Skip to content Skip to main navigation


We mean business
Contact us today to get results

A sane water plan?

By johnboy - 27 March 2007 32

The Canberra Times is reporting that the colourful Kevin Cox has popped up with a scheme to let people pay through the nose to consume large amounts of water and give a portion of that money to those who conserve.

Heavy users would then pay almost twice the price for their water.

But households that use less than the sustainable level would be rewarded according to the amount of water they had saved.

Dr Cox expects people to opt-in to the system for both selfish and altruistic reasons.

“I think that people would be willing to pay more if they could put up a sign on their lawn saying, ‘we’re a Water Rewards member, don’t bug us about our green lawn’,” he said.

Better late than never.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
A sane water plan?
VYBerlinaV8 now_with 12:46 pm 27 Mar 07

My neighbours think I have some elaborate water collection and distribution system to keep my lawn green.

Actually they’re right, I have Googong Dam, pipes, pumps, a tap and a garden hose.

Ralph 12:26 pm 27 Mar 07

Same here, and placate my neighbours who are continually having conniptions when I water my lawn now.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with 12:22 pm 27 Mar 07

None of this is going to help until we get a handle on businesses that use water.

If water was to cost a few bucks a month I’d just pay it so I can have a green lawn.

louise 12:02 pm 27 Mar 07

But do you get the money in this case? I read the article as meaning I couldn’t sell my ‘rewards’ to my neighbours.

Regardless, it’s really a back door into bringing in tradeable water rights for urban users. It’s ok for the ACT, because we all draw our water from the same series of catchments.

Jazz 11:53 am 27 Mar 07

kinda, It actually means that the commodity is exhangeable or may be substitued for something of equal value and quality.

But in a nutshell, you can sell it.

Jazz 11:52 am 27 Mar 07

means you can sell it.

la mente torbida 11:50 am 27 Mar 07

“Fungible” – to become mouldy 😉

louise 11:46 am 27 Mar 07

what is fungible?

johnboy 11:23 am 27 Mar 07

Water bonds are both fungible and valuable.

louise 11:16 am 27 Mar 07

My reading of it was that low users got ‘rewards’, like frequent flyer points. The rewards didn’t appear to be redeemable for cash, but required actually buying something else, or they could be donated tos chools/charities or sold, but not to individuals.

If low water users are a spartan lot, it is possible they aren’t going to get into a scheme that aims to increase total spending. Eentually, schools will all have all the tanks they need. maybe that’s when the scheme becomes self-funding – when the donee market is saturated.

Ralph 10:51 am 27 Mar 07

Good point. They would probably have to revamp the ACT’s entire pricing scheme to make it work (i.e. make it compulsory for everybody to be involved).

I like the idea, but asking the Federals for $8 million is an awful lot of money. I think the ACT Government and ACTEW should chip-in at least half.

fnaah 10:45 am 27 Mar 07

So, it’s optional? You could decide not to join the scheme, pay the normal price for water, and put your own sign on the lawn that says “bug me all you like, i chose greed”?


johnboy 10:42 am 27 Mar 07

I wouldn’t be so sure Thumper, Turnbull goes for this sort of stuff.

Thumper 10:39 am 27 Mar 07

Sensible stuff but won’t happen.

Ralph 10:26 am 27 Mar 07

I can see this as being workable.

He does have a lot of jibbering over on that blog of his.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site