Water solutions

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.