|Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product|
MONETARY WATER ACCOUNT
Queensland recorded the second highest revenue from urban distributed water sales ($1,322 million) which was a 14% increase from 2008–09 revenue of $1,159 million. The physical supply of distributed and reuse water dropped by 5% between 2008–09 and 2009–10. The higher revenue from urban distributed water sales in Queensland is attributed to increased tariffs and increased water use in the household sector associated with easing of water restrictions from level 4 to level 3.
Victoria had the third highest revenue from distributed water of $969 million, an increase of 16% from $832 million in 2008–09. The Victorian government continued with Stage 3 water restrictions in most of its metropolitan areas during 2009–10, impacting upon water demand. The 16% increase in revenue was mainly driven by higher tariffs imposed by a number of water providers.
The total revenue earned from sales of urban distributed water in Western Australia rose by 12% from $745 million to $832 million from 2008–09 to 2009–10. The 2008–09 estimates have been revised, details of which can be found in the Explanatory Notes, paragraph 55.
New South Wales recorded the highest revenue from water related services ($1,607 million), a 15% increase from 2008–09. Victoria earned the second highest revenue from providing water related services ($1,419 million).
Rural water supply
There was considerable variation across the States and Territories in the distribution of revenue generated from rural distributed water supply. Victoria earned the highest revenue from sales of rural distributed water ($138 million), followed by New South Wales ($85 million) and Queensland ($60 million).
Regional rainfall variability imposes constraints upon water availability which largely explains the variability in revenue from rural distributed water supply between 2008–09 and 2009–10. Revenue from rural distributed and reuse water decreased in South Australia by 53% to $36 million and by 6% to $9 million in Western Australia. Tasmania showed the largest percentage increase in revenue from rural distributed water (62%) from $6 million to $10 million.
Rural bulk water revenue in Victoria fell from $55 million to $10 million, an 81% decrease since 2008–09. This corresponds with a reduction in government funded drought assistance after drought conditions across the state eased.
The table below shows the revenue from sales of water and related services by all industries, at purchaser's prices (see Glossary), for 2009–10. The revenue for the delivery of water, wastewater and sewerage services, at the national level, was $12,521 million, which includes imports, taxes and subsidies. Imports relate to expenditure on water and sewerage services consumed by Australian foreign missions and ships, etc. overseas. The taxes and subsidies are primarily on products. In addition to the Water supply industry, the Mining, Manufacturing and Electricity generation industries also contributed to the supply of urban distributed water. The revenue earned by those industries was less than $0.5 million.
Use of water and related services
The table below shows the expenditure on water and related services by state, at basic prices for 2009–10. It also relates to the above table, by showing how much expenditure on water supply services originates from households (final consumption) and how much originates from industries (intermediate consumption), by State/Territory.
Expenditure on intermediate consumption of water by industries decreased by 1% from $2,022 million to $2,004 million. The largest decrease of 10% was reported in Queensland, followed by New South Wales with a decrease of 8%. Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory all experienced moderate expenditure increases.
Expenditure on water related services increased by 6% in Australia, mainly attributable to increased tariffs across the States and Territories. There was a large variation in the expenditure among jurisdictions reflecting differing consumption characteristics and differences in the type and range of service delivery charges across the country. All jurisdictions maintain a fixed charge for these services, however some states have an additional volumetric charge.
The table below shows the expenditure on water related services by industry in 2009–10. Total expenditure on water and related services at purchaser's prices increased by 12% from $11,181 million in 2008–09 to $12,521 million in 2009–10. Expenditure on urban distributed water by all industries decreased by 1%. The Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry reported an 8% increase in expenditure on urban distributed water. The Electricity generation industry experienced the largest increase of 26% followed by households, with a 23% increase in aggregate expenditure on urban distributed water.
The figure below compares relative consumption of distributed water with relative expenditure on water. The Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry used 55% of total distributed water, while households accounted for 24%. Expenditure on distributed water by the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry was only 6% of the national total, compared to 60% for households. This difference in physical water use and corresponding expenditure is associated with different costs of storage, treatment and delivery of water used by urban and rural users. The Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry also undertakes expenditure on self sourced water, which is not included in this comparison.
