Feedback on DEWS 30- year Strategy Discussion Paper - "Shaping our water future"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Feedback
on
DEWS
30-‐year
Strategy
Discussion
Paper
–
“Shaping
our
water
future”
Table
of
Contents
1
Introduction
3
2
General
Feedback
4
2.1
Challenges
4
2.1.1
Streamlined,
Integrated
catchment
management
4
2.1.2
Value
water
4
2.1.3
Wastewater
&
use
of
recycled
water
4
3
Part
2:
Feedback
on
the
discussion
paper
questions
4
3.1
Regulation
4
3.2
Water
business
sustainability
5
3.3
Innovation
6
3.4
Integrated
planning
7
3.5
Empowering
customers
8
3.6
Pricing
9
3.7
Further
ideas
9
28/03/13
Griffith
University
Submission
2
1 Introduction Griffith University welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Department of Energy & Water Supply’s recently released discussion paper entitled “Shaping our water future”. Griffith University is internationally recognized for its research and teaching in freshwater, estuarine and urban water At Griffith, Water Science research and expertise are embedded in several departments, reflecting the multi-‐disciplinary nature of water research, in particular in the Smart Water Research Centre, the Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, and the Australian Rivers Institute. Griffith University’s feedback on the discussion paper and specific questions reflects this breadth of expertise. 28/03/13 Griffith University Submission 3
2 General Feedback 2.1 Challenges The challenges posed to the security and reliability of Queensland’s water supply over the next 30 years by continuing rapid population growth and industrial expansion are correctly highlighted in the discussion paper. ,. However, climate change and climate variability are also key factors that will exert considerable influence over water security and reliability and should also be considered in any long term planning. 2.1.1 Streamlined, Integrated catchment management We believe that if Queensland is to achieve water security, reliability and affordability it is essential that management of catchments and associated reservoirs be coordinated and match to the topographic boundaries. 2.1.2 Value water Water should be valued not only for the benefits which it delivers in household, agricultural & industrial uses, but also for the considerable social benefits derived from catchment-‐related ecosystem services such as flood regulation and water-‐based recreation. 2.1.3 Wastewater & use of recycled water We note that water recovery after waste treatment has not been considered and that recycled water is only designated for industrial use. Recycled water should be considered as an option for all uses of water and particularly where new water sources are required. Recycled water should be assessed on equal merits as other sources of water based on sustainability, economic, social/cultural values. Water recycling projects throughout Australia have often failed, not because of technical, economic or environmental impacts but because of the social acceptability of using water that has been identified as passing through a sewage treatment plant. The recovery of, not just the water but, other resources, such as phosphorus should be considered for new and existing sewage treatment processes. Many other beneficial uses of recycled water are possible, such as irrigation and potable reuse. The Queensland government has invested massively in infrastructure (e.g., the Western Corridor Scheme) and research (e.g., Urban Water Security Research Alliance) to develop a supply of water that relies on multiple sources to ensure a safe, sustainable and reliable supply of water for the future of all Queenslanders. This investment should not be wasted. Whilst it is raining it is an opportune moment to proactively inform the community about the pros and cons of water recycling. The Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence is based in Queensland, it would be prudent for the State Government to engage and take advantages of the outputs from this centre in promoting the use of recycled water. 3 Part 2: Feedback on the discussion paper questions 3.1 Regulation What needs to be done to create a light-‐handed regulatory model? How can we maintain the integrity of the regulatory framework (e.g. drinking water quality, environmental protection, public health) while reducing the regulatory burden? What needs to be regulated? 28/03/13 Griffith University Submission 4
What can move towards self-‐regulation? A number of government departments regulate or have an interest in water and sewerage services. In what ways could this be better streamlined? There are currently 7-‐8 government departments with regulatory responsibilities for water. This renders the regulatory processes onerous, and can lead to duplication and inefficiency. Current regulation is fragmented and serves the department rather than the sector. Self-‐regulation of water services is not recommended. Regulation of water and water service providers is required to ensure the maintenance of public and environmental health. There is a significant risk that self-‐regulation would lead to dangerous trade-‐ offs between safe and sustainable water provision and capital benefits to the shareholders of the water utilities. Suggested solutions for consideration: There is a pressing need for catchment scale integrated regulation that matches the topographic boundaries of the catchments and addresses all stages of the water cycle coherently and consistently. The objectives of catchment scale, water cycle focussed regulation would be to secure cost effective quality and quantity of water provision and encourage appropriate and efficient allocation of a spectrum of different water products (e.g. raw