Water woes and stupid ways to solve it.

[Note: This was first written in mid-2017, but by the time I was satisfied, it was no longer current - water price was not being discussed anymore. But now we are again providing Johor with extra water at their request. So this topic is current again.]

I should tell the story of my suggestion for eliminating smoking from our society.

Not to show how smart I am. But to remind myself (and to inform the reader) that I have made some stupid dumb uninformed suggestions as well.

But while I was naive once (and I might still be), I do pride myself on having learned my lesson from that episode. The point is, we all jump to dumb conclusions or make dumb suggestions. I recognise that and accept that as part of the human experience. The humbling human experience. Then you find people so enamoured with their (dumb) pet solution that they are are unable to see the greater truth.

I will tell the story of my suggestion to eliminate smoking and share the lessons learnt, one day. But the issue today is Water.

I have been interested in our water issues ever since we had to drink our own urine to survive.

I mean NEWater.

And the negotiation with Malaysia over water.

You may want to read this 2016 summary post and this commentary on Johor's water woes for some background.

Anyway, so now the government plans to raise the price of water, and people are going nuts. And some are suggesting ways to a) increase our water supply, or b) reduce the costs of water.

And like H. L. Mencken noted, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Here are two simplistic and wrong answers. Or simply wrong answers.


A) Increasing our Water supply by creating a Sea Reservoir by enclosing the sea between Ubin and the main island or Tekong and the main island, or both.

On the face of it, the suggestion should be no more different than damming up the mouth of the SG river (the Marina Barrage), to form the Marina Reservoir.

So if that can be done, the technical feat of building dams and barrages to enclose a Sea Reservoir should not be difficult.

But why not?

Because there is NO fresh water.

The general suggestion is to dam up the sea between the main island and Ubin and Tekong. This creates a sea water reservoir. And somehow that is the end of the suggestion. Apparently, this is now a reservoir.

No further thought as to how the sea water would become fresh water.

Those who suggests this idea do not think beyond, "let make another reservoir!"

The reason reservoirs are created or dammed is because these are fresh water (river/rain), and if there is no natural lake to store that water, that fresh water from rain (for Singapore) will just flow to the rivers and out to the sea. So our central catchment area collects rain water which pools in the three central reservoirs, and the rain over the rest of Singapore flows through streams and rivulets into drains and canals and rivers and out to the sea. The Marina Barrage, and the Serangoon River reservoir and the Kranji River and many other small rivers are all part of the overall plan to turn most of the island of Singapore into a catchment area for rain and for rain to be stored in river-reservoirs.

In the case of the Marina Barrage, the water originally had a high sea water content because there was back flow up the river. So over the years, the barrage was lowered and raise to allow the river water to flush out the sea water, and slowly "freshen" the water in the Barrage. This is possible because rains and river water would displaced the brackish sea-and-river water mix, or dilute the water over time until there were less sea water, or less salty water.

To summarise: Reservoirs are to store fresh (or non-sea) water. A reservoir carved out of the sea will be mainly salty sea water. You can pump out the sea water, but what would be the source of the water to fill that reservoir? It's not like we have SO MUCH WATER that we need another reservoir to store our excess water.

But we have desalination plants right? The sea reservoir could perhaps supplement the desalination plant right?

No. That is just pathetic and stupid.

Desalination plants draw water from the sea. These do not require the sea water to first be in a reservoir. The whole sea is their resource.



B) To reduce the cost of water, we can simply provide untreated water which would be cheaper (because, not treated), for general use, and people could buy bottled water for drinking and cooking. 

Someone actually wrote to the papers and had his letter printed. With edits of course. He was unhappy with the edited letter and posted his original letter in full:

My letter to Today in full:

Water has not reach crisis level, but the debate on pending price increase has.

As a long-term measure, I think to save precious treated water, another tap should be laid to pipe in direct cheap raw water from Singapore reservoirs and Johor for general purpose like flushing toilet and cleaning premises.

Then the treated water for drinking and cooking can be as expensive as bottled drinking water and no one need to complain as water for drinking and cooking constitute only a very small portion of water used.

As it is expensive treated Singapore water which can be drank direct from tap, is wasted and go down the drain for general purpose.

