installed at the UNSW
Ecoliving Centre and a similar scheme at Beelerong Community Farm
in Brisbane and at the CERES environmental park in Melbourne show
the usefulness of the technology for cleansing wastewater prior
to release into the environment or for further use. Scaled up,
the idea is being implemented at Sydney's new Rouse Hill development
where households are equipped with a dual water supply - drinking
water only in kitchens and bathrooms, recycled water in laundry,
toilet and garden.
More contentious in the government's revised plans is the idea
of pumping from the aquifers below the city's sandstone during
drought periods. Scientists have pointed out that the true extent
of the reserves are not known and that over-pumping could affect
rivers and bring other consequences.
State Upper House MP, Ian Cohen (Greens), was assertive in promoting
conservation and reprocessing as the solution for Sydney. Never
a man to avoid controversy, Cohen asserted that increased government
education and incentives would further reduce water consumption
and claimed overwhelming public support for the imposition of either
summer or year-round water restrictions. He claimed that between
80 and 95 per cent of people are willing to limit the time they
spend in the shower and to install water-saving devices, such as
shower heads, tap fittings and dual-flush toilets in their homes.
Boosting the notion that recycling and conservation are the most
cost-effective means of reducing Sydney's water consumption was
the recent court decision allowing the private company, Sydney
Services, access to the city's sewage and wastewater for processing
and recycling. The company has campaigned for years to access what
it sees as a valuable resource, rather than a problem.
A four-part solution
Any realistic approach to solving Sydney's water shortage must
have four main components - behavioural change through public education;
water recycling through the deployment of technologies; water conservation
through subsidising the installation of rainwater tanks and flow
restricters on household taps, including apartment buildings and
commercial premises; and a legislative component which extends
the city's summer water restrictions throughout the year.
But how substantive are the claims that a boost to public education
would result in further reductions in consumption? Usually public
education goes only so far in making inroads into solving issues.
In Sydney, there is a solid core of socially and environmentally
responsible people who are open to messages to change their behaviour.
But even after they have acted it is usually necessary to introduce
legislation to achieve a desired result. So it is that the city
has witnessed a substantial, voluntary effort to reduce water use
at the same time that government has introduced water restrictions.
Public education is about behaviour change and it must involve
both state and local government. While Sydney Water has made small
moves in education, it is local government that works directly
with the public. The way forward might be along the lines already
pioneered by Randwick, Manly and Wollongong city councils which
employ sustainability educators.
By addressing social, economic and business factors as well as
the built and social environment, sustainability educators go beyond
the focus of environmental education which has addressed mainly
the natural environment. Using approaches to behaviour-change such
as social marketing, sustainability educators are capable of motivating
that core of socially responsible citizens that is open to messages
of change. Perhaps, with enough persistence, support from state
government and the offering of incentives, they can reach out to
those less inclined to act on such messages.
Education of the public is the province of local government, community
service organisations, the environmental lobbies and the media.
It is worthwhile putting their claims that recycling and education
are the solution to the test. If they turn out to be true then
what is learned might be put to use in other areas. It is wise
public policy to try the cheaper alternative first.
The cost of water recycling and conservation technologies makes
their deployment the responsibility of state government and, through
state funding, of local government. Government already offers incentives
to householders in the form of subsidies for water tanks and reduced-flow
shower and tap fittings, indicating that further moves in this
direction may yield greater results. So too may intervening in
the white goods market to set a lower limit on water efficiency
performance for appliances, although this would properly be a federal
initiative.
Desalination reeked of political quick fix and there is justice
in the way the public acted to rid itself of the odour. The hurried
way that Macquarie Street introduced the proposal did it little
credit when it comes to options of democratic process and public
discourse to explore issues. Maybe, just maybe, the experience
will open the door to those in the city that want to act as socially
engaged citizens rather than passive consumers and that prefer
to participate in reducing our use of water and in its recycling
and reuse.
Russ Grayson has a background in journalism and in aid work in
the South Pacific. He has been editor of an environmental industry
journal, a freelance writer and photographer for magazines and
a writer and editor of training manuals for field staff involved
in aid and development work with villagers in the Solomon Islands.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.
|
