Tag: water

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2745] We need to ration our water

There seems yet another water crisis on the horizon, or here even. But walking around, it is hard to know that for sure. Out there in the streets well out of the dams and water plants, building management are instructing their workers to water the grass even after the rain, keeping it green and all. I spotted one worker watering a tree with a huge trunk for several minutes, while reading his phone. Car owners are washing their cars with generous amount of water. AirAsia plans the largest water balloon fight in Malaysia in November this year, right in the middle of Petaling Jaya, somehow trivializing the water assets negotiation in Selangor. AirAsia calls it Burst Asia and tickets are selling for RM48.

Yet, from the news we are learning water at various dams are below the critical levels previously seen earlier this year when rationing took place. The authority is pumping water from old mining ponds into our water supply as a solution. There are accusations that the ponds are contaminated with heavy metals. Whether it is true or not, it is clear this is a sign of desperation with the authority trying to augment the dam water in Selangor. If that does not signal desperation, then the sudden turn of events in the past months with respect to the Selangor water assets negotiation has to be one. After all, the basis for the Pahang-Selangor water tunnel and the controversial Langat 2 water plant revolves around future water shortage. There are those who claim the current shortage is a made-up crisis, especially among those in the current Selangor state government. They claim sabotage, saying somebody is trying to make the state government look bad. I do not know about those saboteurs but there is a water crisis, regardless of its sources.

Water prices meanwhile remain cheap. It has not changed for some time now. The Selangor state government refuses to raise it, supposedly for the benefit of the people, claiming the water companies are not doing enough to warrant a tariff hike. While these water companies are indeed slacking off, breaching their contracts and there is even a smell of corruption in the air, prices remain low and controlled too tightly to encourage judicious use of water. The free water policy by Selangor also does not seem to help. Sure, the free water policy says water is free of charge up to a certain level but the idea of free and saving do not go along well with each other. The policy encourages consumption, not saving.

So, there is a water crisis on the supply side but it does not seem to be so, looking at the consumption side.

Why?

It is because information does not flow from supply to the demand side. Prices do not correspond with water supply and so consumers, whether residential, commercial or industrial, act normal. Prices are prevented from functioning properly.

To correct the situation, we need to float the prices, or at least hike it up. Unfortunately, there is no political will for that. In fact, the current political establishment is hostile to any hike. Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim has guaranteed there will be no rationing. And lest people make him a scapegoat, that is a Pakatan Rakyat’s policy. Their credibility is dependent on a no hike outcome.

Given that political constraint, the next best thing is to resort to non-market solutions. That involves water rationing unfortunately.

There has to be a signal sent to the demand side, telling these consumers, “hey guys, there is a water crisis here. You might want to slow it down a notch.” Without that signal, consumers will act as if everything is alright. If it goes as things are going, there might be none to ration at all later. So, we need to send a stronger signal to the consumers. News reports alone are not working.

I know several people have written in support of rationing. Add me into that list.

I do believe water users in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur will tolerate rationing better than having no water at all.

Categories
Politics & government

[2289] Of the tap water must flow

The tussle for control of water distribution in Selangor attracts strong opinions and allegations. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government and its supporters claim that Syabas, the sole water distributor in Selangor, is being mismanaged. Some of the more vocal supporters of Pakatan Rakyat and the state government claim that Syabas is a case of incompetence and downright corruption. The state government believes it could do a better job than Syabas. Whatever it is, Pakatan Rakyat is on a relentless offensive. In the end, however, it might find itself in a situation that Napoleon once found himself in, which was in the frigid Russia.

Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor is having a successful campaign so far. That is because it is hard to disagree with most of the issues raised by Pakatan Rakyat given the negative reports surrounding Syabas. Breach of contract, conflict of interest, large compensation received by its executive chairman Rozali Ismail”¦ the list goes on and on.

The large debt accumulated by Syabas is a symptom to all of these issues and the symptom itself cannot be swept under the carpet. The debt is the immediate factor for Syabas’s request to increase its water tariff by a significant margin.

