6.1 Introduction
Old paradigm | New paradigm |
---|---|
Stormwater is a nuisance
|
Stormwater is a resource
|
Convey stormwater away from urban area as rapidly as possible. | Harvest stormwater as a water supply and infiltrate or retain it to support aquifers, waterways and vegetation |
One use
|
Reuse and reclamation
|
Water follows one-way path from supply, to a single use, to treatment and disposal, to the environment | Water can be used multiple times for fit to use purposes |
Build to demand
|
Manage demand
|
It is necessary to build more capacity as demand increases | Demand management opportunities are real and increasing. Take advantage of all cost-effective options before increasing infrastructure capacity |
Limit complexity and employ standard solutions
|
Allow diverse solutions
|
Small number of technologies by urban water professionals defines water infrastructure | Decision-makers are multidisciplinary. Allow new management strategies and technologies |
Integration by accident
|
Physical and institutional integration by design
|
Physically, water supply, wastewater and stormwater are separated. However, they may be managed by the same agency as a matter of coincidence | Linkages must be made between water supply, wastewater and stormwater, which require highly coordinated management |
Collaboration meant public relations
|
Collaboration means engagement
|
Approach other agencies and public when approval or prechosen solution is required | Enlist all stakeholders (other agencies and public) in search for effective solutions |
6.1.1 Urban Water Management in Australia
The integrated management of all water sources, to ensure that water is used optimally within a catchment resource, state and national policy context. It promotes the coordinated planning, sustainable development and management of water, land and related resources (including energy use) that are linked to urban areas. It directs the application of Water Sensitive Urban Design principles within existing and new urban environments. (NWC 2007)
-
Deliver urban water supplies in accordance with agreed levels of service.
-
Base urban water planning on the best information available at the time and invest in acquiring information on an ongoing basis to continually improve the knowledge base.
-
Adopt a partnership approach so that stakeholders are able to make an informed contribution to urban water planning, including consideration of the appropriate supply/demand balance.
-
Manage water in the urban context on a whole of water cycle basis.
-
Consider the full portfolio of water supply and demand options.
-
Develop and manage urban water supplies within sustainable limits.
-
Use pricing and markets, where efficient and feasible, to help achieve planned urban water supply/demand balance.
-
Periodically review urban water plans.
6.2 Method
Stakeholder agencies |
---|
SA Water (9) |
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (5) |
Environment Protection Authority (3) |
Department of Primary Industries and Regions (2) |
Essential Services Commission of South Australia (1) |
Stormwater Management Authority (1) |
SA Health (1) |
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (1) |
Conservation Council of South Australia (1) |
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board (1) |
Local governmentsa (13) |
International Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Management (3) |
Private sector through the Water Industry Alliance (14) |
6.3 Findings
-
Two surface water sources – Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges catchment and the Murray River
-
Groundwater sources
-
Produced or “new” water sources – desalinated water, recycled wastewater and stormwater and
-
Rainwater/roof water
6.3.1 Water Management in Australia: Institutional and Regulatory Model
Regions | Water and wastewater service providers |
---|---|
New South Wales | State-owned utilities, statutory authorities, local governments |
Victoria | State-owned utilities, regional water authorities |
Queensland | State-owned utilities, statutory authority, local governments, state-owned waterboards, drainage boards, bore waterboards, private companies |
South Australia | State-owned utility, local governments |
Western Australia | State-owned utility, statutory authorities |
Tasmania | Local government-owned utility |
Australian Capital Territory | State-owned utility |
Northern Territory | State-owned utility |
6.3.2 Governance Challenges in Implementing the IUWM Plan in Adelaide
Governance challenges | Possible solutions |
---|---|
Institutional fragmentation | Establishing governance model that links government, civil society and science in a set of partnerships and that promotes close collaboration and interactions between each of these sectors and/or adopt models that are site specific |
Unclear ownership and access rights to the new water resources (stormwater, wastewater, MAR) | Institutional reforms to ensure new water sources are considered in the planning framework at the appropriate level and complementary legislative reforms to clarify the rights and obligations for new water sources |
Funding for stormwater management | Encourage private sector participation and/or local government authorities establishing their own dedicated and stable funding mechanisms known as stormwater utilitya in the USA. This may require institutional and regulatory changes |
Public perceptions and acceptance of new water resources | Public education by developing an effective water education plan |
Community participation | Develop effective stakeholder engagement processes and maintain transparency |
6.3.2.1 Challenges to Implementing the IUWM Plan in Adelaide
Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | Unsure | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Policy challenges
| ||||||
Too many different regulations and licences are administered by a large number of different government agencies | 0 % | 9 % | 7 % | 41 % | 39 % | 4 % |