water, processed potable water, recycled water ….) among a range of different uses (household, agriculture, mineral extraction, food processing ….).. Studies have shown that raw water quality in southeast Queensland is deteriorating so a ‘business as usual’ approach for this region will not provide a reliable and high quality water supply in the future. There are two main options for dealing with this issue i) upgrade the treatment plants and supply infrastructure or ii) improve the condition of the catchments. A whole-‐of-‐catchment approach is needed to trade off future upgrades of assets with mitigation of water quality within catchments. There is much to learn from the legislation of the Sydney Catchment Authority which says that any development that potentially impacts land catchment management must have a beneficial or neutral effect on water quality. A similar approach in Queensland, adapted for local conditions, would be a major step forward towards improving water quality. We suggest a risk-‐based approach to regulation rather than a performance-‐based criteria approach Water planning would also benefit from more involvement of a quasi-‐independent body such as Qld Water Directorate / SEQ catchments. 3.2 Water business sustainability How do we facilitate the sustainability of service providers, particularly those who already have difficulties with revenue, resources and/or skills to maintain and deliver water supply and sewerage services? Currently Queensland has a large number of water providers a number of which are inadequately staffed and have with limited resources, and in some cases, limited skills and expertise. Equally it is a difficult balance to maintain performance criteria for regulators and to retain skilled workers for small, and/or regional service providers. Small water providers are at a major disadvantage in today’s water sector. The provision of safe, sustainable and good quality water requires significant technical expertise and finances. Additionally, issues faced by small water suppliers across different localities are very similar, and there is a 28/03/13 Griffith University Submission 5
significant opportunity for streamlining the current model by pooling the multitude of small water suppliers into a larger entity with a global vision and a pooled funding, knowledge and technical expertise, as has been done in the past 10-‐20 years in NSW and Vic. This pooling would result in greatly improved efficiency and significant savings, which can then be passed on to the consumer. Potential solutions for consideration could be: Larger water authorities can play a coordinator role providing expertise and knowledge to the smaller providers. Fora could be organised for information exchanges and indeed some services this is already in place (need example). NSW and Victoria have successfully implemented such a model and have amalgamated the smaller water providers providing the small providers with the knowledge, training and resources. If there was a central body responsible for all aspects of water management and supply, it could provide a link to these resources. QldWater (the Directorate) is close to this but is currently under resourced therefore is forced to be selective in membership and services they can offer. 3.3 Innovation How do we encourage and reward innovation? The development of a resilient and growing water sector is critical to creating and maintaining resilient and reliable water sources and water allocation in the near and foreseeable future. is The Water Industry Skills Taskforce concluded at the 2012 Skills Forum that there is no skills shortage despite the aging demographic within the industry and a looming depletion of water managers and skilled operators within the next 5-‐15 years (http://www.awa.asn.au/uploadedfiles/Water_Industry_Skills_Forum_Report.pdf). This has serious implications for the industry as it impacts on funding allocation for skills development. Without ongoing support for the water sector skill-‐base the water science capabilities, knowledge etc. will be lost. Additionally, in the future Queensland can position itself as an innovator in the water industry but this requires talented, well-‐trained staff at all stages of their career (including vocational, para-‐ professionals, degree and higher degree trained professionals) Potential solutions for consideration are: Streamlined integration between water authorities would facilitate training and professional development of the work force. Further, if peak water bodies were better resourced they could also play a role in professional development. Other sources of knowledge and skills development can be accessed from the knowledge base within universities, research institutes, and science centres. These institutions know that innovative research underpins the ongoing recognition of professional, resilient and well-‐respected water science professionals. The current lack of encouragement to innovate and lack of recognition that innovation leads to positive change stifles innovation in the water sector. A major issue is that the water sector does not currently value natural capital assets in catchments and the emphasis is placed instead on built infrastructure. Quantification of the social value ecosystem services provided by natural capital assets in catchments would assist in this regard. Further, innovative water research needs to be more strongly valued and supported by for example, Future Funds. 28/03/13 Griffith University Submission 6
Potential
solutions
are
as
follows:
• It
is
critical
for
the
water
industry
to
collaborate
with
researchers
to
develop
innovative
solutions
to
challenging
problems
in
the
future
throughout
the
entire
water
supply
chain.
