The Case of Water Recycling

SUSTAINABILITY AND PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNING OF WATER USE: THE CASE OF WATER RECYCLING

NYREE STENEKES

A thesis submitted in fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of N.S.W

2006 UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Project Report Sheet

Surname or Family name: STENEKES First name: NYREE Other name/s: ANN Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: Civil & Environmental Engineering Faculty: Engineering Title: Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The Case of Water Recycling

Abstract 350 words maximum:

Urban water recycling has been promoted as one of several ways that water use efficiency could be improved in Australia’s cities, but few such schemes have been introduced. Many urban water-recycling schemes have been proposed, but often, these projects have been rejected because of community opposition. These difficulties suggest that recycling water is not just about having the right answer to any problem, but about the way in which the question is addressed. It is concerned with how practice is institutionalised; not just the rule making, but also the understandings and values that make the rule- making possible. In this thesis, the question of how the system of water governance could be strengthened to encourage sustainable water use through water recycling is examined. An analysis of experiences in three Australian case studies is conducted, in which recycled water was proposed for sustainability, to illuminate the way in which water use is institutionalised. Particular attention is given to the construction of meaning in relation to water use, by considering how water problems are framed and negotiated by different stakeholders and groups and the significance of the multiplicity of interpretive frameworks in use for the institutionalisation of practice. The analysis draws on institutional organisational theory and interpretive methods, which regard interpretation as one element (cognitive) in the stabilisation of social practice and closely linked to organisation (regulative) and values (normative). The study findings suggest meaning was a very important part of institutional change. Participants tended to construct policy issues as they became involved by drawing on different interpretive frameworks embodying different values and expectations. These interpretations reflected the organisational structuring of practice, such that the position/role in the organisational field reflected an actor’s interpretation of problems and/or solutions. Outcomes of the study suggest that institutionalising change in water management is problematic and depends on changes in the regulative, normative and cognitive dimensions of practice, as part of a continuous feedback loop between interpretation and practice. This view of change contrasts with existing research, which tends to see the problem in terms of influencing attitudes of specific groups and assumes preferences precede the action.

Declaration relating to disposition of project report/thesis

I am fully aware of the policy of the University relating to the retention and use of higher degree project reports and theses, namely that the University retains the copies submitted for examination and is free to allow them to be consulted or borrowed. Subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, the University may issue a project report or thesis in whole or in part, in photostat or microfilm or other copying medium.

I also authorise the publication by University Microfilms of a 350 word abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International (applicable to doctorates only).

...... Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing to the Registrar. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances if accompanied by a letter of support from the Supervisor or Head of School. Such requests must be submitted with the thesis/project report.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award

Registrar and Deputy Principal

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 2 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

ABSTRACT

In this thesis, the question of how the system of water governance could be changed to encourage sustainable water use through water recycling is examined. An analysis of experiences in three Australian case studies is conducted, in which recycled water was proposed for sustainability, to illuminate the way in which water use is institutionalised. Particular attention is given to the construction of meaning in relation to water use, by considering how water problems are framed and negotiated by different stakeholders and groups and the significance of the multiplicity of interpretive frameworks in use for the institutionalisation of practice.

The analysis draws on institutional organisational theory and interpretive methods, which regard interpretation as one element (cognitive) in the stabilisation of social practice and closely linked to values (normative) and organisation (regulative). The study findings suggest meaning was a very important part of institutional change. Participants tended to construct policy issues as they became involved by drawing on different interpretive frameworks embodying different values and expectations. These interpretations reflected the organisational structuring of practice, such that the position/role in the organisational field reflected an actor’s interpretation of problems and/or solutions. Outcomes of the study suggest that institutionalising change in water management is problematic and depends on changes in the regulative, normative and cognitive dimensions of practice, as part of a continuous feedback loop between interpretation and practice. This view of change contrasts with existing research, which tends to see the problem in terms of influencing attitudes of specific groups and assumes preferences precede the action.

- 3 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

CONTENTS 1 Introduction...... 11 1.1 Background...... 11 1.2 Research problem, research issues and contributions...... 16 1.3 Justification for the research ...... 17 1.4 Methodology...... 18 1.5 Outline of the thesis ...... 19 1.6 Delimitations of scope and key assumptions, and their justifications...... 20 1.7 Conclusion ...... 21 2 Research issues ...... 23 2.1 Introduction...... 23 2.2 Collective organisation in urban water management and sustainability discourses .....24 2.3 Public and stakeholder participation in water planning and management ...... 26 2.4 Social science explanations of social order and change...... 33 2.5 Adapting governance and institutional concepts for the case of urban water recycling51 2.6 Conclusion ...... 55 2.7 Definitions of terms ...... 56 3 Existing patterns of water management: An institutional / governance approach...... 59 3.1 Introduction...... 59 3.2 Applying institutional and governance concepts to managing the water cycle ...... 59 3.3 A short history of water governance in Australia ...... 61 3.4 Early water management (pre-1901): Ad hoc reactive responses...... 63 3.5 Traditional water institutions (1901-1970’s): Dominance of professional engineers...66 3.6 Modern water institutions (1970s-1990s): Recent changes ...... 79 3.7 Conclusion ...... 83 4 Challenge of environmental sustainability: Reframing urban wastewater management 85 4.1 Introduction...... 85 4.2 An emerging environmental consciousness...... 85 4.3 Concept of sustainable development...... 87 4.4 An ecological perspective on urban water (re)use: Urban metabolism ...... 88 4.5 Towards sustainable management of urban water systems...... 90 4.6 Conclusion ...... 106 5 Research design and methodology: Exploring the ‘framing’ of urban water recycling 109 5.1 The research problem...... 109 5.2 Research aims ...... 109 5.3 Research questions...... 110 5.4 Research design ...... 113 5.5 Data Collection ...... 124 5.6 Data Analysis Procedures ...... 130 5.7 Limitations of the research...... 133

- 4 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

5.8 Ethics and consent ...... 134 5.9 Disclaimer ...... 134 6 Sustainability and participation in urban water recycling: Empirical case studies.. 137 6.1 Introduction ...... 137 6.2 Case 1: Wastewater Management in Caloundra-Maroochy , South East Queensland 138 6.3 Case 2: ‘Backlog’ sewerage programs in the Sydney Region, NSW...... 189 6.4 Case 2 (a): Picton Sewerage Scheme ...... 221 6.5 Case 2 (b): Jamberoo Sewerage Scheme...... 259 6.6 Conclusion...... 304 7 Analysis of water recycling case studies: Stability and change in water governance 305 7.1 Introduction ...... 305 7.2 Research proposition and evaluation of key findings...... 305 7.3 Participants and problem frames ...... 307 7.4 Conditions affecting the ability to adopt water cycle and/or water recycling approaches 310 7.5 Conclusion...... 351 8 Implications and conclusions...... 354 8.1 Introduction ...... 354 8.2 Study outcomes ...... 354 8.3 Contributions...... 362 8.4 Towards better practice ...... 365 8.5 Directions for future research...... 367 9 References...... 369

