The Guardian 3 September, 2008
Desalination: Privatisation by stealth
Peter Mac
Australia is now facing the prospect of running short of water because of diminishing rainfall, increasing population, and increasing per capacity water consumption.
Australian state governments have responded to this looming crisis with proposals for construction of desalination plants in most major Australian cities. However, there is ample evidence that other more valid options for water supply have been dismissed because of the cosy relationship between state governments and big business.
A much simpler solution
Canadian aquatic ecologist Dr Aziz Mazumder recently commented: "The less material — algae, bacterial, pathogens and organics — we need to remove through different treatment processes, the better off we are in ensuring the delivery of clean and safe water."
On this basis, and because of its simplicity and economy, the widespread use of rainwater tanks is surely one of the best methods of collecting water — directly at the point of use. Yet this approach has been dismissed with barely concealed contempt by state governments.
For example Rob Skinner, the chief of Melbourne Water, recently claimed that if all Melbourne households had a 2,500 litre rainwater tank for their gardens and toilets, the demand for piped water would only fall by some 50 billion litres of water per annum, whereas the Wonthaggi desalination plant is expected to provide five times that quantity.
However, Melbourne University scientist Peter Coombes has pointed out that Skinner’s argument is based on rainfall figures taken in the low rainfall area of Melbourne Airport, which have then been applied to all other areas of the city. According to Coombes’ more realistic rainfall figures, rainwater tanks have the potential to provide between 80 billion and 120 billion litres of water.
Coombes does not dismiss the use of desalination plants altogether. He acknowledges that rainwater tanks, existing reservoirs, water recycling and (as a last resort) desalination all have a role to play in meeting our water requirements.
But he has called for the use of rainwater tanks as the preferred option. He has also called for the retention of the current Victorian state government requirement that new housing must have either a rainwater tank or a solar hot water system.
Those who favour the desalination option are now arguing that it is no longer necessary to require the installation of rainwater tanks in Melbourne, because of the anticipated output from the Wonthaggi desalination plant. On the same basis they could argue that the granting of rebates for the installation of rainwater tanks in existing homes and industry is also no longer required.
If adopted as government policy, these recommendations would effectively eliminate widespread installation of rainwater tanks, and would consolidate the private desalination industry’s hold on the future provision of water for public use.
Cost, quantity and energy
The construction of the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant is expected to cost about $3.1 billion, and the plant is expected to initially provide 150 billion litres, eventually rising to 200 billion litres.
According to Rob Skinner, (who, let’s remember, is an opponent of the water tanks proposal) the cost of providing tanks to every household in Melbourne would be between $2 billion and $5 billion. Given the opportunity for economies of scale in the mass production of tanks it is highly likely that Skinner’s cost estimates could be drastically reduced, and according to Coombes’ more reliable data, widespread use of tanks could provide between 80 billion and 120 billion litres.
The desalination plant is expected to generate 1.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases if it draws its energy supply from conventional coal-fired power plants. The Victorian government has claimed that this energy could be supplied from renewable energy sources supplied from other states, for example from wind farms.
Nonetheless, the construction of the desalination plant would involve the emission of some 1.4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, whereas emissions arising from the fabrication and installation of rainwater tanks would be miniscule in comparison. And why adopt the desalination option at all, when the widespread use of rainwater tanks would do the same job, with virtually no energy requirement at all?
It therefore appears that the rainwater tank option is at least competitive with desalination, in terms of cost and water quantity, and is infinitely more competitive in terms of energy consumption.
It is clear that the government is determined to impose the desalination option, because as part of its agenda of the privatisation of government services, (in this case by one of the euphemistically-named "public-private partnerships"). Privatisation would be far more difficult to implement (and less profitable) in a program of providing rainwater tanks for individual households.
It’s certainly true that the desalination plant would produce more water than could be produced from rainwater tanks (assuming that Skinner’s figures for desalination water production are accurate) but the demand for water in Melbourne could easily be met with water from rainwater tanks and the existing reservoirs.
The privatisation of water — and everything else
As Dr Aziz Mazumber has stated, "Having access to clean and safe drinking water is an essential service and a human right". This right is now under threat from the privatisation of public services.
State and federal governments in Australia have recently demonstrated a determination to impose huge and radical new privately owned and/or operated engineering solutions for the provision of essential public services.
This is not just because major business corporations can benefit from the construction of the new facilities (which is certainly true), but because in the long term they can replace the existing publicly-owned facilities and thereby privatise the service, without having to face public opposition over an outright sell-off.
This is true, for example, in the case of the NSW government’s proposal to construct a new Metro rail system in Sydney. Premier Morris Iemma has stated openly that he does not want to incorporate the privately-operated Metro system into the existing rail system, but to offer it as a "better alternative" to the existing publicly-owned and operated rail system.
Thus the provision of essential services which the citizens of Melbourne and other Australian cities are likely to be offered by our current governments will be determined by the interests of the major corporations, not the public.