Lack of clarity on rights and responsibilities for all aspects of water management and use | 0 % | 7 % | 13 % | 37 % | 37 % | 7 % |
Lack of integrated framework to draw policy perspectives together | 0 % | 4 % | 17 % | 30 % | 48 % | 0 % |
Processing of licensing takes far too long | 2 % | 7 % | 30 % | 30 % | 20 % | 11 % |
Suggested solutions
| ||||||
Set up a process to work more collaboratively | 0 % | 0 % | 9 % | 45 % | 43 % | 2 % |
Developed an integrated water management plan | 0 % | 7 % | 25 % | 30 % | 36 % | 2 % |
A clear lead role for one agency | 2 % | 5 % | 20 % | 36 % | 36 % | 0 % |
Recommend to coordinate through one state-based agency | 7 % | 2 % | 23 % | 39 % | 30 % | 0 % |
2. Legal challenges
| ||||||
Cross-boundary disputes | 0 % | 11 % | 11 % | 57 % | 15 % | 7 % |
Unclear property rights/ownership rights for non-prescribed water sources | 0 % | 13 % | 17 % | 39 % | 22 % | 9 % |
Unclear access rights to water sources on private land | 0 % | 24 % | 22 % | 30 % | 17 % | 7 % |
Unclear private ownership of water courses | 0 % | 26 % | 22 % | 30 % | 17 % | 4 % |
Suggested solutions
| ||||||
There should be certainty and a collaborative effort for best policy instrument | 0 % | 0 % | 11 % | 41 % | 43 % | 4 % |
Clarify the ownership of stormwater and water in the creek and if they need to be part of the optimal mix in case of aquifer recharge-injected water entitlements | 2 % | 4 % | 13 % | 54 % | 22 % | 4 % |
Political solution NRM Code of Conduct for maintaining water sources | 2 % | 7 % | 36 % | 36 % | 9 % | 11 % |
6.3.2.2 Barriers to Implementing IUWM Plan in Adelaide
…, the culture is one where mistakes are never acknowledged. The organisations do not hold themselves accountable for their failings and broken promises. Until this can change, the entire sector will be uncertain.
6.3.3 Issues Related to Ownership and Governance Structures
Unclear who is responsible or the driver for what… Near impossible to get diverse water supply projects being undertaken. State gov. has no funding, staff or capacity to implement or administer/approve others to implement.Too many BODIES trying to apply too many POLICIES for such a complex and life-critical resource.Highly fragmented with differing responsibilities with established cultures.
We could consider a high-level small Adelaide Water Authority reporting direct to / or chaired by the Minister with sole responsibility for Adelaide’s source water supplies. This Authority could consist of a rep from each of these existing orgs.I’ve indicated DEWNR from the list however consideration of a multi-stakeholder supported entity possibly lead by DEWNR may also be considered.
Adelaide needs a respected body strong enough to oversee the management of Adelaide’s Total Water Sources.Under current governance arrangements there is no one body that should be in control of access to stormwater. Would need to change the governance arrangements.
6.3.4 Privatisation of Public Infrastructure
The Adelaide Hills Face Zone suburb of Skye was left without water for showering and flushing toilets for three days this week coinciding with a spell of extreme fire danger. The problem was blamed on a dispute between two independent water companies and a local council that does not believe it has any responsibility. Despite Skye being just 8 km from the CBD, its residents have been without mains drinking water since the area was subdivided 50 years ago. SA Water and the State Government at the time decided it would cost too much to bring mains water to Skye, making it difficult for blocks to be sold until the Foothills Water Company started digging bores to provide water. |
About 100 locals sent a petition calling for a mains water supply to Burnside Council in September 2008, which was forwarded to SA Water. With any extension to its network, SA Water requires two-thirds of the residents to agree to it – at a cost of $26,500 per property. But many residents did not want to pay and were content with their water supply, which is unaffected by water restrictions, and refused. Instead, they rely on five different private companies whose pipes pump water from bores, while others rely solely on rainwater tanks. The water is suitable only for washing and gardening, not drinking. In 2010, the Federal Government rejected a $3 million funding application from Burnside Council to have the suburb connected to mains water. |
Water provided by one of these companies, the Foothills Water Company, has announced it will cease operating from August. Foothills Water Company director Murray Willis decided to wind up his company because he faced a $2 million bill to replace pipes. He placed blame for the pipes’ demise squarely with Burnside Council, saying it refused to remove pine trees which were damaging his pipes. He and the council have been involved in a long-running conflict over who should foot the bill for the repair the pipes. Burnside has paid for some of the repairs. Burnside chief executive Paul Deb said the council had never received a request from Mr Willis to have trees removed. He said the pipes were installed in the mid-1960s and only had a life expectancy of 65 years before they needed to be replaced. |
6.3.5 Community Perspectives on Water Governance
6.3.5.1 Water Governance
City of Salisbury | City of Charles Sturt | City of Gold Coast | Response totals | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The federal government | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
National Water Commission | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
State government | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Water resource management regional authority | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
Environment Protection Authority | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
Council | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
Water supplier | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |