Dynamic water pricing will not give the outcomes claimed ("Water prices 'should rise' in drought", October 27, p1).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In the millennium drought, Canberrans reduced consumption by changing their behaviour through a broad social consensus that something needed to be done. Price increases were part of that consensus but not the reason for the permanent behaviour change.
![Icon Water managing director Ray Hezkial at Googong Dam, which stores water for the Canberra supply. Picture: Elesa Kurtz Icon Water managing director Ray Hezkial at Googong Dam, which stores water for the Canberra supply. Picture: Elesa Kurtz](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc77l0d59sk47d6gfcdxr.jpg/r0_0_3707_2232_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Today the cost of supplying water to the residents of the ACT is a small fraction of the price paid by consumers. The issue is not the price, but what happens to the funds collected. Instead of looking to increase prices, we can adopt community participation schemes that build infrastructure and strengthen social contracts. For example, reward consumers if they consume less and require them to invest the rewards in ways to save water or increase supply.
Involving the community directly in water security measures in a positive way produces lower-cost, more effective solutions than punitive approaches like scarcity pricing.
Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal
Pricing proposal makes sense
Both the article "Water prices 'should rise' in drought" (October 27, p1) and the editorial ("Big challenges need flexible approach", October 27, p14) discuss the desirability of sending a price signal to Icon Water's customers by increasing the price of water in proportion with its increasing scarcity.
Professor Quentin Grafton's proposal is logical and sensible, in part because it would encourage more efficient water consumption and discourage water wastage.
Icon Water's reluctance to introduce water restrictions is understandable (it would reduce profits), but not commendable. I heard recently on ABC radio that water levels in the dams that supply the ACT's water are at record lows. Before our water supply was privatised, such a situation would immediately trigger water restrictions, forcing consumers to be more frugal and efficient with our precious water.
In my view, Professor Grafton's pricing scheme should be coupled with usage restrictions. This would effectively force the efficient use of a vital resource that is likely to become increasingly precious as long as global warming continues.
Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin
Bag ban is for the best
I am sick to death of people whining about the ban on plastic bags. They are causing enormous environmental damage.
Back in the olden days we wrapped our garbage in newspaper. I presume Canberra Times readers would have a supply of this useful commodity. Also back in the olden days you would see people in American films emerging from supermarkets carrying their shopping in paper sacks. What a good idea: they could be made from recycled paper (thereby using up recycled waste) which is biodegradable. Another idea is to use a compost bin for all but meat and bread scraps, which produces great garden food, and bag the rest in paper sacks.
I would suggest to Stan Marks (Letters, October 29) that he sort out the "cloth" shopping bags that are beginning to clutter up his living space. He could keep some in his car for when he goes shopping, and the rest he could use to pack his jocks and socks when he goes on holiday. Or he could go to an op shop and buy a suitcase or travel bag. The one I help out in gets lots of them.
Barbara Fisher, Cook
Victims deserve better
Every day in the media it is reported that a criminal has been sentenced to jail for whatever length of time, however can apply for parole after serving usually half of the sentence. Or they have received a suspended sentence so long as they behave themselves. Or they are a let out on bail, only to re-offend while on bail.
It is frightening and disgusting to hear what these criminals have done, yet the judicial system seems to want to let them back into or stay in the community, no matter how abhorrent their crimes are.
Defence lawyers plead for a lenient sentence on behalf of their clients because they were mistreated as children, have drug and alcohol problems, or are repentant of what they have done. The list of excuses goes on.
It sickens me to hear of atrocious crimes being committed and the perpetrator quite often gets a slap on the wrist and the opportunity to stay in the community. What about their victims? They have received a life sentence with no chance of parole.