« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
Get your video CDs out of your desk drawer and onto the web |
February 26, 2007 |
|
Posted by Don Dunnington at 04:04 PM | Comments (0) |
|
Have you tried sharing a video on the new Water and Wastewater.com Video Center? This is about as easy as it gets for equipment makers to demonstrate how their machines work.
You don't have to do a big production to do this. It isn't a TV commercial. Quick and simple are the norm for Internet video. For a discussion of Internet video production values see "A New Industrial 'YouTube' for the World's Engineers" on the IAOC blog.
How to Upload Your Own Video
Following is a step by step description of how easy it is to sign up and post your own video. The whole process takes just a very few minutes.
1. Click the Upload Tab
Enter your email, user name and password and click the Sign Up button.
2. Your Email Confirmation is Sent
My email confirmation arrived in seconds.
Click the link in the email and you're now a member of the video center.
3. Describe Your Video
4. Browse for Your Video
Locate the video on your local drive and click upload.
5. Your Video is Uploaded and Prepared
Your video is converted on the fly to a small Flash file and placed in the Video Center.
6. Your Video is Online
This short video of a K-Tron S60 single screw volumetric feeder can now be seen in the Video Center.
Don Dunnington
Urban Water Pricing: How might a water trading scheme work? |
February 04, 2007 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 03:47 AM | Comments (0) |
|
“What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander"
– a proverb of unknown origin.
The Issue: In response to increasing water scarcity, River Murray irrigators have watched the cost of buying a water allocation on the temporary market rise from $44 in January last year to $380 per ML – a 764% increase. Over the last year, the value of a permanent water entitlement rose by 52%.
Contrast this “scarcity” price signal with that given to households in cities like Adelaide. These households face a fixed two-tier pricing structure. The first tier, up to 125 kL per annum, costs $0.50 per kL. The second tier – for any amount above 125 kL – costs $1.16 per kL. Recently, the charge for second tier water was increased a paltry 6.4%.
What would happen if urban and rural Australia were subject to the same price disciplines for water? Should the old proverb, ”what is good for the goose is good for the gander” apply? In a drought, should urban households – like farmers – expect to see annual water prices go up seven times?
Well-designed rural water trading arrangements have the potential to bring significant improvements in water use. What would happen if urban households and industrial water users were able to buy and sell water entitlements and water allocations – just like irrigators? Could it be made to work? Is it worthwhile?
In this droplet, we search for a way to make household and industrial water rights tradeable – to expose urban and rural Australia to the same price discipline. Can a pragmatic, low-cost way be found to do this?
Valuing and Charging for Water
Essentially, there are two ways that water supplies can be managed. Either, a quantity limit – a cap – can be placed on the water supply and the market left to help decide who gets to use water; or the charge per kL fixed and restrictions used to reduce consumption in times of scarcity. Under the former approach, prices rise with scarcity. Under the latter mechanism, increasingly severe restrictions are introduced as scarcity increases. You pay the same but get less access to water and experience considerable inconvenience as the level of restrictions increase.
Conceptually, the more that the price per kL is allowed to increase in times of water scarcity, the less the need for restrictions on when and how people can use water.
Experience
The idea of linking urban and rural water markets is not new and is happening. In Queensland, the Shire of Gayndah currently holds an entitlement to more water than in needs and sells the surplus back to irrigators on an annual basis. SA Water has been buying water from River Murray irrigators.
In Arizona, urban developers in cities like Phoenix and Tucson are required to certify whether or not any block of land they sell has guaranteed access to a water supply for the next 100 years. Given this requirement, most developers choose to buy enough water to guarantee supply to any development.
In Beijing, each person in a household is allocated a quota. When the metered amount of water they use exceeds this amount by more than 20% they are required to pay double for this water.
Allocating Water to Commercial and Industrial Users
Many businesses, like irrigation farms, use large amounts of water. Arguably, there is little reason why a large commercial business cannot be given a water entitlement and required to enter into a water supply contract with a water utility. A price for delivery of a kL of water would be struck in a manner similar to that set by rural water supply companies. There are many different ways of deciding upon the initial entitlement to be given to each business. One option is to give each business an entitlement equal to the maximum amount they have used in any of the last 3 years.
Household Entitlements and Allocations
One of the simplest ways to introduce household trading would be to make the first 200kL tier of water given to each household tradeable. Families and households would then be able to sell off any savings they make. For water use above 200kL, there are two choices. Either a) set a scarcity price for the second tier, or b) “cap” the volume of the second tier pool.
