WATERY WATER-POLICIES

On July 19, the government will shut down the water supply to 30,000 homes
for two unspecified hours between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. The selected households
will not be warned in advance. This is supposed to be 'a reminder to the
public of what it would be like if the taps run dry'.

I suggest the authorities reverse their decision to conduct a
public-education exercise that is based on the unlikely scenario that, in a
drought, the government would be so incompetent as to conserve water by
turning off the taps at random. After all, in the event of water-rationing,
the most realistic scenario is that water will be supplied to particular
areas at certain specified times. A competent government would publish
schedules so that households would know when to expect water to be
available.

Of course, advanced notification will allow the targeted homes to store
water before the taps run dry. However, lack of notification will probably
cause more homes to store water. It is a safe bet that, come July 19, many
more than 30,000 homes will be filling pails, just in case they have been
selected. In any case, such pre-emptive action by households must be
expected if water rationing were truly imposed.

A public-education exercise must resemble expected reality as closely as
possible. Well-designed exercises educate the public on emergency
procedures. They simultaneously provide the authorities with realistic data
to help them in contingency-planning. In contrast, poorly thought-out
exercises, such as the one planned for July 19, are based on unrealistic
scenarios and have low educational, but high gimmicky, value.

On the related issue of increases in domestic water rates, it was reported
that domestic consumption increased by 0.9 per cent in 1995, 3 per cent in
1996 and 3.3 per cent in 1997. These overall figures should not be the
justification for increasing rates.

The relevant statistic is the per capita increase in domestic water
consumption. Singapore's resident population has been increasing at the
rate of approximately 2 per cent annually. Even if domestic water
consumption per capita remained flat, there would still be an increase in
the total domestic consumption because of population growth.To facilitate
informed public discussion on the vital issue of water, I request the
relevant authorities publish the per capita rate of increase in domestic
water consumption over the last decade.

Although attention has focused on domestic water consumption, non-domestic
consumption has been increasing at a greater rate. Total water consumed
increased by 2.2 per cent in 1995, 4.2 per cent in 1996 and 5 per cent in
1997. Since non-domestic consumption is about half the total, its rate of
increase is about 3.5 per cent in 1995, 5.4 per cent in 1996 and 6.7 per
cent in 1997.

So that we can see the entire picture, I request the relevant authorities
publish the contribution by the different non-domestic sectors to the
overall increase in water consumption. If we find, for example, that our
large number of golf courses consume a disproportionate amount of water
when compared to a public park, we might consider closing some of them to
save water.

Finally, the government says that 'correct pricing' is needed to 'lower the
growth rate in water demand'. This presumably means that the price of water
will be adjusted until the growth in water demand is at a desiable level.
The public is entitled to know what the government defines as 'desirable
levels' for different sectors of the economy, so that they can judge
whether water has indeed been correctly priced.

===================================

[The Straits Times]   JUL 18 1998


Water rationing exercise is meant to be symbolic

---------------------------------------------------------

I REFER to the letters "Give incentives to save water"
by Ms Christina Tan (ST, July 1) and "Water exercise is
unrealistic" by Mr Francis Chong Fu Shin (ST, July 7).

Last year, in June, the Government announced the
revision and restructuring of the water tariff over four
annual increments on July 1, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The purpose is to get Singaporeans to conserve water
which is a precious and strategic resource.

The restructuring and increase in the domestic water
tariffs and water conservation tax are also to prepare
Singaporeans for the higher cost of water from
developing additional alternative sources to meet the
increasing demand.

The breakdown of water consumption for domestic and
non-domestic sectors and the per capita domestic water
consumption based on the resident population are shown
in the two accompanying tables.

As pointed out rightly by Mr Chong, even if the per
capita domestic water consumption remains constant,
there would still be an increase in the domestic water
consumption arising from the increasing population.

As such, there is still a need to look for alternative
sources to meet this increasing demand. Alternative
sources would be more expensive as we have developed all
the major sources in Singapore.

