Water

<html><body>
The NSW Government is introducing new measures to crack down on anti-competitive behaviour and expose speculation in the water market, to address concerns raised by regional communities.
Minister for Water, Property and Housing Melinda Pavey said the NSW Government would begin public consultation in November to determine what improvements should be made to our existing water registers.
“Water Transparency is currently front of mind in our communities and we have created multiple platforms to improve it in NSW,” Mrs Pavey said.
“We need to ensure that the details captured on our water register are strong enough to ensure transparency, but don’t go too far by putting farmer’s details at risk."
“The interim ACCC report highlighted the potential dangers to farmers of having too much information on the register and indicated a number of unintended negative consequences of such an approach"
Mrs Pavey said she looks forward to the final Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report to be handed down in February 2021, addressing foreign ownership and water speculation. 
Minister Pavey is also now calling on the ACCC to look at overseas ownership, monopoly ownership and unhelpful speculation, along with registration of brokers across state borders.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

NSW cracking down on water market speculators

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The NSW Government yesterday introduced legislation to strengthen disclosure requirements for water ownership and trades for all NSW Members of Parliament.
Minister for Water, Property and Housing Melinda Pavey said the Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) Bill 2020 will provide more certainty to Members of Parliament and improve public confidence in the pecuniary interests register.
“The community rightfully expects Members of Parliament to be diligent and fully transparent when disclosing their pecuniary interests, but there is currently a lack of clarity around how valuable water assets should be recorded,” Mrs Pavey said.
“The proposed legislation will require all Members to record water ownership and share components as an asset, in the same way they must declare business or real estate interests – this includes a delivery right within an irrigation corporation.
“The legislation will also require any water trades to be declared within 14 days, rather than the current six months, along with any money earned and the net impact on remaining water holdings.”
The inclusion of water trades and tightening timeframes on reporting them is a significant change.
“Water asset ownership and how they’re traded is something we are taking very seriously to improve confidence among our communities and is also another step in improving transparency within the sector,” Mrs Pavey said.
“The NSW Government is committed to completing its water reform agenda, including strengthening public registers for water ownership and trading.
“Any further changes to registers involving private citizens must be done in a way that promotes transparency whilst protecting the privacy of our farmers.”
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