• Payment
(or
recognition
for)
for
ecosystem
services
should
be
encouraged,
based
on
accurate
estimates
of
the
net
social
value
which
these
ecosystem
services
deliver
e.g.
For
example,
paying
farmers
to
change
their
land
management
practises
in
catchments
headwaters
could
be
a
considerably
more
efficient
way
of
reducing
nutrient
and
sediment
loads
which
enter
the
potable
water
supply
system
than
retro-‐fitting
or
up-‐grading
the
nutrient
removal
capabilities
of
existing
sewage
treatment
plants
further
down
the
catchment
.
• Innovation
in
both
agriculture
and
industry
could
continue
to
reduce
water
use
and
their
environmental
impact.
• Innovation
needs
to
be
centred
around
the
concept
of
Water
Sensitive
Cities
–
where
water
and
wastewater
are
considered
in
tandem
• Need
to
support
institutions
that
encourage,
foster
and
implement
innovative
development
• Encouragement
and
reward
for
innovation
and
R
&
D
may
include:
• Reduce
costs
and
resources
to
supply
suitable
quality
/
fit
for
purpose
water
• Improve
water
security,
consumer
will
use
more
water
and
service
provider
will
increase
revenue
• Enhanced
consumer
choice,
cost
reductions.
• Wastewater
generation
increases
if
water
consumption
increases…need
to
consider
this…alternative
water
recycling
options
/
uses.
• (Cash)
Innovation
Awards
and
peer
recognition
3.4
Integrated
planning
Do
our
future
needs
work
together
or
do
they
conflict?
How
do
we
encourage
integrated
catchment-‐based
services
and
better
long-‐term
planning?
By
far
the
biggest
user
of
water
is
agriculture.
Urban
water
users
have
already
greatly
contributed
to
reducing
their
water
usage
in
Queensland,
and
the
focus
now
needs
to
shift
to
agricultural
water
use.
In
particular,
new
practices
and
crops
that
require
less
watering
should
be
encouraged
and
supported
via
investment
and
public
awards.
Deteriorating
water
quality
and
increasing
water
scarcity
render
the
current
and
future
challenges
more
intense.
There
are
53
water
basins
in
Queensland
making
the
sector
highly
complex.
A
more
integrated
approach
is
needed.
Additionally,
there
would
be
benefit
integrating
planning
across
the
whole
water
cycle.
This
also
means
that
the
water-‐energy-‐food
nexus
needs
to
be
integrated
into
future
supply,
public
health
and
environmental
health
management
strategies.
This
includes
irrigation
which
has
not
been
considered
to
be
part
of
the
water
sector
in
the
Discussion
document
–
it
even
has
a
separate
peak
body
“Australian
Irrigators”.
Additionally,
climate
change
and
the
reality
of
an
underlying
decline
in
water
quality
and
ecosystem
health
also
need
to
be
addressed
in
tandem
with
future
supply
and
demand
forecasting.
We
propose
a
model
where
there
is
a
catchment
authority
which
has
multiple
stakeholders,
and
is
properly
resourced.
It
needs
to
have
a
Chief
Scientific
Officer
and
is
responsible
for
selecting
science
providers.
Key
roles
could
be:
• Controls
funding
allocation
to
implementers
28/03/13
Griffith
University
Submission
7
• Provides
regulation
oversight
• Provides
central
planning
targets
• Has
influence
on
water
supply
bodies
DSITIA
may
play
a
role
in
monitoring
and
evaluating
performance
There
is
currently
a
tension
between
water
security
and
public
accountability.
• ‘fit-‐for-‐purpose’
is
missing
in
water
quality
regulations
–
how
do
you
manage
service
providers
and
regulate
and
manage
environment
• Climate
change
also
needs
to
be
addressed
in
tandem
with
future
supply
and
demand
forecasting
• Too
many
water
providers,
too
many
regulators.
(e.g.
Qld
Health
v
EPA
v
DEWS)
• Additionally,
as
there
are
many
common
problems
across
catchments,
greater
information
sharing
across
catchments
is
needed.
The
integration
of
sections
of
multiple
departments
responsible
for
water
is
one
way
of
achieving
this.
Additionally,
a
Regulators
and
water
managers
Forum
could
provide
the
opportunity
for
issues
to
be
tabled,
liaison
officers
could
participate
and
this
would
provide
open
communication.
3.5
Empowering
customers
How
can
service
providers
improve
their
engagement
with
their
consumers?
Greater
communication
between
the
public
and
the
water
industry
is
needed
because
the
public
does
not
understand
the
cost
of
water,
they
are
nervous
about
recycled
water
and
they
do
not
understand
the
impediments
to
providing
water
security.
Potential
solutions
to
engagement
with
consumers
are:
• To
Educate
consumers
by
providing
more
candid
coverage
of
the
problems,
issues
and
challenges
faced
by
the
water
supply
industry.
.
This
involves
open
communication
to
encourage
and
educate
the
public
and
stimulate
their
involvement
in
the
discussion.
There
is
a
need
to
build
trust
between
providers
and
customers,
particularly
since
the
floods
in
the
last
2
years.
If
the
customer
trusts
the
Water
Authority
then
they
are
more
likely
to
accept
that
recycled
water
is
safe,
for
example.
This
information
should
be
provided
so
that
it
is
“simple
enough
to
understand
but
technical
enough
to
be
trusted”
• Programs
within
school,
government,
universities
exist
to
inform
people
on
where
water
comes
from,
agricultural
uses.
• Community
surveys
/
interviews
are
needed
to
capture
baseline
attitudes
to
service
providers.
Need
to
measure
–
what
is
the
baseline?
• Use
successful
&
relevant
national
and
international
models
that
have
worked
(need
examples)
• Give
consumers
CHOICE
–
restructure
tariffs
to
offer
payment
choices
for
water.
Provide
consumers
choice
of
type
of
water
(recycled
/
potable
/
rainwater)
and
type
of
payment
scheme.
• Water
should
be
‘fit
for
purpose’
since
not
all
water
has
to
be
of
same
high
quality.
This
approach
will
free
up
time
and
resources
as
well
as
encouraging
appropriate
and
efficient
allocation
of
a
spectrum
of
different
water
products
between
different
end
uses.
28/03/13
Griffith
University
Submission
8
• There
is
an
opportunity
to
educate
the
next
generation
by
building
an
understanding
of
the
water
cycle
into
the
national
curriculum.
There
is
currently
nothing
about
water
in
the
national
science
curriculum.
• By
educating
the
next
generation,
there
is
also
an
opportunity
to
improve
the
knowledge
and
skills
base
required
for
a
resilient
water
workforce
(Q7).
• Use
current
technology
to
educate
and
engage
consumers.
• Develop
an
APP
to
show
the
cost
to
treat
water
to
a
certain
quality
at
a
defined
point
in
time
(link
to
Q12).
• Smart
metering
can
inform
people
which
machines
use
the
most
water.
3.6
Pricing
In
what
way
can
water
and
sewerage
access
charges
be
structured
to
be
more
'cost
reflective'
and
encourage
behaviour
change
in
consumers
and
improved
decision
making
of
service
providers?
The
issue
with
pricing
is
that
water
is
an
undervalued
resource
and
the
water
price
is
determined
by
the
cost
of
the
infrastructure.
Consumers
currently
pay
too
little
for
water
and
the
money
we
do
pay
is
typically
for
the
infrastructure
that
delivers
it
to
the
tap.
The
challenges
facing
service
providers
are
the
need
to
communicate
the
real
cost
of
water
and
to
educate
consumers
people
as
to
how
much
water
is
used
to
produce
food,
industrial
output
etc.
In
doing
so
this
would
help
people
make
informed
decisions
and
drive
innovation
and
change
(links
to
Q11).
A
good
example
of
this
was
the
response
of
consumers
to
the
drought
in
the
2000s
when
they
were
encouraged
to
reduce
their
water
consumption
substantially.
Water
service
providers
need
to
explain
their
pricing
structure.
Currently,
water
providers
charge
a
“fixed
service
charge”
+
a
small
additional
charge
for
actual
water
use.
The
fixed
charge
provides
a
guaranteed
income
stream
for
providers
and
goes
some
way
towards
covering
the
cost
of
built
infrastructure.