The state government opposes this, convinced that Syabas is passing the cost of its mismanagement to water consumers unnecessarily. This presents a problem for Syabas. Without the hike, it faces the possibility of bankruptcy.

The default might happen as soon as the end of this year, which is just days away. Bondholders of Syabas have argued that the default might adversely affect the wider capital market, hence the necessity of bailout. The Barisan Nasional-led federal government seems convinced of that argument and it has indicated that a bailout is possible.

The fear is very real. What is also real is the anger that will follow any bailout. Any bailout will be unfair because it is a case of privatizing profits but socializing losses. The stakeholders of the bailed-out firms stand to gain everything at the expense of taxpayers at large.

That, however, does not negate the fact that the only thing that is worse than being forced to pick up someone else’s tab is having no tap water. Any allegation made against Syabas, which is likely to be true, will stand pale against widespread unfulfilled demand for tap water. The tap water must flow regardless the issues.

If there is no resolution to the war of attrition between the state government and Syabas before the default occurs, Pakatan Rakyat’s campaign might see its fortune reversed. When push comes to shove, a bailout will be preferred to no bailout.

Without bailout, the uncertainty regarding tap water supply will be devastating. Everybody loses under the case of no bailout, and no tap water.

If a bailout does happen, somebody will have to take the blame. The federal government will not want to be that somebody. The federal government will want to be seen as the savior of the day instead.

To do so, the federal government might defend itself by stating that without a bailout, the tap water might not flow. The fear of possible water supply interruption is already making its round in the mainstream media. The Sultan of Selangor, for instance, has voiced his concerns regarding the matter.

It is in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor to not to have a bailout. It is in its interest to resolve the issue before Syabas defaults on its bonds.

Perhaps, it is even in the interest of Pakatan Rakyat to allow the water tariff hike to happen. At least that way, Pakatan Rakyat can continue to be on the offensive, leaving Syabas and, indirectly but more importantly, Barisan Nasional on the defensive well into the next state and national elections.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 15 2010.

Categories
Economics Environment

[1710] Of solution or shut up

The Kedah state government has come under criticism for its decision to log timber in its water catchment areas. While I disagree with the decision, I feel too many sides are criticizing the state government without providing any solution — with the exception of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM).

Here, I want to offer two solutions to the issue that will leave those trees in peace:

SAM rightly pointed out that Penang needs to compensate Kedah for refraining from logging timber within the water catchment areas from which Penang draws its water supply. In everything that we do, there is always an opportunity cost and Kedah is no different in this respect: one of those costs involves the decision to log or not to log.

A similar idea of compensation was proposed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali, Indonesia last year with the objective of halting the destruction of rainforests. The origin of such an idea itself goes back to 1937 when economist Ronald Coase first proposed it. I will not bore you with the economics but what I am trying to do is demonstrate that this idea is not as novel as it sounds.

While SAM gets the idea of Coase, the state-to-state compensation is not as on target as I would like it to be. It does not link the issue with the market and any state-to-state compensation may amount to a water subsidy in the end.

A better compensation method will see consumers themselves compensating the owner of the catchment area and, in this case, the owner is the Kedah state government. This is also the reason why I do not prefer the idea of having the federal government compensating Kedah. This allows the opportunity cost to be included into the water bill of Penang folk. With that, the opportunity cost faced by Kedah will be flipped and eventually provide the state with a chance to reassess its priority. Needless to say, that translates into higher charges for water consumption for Penang folk.

The beauty of this suggestion is that it also encourages water conservation. It reveals the true cost of water to consumers and allows the consumers to appreciate the problem faced by Kedah even more. It is a model for advocating more sustainable water consumption.

The second solution involves property rights. Those who wish for a guaranteed continuous clean water supply from Kedah can purchase rights over the trees or a tract of land within the catchment areas. At the right price, the Kedah state government will sell the rights to the trees and be relieved of the temptation to cut them down. This, of course, only works if the new owners do not succumb to the temptation of cutting down the trees for money.