NSW introduces new pecuniary interest disclosure requirements for water

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
As regional Australian towns face the prospect of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/plan-c-is-a-problem-a-town-without-ground-water-nears-day-zero-20191022-p53334" target="_blank">running out of water</a>, it’s time to ask why Australia does not make better use of recycled wastewater.
The technology to reliably and safely make clean, drinkable water from all sources, including sewage, has existed for <a href="https://www.applied.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/drinking-water-through-recycling-full-report.pdf" target="_blank">at least a decade</a>. Further, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/water-reform/national-water-initiative-agreement-2004.pdf" target="_blank">government policy</a> has for a long time allowed for recycled water to ensure supply.
The greatest barrier to the widespread use of recycled wastewater is community acceptance. Research from around the world found the best way to overcome reluctance is to embrace education and rigorously ensure the highest quality water treatment.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298470/original/file-20191024-31434-187ua6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298470/original/file-20191024-31434-187ua6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
In 2006 Toowoomba voted against introducing recycled water, despite extensive drought gripping the area. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/allanhenderson/2351100815/in/photolist-nQkp38-4zL1mX-aDPpEZ-aDPpLV-fEdSCh-hvcdT7-nQiamA-o7ESdb-fEdQK7-NyMorG-o7Mtex-hvcFhN-nMBXnf-29iZvnt-uobZDu-uEkpLu" target="_blank">Allan Henderson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY</a>
Why not use stormwater?
Many people are happy to use recycled stormwater, while being reluctant to cook, drink or wash with recycled household wastewater. But there are technical, cost and supply issues with relying on stormwater to meet our country’s water needs. Stormwater has to be cleaned before it is used, the supply can be irregular as it is reliant upon rain, and it has to be stored somewhere for use.
On the other hand, household wastewater (which is what goes into the sewerage system from sinks, toilets, washing machines and so on) is a more consistent supply, with <a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/04/04/from-wastewater-to-drinking-water/" target="_blank">80% or more</a> of household water leaving as wastewater.
Furthermore, wastewater goes to treatment plants already, so there is a system of pipes to transport it and places which already treat it, including advanced treatment plants that can treat the water to be clean enough for a range of purposes. There are strong economic, environmental and practical arguments for investing more effort in reusing wastewater to meet our water supply needs.
This water can be used for households, industry, business and agriculture, greening public spaces, fighting fires, and topping up rivers or groundwater.
The water cycle
Technically, all water is recyled; indeed we are drinking the <a href="https://www.xplorationstation.com/" target="_blank">same water as the dinosaurs</a>. Put very simply, water evaporates, forms clouds and falls as rain, and is either absorbed into the earth and captured underground or filtered through rock and goes back again into oceans and rivers.
When we capture and reuse water, we are not making more water, but speeding up the water cycle so we can reuse it more quickly.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298473/original/file-20191024-31471-1tnktt1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298473/original/file-20191024-31471-1tnktt1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Not pictured: the many, many animals and people every drop of water has passed through over millennia. Wikimedia Commons, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
We do already <a href="http://www.awa.asn.au/AWA_MBRR/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Water_Recycling_Fact_Sheet/AWA_MBRR/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Water_Recycling_Fact_Sheet.aspx?hkey=54c6e74b-0985-4d34-8422-fc3f7523aa1d" target="_blank">reuse wastewater</a> in Australia, with many parts of regional Australia cleaning wastewater and releasing it into rivers. That water is then extracted for use by places downstream.
Despite this, there have been significant community objections to building new infrastructure to reuse wastewater for household use. In 2006, at the height of the Millennium drought, Toowoomba <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160105-why-we-will-all-one-day-drink-recycled-wastewater" target="_blank">rejected the idea</a> entirely.
However, since then a scheme has been <a href="https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/our-water-sources/recycled-water" target="_blank">successfully established</a> in Perth. We must examine these issues again in light of the current drought, which sees a number of Australian regional centres facing the prospect of <a href="https://meltwaternews.com/ext/mediac/213698325.pdf" target="_blank">running out of water</a>.
Lessons from overseas
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298467/original/file-20191024-31453-10p3sbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298467/original/file-20191024-31453-10p3sbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Singapore has had enormous success in reusing wastewater for all kinds of purposes. EPA/HOW HWEE YOUNG
Despite initial reluctance, many places around the world have successfully introduced extensive wastewater recycling. Places such as Singapore, Essex, California, New Mexico, and Virginia widely use it.
Recent research from the <a href="https://www.wsaa.asn.au/publications" target="_blank">Water Services Association of Australia</a>, working with other research bodies, found several key lessons.
Firstly, the language we use is important. Phrases like “<a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/toilettotap-back-on-the-agenda-as-nsw-looks-again-at-recycled-water-20180919-h15kqh" target="_blank">toilet to tap</a>” are unhelpful as they don’t emphasise the extensive treatment processes involved.
The social media and news outlets can play a significant role here. In Orange County, California, wastewater was introduced through a slow process of building acceptance. Influential individuals were enlisted to explain and advocate for its uses.
Secondly, communities need time and knowledge, particularly about safety and risks. Regulators play an important role in reassuring communities. In San Diego, a demonstration plant gave many people the opportunity to see the treatment process, drink the water and participate in education.
We need to go beyond information to deep consultation and education, understanding where people are starting from and acknowledging that people from different cultures and backgrounds may have different attitudes.
El Paso successfully introduced wastewater through strong engagement with the media and significant investment in community education, including explaining the water cycle.
Finally, quality of the water needs to be great and it needs to come from a trustworthy source. The more it happens, and people know that, the more likely they are to feel reassured.
It’s clear the public expect governments to plan and act to secure our future water supply. But we can’t just impose possibly distasteful solutions – instead, the whole community needs to be part of the conversation.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125798/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Roberta Ryan, Professor, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance and UTS Centre for Local Government, University of Technology Sydney.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/80-of-household-water-goes-to-waste-we-need-to-get-it-back-125798" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