We know there are rich households that buy bottled water for drinking and cooking and use tap only for other purpose.

Some fear the flouride and other bacteria killing chemicals in the treated water.

A cheaper way instead of having to lay another pipe, is to use existing tap for raw water and bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Who knows the raw water could turn out to be health craze water!

You can almost taste the pride in the letter. There were a few rebuttals of his proposals, and he defended his stupid idea bravely and stubbornly. Here is one of the rebuttal, that he responded to, and which drew further rebuttals. I'm just including 3 rebuttals in the series. Like all "discussions" on the internet, it devolved into a mess eventually.

Penny-wise Pound foolish. 

I just looked at a utility bill (3-room HDB flat). The water bill came up to about $30 (for about 16 cubic m of water, iirc). 

The projected average increase is 30% per household in 2 years time (July 2018). So the $30 will become $40. Or $10 more. 

So we are going to invest millions to have another parallel water delivery system (pipes) to deliver cheaper raw water to save... $10? $20? $30? 

And this parallel pipes will also need to be maintained. The simple truth is the costs of the infrastructure (pipes) to build and to maintain and service will be the main cost.
OK. We can save the infracture costs as Mr Wee [the letter-writer] suggested in his fuller letter (which he [had] gamely reproduce[d] in full [above]) 

And if you ever had non-potable water flowing through pipes, you will also realised one thing: you will need more maintenance. Why? Because the impurities, the organic material in the water will cause the pipes to clog up faster and deteriorate. I lived in Teban Gardens in the 80s and we had non-potable water to use for flushing our toilets. Scum and gunk oozed out of the joints after a few years and eventually, the experiment with non-potable water was discontinued. And our toilets were supplied through the main water supply. 

And how about in the future? Our water security plan is long term - beyond 2062 when the last water agreement with Malaysia expires (and we assume that the agreement will not be renewed because the Johor river is drying up, and Johor needs the water for itself. By then 80% of our water will be desalinated,or recycled (NEWater). What raw water will Mr Wee want to bathe in then? the slightly treated Not-So-NEWater (reg'd TM?), a.k.a. eau de toilette filtered through a coffee filter? 

OK, maybe Mr Wee isn't looking so far ahead. 2062 is more than 40 years away, and by then, it will not be his problem (maybe dead from some water-borne disease from bathing in the Johor River Water). Maybe he is just a short term planner and wants to solve the problem for today. And maybe the next 20 years or so. 50 years down the road is just too far ahead. Who do we think he is? PAP? 

Back to the economic argument then, and say we either ignore the problems of having non-potable Johor River water running through our pipes and Singaporeans literally bathing in Johor River Water, or assume that somehow, we are able to DO SOMETHING to make Mr Wee's half-arsed suggestion feasible. 

And so we save $20 a month. After deducting the costs of maintenance (sinking fund) and replacement of gunked up pipes. 

With this $20, we buy 20 litres of bottled water. Too expensive? Ok, 40 litres of water which is to last you for one month of cooking. Which is about 1.3 litres per day. Here's a challenge - try cooking with just 1.3 litres of water. Also, wash your dishes in river water. 

And your clothes. (we already covered bathing in the Johor River). 

OK. Maybe you don't cook every day. If you cook just 20 days a month, you get 2 litres of water for cooking each day. 

Too often? Ok, 10 day a month you cook, 4 liters of water to cook a meal. Go!
And that is assuming you don't DRINK any of the bottled water you bought with the savings you have from using only raw water. 

Thank you for helping bring SG back in time by about 50 years.

Predictably, the forum letter writer responded. Ostensibly because he was insulted by the phrase "half-arsed" in the above. A clear indication, that he was more concerned with his reputation, than with the logic and reasoning. Which obviously eluded him. Or just went over his head.

He modified his suggestion so that his "direct, cheap, raw water" would actually be partially treated. Or at least filtered. To some lower standard. The rebuttal of his "defence":

How much does tap water costs? Hmm? Go google it? Or do like I did - check your utility bill. You can't find your bill? OK, google it. Oh let me help:

The basic water price is $1:17 (now) rising to $1.21 or $1.52. Add the taxes, and the water borne fees, it comes up to $3.69. $3.69 per litre? No. $3.69 PER CUBIC METRE OF WATER. 