This
pricing
model
only
serves
to
reinforce
the
notion
that
water
is
of
little
value.
There
is
an
urgent
need
to
think
beyond
the
costs
incurred
in
built
infrastructure
and
recognise
the
broader
social
net
benefits
delivered
by
water-‐related
ecosystem
services
in
sectors
as
diverse
as
tourism,
land
management,
biodiversity
conservation,
and
environmental
management.
Different
pricing
models
that
could
be
considered
in
the
30-‐year
water
strategy
are:
• New
infrastructure
vs.
old
infrastructure
–
different
tariffs
• Tourist
v
business
vs.
industrial
v
residential
• Block
v
hourly
vs.
monthly
tariffs
• Service
providers
don’t
want
to
lose
revenue
so
they
need
to
make
water
cheaper
and
more
accessible.
They
could
do
this
by
shifting
peaks
to
reduce
infrastructure
costs
but
not
reduce
overall
consumption.
However,
in
times
of
low
water
supply
water
efficiency
programmes
and
demand
management
would
need
to
be
triggered
quickly
and
effectively.
3.7
Further
ideas
Overall,
what
other
changes
need
to
occur
to
achieve
our
water
vision
in
the:
short
term
(2013-‐14),
medium
term
(2014-‐19)
and
Long
term
(2019-‐42)?
Griffith
University
congratulates
the
Queensland
Government
on
having
the
foresight
to
develop
a
30-‐
year
water
strategy
and
we
are
delighted
to
be
engaged
in
the
planning
process
and
contribute
to
its
development,
refinement
and
implementation.
28/03/13
Griffith
University
Submission
9
What
needs
to
done
in
the
short
term
(2013
–
2014)
?
The
30-‐year
water
plan
must
be
developed
within
the
context
of
climate
variability.
Queensland
is
subject
to
long
(6-‐10
years)
periods
of
below
average
rainfall
followed
by
6-‐10
years
of
above
average
rainfall,
within
a
longer
cycle
(15-‐30
years)
of
wetter
and
drier
periods.
This
variability
must
be
recognised
as
integral
to
the
30-‐year
plan,
which
must
deal
with
the
floods
of
today
but
prepare
for
the
drought
of
tomorrow.
The
competing
issues
are
water
security
(drought)
and
water
quality
(flood).
The
action
items
in
the
short
term
are:
• Increasing
Consumer
awareness
• Developing
a
National
Water
Education
Strategy
to
educate
and
engage
consumers.
The
current
understanding
of
the
public
in
water
science
issues
is
very
limited
and
has
proven
to
be
a
barrier
to
changes
in
water
management,
even
where
those
were
clearly
improving
on
the
current
management.
Better
public
education
in
the
water
cycle
in
particular
is
a
long-‐
term
investment
(starting
with
better
education
during
primary
school)
and
on
a
timescale
particularly
well
suited
to
a
30-‐year
strategy.
• Developing
a
Innovation
Strategy
and
a
system
to
support
it
• Consideration
of
alternative
pricing
models
What
needs
to
done
in
the
medium
term
(2014
–
2019)
?
Restructure
the
entities
and
formalise
their
interactions.
Ensure
that
the
right
structures
and
processes
are
implemented.
Invest
in
new
technology
for
water
“supply”,
develop
new
agricultural
practises
that
reduce
water
wastage
and
preserve
the
catchment,
apply
technological
advances
to
industry,
particularly
mining
and
Coal
seam
gas
industry.
Future
development
needs
to
be
achieved
in
the
context
of
the
water,
energy,
climate
nexus.
The
action
items
in
the
medium
term
are:
• Maintain
consumer
awareness
• Develop
a
Climate
change
resilience
Strategy
(water-‐energy
nexus)
• Develop
a
streamlined
regulatory
framework
and
a
system
to
support
it
• Consideration
of
alternative
pricing
models
What
needs
to
done
in
the
long
term
(2019
–
2042)
?
The
action
items
in
the
long
term
are:
• Implement
plan
• Monitor
and
evaluate
the
plan
• Institute
a
process
of
adaptive
management
• All
of
these
processes
are
underpinned
by
innovative
technological
change.
28/03/13
Griffith
University
Submission
10
You can also read