- 5 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

FIGURES Figure 2.1 Levels of institutional analysis (based on Scott 1983, p.161-4, 1995, p.55-56) ...... 50 Figure 2.2 Three interactive pillars of social institutions (drawn from Scott 1995, p.33-52, in Colebatch and Larmour 2002, p.93)...... 52 Figure 2.3 Organisational field context: vertical and horizontal structuring in the regulative dimension of practice (drawing on Scott 1983; Colebatch 2002; Bressers & Rosenbaum 2003; Bressers & Kuks 2003)...... 55 Figure 3.1 Conventional Urban Water System as a box model of input and output flows (Mouritz 1996, p.200)(adapted in Brown 2003, p.60, Czemiel Berndtsson and Hyvonen 2002, p.520)...... 74 Figure 4.1 Conceptual representation of a ‘sustainable urban water system’ (Mouritz 1996, Brown 2003, also Balkema et al. 2002) ...... 91 Figure 5.1 Case study design...... 114 Figure 5.2 Case study sites, Australia...... 119 Figure 5.3 Key participant groups targeted for in-depth case study interviews (after Scott 1983, 1995)...... 124 Figure 6.1 Upper Mary River Basin (shaded) and Maroochy and Mooloolah River waterways, overlaid by the Maroochy and (most of) Caloundra local government areas, including the major towns and water storages (Source: adapted from NRM 2002, p.6 and planning documents)...... 140 Figure 6.2 Indicative organisation chart for Queensland local councils. Arrows indicate the typical interactions between council staff and departments for water recycling projects. Thicker arrows indicate more frequent instances of interaction (Livingston et al. 2004, adapted from Brown 2003)...... 147 Figure 6.4 Organisation of the wastewater study process envisaged by the steering committee (based on description in Rowland 1996a, SKM/CDCE 1997a)...... 161 Figure 6.5: Sydney Water on the Government Department/Privatisation and Government Influence Scales (Reprinted with permission from the authors) (Jane and Dollery 2005) ...... 198 Figure 6.6 Corporate structure and lines of accountability - Sydney Water as of 2002 (SWC 2002d, NSW Parliament 1989, as amended in 2005, 1994b, as amended in 2005). ....200 Figure 6.7 Map showing southern portion of Nepean River Catchment and Picton locality (Map source: DLWC 2003, p.11) ...... 221 Figure 6.8 Map of Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor townships, rivers/creeks and main roads (Map source: ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.2.2) ...... 222 Figure 6.9 Timeline - Picton case study ...... 231 Figure 6.10 Map showing Jamberoo locality (Source: ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.2.2) .260 Figure 6.11 Kiama Local Government Area (Source: Kiama Council 2000 in KMC 2004, p.7) ...... 261 Figure 6.10 Overview of events, timeline – Jamberoo case study ...... 272

- 6 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

TABLES Table 2.1 Scott’s framework for understanding institutions (drawn from Scott 1983, 1995, p.33- 52) ...... 49 Table 3.1 Summary contrasting ‘early’, ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ patterns of urban water institutions and associated technology (adapted from Brown 2003, drawing on Colebatch 1998, and Smith 1998)...... 62 Table 4.1 Towards sustainable water institutions (Brown 2003, Imperial 1999, Berkes 2004, Brussard et al. 1998, Grumbine 1994, Slocombe 1998)...... 101 Table 5.1 Case study sites and general characteristics...... 118 Table 5.2 Participants and groups (primary interviews) ...... 121 Table 6.1 Summary of competing discourses and values characterising Case Study 1 (based on Stenekes et al. 2004, adapted from Brown 2003, p.69, Colebatch and Larmour 1993) ...... 152 Figure 6.3 Caloundra-Maroochy – Timeline of events...... 159 Table 6.2 Summary of competing discourses and values characterising cases 2 (a) and (b) (based on Stenekes et al. 2004, adapted from Brown, 2003, p.69, Colebatch and Larmour 1993) ...... 208 Table 6.3 Distribution of sewerage system types in Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor prior to reticulated sewerage (Public Works 1994, p.3-4)...... 223 Table 6.4 Distribution of sewerage system types in Jamberoo prior to reticulated sewerage (KMC 1994 in SWC 2002b, p.2)...... 261 Table 6.5 Comparison of Jamberoo, Gerringong-Gerroa and Shoalhaven sewerage scheme costs ...... 299 Table 7.1 Case comparison: Institutional conditions encouraging stability, i.e. conventional approaches ...... 313 Table 7.2 Case comparison: Institutional conditions contributing to change ...... 315 Table 8.1 Summary of major study aims and outcomes ...... 361 Table A.2 Dominant and selected environmental modes for human interaction with the environment (after Cotgrove 1982, p.27, 92, Pearce 1993, p.18)...... 394 Table A.3: Categories and codes for study participants interviewed (primary sources)...... 395

APPENDICES Appendix (1) Contrast between ‘technocentric’ and ‘ecocentric’ views on the environment .. 394 Appendix (2) Code numbers of participants in case study reports ...... 395 Appendix (3) Case study interview questions/topics...... 396 Appendix (4) Sample of interview data coding using Ethnograph software...... 398 Appendix (5) Data Analysis to develop study conclusions ...... 399 Appendix (6) Oyster contamination incident: Legal proceedings ...... 400 Appendix (7) Publications ...... 401

- 7 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has been one of the major challenges of my life so far and I am very grateful to all the people who, through their practical, intellectual and emotional support enabled me to achieve its completion. Thank you to all the participants of the study, especially those in Jamberoo, Picton and Caloundra, who generously gave their time and shared their valuable insights and experiences of local water institutions.

I owe my greatest debt to my supervisors, Hal K. Colebatch and T. David Waite, who guided me through this interdisciplinary endeavour with incredible wisdom and patience. Hal first instilled in me an appreciation of the many institutional aspects of water management and was the source of so many insights. He is himself an institutional entrepreneur for interdisciplinary research. David demonstrated significant courage in becoming my supervisor and has never failed to provide assistance and inspiration when I needed it. Thank you both for being so willing to explore news ways of doing research, I hope you enjoyed our wide-ranging discussions as much as I did.

Sincere thanks to all the people who encouraged and supported me at the Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment (CRC WQT) and the Queensland EPA who funded the study and without whom it would have been difficult to pursue this research. Dennis Mulcahy and Heather Chapman both gave their assistance and insights generously and have helped me to feel like a member of a wider water research community. Thanks also to present and former colleagues and students at the Centre for Water and Waste Technology (CWWT) who were part of that nurturing environment.

I would not have been able to complete this work without the marvellous support of my friends and family. An affectionate thank you to my parents Ann and Bill Stenekes who instilled in me an appreciation for learning and encouraged me to pursue further study. I am very grateful to Warwick Moss and Pip Stenekes who provided a warm welcome on my visits to Sydney and lots of fruitful thesis related discussions. I am deeply indebted to my dear friends Awdah Arraf, Olga Fischer, Olga Braga and Shakira Hussein who have shared the ups and downs of the PhD with me. Your support has enriched the whole experience and given me much courage. Many thanks to Daniel Livingston who gave me a lot of good advice and support through the thesis, it was a pleasure to work with you. I am grateful to my colleagues in Canberra Cecily Maller and

- 8 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Mary Milne whose cheery disposition and readiness to listen certainly made the last stages of the thesis easier to complete. In particular, I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to Carla Mooney who showed great kindness in providing support that helped me through the last stages of the thesis.

Most of all an especially warm thank you to my partner Jean-Michel Perraud who has supported my personal efforts the whole time and put up with my absence on many an evening and weekend. I could not have done it without your love and support.

- 9 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 10 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

1 Introduction

Australia has limited water resources. Urban water recycling has been proposed as one of several ways that water use efficiency could be improved in Australia’s cities, however, the promulgation of such schemes has been very slow compared with other developed countries (Smith 1998, p.152). Many urban water-recycling schemes have been devised, but often, these projects have been rejected because of community opposition. These difficulties suggest that recycling water is not just about having the right answer to any problem, but about the way in which the human impact on the water cycle is stablised in social practice. In other words, this is about how practice is institutionalised; not just the rule making, but also the understandings and values that make it possible. This thesis draws on institutional organisational theory to illuminate the way in which water use is institutionalised, the institutional impact of proposals for more sustainable patterns of water use and the lessons for pursuing sustainability initiatives. Particular attention is given to the construction of meaning in relation to water use, and consideration is given to the significance of the multiplicity of interpretive frameworks in use for the institutionalisation of practice. Lessons for analysis and for practice are drawn from the analysis presented.

1.1 Background

Water is an essential natural resource on which people depend for their living standard and ecological well-being. Up until the last few decades, the focus of urban water management primarily related to the need for efficient supply and disposal of water for human use. In the last few years, however, concern has shifted to the sustainability of existing patterns of water use. Although urban water use in Australia makes up only 12 percent of total national water use (Lens et al. 2001, p.42), water importation on an urban catchment basis is widely seen as unsustainable (CoA 2002, p.26-28). Urban demand for water supply and wastewater services is rising (Newton 2001, p.58-9, 122). Many of the major cities are expected to run out of water within the next 20 years based on current use trends (CoA 2002, p.43). Despite the concerns

- 11 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling about high water use, per capita domestic water use1 is the second highest in the world after North America (Price in PMSEIC 2003, p.2). Domestic water use restrictions in most of the larger cities2 following a lengthy period of low rainfall has served to focus attention on the limitations of accessible urban water resources (PMSEIC 2003, p.1-2, Neill 2002, Editorial 2004, Peatling 2004). However, the continual expansion of urban water systems by constructing new dams, pipes and sewerage outfalls to meet demand is no longer seen as an adequate response because of the financial and environmental impacts (Dowsett et al. 1995, p.62-3, IPART 2002). Awareness of the impact of water use on environmental amenity in Australia has grown in response to polluted beaches, river and habitat degradation and lack of environmental flows. There has been criticism that the engineering of urban water services does not reflect these emerging environmental values and a range of government and non-government groups have voiced their concerns. These are widely seen as problems of ‘sustainable water management’ in which urban water functions are seen not just as technical activities, but as having significant impact on social and environmental systems.

The management of urban water use is inherently ‘public’ in character, but can be accomplished through a range of organisational forms. In Australia, it has traditionally been accomplished through specialised public sector bureaucracies, at local or state level, run by professional engineers with a high degree of autonomy. The established pattern of practice has addressed water and wastewater issues as technical supply and disposal functions and the organisational base for managing water reflects these functions. These priorities reflect a resource-based economy that was once the dominant characteristic of Australia’s pioneering past. Public and non-government groups however have played an increasingly active role in water planning activities, and over time have gained standing in questions of urban and environmental management. In addition, there is much interest among the technical community as to how water use could become more sustainable. Among professional engineering groups, concepts of integrated or water cycle management have widely been embraced as strategies and goals for sustainable water use. As part of the concern about the ‘unsustainability’ of existing

1 (320 litres per person per day) 2 Restrictions enforced in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Perth and SE Queensland in the period 2001-04 (ATSE 2004).

- 12 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling urban water systems, some have advocated urban water recycling3 as a way of conserving urban water supplies by reusing water. Water recycling is seen as part of a range of potential strategies for reducing the pressure on existing water resources and infrastructure through the substitution of lower quality water for applications that do not require drinking quality (White and Turner 2003). There is ample scope for substitution at a household level in Australia since only about 1-4% of residential water use is actually used for drinking, while around half is flushed down the toilet and used on gardens (NSW Legislative Assembly 2002, p.4). With recognition of these opportunities, the activities encompassing ‘water recycling’ has varied in scope; from the traditional reuse of ‘treated municipal effluent’ to more recently, an additional groups of activities including the beneficial reuse of stormwater, greywater, and industrial wastewaters (CSIRO 2002, Burkhard et al. 2000). Many in the industry see significant opportunities for recycling water at both centralised and decentralised scales.

Despite opportunities for achieving ‘smarter’ urban water uses through recycling, there has been limited progress in the use of this particular practice in Australia. Current national figures suggest that only about 10% of the municipal wastewater from all sewage treatment plants is being recycled (ATSE 2004, p.7). Despite opportunities for source substitution, figures in the cities are very low, with the major urban centres of Australia - Sydney, Melbourne and Perth – recycling only around 2 to 3% of sewage effluent they produce (SWC 1999d, p.9, Gregory 2001, Radcliffe 2003). A large proportion of sewage from cities on Australia’s coasts is dumped into the ocean with minimal treatment4. In country areas of NSW and Victoria, the proportion of effluent reused is higher than in the metropolitan areas (between 10-20%), with the most significant uses being golf courses and pasture production (ATSE 2004, p.65-6, Radcliffe 2003, presentation slides). This suggests smaller local municipal systems recycle more of their water than larger technically sophisticated systems. Efforts to employ water reuse and recycling techniques at the decentralised and on-site scales have progressed slowly, with most

3 The terminology is not standardised, and thus ‘recycling’, ‘reusing’ and ‘reclaiming’ water are referred to interchangeably in this study. The practice traditionally involves the reuse of ‘treated municipal effluent’ but, more recently has included beneficial reuse of stormwater, greywater, and industrial waste waters for a variety of purposes (CSIRO 2002, Burkhard et al. 2000). 4 Sydney is probably one of the worst cases, dumping nearly 75 per cent of its annual water usage into the nearby ocean as barely treated sewage (CoA 2005, p.90).

- 13 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling existing schemes following ‘traditional’ forms and uses of recycled water, such as large-scale centralised dual reticulation, agricultural irrigation and industrial water recycling.

Although there are successful existing recycling schemes, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Some initiatives proposed in an effort to secure more sustainable patterns of water use have resulted in public campaigns against recycled water. Notable rejections occurred in Southeast Queensland in the past decade (one of the fastest growing regions in Australia) where three out of six wastewater recycling strategies involving potable5 reuse were ‘vetoed’ by local community groups (Uhlmann & Luxford 1999). Several generated sensational news reports of the potential health risks and scare campaigns featuring, what is termed, the ‘yuck factor’ (see Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, p.A10, SWC 1996, 1999c). As a result of these and similar experiences in the United States (for U.S. cases see PIEOW 2003, Crook 1999), significant reuse is widely seen as “…constrained by… political/community reluctance to seriously consider any form of potable reuse” (Hamlyn-Harris 2003). These experiences have caused frustration among professional engineering groups in the water industry and policy- makers that recycling is being ‘blocked’ by public opposition groups (CoA 2005, p.3, 93) and stimulated research into the factors affecting public acceptance of recycled water (Dillon 2000). A tendency to assume that education about the risks is the key to advancing technological solutions is a popular one in literature and policy (Hardy, cited in Swinton 2004). Such bruising encounters with the public have meant some reluctance to engage with the public and led to debate about what sustainable urban water use measures could be taken and the potential role of water recycling. Public debates of this nature however often become ‘solution driven’ in which the public is invited to respond to prepared solutions, usually large-scale technical answers to the question (e.g. Harley 2005).

The modest progress towards more sustainable urban water uses in Australia and the difficulties in promulgating water recycling raises important questions about the ability to pursue sustainability. Conflicts involving recycled water suggest these practices represent particular challenges to the current system of water governance that derives from a technically based institutional framework. One of the main challenges is the increasing complexity in the organisational dimension making co-ordination difficult. This is suggested by the increasing

5 i.e. for drinking purposes.

- 14 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling propensity for various community groups to ‘voice’ their concerns and demand participation. With this, comes the reduced ability of engineers to exercise their control and authority as they have been used to in the past. These changes suggest that achieving sustainable water use patterns is not simply a matter of defining the correct solution and implementing it; rather, problems and outcomes need to be understood as part of a continuing process of negotiation between various legitimate stakeholders with different values, perspectives and beliefs. In this study, these tensions are regarded as part of the broader transition from established ways of managing water as an instrumentally based technical practice focussed on supply and disposal to a sustainable water governance system.

A ‘water governance’ perspective sees the water system as encompassing not only the physical urban water system, but also the social, economic and administrative systems, including the roles and responsibilities of different people and groups in the practice (GWP 2003a, p.2). Water governance highlights several broader dimensions of social change considered important in the transition towards sustainable water use patterns: those of integrating or co-ordinating water management functions and participatory governance. These themes are important ones for water engineering practitioners as key participants in the system of water governance and as members who have an interest in the transition towards sustainable water uses. What are the aspects of this system of governance that we as engineers need to consider if we are to encourage sustainable water management? What potential roles can urban water recycling play as a practice in the sustainable use of water? What would be needed to support such changes to the water cycle?

In this study, the process of change from established water management practices to sustainable water management is explored, by considering the potential of urban water recycling in the organisational context of water management, particularly stakeholder and group problem ‘framing’. Achieving sustainable water use through water recycling has been seen in much of the policy literature and research as a relatively well-defined problem of generating ‘public acceptance’6 (Stenekes et al. 2006). Social research on public involvement in water recycling practices has tended to focus on public perception of water recycling technology and risk and factors affecting the public’s acceptance of recycled water. However these are not good

- 15 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling predictors of people’s actions because they treat preferences as ‘given’ rather than as part of a dynamic process of learning and sense making through participation. Little attention has been given to the way problems have been framed and addressed in the system of water governance. Yet if we understood what knowledge, values and beliefs different stakeholder groups brought to this problem (the multiple interpretations), we may be able to understand how the organisational dimension of practice could be changed to support more sustainable water uses. There has been relatively little attention to the way that knowledge and values are brought to bear in stakeholder decision processes to address this problem in the context of governing water.

1.2 Research problem, research issues and contributions

As outlined in section 1.1, the problem addressed in this research is:

How could the system of water governance in Australia be changed to encourage sustainable water use through water recycling?

In this thesis, this question is addressed by focusing on the water system as a ‘system of water governance’. Consideration is given to how we could improve understanding of the difficulties of implementing water recycling by considering the way water problems are framed and negotiated by different stakeholders and groups in the system of governance. The analysis of water recycling cases draws on institutional theory and interpretive methods, which regard interpretation as one element (cognitive) in the stabilisation of social practice and closely linked to values (normative) and organisation (regulative). The study findings suggest that meaning was a very important part of institutional change. Participants tended to construct policy issues as they became involved by drawing on different interpretive frameworks that embodied different underlying values and expectations (Fischer 2000). These interpretations tended to reflect the organisational structuring of practice, such that the position/role in the organisational field reflected an actor’s interpretation of problems and/or solutions. The outcomes of the study suggest that institutionalising change in water management is problematic but likely to depend on interventions across the cognitive, normative and regulative spheres of practice, as part of a continuous feedback loop between interpretation and re-structuring. This view of change

6 An analysis of the assumptions and implications engendering this view are elaborated in Stenekes et al. (2006), reprinted in Appendix (7).

- 16 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling contrasts with existing research, which tends to see this problem as one of influencing attitudes of specific groups and assumes preferences precede the action.

The research contributes to studies of the dynamics of water governance through the identification of conditions for institutional change that are likely to support water cycle approaches / sustainable water uses. The approach has shown governing water to be a contested, continuing process in which competing interpretations of water cycle problems are constructed by different actors. Through an application of institutional theory, the findings presented here provide insight into the ability of the institutional base to support water cycle approaches and thus to link governing processes and nature. This brings a more fine-grained analysis to water recycling problems than ‘community attitudes’/’public perception’ adds. These insights will assist engineering practice and guide other practitioners who are involved or active in the water cycle management field.

1.3 Justification for the research

The urban water-recycling dilemma outlined in Section 1.1 is sometimes seen as a well- defined problem in the water management literature and in professional engineering circles. Conventional wisdom often presents the problem of implementation instrumentally, as a deficit resulting from public rejection of schemes. This has become a standard explanation in policy circles of these experiences. This view has led to significant frustration and caution on the part of engineers and practitioners in the water industry …“the option of water recycling is not presented as the judgment is made that the public is not ready for it” (Dr. Marsden, 28 April 2005 in CoA 2005, p.3) and has led to efforts to identify ways of encouraging the community to accept changes to the water cycle in a bid to reach more sustainable water use patterns.