But the two solutions somewhat digress from my original thought. What I am trying to say is this: please offer solutions. Criticism, however justified, is simply not enough.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics Environment

[1086] Of water shortage, ineffective threat and effective policy

I cannot help but let go a huge sigh when I read a headline entitled “Conserve or face rationing, public told” in The Star on February 8:

PETALING JAYA: Malaysians have been told to start conserving water now or brace themselves for water rationing if the expected hot and dry weather hits the country next month.

Selangor water concessionaire Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas) has sounded out to the state government that rationing was among the steps that would have to be taken if the situation takes a turn for the worse.

Right. Like people are going to listen; I doubt such warning could encourage people to conserve.

When I heard rationing as a possible solution, I rolled my eyes.

I have offered a better plan to survive water shortage, be it caused by El Niño or simple drought, long ago — prices should reflect water scarcity and be allowed to float according to water quantity. In short, with the anticipated water shortage, price must go up throughout the duration of the shortage. In a free market with no state intervention, price would have gone up by now, signally the possibility of shortage.

People will only conserve if something hits them in the head. A mere warning does not cut it but a price increase will do the trick.

I do not know about you but I prefer to pay more rather than not have water at all. Further, rationing is such a drag. Besides, for goodness’ sake, we are living in the 21st century and we are not in a war or something.

Categories
Environment

[1028] Of 2006 top Malaysian environmental issues

With a little over 24 hours before 2006 comes to a close, let us revisit all the green issues mentioned in two other entries — entry [775] and [879]:

  1. Smelly tap water in the Klang Valley in February. Not just smelly, it smelled like shit. The smell was caused by ammonia released from several improperly managed landfills. The landfills later were shut down, at least, according to reports. See [756].
  2. The tabling of the Water Services Industry Bill in April. Proposed death penalty to polluters. See [765].
  3. With the shut down of landfills, a related problem ensued: shortage of landfills in April too. See [775].
  4. Big flood in the northern states early in the year. See [775].
  5. Flash flood in Shah Alam. Local residents were positively angry. See [775].
  6. Deforestation in various states. TV3 played an active role in informing the public. See [709] and [720].
  7. The Malaysian Nature Society’s Save Belum-Temengor campaign. See [885]
  8. The drive towards biofuel. See [775].
  9. Proposed mega palm oil estate by Indonesia on Borneo. It affects Malaysia because, well, it would be on the border. See [775].
  10. Proposed nuclear energy for Malaysia. See [775].
  11. Bird flu. See [775].
  12. Landslide at Genting Highlands. See [775].
  13. Damage to Sipadan coral reef in May. The accident forced the Sabah state government to halt construction of a huge facility at Sipadan after coming under attack from the public. See [791].
  14. Metal smelter in Bakun. See [879].
  15. Cancellation of Broga incinerator. See [879].
  16. Haze. And yeah, I told you so. See [879].
  17. In practical terms, the extinction of leatherback turtle in Malaysia. See [855].
  18. Sustainable forestry program. See [853].
  19. Congestion tax in Kuala Lumpur in August. It came back in December after the Kuala Lumpur mayor made a comment on it. This is a progressive policy but the public transportation system must be improved first. See [854].
  20. Growing rhinoceros population in Borneo. See [879].

That is a compilation of issues that started between January and some time in September 2006, inclusively. But of course, a year does not end in September and so, the complication continues.

  1. El Niño is officially back in September. See [883] and [886].
  2. The hunt for a killer crocodile in October. The act of revenge turn for the worse and became a merciless culling of crocodiles. The effort was criticized by greens and the culling immediately stopped in October. See [896].
  3. Temporary ban lift on commercial usage of paraquat. Something smell fishy. See [897].
  4. Legalization of turtle eggs collection by Terengganu state government in October. See [912].
  5. 300MV coal power plant in Sabah, as reported in November. See [975].
  6. New Orleans of Malaysia. See [1018].
  7. And perhaps, finally, after all these years, climate change. See [1017].

Will 2007 be a better year? Will the haze return?

Stay alive and find out next year.