Water is scarce. So why is it underpriced?

A drinking fountain in Rome. Image: Getty.

In the summer of 2017, for the first time in 2,000 years, Rome shut off its public water fountains. 

Since the first aqueduct transported water to public fountains at the ancient city’s cattle market, there has always been water to supply Rome’s fountains. Through centuries of wars, conflicts, revolutions and other human and natural catastrophes, the tradition of free fountain water in Rome has continued uninterrupted, until the devastating 2017 drought.  With farmers in the surrounding countryside facing over one million euros in agricultural damages, city authorities decided to stop the flow of water to Rome’s 2,800 public fountains.

The tradeoff that Rome faced – water for its fountains versus averting a catastrophic drought for farmers – is likely to occur again, as agricultural, municipal and industrial uses of water arise and climate change makes dwindling supplies even more variable. 

But this dilemma isn’t limited to Rome. For the entire globe, the era of plentiful water appears to be over.

Every year, water shortages affect more than one-third of the world’s population – around 2.5 billion people.  By 2030, water scarcity may displace as many as 700 million people worldwide. By 2050, more than half of the global population – and about half of global grain production – will be at risk due to water stress.

If water is valuable and scarce, why is it so poorly managed?

The problem is that our policies and institutions for managing water were developed when the resource was abundant, not scarce.  We continue to exploit freshwater as if it were limitless.

To find a way beyond this impasse, we must put an end to policies that underprice water and allow it to be used as if it was a plentiful resource. There are two approaches that could make a significant difference.


First we must allow markets for trading water to flourish.  Throughout the world, the predominant use of water is for irrigated agriculture, around 80% of all water withdrawals.  Yet, the fastest growing demands for water are for urban residential, commercial and industrial use. Because people in cities have less water, they are willing to pay much more for it than what it costs farmers to water their crops or pastures.

Through water markets, farmers could sell any excess water to other users, allowing both parties to gain. Urban users are able to pay lower prices and increase consumption. Farmers would have another revenue source, and because their water is now more valuable, they will squander less and conserve more.

Already, many regions and localities are experimenting with various water trading schemes.  In some places, farmers sell all or part of their water rights; in others, they lease their water over one or multiple years. 

One promising development is water “banks”.  Like regular banks, farmers deposit their excess water, including “savings” from conservation, and can subsequently draw down these deposits during future droughts.  Alternatively, farmers can sell or lease some or all of their water deposits to other users. Environmental and recreational groups also pay to keep the deposits in rivers, lakes and streams, thus preserving valuable habitats.

Second, we must stop subsidizing water and sanitation services for residential, commercial and industrial users. Current prices charged rarely cover the full costs of these services.  Governments typically pay for most if not all of the investment costs, and often subsidize the operating costs.  Any environmental damages are usually settled through costly litigation.

Ending the underpricing of water and sanitation services could improve cost recovery and lead to greater conservation by users.  A fixed service charge could pay for the costs of operating and maintaining the water system.  A two-tier block rate charge for households would increase water conservation while protecting low-households from the burden of water pricing. 

Since poorer households use less water, typically less than 20 cubic meters of water per month, the price for this first “block” of water could be kept very low.  However, for monthly water use that exceeds 20 cubic meters, the price would be set much higher.

Finally, some of the revenues earned by local utilities and governments could finance the adoption of water-saving technologies and domestic appliances by households through discounts and rebates.  Additional programs could be targeted to low-income families, who would otherwise find it difficult to pay for new appliances or repair faulty plumbing.

Creating water markets and ending the underpricing of services are just two of many ways in which we can manage the rising scarcity of water to meet new and growing demands.  Otherwise, we may find tradeoffs like that in Rome an increasingly frequent occurrence.

Edward Barbier is a professor in the Department of Economics, Colorado State University, and the author of The Water Paradox, out now from Yale Books.

 
 
 
 

Transport for London’s fare zones secretly go up to 15

Some of these stations are in zones 10 to 12. Ooooh. Image: TfL.

The British capital, as every true-blooded Londoner knows, is divided into six concentric zones, from zone 1 in the centre to zone 6 in the green belt-hugging outer suburbs.

These are officially fare zones, which Transport for London (TfL) uses to determine the cost of your tube or rail journey. Unofficially, though, they’ve sort of become more than that, and like postcodes double as a sort of status symbol, a marker of how London-y a district actually is.

If you’re the sort of Londoner who’s also interested in transport nerdery, or who has spent any time studying the tube map, you’ll probably know that there are three more zones on the fringes of the capital. These, numbered 7 to 9, are used to set and collect fares at non-London stations where the Oyster card still works. But they differ from the first six, in that they aren’t concentric rings, but random patches, reflecting not distance from London but pre-existing and faintly arbitrary fares. Thus it is that at some points (on the Overground to Cheshunt, say) trains leaving zone 6 will visit zone 7. But at others they jump to 8 (on the train to Dartford) or 9 (on TfL rail to Brentwood), or skip them altogether.

Anyway: it turns out that, although they’re keeping it fairly quiet, the zones don’t stop at 9 either. They go all the way up to 15.

So I learned this week from the hero who runs the South East Rail Group Twitter feed, when they (well, let’s be honest: he) tweeted me this:

The choice of numbers is quite odd in its way. Purfleet, a small Thames-side village in Essex, is not only barely a mile from the London border, it’s actually inside the M25. Yet it’s all the way out in the notional zone 10. What gives?

TfL’s Ticketing + Revenue Update is a surprisingly jazzy internal newsletter about, well, you can probably guess. The September/October 2018 edition, published on WhatDoTheyKnow.com following a freedom of information request, contains a helpful explanation of what’s going on. The expansion of the Oyster card system

“has seen [Pay As You Go fare] acceptance extended to Grays, Hertford East, Shenfield, Dartford and Swanley. These expansions have been identified by additional zones mainly for PAYG caping and charging purposes.

“Although these additional zones appear on our staff PAYG map, they are no generally advertised to customers, as there is the risk of potentially confusing users or leading them to think that these ones function in exactly the same way as Zones 1-6.”


Fair enough: maps should make life less, not more, confusing, so labelling Shenfield et al. as “special fares apply” rather than zone whatever makes some sense. But why don’t these outer zone fares work the same way as the proper London ones?

“One of the reasons that the fare structure becomes much more complicated when you travel to stations beyond the Zone 6 boundary is that the various Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are responsible for setting the fares to and from their stations outside London. This means that they do not have to follow the standard TfL zonal fares and can mean that stations that are notionally indicated as being in the same fare zone for capping purposes may actually have very different charges for journeys to/from London."

In other words, these fares have been designed to fit in with pre-existing TOC charges. Greater Anglia would get a bit miffed if TfL unilaterally decided that Shenfield was zone 8, thus costing the TOC a whole pile of revenue. So it gets a higher, largely notional fare zone to reflect fares. It’s a mess. No wonder TfL doesn't tell us about them.

These “ghost zones”, as the South East Rail Group terms them, will actually be extending yet further. Zone 15 is reserved for some of the western-most Elizabeth line stations out to Reading, when that finally joins the system. Although whether the residents of zone 12 will one day follow in the venerable London tradition of looking down on the residents of zones 13-15 remains to be seen.

Jonn Elledge was the founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.