Solutions offered to the problem centre on providing more information to the public – or ‘education’ – about risk to encourage acceptance. This interpretation - the ‘public acceptance’ theory - is often heard among policy-makers and professionals as both an explanation of why urban water recycling has failed and as a strategy for implementing more sustainable urban water use practices. However, the ‘public acceptance’ theory contains many assumptions about human nature and social interaction. Not only does it leave unexamined the basic concepts of, for instance, who ‘the public’ is, what it means to be ‘an expert’, what is involved in an ‘urban water recycling’ system and what kind of ‘education’ might be needed, but it also offers an

- 17 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling inadequate understanding of the nature of social change processes. Social interaction and change around urban water recycling and the wider problem of sustainability are much more complex. The aim of this thesis is to generate discussion and insight into the tensions around public involvement in water recycling by examining alternative stakeholder interpretations of events (including this conventional wisdom) in the institutional context of water management practice.

To the extent that the question of sustainability and water use is addressed in the literature, it tends to be seen as a particular problem with ‘the public’ rather than a manifestation of a broader problem of water governance. This justifies an exploration of the way the system of governance relates to problems in urban water-recycling programs, in the context of normal institutions of water management.

1.4 Methodology

The research draws on a broad range of Australian policy documentation, including a review of local, state and national policy documents and papers relating to water recycling. The research consisted of the development of an appropriate analytical approach, which was then applied in three in-depth case studies carried out during 2002-2004 that explored water recycling initiatives in Caloundra and Maroochy (south-east Queensland), and the towns of Jamberoo and Picton (Sydney, New South Wales), Australia. The research design consisted of semi-structured interviews with more than 57 people related to proposals to recycle water. The interviews explored key participants’ views on policy and social processes in relation to the initiatives. The target interviewees were representative of key stakeholder groups, including water managers, engineers, planners, health officials, consultants, environmental groups and community members.

The study drew on interpretive methods to explore the different ways participant groups understand issues and ‘frame’ water cycle problems. The advantage of this approach was the ability to examine the basis of the different definitions of the problem by considering the way knowledge and meaning is constructed in decision-making processes. This draws on the principle that sense making is constructed as contact with the ideas and issues occurs. This sees the problems as not just one of knowledge, but as one of governing – looking at the interpretations different groups have of problems and the way collective problems are addressed

- 18 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling and resolved in the system of governance. This examines the framework within which this knowledge is brought to bear. It is not just a matter of generating knowledge, but how it is used and for what purpose that is important.

1.5 Outline of the thesis

The first chapter introduced and expanded on the water recycling problematic – the issues, problems and responses. It details the approach taken in the thesis.

Chapter 2 contains a review of literature relevant to the research area. The focus is on the way that the organisation of public functions (such as water management) has been conceptualised in various streams. A case is made for adopting governance concepts and an institutional theoretical framework for the analysis of approaches to water management.

Chapter 3 considers the established patterns of water management in Australia guided by the institutional approach and considers some of the pressures and changes that took place up to the 1980s-1990s.

Chapter 4 continues on from Chapter 3 to look at what some of the literature says about sustainable water management (what does it mean for water institutions?) using an institutional approach and considers the challenges for water management practice presented by sustainability discourses (i.e. why we should be concerned). This chapter points to the gaps; mainly the lack of attention to the importance of ‘water governance’ in achieving outcomes and the idea that sustainability is an ‘idea without institutions’ – that it is a set of cognitive and normative related concepts without a regulative base to support it.

Chapter 5 describes the interpretive research methods used to investigate interpretations and organisational structuring of interaction in water recycling initiatives. The different discourses used to develop insights into interpretive frameworks of groups in the system of governance are the focus. This chapter shows how this approach is different from that used in much of the existing research on public involvement in water recycling.

Chapter 6 describes the empirical work related to three case studies in Australia where water recycling was considered as part of practice. Particular care is taken to represent various sides (interpretations) of water recycling problems as well as the organisational context of the action.

- 19 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Chapter 7 contains a discussion of findings describing the empirical work in relation to the research proposition and, focuses on the institutional conditions under which water cycle approaches were more likely to be adopted based on insights from the empirical work in Chapter 6.

Chapter 8 is the final chapter and provides a summary and discussion of the outcomes of the whole study. Implications and conclusions flowing from the analysis for understanding problems in recycling are discussed in this chapter. The discussion then focuses on practical ways towards improving practice, for example how these institutional changes might be encouraged through engineering practice, e.g. a focus on selves as purveyors of change (not by starting with the answer); the role of users in re-framing and stakeholder processes, governing and policy processes.

1.6 Delimitations of scope and key assumptions, and their justifications

The scope of the study is limited to investigating urban water recycling initiatives in existing residential areas in Australia.

The empirical work focuses on the potential for water recycling in developed residential areas, because this is the more challenging aspect of stakeholder engagement and there is a lack of in-depth research on governance, public participation and water recycling in this context. Many of the recent policy changes in relation to recycling, e.g. the NSW Department of Planning BASIX system for energy and water use reduction targets for proposed developments (DIPNR 2004a, p.23), do not address the 95% of existing properties in the Sydney region.

A national focus was delimited in response to the interest boundaries of the funding organisation, the Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment. However, two different states were chosen (NSW and QLD) in order to draw out any contrasts in handling change that may be due to organisational frameworks. The inquiry was centred on policy and planning stages of schemes (rather than, for example, delivery, construction or asset management), as these are considered critical periods when social choice processes come into play and pose opportunities for more permanent changes to the water cycle. This facilitated an examination of how agendas develop and, how options are selected and contested within the organisational and social context (recognising that these are continuing social processes).

- 20 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

‘Urban water recycling’ was defined in broad terms as the reuse of greywater, blackwater, effluent and industrial wastewaters for beneficial purposes. However, the range of empirical opportunities for studying the planning of these initiatives or schemes was limited by their availability. Most existing or proposed schemes involving recycling in or near metropolitan areas at the time of the study design involved large-scale centralised effluent recycling by public authorities.

1.7 Conclusion

The limitations of urban water systems in Australia and the challenges of dealing with water scarcity and wastewater pollution in view of sustainable water management challenges have been outlined in this introductory chapter. The way urban water recycling is seen as an untapped opportunity by many activists and professionals involved in water management has been noted and the dilemma of modest progress in implementing such practices highlighted. It has been proposed that the difficulties in achieving these goals depend on the governing of water and relate to the technically based institutional framework for governing water that tends to seek ‘acceptance’ of change from the public rather than engaging with stakeholder to address these challenges. The need to look at the way water recycling is framed and contested in the governing process by different stakeholders in the institutional context of management is highlighted and, if done, the view put that ways that social change could be encouraged to support the transition to sustainability more effectively could be identified.

