‘Water metres’: a new approach to thinking about water conservation in suburbia

Abstract

With increased affluence and urbanisation a reliable water supply is regarded as a basic right of urban people in many countries. This has resulted in a paradigm shift in community attitudes to water, and governments increasingly encourage citizens to rethink attitudes to water use as one ‘tool’ to reduce demand. While a range of ‘tools’ are used to encourage water availability (dams, recycling, desalination, water efficiency), in urban centres conservation remains heavily reliant on water restrictions to deliver short-term reductions. To stimulate debate around further reduction in demand for potable reticulated water we propose the concept of ‘water metres’ (the distance water is transported from its point of capture to consumption). The concept parallels ‘food miles’. We argue that the introduction of this concept will encourage greater on-site water capture for on-site use, and provide commensurate reductions in demand for potable water from bulk supplies for non-potable suburban use.

Keywords:

• water management
• rainwater tanks
• on-site storage
• community education
• urban water

Notes

1. Attempted access to the link on 24 October, 2010.

2. On the 2004 census, Goulburn had a population of 200,646 (ABS 2006), and the source of reticulated water for Goulburn Mulwaree Council Area at full water supply capacity was 13,441 ML (State of the Environment Report 2004).

3. The population of Toowoomba at census 2004 was 11,028 (ABS 2006), and ‘full water supply useable capacity’ of 121,036 ML (Toowoomba Regional Council 2010).

4. In our development of the term ‘water metres’ we first considered ‘water miles’ to parallel the term ‘food miles’ (an appropriate term in the United States of America), however in Australia, Europe and elsewhere where metric measurement is used to determine distance it is of less relevance. We then considered ‘water kilometres’. We ultimately settled on ‘water metres’ as a play on the word ‘meter’ (the machine that records water usage).

5. Coombes et al . (2000) found that the cost of water supply from a rainwater tank was substantially less than the price of mains water, at least in the Lower Hunter region. In contrast, Gardner et al . (2000) concluded that in Brisbane small urban allotments could reduce dependence on demand for reticulated water from public utilities but in their calculations it was not at cost effective prices without changes in pricing policy of water and sewage supply, and cost sharing with local authorities based on deferred new infrastructure requirements. Marsden Jacob Associates (2007) also conclude water from rainwater tanks is more costly than from the water authority. All of these calculations were based on direct costs to the householder and did not consider the real cost that would involve indirect costs via taxes.

6. Approved costs for residential properties based on 2008–2009 dollars that will be adjusted annually for inflation.