Under a scarcity pricing regime, if the charge for the first tier was $1.00 per kL and the second tier charge was regulated to rise as reservoir levels fall, one might expect a scarcity price to vary from $3.00 to $5.00 per kL. Facing charges like these, there would be an incentive for low water users to sell of part of their first tier to large water users – especially if first tier water was not subject to restrictions in all but exceptional circumstances.
An alternative to the scarcity pricing approach is to cap access to second tier water. Once “capped,” second tier entitlement shares could be sold using a tender process, where anyone – including water utilities – could bid for a share of the available pool. Every quarter shareholders would be notified of the tradable allocation that they could either use or sell.
At the household level, many variants are possible. To protect people under financial pressure, the first 100 kL entitlement issued to each house could be made non-tradeable.
Urban Household Water Trading
With low-cost internet trading platforms, like e-Bay, and a choice of water brokers, trading in household water entitlements and quarterly allocations is conceivable. The average household bill is around $330 per annum and most of these costs are unavoidable.
If first tier water was available at $1.00 per kL, a household with a large water-dependent garden and a swimming pool would have a strong incentive to buy a low-cost first tier entitlement to secure low cost access to the water they need access to every year.
If any household exceeded its first tier allocation, their nominated broker or by default their water supplier would be required to restore balance to their account by purchasing unused allocations and adding the cost of doing this to their next water bill. Households who use less than their allocation would have the opportunity to sell this saving.
It would also be possible to make urban subdivision approval conditional upon the purchase of a water entitlement sufficient to supply the proposed development – as already happens in Arizona. New or expanding industries would also be required to buy water entitlements sufficient to cover their needs.
Water Industry Implications
From a water utility perspective, introduction of urban trading raises many questions. Utilities would still have to charge for delivery and infrastructure maintenance. Amongst other things, part of each water utility’s bulk water entitlement would be broken up and transferred to those that buy access to second tier water.
There may be lessons to learn from electricity and gas reform. The part of their business that manages infrastructure may need to be separated from that the retail part that buys and sells water. Access to delivery capacity may need to be rationed.
As households and industry become exposed to the value of scarce water resources, competition from privately managed sewage recycling, stormwater capture and desalination businesses would increase. Water saving and alternative source development might become profitable. If the annual price saving per kilolitre was $2.00 per year, one can imagine a 100kL tier one entitlement rising in value to over $2,000.
Many buildings are managed collectively and many houses are rented. In each case, someone will need to decide who should pay the water bill and who would hold any entitlement issued.
Where to from here?
We think the concept is worth serious evaluation and, for large industries, could be readily implemented. A broader pilot trial, with no long term guarantees, would be worthwhile. One option would be test urban trading in a large regional centre that is on extreme water restrictions.
Prof. Mike Young
Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Water Economics and Management
Earth & Environmental Sciences
The University of Adelaide
AUSTRALIA 5005
Other Contributors
Jim McColl, CSIRO Land and Water, Email: Jim.McColl@csiro.au
Tim Fisher, Board Member, Land and Water Australia, Email: jiazhu51@optusnet.com.au
For further information read:
“A market solution for water. Malcolm Turnbull thinks we should have as much of the stuff as we want, a long as we pay for it.” AFR 25/11/06
Acknowledgements
The role of Tim Fisher in developing the ideas presented is acknowledged through co-authorship. Darla Hatton MacDonald, Ross Young, Sally Walkom, Bob O’Brien and several members of our Steering Committee provided important input into the development of this droplet.
Copyright © 2006 The University of Adelaide.
This work may be reproduced subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of its source. Production of Droplets is supported by Land and Water Australia and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. Responsibility for their content remains with the authors. They neither reflect the views of Land and Water Australia nor the views of CSIRO.
A look back at Water in Colorado in 2006 (Part II) |
February 01, 2007 |
|
Posted by John Orr at 05:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) |
|
Here's the second part of the Colorado Water Year in review, Conservation, Storage and Supply. This is cross-posted at Coyote Gulch.
Conservation
To their credit Denver Water continued to push conservation. After several years of drought water consumers were in conservation mode. Aurora, Morrison and Thornton had the sense to impose watering restrictions. Folks in Fort Collins kept arguing for conservation over building more storage. Farmers learned that more efficient watering methods can actually hurt water quality and reduce stream flows. Towards the end of the year Boulder introduced customer water budgets.
Storage and Supply
One of the best sources for sustainable water is runoff from the snowpack. As in every year since the ancestral puebloans roamed southwest Colorado, securing water rights, along with building and expanding storage was at the top of many lists. Big plans for new storage were discussed up in northern Colorado including Chimney Hollow Reservoir and Glade Reservoir along with an expansion of Halligan-Seaman Reservoir. Proponents of the proposed Genesee Dam introduced a plan for visual mitigation. Colorado Springs tried to move on Jimmy Camp Reservoir while Pueblo looked at expanding Clear Creek Reservoir. Colorado's U.S. Senators hoped to transfer control over some of the Big Thompson project to local management.