- 21 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 22 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

2 Research issues

In Chapter 1, the problem of non-implementation of urban water recycling was identified as closely linked with the public organisation of water management functions. In this chapter, a cross-section of literature with relevance for the broad theme of how people organise to perform collective management of water is explored. The review is multi-disciplinary and extends beyond the traditional ‘engineering’ disciplinary boundary to explore how problems of public organisation are understood in other disciplines, with examination of theories of public policy- making and institutional change from the social sciences (areas that are much neglected in traditional engineering yet critical to engineering practice). The purpose of this approach is to examine concepts and ideas that may be useful in establishing a research agenda, in guiding the research questions and in carrying out the study.

2.1 Introduction

Controversies in urban water recycling in Australia, as discussed in Chapter 1, are often seen as a problem of obtaining public support for expert solutions with lack of acceptance considered to be due to public misinformation about risks and technology. The assumption commonly made is that if people were given better factual information, they would agree with these changes proposed in the name of sustainability. Yet these experiences draw attention to the different ways sustainability problems are ‘framed’ by people and groups in the institutional context of water management. This suggests that the way water is governed is an important element in the explanation of the outcomes of conflicts over sustainability initiatives.

The social sciences offer a range of frameworks for considering problems of public organisation i.e. the management of common affairs of communities. In seeking a more comprehensive explanation of the problems from the perspective of ‘public organisation’ of sustainable water use functions, it is appropriate to seek conceptual and theoretical directions from these fields. Initially, this review of research issues therefore considers how questions of ‘the public’, ‘organisation’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘water use’ are addressed in several streams of literature, including the established literature on urban water resources management, emerging sustainable water management literature and public participation studies (theoretical and empirical). Consideration is then given to various ways that the organisation of public functions

- 23 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling is conceptualised in the social sciences. The purpose of this review is to guide the direction of the research with a view to finding an analytic framework for the empirical work that will enable exploration of how different stakeholders negotiate meaning in relation to ‘sustainability’ in urban water recycling.

2.2 Collective organisation in urban water management and sustainability discourses

2.2.1 Established urban water management discourses

The organisation of urban water management functions in Australia has been addressed through a large range of literature. Most of this literature is concerned with activities for managing and using water in the rural context, rather than with sustainable or institutional aspects of urban water management. A small sub set of the literature does consider managing water in urban areas, mostly from a technical perspective, with engineering management, managing physical water systems and system components e.g. pipe design, water treatment etc (Munro 1974, Barnes et al. 1981, Korbitz 1981, WRC 1984) being of primary interest.

What little there is on the ‘public organisation’ of water in Australia tends to depict the ‘state’ as the main provider of services to water users. There is not much attention paid to the potential role of other players such as the general public (e.g. Hancock 1961 (1930), Butlin et al. 1982, Jaensch 1997). This model reflects a Weberian (ideal-type7) conception of public organisation, which in the context of this thesis, reflects authorised control of water resources. ‘The state’ (mainly focusing on statutory water authorities) is presented as having autonomy over the use and control of urban water resources in a relatively autonomous, coherent and hierarchical manner (Wilenski 1986, p.238-41, Wettenhall 1986, p.14). However, the state- centred model for governing water is presented as ‘given’ and the literature poses few questions about the role of other groups in urban water management (such as users, consumers, customers,

7 Max Weber considered the ‘ideal-type’ (not ideal in the sense of desirable, but as an abstract concept) bureaucracy as a distinct kind of organisation oriented toward goal achievement through rationalised co- ordination (with the characteristics of hierarchy, impersonality, rules, merit-based promotion, specialised division of labour and efficiency) (see Coser 1977).

- 24 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling citizens) or how this institutional framework evolved to support contemporary water management practice.

The literature on established water management patterns in Australia thus paints a picture of practice that is stable and instrumentally based, but offers few insights into the ways the practice developed and might still be adapting to accommodate changing goals. This does not suggest a suitable framework for analysis of the problems broadly identified in this study, which are concerned with changing institutional forms in light of emerging sustainability goals and the implications of a wider range of actors, including the public in governing water. This literature will be revisited in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4, where the transitions occurring in water management institutions are explored.

2.2.2 Sustainable urban water management discourses

It is critical that sustainability concepts be understood in the context of organisation of water functions. There has been much written on the links between water resources and sustainability over the last decade. The concept of sustainability as applied to water use has attracted much attention, and there has been debate about what this would actually mean. Nonetheless, sustainability in its broadest sense is concerned with securing long-term futures without harming the environment (Newman 2003, p.3).

Sustainable urban water management literature, as a subset of this wider dialogue is a reaction against the established discourses on water management that assumes urban water resources have unlimited capacity to satisfy human needs. The contrasting perspective is that the resource cannot indefinitely continue to supply clean water and function as an inexhaustible ‘sink’ for wastes. From the latter perspective, the problem is reversed; i.e. ‘what is the capacity of natural water systems to support human populations?’ The literature points to a broad shift in thinking reflecting an increasingly widespread concern for the well being of water environments to sustain human populations. There is also recognition of the negative effects of overuse and the resulting pollution of natural water systems.

There is increased interest in understanding these issues in the urban water management field with the application of the central idea of sustainability (balancing human and natural system needs) to the management of water systems in urban areas. A recent strand of literature developing in Europe concerned with sustainable consumption and the nature of the supplier–

- 25 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling consumer relationship has pushed this discussion of inter-connectivity between resource supply systems and patterns of consumption further forward. The sustainable urban water literature provides insights into the changing paradigms in water management and suggests controversial pathways for responding to the sustainability agenda. The technological developments are a significant part of the way forward, however, the issue of ‘collective organisation’ as a necessity to achieve the goal of sustainability - the topic for consideration in this thesis – is less well developed. The theme of sustainability and the controversial discussions of how it could be achieved in water management will be elaborated in greater detail in Chapter 4.

2.3 Public and stakeholder participation in water planning and management

2.3.1 Public participation as a general field of study

In recent years, interest in the role of the public and stakeholders in water management has grown considerably among practitioners and academics. This is partly a result of the trend within sustainable water management literature that recognises inclusiveness as an important activity in the journey towards ‘integrated water management’ and thus environmental sustainability. However, this field is very small, so this section of the review also considers aspects of the broader field of ‘public participation’ from which much of its inspiration is drawn. Only a small proportion of the broader literature in this field is reviewed because the key aim is to highlight specific issues for water management.

The general field of public participation is characterised by a rich experiential or practical knowledge and a small, rather disparate collection of theoretical literature (Webler 1999)8. However, the theoretical literature has been strengthened over recent years by input from other fields. The focus in much of the literature and practice of involving the public, is mainly on ‘what works’ – what methods can be applied to obtain certain outcomes. Less attention has been given to why certain approaches work or how it could work better (Webler 1999).

