Apologies to readers for the rather odd post below, which was meant for my own blog. Since people have made comments, I’ll leave it in place, and add a few notes of explanation. The post refers to a state election campaign in Western Australia, which the incumbent Labor government was, at the outset, expected to lose. A major issue in the campaign is the water supply problems facing Perth, the capital city where the great majority of the population lives. Issues include the traditional Australian ideology of developmentalism, and the role of public-private partnerships
My piece in today’s Australian Financial Review, over the fold, brings together arguments about the Kimberley canal project, which has been debated here on the blog on my blog. As usual, I got a lot out of all the comments, whether or not this is obvious in the published article. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the debate.
Economic rationalists are often criticised, not entirely without reason, for lacking vision. Still, when confronted with a visionary project like the canal being advocated by WA Opposition leader Colin Barnett to bring water 3700km from the Kimberleys to Perth, we are reminded of that mirages are a kind of vision.
There arenât many issues on which I agree with the Institute of Public Affairs. But Iâm happy to join IPA Director Mike Nahan in suggesting that this is a project fraught with danger for WA taxpayers. It could easily join the Ord River fiasco as an illustration of what happens when developmentalist rhetoric trumps economic rationality.
Campaigning on the slogan âdecisions not delaysâ, Barnett has promised to go ahead with the scheme without waiting for feasibility studies, environmental assessments or any of the other impediments of bureaucratic rationality. The evidence supporting the proposal appears to consist of some very slim documents proposed by project proponent Tenix.
Even a momentâs scrutiny of these documents indicates some obvious problems. For example, the feasibility of the project is supported by reference to the â1,065 km Californian Aqueductâ, built in the early 1900s. The Aqueductâs own website states its length at 223 miles (less than 400 km).
But the real problems are with the economics. Barnett has promised to deliver water at $1 a kilolitre, but this canât be done, even on the most optimistic assumptions. Taking Tenixâs claimed construction cost of $2 billion, and a very conservative EBITDA ratio of 10, the capital costs for the project would be $200 million a year. Even at the claimed maximum flow of 200 gigalitres a year, this would use up the whole $1/kl without allowing anything for pumping, maintenance, treatment or reticulation.
More plausible estimates for construction costs, including staging costs, are up to $4 billion, and a more likely estimate for total capital costs (return on capital, depreciation and amortisation) is 12.5 per cent, putting the capital costs alone at $2.50/kl. In addition, each kl of water is a tonne of matter that has to be pumped 3700km, with little help from gravity. Thatâs not going to be cheap. The WA Treasury has estimated the delivered costs at $6.50/kl, compared to current prices ranging from $0.41 to $1.50.
Then thereâs the fact that the proposal is a BOOT scheme, with the illusory benefit of handing the project back to the public after 40 years. Of course, there is no free lunch here. The cost is built into prices, usually with a handsome profit margin built in.
It gets worse. The Tenix proposal is based on the assumption that all the water is sold to residential users, but Barnett has talked of diverting up to 80GL each year to irrigators. This will no doubt do wonders for the politics of the proposal but it will be awful for the economics. Thereâs no way irrigators will be able to pay any more than the pumping costs (if that). Even $1/kl is $1000 a megalitre, which would render most irrigated crops uneconomic. That means that all the capital and maintenance costs will have to be spread over, at most, 120 GL of residential use, so the costs for residential users could be as high as $10/kl. At this price, fanciful options like transporting icebergs from Antarctica start to look attractive.
But even at much lower prices, market forces would resolve the problem. A mere doubling of prices would induce a reduction in water use, and would bring forth alternative sources of supply, such as repurchase of water currently used for irrigation. Then thereâs the backstop option of desalinisation, already under way on a relatively small scale.
Itâs just possible that careful study could show that the kinds of problems raised above can be overcome, and that the canal option is a feasible one. But thereâs no time for such a study before the election.
Unless he can present a better case than he has done so far, it seems quite likely that this proposal will cost Barnett an election he seemed to have in the bag. This episode, and Laborâs difficulties with Medicare Gold, provide a harsh lesson for Opposition parties. If you have a complex and innovative policy, itâs better to put it out for scrutiny well in advance of the election, and risk having the government steal it, than to try and defend it, perhaps unsuccessfully, in the heat of an election campaign.
Did Tenix already get $5mm from the government for that feasiblity “study”?
“3700km”
That is more than the distance from Sydney to Perth so your figure can’t be right - the correct distance is I think 1700-2300km (not that it makes any difference to the economics!)
Quite a few sources give it as 3700km, Giles. here for example. The feasible routes aren’t straight lines (or great circles).
But John! Battlers chattering classes chardonnay socialists battlers battlers! Struggle street our way of life battlers? Battlers! Their own children! Battlers battlers! And why SHOULD he say sorry?!
There, now we’re back at the usual level of Australian political discourse.
Campaigning on the slogan “decisions not delays”
Oh god no … “Measure once, cut twice” on the grand scale.
Off topic, but as long as the post is here: can someone please explain to me why the party is “Labor” when AFAIK Australians spell the word “labour” in every other context?
Steve, from the ALP website:
‘During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name “Australian Labour Party” was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both ‘Labor’ and ‘Labour’, however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement.’
Very interesting, glad I asked. Thanks!
$10 per kiloliter is crazy. Nuclear desalination can provide water for less than $1 per cubic meter. And it is proven techonology, not a pipe dream.
The figure from the water corporation is “1800 km”
pg 2
“The most favored option was found to comprise three, long distance
(around 1800 km), large diameter (1400 mm) pipelines, seven high-capacity, gas powered pumping
stations and a very large dam on the Fitzroy river at Dimond Gorge with a downstream barrage
constructed to provide a suitable water supply off take point.”
3700km is more than the distance by road so unless the wiggles are somehow need to push the water, I think this is a transcription error thats just been repeated by newspapers quoting each other.
http://www.watercorporation.com.au/publications/12/Kimberley_Pipeline_Project_Review.pdf
Of course, there’s the more derisory explanation for the spelling of Labor:
Labor — the party that forgot u.
Giles, the pipeline and canal are different versions of the project. The pipeline was costed at $11bn and the canal proponents claim $2 bn. I assume the routes also differ.
Yes but its hard to see that the canal is going to be 2 times as long as a pipleline - especially since there is a greater incentive to have straight canals since you get errosions and all sorts of other problems. I mean get an encarta out and try to trace out a route thats 3800km it leads to aburd routing.
I think you should be warry about a common negotiating technique where the proposer makes a mistake, the opposer and proposer argue over unit costs - and meet in the middle, at which point the proposer then says there was a mistake and he only needs half as many units.
And given that this canal doesn’t look like an entirely cards on the table proposal, I wouldnt discount the possibility.
Yes but its hard to see that the canal is going to be 2 times as long as a pipeline - especially since there is a greater incentive to have straight canals since you get erosions and all sorts of other problems. I mean get an Encarta out and try to trace out a route that’s 3800km it leads to absurd routing.
I think you should be wary about a common negotiating technique where the propose makes a mistake, the oppose and propose argue over unit costs - and meet in the middle, at which point the propose then says there was a mistake and he only needs half as many units.
And given that this canal doesn’t look like an entirely cards on the table proposal, I wouldn’t discount the possibility.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review