The revision and restructuring will bring the domestic
tariffs, for consumption below 40 cubic metres per
month, to the same flat rate as the non-domestic tariff.

The flatter structure is necessary to drive home the
message that water conservation must apply to all.

Conserving water should be our way of life and not when
incentives are provided. It is vital that we lower the
growth of our water demand.

In 1995, the domestic sector showed that a low growth
rate of 0.9 per cent can be achieved.

Should this low growth achievement be sustained, it will
help to stretch our limited water resources and to defer
the need for new and costly investment.

However, domestic consumption grew by 3.0 per cent in
1996 and 3.3 per cent in 1997.

Total water consumption also includes demand from the
non-domestic sector, which depends on the production and
state of the economy.

Consumption in the non-domestic sector has been
increasing with the healthy growth in our economy/GDP.

Over the last five years, non-domestic water consumption
grew by 6.1 per cent.

PUB has institutionalised various water conservation
measures to ensure the efficient usage of water in
industries.

Some of the measures include the mandatory installation
of water-saving devices, recycling and reuse of
processed water and the use of non-potable water as a
substitute for potable water.

The "Turn It Off" water exercise is not to educate the
public on contingencies for lack of water as the
likelihood of this happening is minimal.

The exercise is designed to drive home this year's
campaign message and is a call to action by the public
to conserve water. It is of short duration and not
intended to be a water rationing exercise in its true
sense but rather a symbolic one.

The objective of the exercise is to highlight that water
is a precious and strategic resource and to let the
public have a feel of what it would be like should the
taps run dry.

With this objective and the short duration of the
exercise, the actual time and details of premises
involved in the exercise will not be announced prior to
the commencement of the exercise for optimum impact.

CHOO WAI CHAN (Mrs)
Public Relations
Manager for Chief Executive
Public Utilities Board

===================================

28 July 1998


The Forum Editor
The Straits Times


Dear Editor

PER CAPITA DOMESTIC WATER CONSUMPTION ACTUALLY FALLING

	The PUB believes that per capita consumption has been increasing at an average 
rate of 2.5 per cent between 1988-1997 ('Water rationing exercise is meant to be 
symbolic', July 18). Its figures are based on domestic sales and the resident population.

	I do not understand why the PUB calculated per capita consumption by dividing 
domestic sales by the resident population. "Domestic sales" surely refers to sales to the 
total number of people living in Singapore, and not just the resident population, which 
comprises only citizens and permanent residents. Dividing domestic sales by the resident 
population wrongly inflates per capita consumption.

	If the PUB had divided domestic sales by the total population, it would have found 
that per capita consumption has been decreasing since it peaked in 1994 (Total population 
figures from Department of Statistics' website).

Year	Resident Population (R)	Per capita consumption (litres/day) based on resident population (X)	Total Population (T)	Per capita consumption (Litres/day) based on total population (=RX/T)
1988	2,647,100	164.8	2,846,100	153.3
1989	2,685,400	168.8	2,930,900	154.7	1990	2,716,700	178.8	3,016,400	161.0
1991	2,762,700	186.1	3,089,900	166.4
1992	2,818,200	191.3	3,178,000	169.6
1993	2,873,800	195.7	3,259,400	172.5
1994	2,930,200	201.8	3,363,500	175.8
1995	2,986,500	199.9	3,467,500	172.2
1996	3,044,300	201.9	3,612,000	170.2
1997	3,103,500	204.6	3,736,700	169.9

The figures show that the increase in total domestic consumption since 1994 is not due to 
rising per capita consumption. Instead, it is entirely due to the increase in total population.

	Contrary to the PUB's belief that a flatter tariff structure is 'necessary to drive 
home the message that water conservation must apply to all', falling per capita 
consumption shows that people have begun using less water even at the old rates. Are 
domestic tariff increases therefore justified?