80% of household water goes to waste, we need change: Roberta Ryan

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Groundwater being pumped from a highland aquifer, only to be whisked away in tankers and sold in little plastic bottles by a multinational corporation – it’s a difficult concept for a small farming town to swallow.
Just ask the residents of Stanley, Victoria, whose four-year court battle to stop a farmer bottling local groundwater for Japanese beverage giant Asahi ended in failure last month. They were left with a A$90,000 bill for legal costs.
Locals have clashed with the bottled water industry in many parts of the world, including the United States and Canada, and perhaps most famously in the French spa town of Vittel, where residents have accused Nestlé of selling so much of their water to the rest of the world that they barely have enough left for themselves.
These conflicts demonstrate the challenge of balancing the competing demands on water drawn from underground. Compared with surface water, which is less tricky to monitor, groundwater is far harder to govern.
Under the Australian Constitution, water is primarily governed by the states. In Victoria, groundwater in high-use areas is managed using groundwater management plans under the Water Act, and water for commercial or irrigation purposes requires a take and use licence. This licence specifies the maximum volume of water a user is allowed to divert each year and under what conditions - what is often called an ‘entitlement’.
If a licence-holder wants to amend their licence, they need to apply to their regional water corporation.
It was one such application that triggered the dispute in Stanley. Local farmer Tim Carey applied to change the source of 19 million litres of his existing licence from surface water to groundwater, and from agricultural to commercial purposes. This would allow him to truck the water to a bottling plant run by Mountain H2O, owned by Asahi.
The changes were approved by Goulburn-Murray Water under the local water management plan. Stanley’s residents were concerned about the impact on irrigation and the environment, and tried to challenge Carey’s operation under local planning laws. But the court said that his approved water licence meant he didn’t need planning approval too. With no clear legal options now left for local residents, that may well prove to be the final say on the matter.
How did this happen?
Unfortunately, before about 1980, water entitlements were given away like kittens by various water agencies. As a result, in some areas, users are entitled to much more water than they actually use - sometimes more than is sustainable. And politics generally precludes any intervention to amend these inflated entitlements once the licence-holders have become used to having them.
Extensive droughts in the late 1970s and early 1980s, combined with the Darling River’s striking algal bloom in the early 1990s, catapulted the importance of effective water management into the public consciousness.
In 1997, this resulted in “the cap” – limits on surface water diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, the cap didn’t limit groundwater extractions, which then increased dramatically. The regulation of groundwater, memorably described in an 1861 court case as too “secret, occult and concealed” to even attempt, has long lagged behind that of surface water.
It wasn’t until the Millennium Drought (2000-09), with the advent of the National Water Initiative and the federal Water Act 2007 that Australian groundwater management underwent significant, large-scale reform. The main thrusts of the reforms were the development of legal and planning frameworks to achieve sustainable management of surface and groundwater, and the restructuring of water markets to be nationally compatible.
The new water governance regime created under the federal Water Act, under which the Commonwealth assumed important powers over waters in the Murray-Darling Basin, allows for groundwater markets and new limits on groundwater withdrawals. Groundwater trading is generally constrained by rules that require the “to” and “from” locations to be hydrologically connected to one another.
Stanley’s groundwater falls within a new mega-planning area that covers great swathes of northern Victoria. The new management plan for this area is due at the end of the year, but is currently only 30% complete.
Even if the plan is finished on time, groundwater sustainability in regions like the Ovens might elude us. Limits on water extraction are generally based on the entitlements in the area. But as current groundwater usage is less than those entitlements, “sleeper” licences can still be activated. During shortages, when the economic value of water peaks, people can trade water that would otherwise remain unused. In some management regions, the total entitlement volume is roughly double or more than the actual usage.
The Stanley case shows how communities can mobilise when groundwater moves from one use to another. If new plans further encourage groundwater markets, we should brace ourselves for more of the same – although it is unclear whether other communities would enjoy any more legal success than the people of Stanley.
What are management decisions based on?
High-profile cases like Stanley’s highlight the need for a robust scientific basis for licensing decisions. Communities facing change will have a difficult time accepting decisions that are not supported by rigorous science.
Unfortunately when it comes to groundwater, it’s far from straightforward to work out how much water is down there and where it goes. An expert hydrogeologist retained by Stanley’s residents argued that the modelling used to estimate the impact of the bottled water extractions was very simplistic. Mapping groundwater with an overly simplistic model is akin to using an identikit sketch of a smiley face to catch a criminal.
But water corporations have finite resources, and if we want in-depth analysis, then we need to invest in management planning tools such as drilling programs and numerical groundwater models supported by monitoring data and surveys of groundwater-dependent ecosystems. This sort of analysis is time-consuming, expensive and currently a political stretch. Governments only tend to spend serious money on groundwater investigations once people start running out of water.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96418/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">However, if we want to get groundwater licensing right, it needs to be scientifically robust, environmentally sustainable, and procedurally fair. As Stanley’s residents discovered, there might be no second chance.
Emma Kathryn White, PhD Candidate, Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne
Rebecca Louise Nelson, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-small-towns-whose-water-becomes-big-business-for-bottled-brands-96418" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

