Ana Manero (ANU), Peter Coombes (ANU), Nina Lansbury (University of Queensland), Sonia Akter (ANU) and R. Quentin Grafton (ANU)(Australia)
Australians’ are willing to pay more to ensure ‘good quality’ drinking water than what it would cost to provide it. This includes safe, clean drinking water to hundreds of remote communities where this basic service is lacking. A multidisciplinary team of researchers highlight key findings from their just-published research in the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Water, on the benefits, costs and enabling conditions to deliver good drinking water to all Australians.
Australia is ranked among the world’s five most developed and richest countries – yet hundreds of thousands of Australians, almost all in small, rural and remote communities, still lack access to safe, clean drinking water. Unsafe levels of contaminants such as arsenic, PFAS (the “forever chemical”), and uranium have been found in water bodies and drinking water supply systems across Australia.
While occasional contamination can occur due to system failure or other rare events, the problem of providing good quality drinking water in small and remote communities is systemic. Together with poor housing conditions, lack of safe, clean drinking water increases the risk of waterborne or hygiene-related diseases like trachoma; an eye infection still endemic in some remote Indigenous communities. Regrettably, these problems are not unique to Australia; a lack of access to safe drinking water in some underprivileged communities exists in other rich countries such as Canada and the United States of America.
Despite being a signatory to the United Nations 2030 Agenda, why is Australia not on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.1 “Ensure safe drinking water for all”? As we show, it’s not because of lack of support, nor because the costs outweigh the benefits.
Australia is failing to provide ‘water for all’
A recent study found that, in 2018-19, 395 in small, rural and remote communities failed to meet all guidelines values set by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. These include parameters for health (contaminants) and acceptability (colour and taste). In addition, there are some 500 Australian communities with more than 50 residents that completely lack water quality monitoring. The bottom line is that hundreds of thousands of Australians, many in remote communities, lack access to ‘good quality’ drinking water out of their taps. This is a long-standing problem.
The failure to deliver good quality drinking ‘water for all’ has been highlighted in recent reports by the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia. They conclude that drinking water deficiencies in Australia are compounded by historical disadvantages that magnify social inequalities. Without a change in funding and delivery, Australia will fail to achieve the United Nations’ key targets of Sustainable Development Goal target 6.1 by 2030. This failure is contrary to the Australian government’s principle to ensure an adequate standard of living and its goal of Closing the Gap for Indigenous Australians.
A double whammy: Expensive bottled water or soft drink?
People in remote communities without good quality tap water often substitute, as best as they can, to other sources , including bottled water. This represents an important economic burden, as alternative sources can cost 2,000 times more than tap water, draining household resources from other necessities, such as power and fresh foods. Substitution away from tap water may also lead to increased consumption of soft drinks, which is greater in Australian rural and remote communities than urban communities.
Thirsty for change
In our research published this week*, we asked over 3,500 Australians across the country whether they would be willing to pay to ensure ‘good quality’ drinking water for at least 260,000 people in 395 in small, rural and remote communities that currently lacking this level of service. We asked participants whether they would ‘vote’ in favour of a proposed program to deliver good quality drinking water to 100%, 50% or 25% of those affected, under four possible increases to their household taxes ($50, $200, $500 or $1,000 per year).
Importantly, given that almost all urban Australians already have good drinking water quality, we found no statistically significant difference in the willingness to pay between urban and rural households. On average, of those surveyed, Australian households were prepared to pay between $324 and $847 per year for 10 years to ensure good drinking water for all in Australia.
Costs, benefits and enabling conditions to change for the better
Using a ‘conservative’ method of aggregation, our estimate of the total willingness to pay for Australia to ensure good drinking water for all to be between A$1.2 to A$4.7 billion per year for 10 years. This equates to a net present value of A$8.3-A$33.2 billion.
Under three different scenarios about household complaints around water quality, we also estimated that the equivalent annual costs over a ten-year period per community to improve drinking water quality in these 395 affected communities ranged from some $58 million ($227 per person in affected communities) to 186 million ($737 per person in affected communities). Over all 395 affected communities, we estimated that the total capital and operating costs to provide ‘good quality’ drinking water ranged from A$0.2 billion to A$1.3 billion.
Costs and benefits matter but so do the enabling conditions to ensure sustainable and ‘fit-for-purpose, place and people’s improvements in drinking water quality. Providing improved public services, including drinking water, demands appropriate technical training, cultural competence, cross-agency collaboration, and a tailored, systems-based approach to delivery and maintenance. Learning from successful examples in remote communities in Australia, such as from the Torres Strait, researchers and practitioners have shown the critical importance of solutions that fully consider the particular needs of communities and their cultural practices and beliefs.
‘Start of pipe’ change
In sum, we find that investing in good quality drinking water is something most Australians would support. Australians’ willingness to pay, including in urban communities that already have good quality drinking water, greatly exceeds the estimated costs to improve drinking water quality in all places that currently lack it. Our findings should give all Australian governments the confidence to finally deliver good quality drinking water for all Australians and to do so with genuine partnerships with communities that currently lack the human right to clean drinking water.
*For more details on this research see
Manero A, W Adamowicz, S Akter, PJ Coombes, P Wyrwoll, J Horne, N Lansbury, S Creamer, KS Taylor, S Fanaian & RQ Grafton (2024). Benefits, costs and enabling conditions to achieve ‘water for all’ in rural and remote Australia. Nature Water (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00182-6
This paper is the feature article of this issue of Nature Water and is highlighted on the front cover. The front cover art (entitled ‘The Unity of Water’) was created by Hozaus Claire (with his permission). This art was commissioned by the Water Justice Hub in May last year. Hozaus is a Walmajarri, Gooniyandi, Bunuba and Nyikina man. Hozaus’ describes ‘The Unity of Water’:
“Every water is connected in many ways. Water has its own cycle to resource the natural environment. Every water has a story, every story has a meaning. All surface water has different tribes that tells a story about the water and connection to the First Law of the Land. And the access to the water provides leadership to the tribes that lives near the water that keeps the story strong. The ground water has a significant and secret story that keeps the spirit of the water and the land alive. That is why every river is connected. The connection is under the ground on the land and in the air. How the animals use the water is how people should treat the water and listen to our Elders story songs and dance. The spirit of water is only listened to and seen. In the songs stories and dance of the First Nation of the Land. In this painting, I show connections of ground water and surface water. It also shows that water holes, creeks, springs, rivers and ocean are connected.”
Dr Ana Manero is a Research Fellow at Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU. Her research focuses on the economics and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystem services.
Peter Coombes is a Visiting Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU. He is a director of Urban Water Cycle Solutions that operates as an independent research, policy and consulting group.
Dr Nina Lansbury is a research and teaching academic at the University of Queensland’s School of Public Health. Her current research at UQ examines health aspects for remote Indigenous community residents on both mainland Australia and in the Torres Strait in terms of housing, water and sewerage, and women’s health.
Dr Sonia Akter is a Senior Lecturer at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU. Her research is situated on the nexus of agriculture, environment, and development in the Asia-Pacific region.
R. Quentin Grafton is Professor of Economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Convenor of the Water Justice Hub, and Executive Editor of the Global Water Forum.
The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.
This piece was first published at Global Water Forum. Read the original here: https://www.globalwaterforum.org/2024/01/15/australians-say-theyll-pay-for-everyone-to-have-good-quality-drinking-water-because-not-everyone-does/