Many definitions of ‘public participation’ can be found in the literature. It is often used to refer to an interactive or two-way process between members of the public and representatives of

- 26 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling government, by which public concerns, needs and values are incorporated into government decision-making (Munro-Clark 1994, p.13, Creighton 2005). ‘Consultation’ is often thought of as subordinate to participation because it usually implies opinions are invited without a guarantee they will be considered in decision-making (Arnstein 1969). Consultation has also been described as ‘sharing of information but not necessarily of power’ (Sarkissian et al. 1997). Munro-Clark, however, describes public (or citizen) participation as an ambiguous term that tends to obfuscate the very real political content of the interactive process (Ibid. p.13).

Different terms such as ‘stakeholder’, ‘community’ and the ‘public’ have been used with a range of different meanings. ‘Community’ is often used to denote people who share a locality or some more abstract connection, but the term is sometimes used without much analysis of its meaning (Reddel 2002, Bryson and Mowbray 1981). Often the ‘public’ is thought of as ‘affected or interested citizens’ or ‘beneficiaries’ (persons or entities who receive benefits). In addition, the term ‘stakeholder’ has been incorporated from the business management field where it relates to a range of legitimate interests in an organisation (Mason and Mitroff 1981). In recent years, ‘stakeholder’ has been broadened to include everyone with an interest (or ‘stake’) in what an entity does. For the purposes of this thesis, the term ‘stakeholder’ will be used to denote more organised interests or groups, and includes the general public unless otherwise stated.

2.3.2 Theoretical developments in public participation

The theoretical literature on public participation is drawn from a wide range of sources including case studies, handbooks and surveys. Theory of public participation remains underdeveloped and scattered, being drawn from a range of different disciplines (Webler 1999). Much of the recent work focuses on discrete phenomenon which, although useful in a limited context, remains somewhat ungrounded in theory. There is little consensus with respect to the theory of public participation mainly because there is little consensus on what public participation is supposed to accomplish (Walters et al. 2000, Kane and Bishop 2002). Fiorino

8 Some of the general comments on the broader field of public participation in this discussion are drawn from Thomas Webler’s 1998 review of the field in The Craft and Theory of Public Participation: A Dialectical Process.

- 27 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(1990) for example, identified different kinds of goals for including the public in decision- making:

1. Normative – to advance the democratic rights of citizens in decision-making;

2. Functional – to improve the use of knowledge and expertise in the decision-making process;

3. Instrumental – to achieve goals or objectives of certain groups (Fiorino 1990).

Depending on the area in which public participation is being applied, and who is carrying it out, one or other of these goals is typically emphasised.

The vast proportion of the public participation literature is made up of case studies, which are useful for building up explanations from actual experiences since they have relevance beyond their immediate scope (eg Throgmorton 1991). Others have made systematic comparisons of several case studies to extract theoretical concepts as well as practical lessons for public participation (Webler and Tuler 1999, e.g. Peelle et al. 1996).

The development of conceptual frameworks for successful public participation from case studies, however, is hotly contested. The main question has been, ‘which goals and mechanisms are most effective?’, and, to answer this, many researchers have attempted to evaluate the efficacy of public participation. However, despite growing recognition of the importance of evaluative studies, there is no consistent or widely accepted method of evaluation (Webler 1999). Partly, this stems from the difficulty in defining what an ‘effective’ or ‘successful’ participatory exercise is. Dozens of evaluative frameworks, drawn from one or more case studies, have been proposed to measure the ‘success’ of public participation. Two main (overlapping) approaches to evaluation can be identified, and involve:

1. Developing procedural criteria (e.g. how well the public was represented, if there was early involvement, if face-to-face discussions occurred, if conflict was avoided, evidence of agency commitment to the process etc), or

2. Developing substantive criteria (e.g. degree to which particular interests were satisfied in achieving their goals, if agreement was reached, if objectives were implemented etc).

The most common means of evaluating public participation has been ‘interest based’ i.e. the degree to which the interests of one group or another has been advanced, usually the agency itself (Beierle 1998, Beierle and Konisky 2000). This approach has been widely criticised as the - 28 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling substantive goals are often assumed to be the ratification of agency decisions. There is little information on why the different methods and procedures of participation work, especially why they work in one place but not necessarily another.

Some note the likely importance of institutional and organisational contexts on how participation processes turn out, e.g. community cultures, existing relations between stakeholders, institutional capacity of agencies (Peelle et al. 1996, Beierle 1998, Webler 1999, Peltenburg et al. 2000). However, there has been little development of an explanatory framework of how these ‘external’ contexts shape participatory exercises. This is an area to which this thesis seeks to contribute.

Arnstein's landmark and controversial (1969) ladder of citizen participation, which offers a typology of participatory approaches, has been widely acclaimed and criticised9. The typology presents participatory processes in terms of the degree of power they re-distributed to groups presently excluded from political and economic processes. Despite its conceptual contribution to the participation field, this approach was criticised for its adversarial style and simplistic assumption of a clear distinction between decision-makers versus citizens (Carson 1996, p.4). However, this is understandable, since for many planners, including Forester (1989), the problem was that the power of experts in the planning process privileged expert values leading to the alienation of community groups (Forester 1989). Healey (1997) instead makes the case for collaborative planning based on ‘argumentative, communicative or interpretive’ approaches to participation in decision-making drawing on Habermas’ theory of communicative rationality (Healey 1997, p.29).

These approaches to public involvement are theory driven, but are also strengthened by comparison with case experience (Webler 1999). Fairness and competence10 meta-criteria were put forward by Renn (1995) (based on Habermas’ theory of communicative action) as essential ways of measuring the proper conduct of public participation processes (Renn et al. 1995).

9 Progressively, as higher rungs are reached on the ladder, power is increasingly ceded to citizens to determine the plan and/or program. 10 Fairness refers to the opportunity for all interested or affected parties to assume any legitimate role in the decision-making process. Competence refers to the ability of the process to reach the best decision possible given what was reasonably knowable under the present conditions (Webler and Tuler 2000).

- 29 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Webler & Tueler (2000), for example, refined this meta-criteria after applying them empirically to participatory processes in forest policy (Webler and Tuler 2000).

2.3.3 Public participation in water management (specifically water reuse and

recycling)

Public participation theory and practice has received little attention in mainstream water management literature. A commonplace concept used for linkages with the public seems to be ‘public consultation’11. Who the ‘public’ is has received relatively little consideration. In relation to water recycling planning, the concepts of ‘public acceptance’, ‘public education’ and ‘public perception’ seem to be used more often than ‘public participation’ or ‘public consultation (for example Olson 1979, Wegner-Gwidt 1998, Katz and Tennyson 1997, Gibson and Apostolidis 2001, Dillon 2000, and the reviews by van Riper and Geselbracht 1997, van Riper and Geselbracht 1998, 1999). The focus is mainly on public involvement as pragmatic means to encourage ‘acceptance’ of decisions by water authorities (Russell 2004, Sadler 1994). There has been little said about the way that participatory planning processes relate to the institutional context or conditions in which they proceed, which is an area this study seeks to explore.