Late in the year the Million Project Pipeline was on everyone's radar. At the end of the year the project was moving full steam ahead.
Ag water continues to be targeted by municipalities, including Aurora's continual quest for long-term exchange deals. The Southeast Water Conservancy Board is watching them closely. There is also pressure on agriculture to provide augmentation water. In January we learned about the high cost the City of Lafayette has incurred buying ag water. Parker's arrangements up in Logan County were in the news.
HB06-1124 was an attempt to ease water law so that farmers could enter into leasing agreements with water utilities without giving up their water permanently.
Congressman John Salazar set the tone of the debate over transmountain diversions saying, "They take good water and then let crap down the river." As usual, the Gunnison River was at the top of the list for transmountain water for the unbridled growth on the Front Range. Union Park Reservoir surfaced briefly. The venerable Grand Ditch was in the news both for failing and for being a sticking point in wilderness protection for Rocky Mountain National Park. Late in the year the Northern Water Conservancy presented a study on the feasibility of moving water from the Yampa River to the Front Range. We're calling it Big Straw North. Earlier in 2006 the second largest water transaction in the history of Northern Colorado history was consumated with the Tunnel Water Transfer.
The Elkhead Reservoir expansion project was completed. Colorado Springs reminded the Upper Arkansas Valley that the city may still be interested in buiding the Elephant Rock Dam. The Upper Ark District looked at the feasibility of expanding Boss Lake. Over near Grand Junction a new reservoir was proposed. It was to be named Grand Valley Lake before being shot down towards the end of the summer. A study of Cherry Creek dam raised fears that it may fail.
The Animas La-Plata project marched steadily towards completion in 2010, reaching the halfway point in July . The contract for the Ridges Basin inlet conduit was awarded in December. The conduit will carry water to Lake Nighthorse from the Animas River. The big project is said by some to be the last of the large-scale water projects for the west.
The legislature looked at increasing underground storage with SB 06-193. The bill directs the Colorado Water Conservation Board to study the feasibility of underground storage in the Arkansas and South Platte river basins. Governor Owens signed SB 06-179 setting the stage for funds for small communities to pay for studies required before new water projects can be built.
Breckenridge proposed to fight gravity with the Blue River Pumpback. Part of the holdup was over the county's 1041 authority.
The East Cherry Creek Valley Water District brought a new pipeline online for their customers southeast of Denver. South Metro water district officials checked their guns at the door and attempted to solve their impending water supply crisis. Rueter-Hess reservoir kept morphing towards Super-Rueter. Castle Rock drafted a new water plan.
Up North H2Oil? was treating water from oil and gas wells for use in agriculture.
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District is in court trying to prove that Denver should relinquish water rights that the city has not developed.
The lower Arkansas valley was very active in 2006. Three items include the formation of a Super Ditch and the Arkansas Valley Conduit. Another plan floated on the Lower Arkansas River hoped to use water from John Martin Reservoir for an interruptible supply to serve cities in dry years.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit is being planned to supply tap water to several southeastern Colorado communities that are currently suffering from the low water quality and declining supplies in the lower Arkansas River basin. The project, originally part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, has never been built because of the difficulties in financing and the desire of some to tie it's funding to the Preferred Options Storage Plan. Money started flowing towards the project in 2006.
There was much talk around the Preferred Options Storage Plan in 2006. In May the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District was still undecided about the plan as proposed legislation languished and water districts and utilities fought. Since the PSOP involves Fryingpan-Arkansas water the rainy side of Colorado also wants a voice further mucking up the prospects of the stalled project. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District president John Singletary made it clear that they were developing strategies that would not allow Arkansas Valley water out of the basin.
Another project in the Arkansas basin, causing much rancor, is Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System. Consultant (working for Pueblo) Ray Petros' plan for Fountain Creek would have used effluent to augment Colorado Springs supplies and would have obviated the need for SDS. At the end of the year a new option was added to the SDS Environmental Impact statement, that is the no action alternative.
Some in Southeastern Colorado said that Pure Cycle's purchase of Fort Lyons Canal water was a water grab. The company promised a slow careful approach before building any pipeline, including taking water close to the Kansas border, where it's much more polluted.
The Colorado River Conservation District hoped to buy some Fryingpan-Arkansas project water to help them meet future demand. A secondary benefit would be increased stream flow in winter downstream from Ruedi Reservoir.
Part III in a couple of weeks.
John Orr
