Buckminster Fuller, considered one of the greatest minds of our times, developed several technologies and strategies that improved human lives by doing more with less. He called this concept “ephemeralization.” In today’s world, amid increasing climate variability, population growth, and water scarcity, Fuller’s approach seems more necessary and relevant than ever.
Water agencies across the US are concerned with water shortages, drought, and increasing population, but those in California are particularly water-impoverished and facing unprecedented drought conditions. Researchers recently looked to Australia to learn how water agencies can best respond to and manage drought.
Australia’s “millennium” drought lasted 15 years, from 1997 to 2012. At one point, the New York Times reports, Melbourne, a city of four million people, was only 500 days away from running out of water. So the State of Victoria asked its three water companies to formulate a collective response and implement widespread conservation programs. As a result of their efforts, Australia’s water agencies were able to reduce domestic consumption from 65 gallons per person per day in 2000-2001, to 39 gallons in 2010-2011.
An insightful 2016 report by The Alliance for Water Efficiency examines the conservation efforts, urban water planning, and crisis management of Australia’s cities, as well as both the short- and long-term impacts of water-saving decisions.
According to the study, urban water efficiency was the keystone of the Australia’s water saving efforts. Although reducing water demand is sometimes considered a “soft” response to drought, Melbourne’s experience showed that helping residents and businesses use less water was a highly effective part of a city’s response.
In many locations in Australia, water efficiency programs provided the cheapest, quickest, and most effective contribution to managing demand during the drought. Reducing demand saved 28 billion gallons of water per year in Melbourne. Without these programs and the collaboration of water utilities, the report indicates, many cities and towns would have run out of water.
Conservation measures included changing washing machines, toilets, cooling towers, showerheads, taps, and industrial processes to do more with less. It also involved an extensive and widespread behavioral change effort. Persuading millions of people to nearly halve their water use, it turns out, is no easy task.
One utility—Yarra Valley Water—was placed in charge of guiding the state’s behavioral change efforts. The utility hired a team of psychologists who held community forums and conducted interviews with residents about their water use. The psychologists also worked with the public to identify the best strategies for encouraging water conservation.
Some of the more successful programs involved placing stands outside supermarkets to distribute free water-saving equipment, advertising on television and radio, training staff at garden centers to promote conservation gardening, comparative water bills, and rebates on water-efficient washing machines and rainwater collection tanks. The government also put in place a series of mandatory restrictions on outdoor water use.
In the end, Melbourne was able to find innovative ways to increase water supply and decrease water demand. The report outlines ways in which California could benefit from long-term structural changes in water use by implementing similar efficiency measures—essentially learning to live well with less water.
Do you think that your utility could benefit by studying the conservation efforts of other agencies?