EXPENDITURE AND PHYSICAL USE OF DISTRIBUTED WATER (a), by industry and households—2009–10
The physical use of distributed water increased for households (by 5%) and the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry (11%) from 2008–09 to 2009–10. Corresponding expenditure on distributed water by households increased by 23% and by 2% in the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry. Distributed water use in the Mining industry decreased by 48%, however expenditure on water decreased by 1%. This is attributable to the provision of low cost water to the mining industry during floods in Queensland in January 2009. The group of 'Other industries' also experienced decreases in distributed water use by 21%, however expenditure decreased by 2%.
ABS has developed a new method for estimating household expenditure on distributed water resulting in revisions to the 2008–09 household expenditure estimates (see Explanatory Notes, paragraph 51). The table below displays the State and Territory breakdown of the expenditure on urban distributed water by households in 2009–10.
New South Wales households recorded the highest expenditure ($1,116 million), which accounted for 32% of the national expenditure by households. New South Wales households also recorded the highest physical use of urban distributed water (527 GL or 32% of total water use by households). Although Victoria (323 GL) and Queensland (330 GL) displayed similar water usage, Queensland's expenditure was 28% higher than that of Victoria. Queensland households pay the highest unit price for urban distributed water ($2.46 per kL). The highest annual average expenditure per household occurred in Western Australia ($531 per household per annum).
The table below displays the State and Territory breakdown of the expenditure on water related services by households in 2009–10. Household expenditure on water related services increased by 13% nationally, with the highest growth of 18% recorded in Victoria and the lowest growth of 5% in Western Australia. New South Wales households paid the most for water related services on a per household basis ($556). Residents in the Australian Capital Territory paid the most for water related services on a per capita basis ($189).
Assessments of water efficiency can be focused on the supply side (water supply distribution network) or on the use side (consumption by industry and households). Water productivity is one measure of water efficiency and can be expressed as the amount of output produced from one unit of water. The table below provides data on water consumption and industry gross value added for 2009–10, from which we can calculate water intensity by industry.
The Agriculture industry generated, on average, $3 million in gross value added for every GL of water consumed in 2009–10 (see the table below). Industry gross value added decreased by 1% (in chain volume terms) while water consumption remained virtually unchanged from 2008–09. The use of chain volume terms to describe movements in financial estimates between years is explained in Explanatory Notes, paragraph 44.
The Mining industry recorded (on average) $196 million in gross valued added per GL of water consumed in 2009–10, showing a 6% increase (chain volume terms) from the previous year. Physical water consumption actually decreased by 4% during the 2009–10 period. The gross value added per GL of water consumed in the Coal mining industry was $298 million, an increase of 6% (in chain volume terms) despite a 23% decrease in physical water consumption. Other mining recorded $116 million gross value added per GL of water consumed. In contrast to Coal mining, this industry showed a 3% increase in water consumption with a corresponding 11% increase in industry gross value added (chain volume terms).
The Manufacturing industry recorded (on average) $164 million in gross value added per GL of water consumed in 2009–10. This was an increase of 1% (chain volume terms) from the result in 2008–09 and corresponds with a 3% decrease in water consumption. The largest consumer of water within the Manufacturing industry was Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing, recording $80 million gross value added per GL of water used in 2009–10. This was an increase of 7% (chain volume terms) from the result in 2008–09 and corresponded to a 4% increase in water consumption. The Wood and paper products industry recorded $96 million gross value added per GL of water used in 2009–10, an increase of 4% in chain volume Industry gross value added. Water consumption in this industry decreased by 16% over the same period.
The gross value added per GL of water consumed in the Electricity and gas supply industry was $64 million in 2009–10. This was an increase of 4% (chain volume terms) from the result in 2008–09 with a corresponding 10% decrease in water consumption.