When public opposition defeats alternative water projects – The case of Toowoomba Australia

Abstract

Located approximately 100 km west of Brisbane, Toowoomba is home to approximately 95,000 people. Surface water from dams is the main source of water for the city. In 2006 the residents of Toowoomba were invited to vote in a referendum (plebiscite) concerning whether or not an indirect potable wastewater reuse scheme should be constructed to supply additional water to the area. At that stage dam levels in Toowoomba were at approximately twenty percent of capacity. Toowoomba residents, after intense campaigning on both sides of the referendum debate, voted against the proposal. In July 2008 dam levels dropped to eleven percent. Stage 5 water restrictions have been in place since September 2006, subsequently mains water must not be used for any outdoor uses. This paper describes in detail how public opposition in the case of Toowoomba's referendum, defeated the proposal for a water augmentation solution. Reasons for the failure are analysed. In so doing, the paper provides valuable insights with respect to public participation in indirect potable reuse proposals, and discusses factors including politics, vested interest and information manipulation. This paper is significant because of the lack of detailed information published about failed water infrastructure projects.

Introduction

Australia is in the midst of a water crisis. The water supplies of many of the country's major urban centres are dwindling. When compared to capital cities, the water situation is often much more critical in regional areas such as Toowoomba. Although many solutions to the water crisis have been proposed, national policy in Australia has predominantly focused on supply side solutions such as water recycling and desalination (Hurlimann, 2006). However, in addition to these sources, a range of other alternative water sources and management options are available including the use of, grey water (domestic wastewater excluding toilet waste), stormwater, and water conservation – a demand side strategy.

In Australia, the use of recycled water for drinking purposes is subject to numerous guidelines including those at a National Level (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council et al., 2008). However, the viability of alternative water sources also depends on public attitudes. Several recycled water projects in various countries have failed due to lack of community support (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004). These projects include indirect potable reuse schemes in the USA and Australia, and also non-potable reuse projects including one in the Netherlands. Elements contributing to the demise of these projects involved the public's lack of trust in the institutions charged with delivering the projects (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004). As described by Hurlimann and McKay (2004) anecdotal evidence from such projects suggests that factors including timely communication with stakeholders, transparency in the projects' process and fairness in the way in which it is implemented are critical. In a similar vein Dishman et al. (1989, p. 158) conclude that technical aspects of potable water reuse can be resolved, but “the issue of public acceptance could kill the proposal”. Additionally, Postel (1997) highlights a major barrier to reuse of wastewater is psychological not technical.

In order to reduce the risk of potential failure of alternative water projects, it is essential to understand the context of such cases. Unfortunately cases where public resistance prevented water augmentation schemes are not well documented. Thus other locations planning the introduction of alternative water sources cannot easily learn from these experiences. Understanding how to facilitate public participation in decision making, and the role that public interest groups have is also important. Public interest groups include those opposed to desalination, such as ‘Sydney community united against desalination, (SCUD), and those opposed to the concept of drinking recycled water such as ‘Citizens against drinking sewage’ (CADS).

CADS were present in Toowoomba before the referendum, but this was not the first project the group were opposed to. CADS were first present in an earlier Queensland indirect potable reuse proposal for the area of Maroochy. This plan was driven by community concern for environmental impacts of ocean outfall of sewage (Simpson, 1999). The project was in the final stages of public consultation when CADS campaigned against the project, fearing the effect of the possible presence of ‘gender-bending’ hormones in the water (Stenekes et al., 2001). While the local government (the Council) voted in favour of the proposal, the plans for potable reuse were later abandoned. Stenekes et al. (2001) believe that the Maroochy case was complicated by CADS perceiving a lack of adequate consideration for stakeholders in the consultation process, and feeling that the process was not transparent. CADS believe the Council voted to implement the potable reuse strategy despite evidence that sections of the community would not support potable reuse (Stenekes et al., 2001).

The aim of this paper is to fill this gap in understanding of failed potable recycled water projects through three research objectives: (1) to provide a detailed description of one case where public resistance has led to the abandonment of a project aiming to augment water supply through indirect potable reuse (the case of Toowoomba, Australia), (2) to identify factors leading to the Toowoomba community's opposition to the indirect potable reuse proposal, and (3) assess Toowoomba community attitudes to recycled water two years after the referendum (which was critical to our interpretation of all the data gathered for this research).

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we outline our research method. In Section 3, we present Toowoomba's water history in chronological order. This section contains developments which took place in 2005 and 2006. In Section 4 we present and discuss the situation in Toowoomba two years after the referendum. Finally, in Section 5 we provide overall conclusions which integrate the results from each of the methods employed.