Advertisement

More secure water also more expensive as prices rise

By 21 April 2011 13

The Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission has announced it’s determination that water prices are going to be jumping 15%:

‘Increases in water and wastewater charges announced by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission reflect additional costs associated with water security projects being undertaken by ACTEW and reduced levels of demand for water over projections for the next two years as set out in the Commission’s 2008 price direction’, Senior Commissioner, Paul Baxter, said today.

The Commission has decided that from 1 July 2011, water prices for the first 540 litres consumed per day will rise from $2 per kilolitre to $2.33 per kilolitre, and for all water consumed above 540 litres per day the rate will rise from $4.01 per kilolitre to $4.66 per kilolitre.

Wastewater charges will also increase from $516.11 to $555.39.

‘For an average household consuming 250 kilolitres of water per year, the total water and wastewater bill will increase by 11.73% in 2011–12, that is approximately $142 for the year’, Mr Baxter said.

Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.

Please login to post your comments
13 Responses to More secure water also more expensive as prices rise
#1
Rawhide Kid Part39:50 am, 21 Apr 11

The price of Bananas goes up because of supply and demand and Water goes up because of over supply and no demand? Go figure.

#2
colourful sydney rac9:56 am, 21 Apr 11

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

The price of Bananas goes up because of supply and demand and Water goes up because of over supply and no demand? Go figure.

I think it is actually due to additional expenditure on infrastructure. If demand had increased the increase would have been greater.

#3
john87_no110:19 am, 21 Apr 11

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

#4
Keijidosha10:37 am, 21 Apr 11

I’ll bet a large chunk of this increase is due to the cost blowout of the Cotter dam enlargement. Let’s not forget that once the dam is built there will be ongoing costs to pump water out of it, as unlike Bendora and Googong dams it cannot operate by gravity feed.

We also need to cover the cost of the Angle creek pipeline, and any number of other programs to ensure the security of water for the ACT – something that could have been met through tougher water conservation measures.

Ultimately someone really screwed the pooch decades ago by building Googong dam instead of Tennant, and we’ll be paying for that mistake for decades to come.

#5
D211:10 am, 21 Apr 11

Keijidosha said :

I’ll bet a large chunk of this increase is due to the cost blowout of the Cotter dam enlargement. Let’s not forget that once the dam is built there will be ongoing costs to pump water out of it, as unlike Bendora and Googong dams it cannot operate by gravity feed.

At least it wasn’t built in the rain shadow, so hopefully it’ll have some water in it one of these days.

#6
colourful sydney rac11:12 am, 21 Apr 11

john87_no1 said :

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

No but they are the ones hardest hit be uniform price rises.

#7
georgesgenitals11:29 am, 21 Apr 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

john87_no1 said :

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

No but they are the ones hardest hit be uniform price rises.

Not if their landlord pays it for them.

#8
colourful sydney rac12:09 pm, 21 Apr 11

georgesgenitals said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

john87_no1 said :

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

No but they are the ones hardest hit be uniform price rises.

Not if their landlord pays it for them.

Fair point – my understanding was that they pay for excess water use?

#9
Chop7112:16 pm, 21 Apr 11

….rates are also going up to help cover the low income water subsidy.

#10
georgesgenitals12:29 pm, 21 Apr 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

georgesgenitals said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

john87_no1 said :

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

No but they are the ones hardest hit be uniform price rises.

Not if their landlord pays it for them.

Fair point – my understanding was that they pay for excess water use?

Typically. It’s not a lot in the scheme of things for mopst property investors. I just pay it and claim it as a tax deduction.

#11
john87_no11:26 pm, 21 Apr 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

john87_no1 said :

“Simon Corbell is promising some sort of compensation for low income earners. Those low income renters who don’t pay for their water will no doubt be thrilled.”

So…. are lower income earners the only ones who drink water?

No but they are the ones hardest hit be uniform price rises.

It would be nice if water was free, but that’s not an option. I don’t mind paying a bit more for water, but after years of restrictions and pushing the community to conserve water I think it’s a bit soon to raise water prices. Especially as our dams are full, water use education in place and consumption is down.

IMO all any person wants when “they” announce something like this is for it to be fair across the board.

If the costs are being raised to prop up failed or ill thought out infrastructure projects then the ACT Gov should foot the costs themselves, instead for example using $20 million of the Federal Govts funds for an Arboretum…… not that it isn’t a deserving project; but we do have priorities.

#12
Chop711:35 pm, 21 Apr 11

The pricing regulator makes the decision while the “guberment” is a major shareholder of ACTEW. To me that soulds like the pricing regulator is just a rubber stamp for the major shareholder to make more profits.

Oh yeah – about 4 years ago the goverment changed the legislation so that ActewAGL no longer has to tell the public how much money it makes. Convienient eh!!

#13
miz7:50 pm, 21 Apr 11

So . . . the water authority fails to ensure there is enough water (by failing to take responsible policy decisions to build the necessary infrastructure their own reports state should have been built) and then – hey presto – they get to charge the people more? I can’e believe they are getting away with this.

I say sack that ‘do nothing’, expensive CEO Michael Costello. That would save a lot of money.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.