What's Good For The Vrc Should Be Good For Councils
The Age
Friday January 16, 2009
ACROSS Melbourne, once-green fields of dreams are abandoned dustbowls. Under 3a water restrictions, councils may water only one in four sports grounds. The impact on outdoor activities and clubs has been huge, although councils have done their best, on tight budgets, to install water tanks and truck in recycled water to supplement supply.
In 2007, councils and water retailers also put to the Government a plan to buy water saved by private companies. This would boost water-saving incentives while helping councils minimise the future cost, running to millions of dollars, of rehabilitating grounds ruined by drought. The plan was rejected.How galling it must be then for councils to look across to the lush gardens and turf of Flemington racecourse and learn that the Victoria Racing Club is allowed to use an extra 23million litres of drinking water a year by paying a third party to achieve water savings. The basis of Water Minister Tim Holding's rebuff of the councils' plan was that it was not an option for country Victorians. Part of the reason the public has successfully cut water use is that as long as the rules are the same for all, everyone tends to do their bit. Bending the rules for special cases, or favouring one sector of the community over another, risks undermining the public goodwill on which savings depend. Yet this principle has been set aside for one of Australia's richest sporting bodies.The Age accepts the argument that Flemington has a special status, although it is odd that the VRC can increase annual water use to 345 million litres before a third party meant to save 160 million litres is even identified. In light of the VRC precedent, the Government should reconsider the councils' proposition. Collectively, their grounds are no less significant for community and sporting activities than Flemington.
© 2009 The Age