What happens to small towns whose water becomes big business for bottled brands?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
As Cape Town counts down to “day zero” and the prospect of its taps being turned off, there have inevitably been questions about whether the same fate might befall a major Australian city. The most striking parallels have been drawn with Perth – unsurprisingly, given its drying climate, rising evaporation rates (which increase consumption and reduce water yields) and growing population.
So is Perth really running out of water? The answer depends on what type of water is being considered, and what constitutes “running out”.
When faced with this question most people think of drinking water, which is of course essential for household use.
It often ignores non-potable groundwater that is heavily relied upon in Perth to irrigate gardens, lawns, ovals, golf courses and market gardens. This water is also used by light and heavy industry, as well as being crucial to the health of wetlands and vegetation across the coastal plain.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206115/original/file-20180213-44654-66n9ff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Lake Jualbup in Perth’s western suburbs showing periods of low and high water level. Photos by Geoffrey Dean. saveourjewel.org, Author provided
Perth’s drinking water supplies are largely safe, thanks to early investment in the use of groundwater and in technologies such as desalination. But somewhat ironically, as this recent book chapter explains, the future supply of lower-quality water for irrigation and to support ecosystems looks far less assured.
A drying climate
Perth’s annual rainfall has been declining by about 3mm per year on average, while the number of months receiving at least 200mm of rain has halved. Meanwhile, the annual mean temperature anomaly has increased by 1℃ in southwest Western Australia in the past 40 years and possibly by more in Perth, given the urban heat island effect.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206135/original/file-20180213-44654-q46rcz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Perth’s rainfall trend, as measured at Perth Airport’s rain gauge. Bureau of Meteorology
The overall effect is that soils and vegetation are often dry, meaning that rainfall will be lost to evapotranspiration rather than running off into rivers and dams, or recharging underground aquifers.
At the same time, Perth has made major changes to its drinking water supply. The city now relies chiefly on groundwater and desalination rather than dams. For a variety of reasons, drinking water use per person has declined, most notably since the early 2000s when sprinkler restrictions were introduced. Some have switched to self-supply sources such as backyard bores, so for them total water use may even have increased.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206138/original/file-20180213-44633-7ug4r4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Perth’s trends in runoff, population, and water supply. Water Corporation
The reduction in per capita use of drinking water is just as well, because inflows into Perth dams have fallen from 300 billion litres a year to less than 50 billion. This disproportionate drop in stream flows, even against the backdrop of declining rainfall, means that evaporation from reservoirs can exceed inflows in very dry years.
Since the late 1970s, Perth has increasingly used groundwater rather than dam water. Seawater desalination has also grown to almost half of total supply. Even more recently Perth began trialling a groundwater replenishment scheme to recharge aquifers with treated wastewater.
With the declines in rainfall and streamflow predicted to continue, water security will continue to be an important policy issue over the next few decades. Although both are much more expensive than dam water, desalination and groundwater replenishment look set to secure Perth’s drinking supply, because seawater is virtually unlimited, and wastewater availability increases in line with the city’s growth.
Why are non-drinking water supplies less secure?
Boosting drinking water supplies with desalination or groundwater replenishment is unlikely to resolve the pressures on non-potable supplies. To understand why, it is necessary to understand Perth’s unusual hydrology.
Most of Perth is built on permeable sand dunes, which can soak up even the heaviest rainfall. This allows runoff from roofs and roads to be directed into nearby soak wells and absorption basins.
As well as cheap disposal of stormwater, the sands provide Perth with a place to store excess water from winter rains, which is then relied upon for summer irrigation. As a result, local governments have been able to provide many irrigated parks and sports ovals, and more than a quarter of Perth households use a private bore to water their gardens.
This arrangement isn’t as sustainable as it once was. Groundwater levels are falling under many parts of Perth, forcing the state government to reduce allocations and to introduce a range of water-saving measures such as winter sprinkler bans.
Unlike dam inflows, we don’t yet know the full scale of the reduction in natural groundwater recharge rates. But the question still remains: what can we do to halt the decline of this important water store, particularly as Perth’s population is expected to grow to 3.5 million by 2050?
About 70% of local road runoff and half of roof runoff already recharges the shallow unconfined aquifer, because it is the cheapest way to dispose of excess water in areas with sandy soils. As well as reducing discharge costs, this practice helps to ensure that bores do not run dry in summer.
Perth also has large main drains that are designed to lower groundwater levels in swampy areas and prevent inundation. Some of these waters could be redirected into the aquifer where there is a suitable site.
Don’t waste wastewater
About 140 billion litres of treated wastewater are discharged into the ocean every year in the Perth-Peel region. A further 7 billion litres are infiltrated into the sands as a means of disposal where there isn’t an option for ocean outfall. Recent investigations of these land disposal sites have shown them to be effective in protecting wetlands from drying and providing water for public and private irrigation.
Investigations have also shown that the quality of treated wastewater can be greatly improved when infiltrated through the yellow sands into the limestone aquifer in the western part of Perth. It is suitable for irrigation after a few weeks’ residence within the aquifer.
Without these kinds of measures, local governments will struggle to water parks and sports ovals, to protect Perth’s remaining wetlands, and to safeguard the trees that help keep us cool.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90857/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">So while drinking water supplies for an affluent city like Perth are reasonably secure, our vital non-drinking water supplies need to be augmented using some of the water we currently discharge into the ocean. As Perth gets even hotter and drier, and green spaces and wetlands are needed to provide much-needed cooling, we can no longer afford to let any water go to waste.
Don McFarlane, Adjunct professor, University of Western Australia
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-perth-really-running-out-of-water-well-yes-and-no-90857" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Water

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Water

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News