Rich could buy way out of drought restrictions Fearful of a two-tier system: Walt Secord, Labor water spokesman. NSW householders could pay to avoid water restrictions in droughts, triggering fears the rich would leave their taps running as low-income earners watched their gardens die. But supporters said it would give people greater choice about how they used water and curb the financial and social costs of restrictions. The government has commissioned a study to "estimate the community's willingness to pay to avoid water restrictions" and other responses to drought. The study by La Trobe University is being conducted in Sydney and the lower Hunter. The plan is 'not environmentally sound': Jeff Angel, Total Environment Centre executive director. It would mark a reversal from previous droughts when the pain of restrictions was shared equally among households. The move has alarmed social welfare advocates, and prompted claims by Labor water spokesman Walt Secord that it will create a "two-tier system." "Families facing cost of living pressures [would be] forced to conserve water, while rich ones can buy their way out of restrictions," he said. He accused the government of seeking to increase dividends received from Sydney Water "at a cost to the environment." A spokeswoman for the Finance and Services Minister Greg Pearce said the research was "not about allowing any particular group to avoid restrictions." "[The aim] is to better understand community attitudes, preferences and values around responding to drought," she said, adding it would help planners estimate the costs and benefits of restrictions. The public has traditionally embraced mandatory restrictions as an equitable response to water shortages. But the Productivity Commission argues that it forces across-the-board reductions, even though some consumers, such as keen gardeners, may value outdoor water use more than others, such as flat dwellers. A 2011 report on urban water in Australia cited the heavy costs of water restrictions, such as expensive advertising campaigns, degraded sports fields and effects on businesses such as nurseries. Restrictions could also encourage "inefficient" measures such as rainwater tanks, which cost up to $2000 but held only $4 worth of water at 2011 prices, the report said. NSW Council of Social Services director Alison Peters said water was "an essential service" and the plan could allow some groups to "monopolise that resource because they have the financial wherewithal." The research forms part of a government review of the Metropolitan Water Plan. The chair of a panel advising the review, Chris Davis, said it was not attempting to vary water use inside the home, but would gauge how people valued "discretionary" outdoor use such as water for gardens and swimming pools. "In some circumstances where [consumers] use a lot of water outdoors, it may be that people are willing to sustain their own expensive garden by buying more water at a higher price," he said. I think people would generally ... understand that it's a commodity and if you want more, then you can pay. Total Environment Centre executive director Jeff Angel said the plan was not environmentally sound. "People with excessive water-using habits will just pay up, and it will have a dwindling effect on our supplies," he said. Water Services Association of Australia executive director Adam Lovell said water shortages could also be addressed through desalination plants and water efficiency and recycling. Each measure, including pricing, should be adjusted gradually to avoid heavy impacts, he said.