Despite recent rainfall in inner Queensland and parts of Victoria and NSW, Australia continues to suffer the effects of serious drought. Brisbane recently moved to stage 6 restrictions (in which residents are permitted to water gardens every other day and are limited to 800 litres of water usage) while Perth and Adelaide face tough long-term restrictions on water use. Melbourne is on stage 3A restrictions until at least June 2008 and probably faces the toughest and most ill-considered policy of the drought-stricken cities.

The most glaring problem with city-based water restrictions is that it punishes the significant urban for the sins of few others. Residential water use is responsible for only 23 percent of total consumption – however, householders bear an undue burden of cost, paying 61 percent of total expenditure. If the government was serious on cutting back water use, it would increase the costs imposed to rice farmers or miners or commercial users, like Coca-Cola and Foster’s.

But leaving the urban and rural debate, not only do state governments impose strict urban water rules, but the water restrictions don’t necessarily regulate the amount of water used, rather they seek to regulate how it is used. For example, Melbourne residents are only permitted to water gardens for two short periods each week. If your non-watering day is 42 degrees, you have to sit back and watch while plants wilt under the stifling sun. (Such restrictions are certainly taken very seriously, in Sydney a man was killed last month after a fight broke out over suspected illegal garden watering).

If Governments are serious about cutting water use they should restrict the total usage of households, rather than try to proscribe the manner in which water can be used. For example, someone is permitted to have a two-hour shower which benefits no-one, but is not permitted to water a dying plant at 8.01am. A dishwasher can be run with one plate inside, but councils are not permitted to water parks, leading to fines being imposed on children if they play sport. Pensioners are being forced to watch their gardens wilt while the teenager next door enjoys a 30-minute shower.

Here’s one solution that actually addresses the problem of urban water usage in an efficient manner. Rather than restrict activities, each household should be permitted a maximum fair use allocation (the allocation would be based on number of residents). For example, a four-person household should receive a “fair use allocation” of approximately 550 litres per day, whereas a one-person household would receive an allocation of 180 litres per day.

The allocation can be used in any way – to shower, wash dishes, fill a swimming pool or water a dying plant. While the quarterly “fair use allocation” would be charged at the current rates, once the allocation is breached, the household would pay an immediate loading of $100.00 and the cost would increase by around 500%. Any charges levied would be dedicated solely to water projects.

There is no better way to regulate human behaviour than to impose a financial penalty. People won’t be taking 30-minute showers when it costs them $3.00 rather than 5 cents. Further, the “fair use allocation” system does not rely on people dobbing in their neighbours or arbitrary inspections. Rather, it could be imposed using regular water metering.

The current system of water restrictions may be lowering water use, but at the steep cost of our gardens and sports fields, showing another sad effect of politicians and bureaucrats making economic and environmental decisions on our behalf.