	It is odd that it is the domestic rates that are going up when non-domestic usage has 
been increasing far more rapidly than domestic usage. The PUB says that 
'[c]onsumption in the non-domestic sector has been increasing with the healthy growth in 
our economy/GDP'. This, presumably, is the reason non-domestic rates are not going up. 
Applying the same logic, domestic water rates should not be raised, since domestic 
consumption has merely been increasing with the healthy growth in our total population.

	Higher domestic water rates will have the effect of altering the balance of domestic 
to non-domestic consumption in the latter's favour. That being so, the PUB must provide 
figures to assure the public that non-domestic users are efficiently using 
water. As a negative example, hotels have become less efficient in using water on a per 
room basis. Consumption by hotels grew by an average of 3.4 per cent annually over the 
last decade, while the number of rooms increased by only 2.5 per cent annually ('Recycle, 
rinse and save water', July 11).

	Furthermore, if the non-domestic sector is going to get a bigger proportion of our 
water supply, the public is entitled to know how that sector is using water. If water is 
everyone's concern, surely it is better that we are fully informed about how water is used 
in the non-domestic sector. Therefore, I request, again, the PUB to publish consumption 
figures by different sectors of the economy over the last decade.

	Finally, if it is 'vital that we lower the growth in our water demand', should we not 
at least consider phasing out, or reducing the size of, industries that consume a lot of 
water? In particular, is it not amazing that, for a water-poor country, we have more than a 
dozen golf courses?

===================================


Straits Times
Saturday, 8 August 1998

DEMAND FOR WATER MUST BE DAMPENED

I refer to the letter "Water use actually falling" by Mr Francis Chong
Fu Shin (ST, July 30).

The pricing of water must reflect the fact that it is a scarce and
strategic resource. Total demand for water will grow as population
increases and as the economy continues to grow. But we should, through a
serious water conservation strategy, try to limit the rate of increase
so that we can postpone the need for more expensive sources of water.

We must try to reduce water demand where possible as well as inculcate
water conservation as a habit. In this regard, PUB has put in place
various schemes to encourage consumers to conserve water.

These include the adoption of water conservation measures by
non-domestic consumers, water auditing for industries, recycling of
water by industrial users, education programmes for students, the Save
Water Campaign, etc.

Pricing is an important and effective mechanism to get consumers to
conserve water.

We need to price water to reflect the cost of new sources of water as
well as its scarcity value.

We need to restructure the tariffs so that both domestic and
non-domestic users are eventually charged a uniform rate, as water is
precious and all usage should incur the same cost.

This is currently not the case as domestic users who consume less than
40 cubic metres per month are still paying a lower tariff than
non-domestic users.

The objective of the water tariff restructuring is to eventually achieve
a uniform pricing structure, so that the correct price is reflected from
the very first drop of water consumed.

As the non-domestic customers are already paying a higher tariff, there
is no need for it to be adjusted. For the domestic customers, the
Government is mindful of the needs of the lower-income groups.

Lower-income households are given utilities rebates to help them adjust
to the changes so that while they pay more for water like everyone else,
overall they will not be worse off.

The utilities rebate will more than offset the increase in water charges
for lower-income households.

Mr Chong asked why we used per capita consumption figures based on
resident population and not total population. We monitor both data.

However, study of water consumption requires more detailed analyses than
relying on per capita consumption.

It is also not correct economic strategy to phase out industries solely
on the basis of their water consumption, as Mr Chong has proposed.

A much wider set of parameters will need to be taken into consideration
when deciding on the industries that Singapore should support.

We should, however, strive to ensure that these industries practise
water conservation through recycling of water, usage of industrial
water, and being generally conservation-conscious in their operations.

As to Mr Chong's request for sectoral consumption, we would like to
refer him to the Department of Statistics' publication "Yearbook of
Statistics".

Water conservation should be a way of life for all Singaporeans. It will
help ensure that we never go thirsty.

CHOO WAI CHAN (Mrs)
Public Relations Manager
for Chief Executive
Public Utilities Board, Singapore.

Readers's comment.