How many litres is a cubic metre? Have you googled THAT yet? Or you already know? Good! 

So what is the cost of 1 litre of processed potable tap water? $0.00369. And that is the more expensive rate (for heavy users).The lower rate is $0.00274. 

How much is bottled water? Again, let me help you:
http://www.field.com.sg/water-dispensers 

The best price I could find is $10 for 19 litres. Oh, we'll say $0.50 per litre. Can you find a BETTER price for bottled water? 

So your plan is to save $0.00369 per litre in order to spend $0.50 per litre. 

And now you modify your suggestion: "... some filtration needs to be done but it will never be at treated water price." 

So when you say "raw water" you didn't acually mean "raw water" huh? So you concede that your original suggestion of "raw water" will actually have to be semi-filtered "not-so-raw-water". Like I said - Half-arsed, and you still trying to find the other half. 

And also, no integrity. Or just poor command of English. but never mind. I don't expect integrity. 

Now, if I called your suggestion "half-arsed" with no other explanation, you are entitled to get all huffy. If I provided an explanation which you are unable to follow, I am sorry, i am not responsible for your head being up your arse, and being unable to comprehend. 

But in case it was my fault, I have tried to explain a second time. But if you still don't get it, I believe we were not meant to have this conversation. 

And in this age of the Trump, I may have to downgrade your suggestion to a "full-arse". (Or is it "no-arse". Very confusing. Have never had to downgrade before.) 

But please, do continue to re-edit and revamp your suggestion. Thomas Edison found 10,000 ways of NOT inventing the lightbulb, you just need to show how saving $0.00369 per litre of tap water will enable you to eventually afford $0.50 a litre of bottled water. I'm sure it can be done. 

And you say your suggestion is for "long term"? 

And what is your long term solution for after 2062? When 80% of our water will be desalinated or recycled. Hmmm? "Not-so-NEWater"? For you to bathe in? Or wash your clothes? Your dishes? 

Just because you put "long term" in your letter doesn't mean you thought long term. Heck, there isn't even evidence that you thought short term or just for the present. But never mind. 

And I have spent more time on this than I care to. I will leave you with the opportunity to have the last word. And I am sure you will have the last word. You seem to like to see your words online, with your name. You can try to explain again how this will all work out fine. If you like you can imagine me not understanding you. I am quite sure I do not know how you think. If you think.

The third rebuttal. Starting to devolve. But the most salient point is that mathematically, it just doesn't add up.

I'll try to simplify it further. Your solution will not work. Because the (future) maximum cost of tap water is $0.00369 per litre. That is less than 0.4 cents per litre. Bottled water cost about 50 cents a litre. For the price of one litre of bottled water, I can get over 125 litres of tap water. 

So you need to save over 125 litres of tap water in order to afford one litre of bottled water. Or to put it another way, you have to forego more than 125 litre of tap water in order to have the luxury of having 1 litre of bottled water. 

And then you ask "have you check up with households using bottled water for drinking and cooking and tap water for cleaning, instead of your convoluted conjectures? "
Why? Did they manage to save any money? Or did they spend more money? Do you even have a clue? 

First of all people who prefer 50 cents a litre for bottled water instead of drinking tap water are a) too rich (or have too much money) or b) too stupid. But thank you for clarifying that your half-arsed solution is based on the behaviour of either the rich or stupid/foolish people. It will give us more reasons to reject your mathematically challenged solution. 

May I say that if you wish to support your argument, pointing out that some people (or even alot of people) doing it is at best an appeal to populism which is a logical fallacy, but that is probably above your IQ. 

Let's just stick to math: 50 cents > 0.4 cents.

Why should we worry about water?

Because it would be a scarce resource. As scarce as oil.

Oh sure. Like people are going to fight over water! Yes they would and they have.

On a separate though thematically related issue, the Flint Water Crisis:




So water treatment is not rocket science. We know how to do it. The US knows how to do it. The US even dare use lead pipes. But there is a way to make lead pipes safe to use. As long as you don't cut corners and try to save money.