2.3.4 Empirical research: Public participation / surveys in planning water recycling

The little available social research on public participation in water reuse and recycling focuses on end users (or potential users) attitudes or perceptions to municipal sewage effluent recycling (SWC 1996, 1999c, U.S. EPA 1992, p.173, and many others). The purpose of this research is often to measure how receptive a particular demographic is to using recycling water from a particular source or for a particular purpose, with the focus on eliciting psychological factors influencing acceptance (e.g. Po et al. 2004). Underlying most studies is the assumption that there are ‘real’ scientific risks and there are perceived risks12 and that problems in recycling proposals arise when ‘real’ risks are misunderstood. Some studies ask users to rate their

11 Implies that public comment is invited but decisions remain with water authorities (c.f. Arnstein’s ladder). 12 For example, the comment, ‘Perceived risks may be as important to deal with as the risks themselves and must be addressed’ (in Dimitriadis 2005, p.26).

- 30 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling willingness to eat produce grown with recycled water (U.S. EPA 1992, p.175). In some cases, the data is collected as baseline information for designing public education programs. Most are undertaken in relation to specific schemes by water authorities but others are conducted as input to broad policy strategies on future water use.

A well-known social researcher on this topic was William H. Bruvold, who carried out numerous surveys of public attitudes to reclaimed water in the United States from the 1970s. For the most part, these surveys describe public attitudes to using ‘reclaimed water’ (i.e. treated municipal effluent13), which is one of the more traditional forms of water recycling (Bruvold 1972, 1981, 1984c, a, b, 1992). Similar surveys of public attitudes to using recycled water were conducted in Australia in recent years (SWC 1996, 1999c, Marks et al. 2002).

Studies of public attitudes to water recycling in the United Kingdom and Australia found that most people are supportive of the concept as long as safety is assured (Jeffrey and Jefferson 2002, SWC 1996, p.5). Not withstanding the specific concerns relating to health, aesthetics and the cost of schemes based on sustainable services, communities are generally supportive of sustainable water use concepts, including recycling of water (Roseth 2003). Studies carried out in Australia and the United States found a large measure of public support for non-personal uses of recycled water. However, as the question shifts from abstract concept to actual (‘salient’) non-potable reuse proposals, support tends to decrease (Marks 2003).

A general finding is that recycled water becomes less attractive to people, as the use becomes more personal (Baumann 1983). Surveys conclude that a substantial number of people in any community (20-70%) are likely to be opposed to uses of recycled water that involve drinking, cooking, showering, washing clothes or other close personal contact uses (SWC 1996, 1999c, various studies cited in U.S. EPA 1992, p.167). Also, the potential indirect impacts of chemicals on food are the most commonly mentioned reason for opposing the use of recycled water in agriculture14 (SWC 1999c). The available social research suggests that people’s reluctance to support recycling increases as the degree of human contact with the recycled water increases (SWC 1999c, p.9, U.S. EPA 1992,p.166). Po et al (2004) suggest that acceptability

13 Though the sources of recycled water are not always clearly specified in some surveys, which refer to ‘purified water’, ‘repurified water’, ‘used water’ and several other terms (Marks 2004a). 14 A survey of Sydney residents by Sydney Water in 1999 indicated that about 60% of people were concerned about the indirect impact of recycled water on food if used in Agriculture (SWC 1999c). - 31 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling may also depend on the ‘use history’ of the water and people’s perceived degree of control over the quality of the recycled water they receive (Po et al. 2004, p.14). Bruvold (1984) found that those who believed there was a water supply shortage or who believed in the existence of technology to effectively treat wastewater for reuse were more supportive of use of reclaimed water for potable purposes (Bruvold 1984a).

A complex mix of socio-economic factors has been found to correlate with attitudes to using recycled water. One observation is that people with a higher level of (formal) education are more likely to be supportive of water recycling (SWC 1996, p.5-6, Bruvold 1984c). Bruvold (1984) concluded that an ‘individual’ (a composite of aggregated characteristics from nine separate United States based studies) would be more likely to be supportive if younger and more educated15. However, the evidence for a link between education, knowledge and understanding of the risk and attitude or behavior change is insubstantial. The review by Po et al. (2004) which also considers the available Australian studies, concludes that a complex mix of factors such as gender, age, income, demographics, prior awareness and contextual issues may be linked with people’s willingness to support water recycling (Po et al. 2004, p.18), however, the nature of the ‘contextual issues’ is not elaborated any further. The links between people’s level of knowledge, perceptions and their acceptance of recycled water is therefore currently seen as fairly complex and it is unlikely that many broad conclusions on these factors can be drawn from the small amount of research available (Marks 2004a, 2003).

The empirical research in this field seeks universal predictors of social or behavioural responses mainly through statistical survey instruments. This has a tendency to rule out broader questions (and research methods) that may bring other relevant insights. For example, there has been little engagement with the possibility of contingency of acceptance, as influenced by social context. How might "attitudes" be structured in the socio-institutional context? What of local circumstances and conditions (e.g. local debates, politics, plans, and histories)? How much of the research is specific to the United States and how much is relevant to Australian circumstances? After conducting several sociological studies in the area, Marks (2005)

15 Bruvold (1984) concludes an "…individual most likely to have a positive attitude toward reclaimed water for drinking would be well educated, hold a high level job, and earn a high salary. The person would be male, young, have lived only a short time at the present place of residence, and would know a good deal about reclaimed water…"

- 32 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling concluded that more support is needed to encourage a ‘social transformation’ of practice if water recycling is to occur (Marks 2005).

Only a small amount of work has been done on public involvement in planning decisions in relation to water recycling. Those sources mainly report a process where water agencies proposed several options/configurations to representative members of the public on which to make a judgement. Examples include Venice, Florida 1987 where public objections were sought on different water recycling configurations / proposals (U.S. EPA 1992, p.172-3), and the San Diego Clean Water Program (CWP) which sought ‘public sector ratification’ for recycling proposals (Bruvold 1987 in U.S. EPA 1992, p.174). Several cases where difficulties have arisen between government, expert and community groups over proposals to recycle water were reported in Australia (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, p. A10), but also attracted little analysis. Apart from these reports, there has been little analysis of the actual or potential role of the public in enabling sustainable water management (in the context of water recycling) in Australia, much of the thinking deriving from the U.S. studies.

Social research in this field is very marginal indicating that public involvement in (recycled) water management and planning processes is under conceptualised and under researched. A tendency is to present public involvement in planning and managing water reuse as a means of pushing difficult projects through or, if support is lacking, as a frustrating obstacle to particular plans. There has been little consideration of processes of social change that might be necessary to support the integration of other diverse participants into water recycling and reuse initiatives at the early stages of project development. Indeed, the role of different participants and their perspectives as a function of the institutional context of policy-making and planning has received almost no attention.

2.4 Social science explanations of social order and change

Social science offers general explanations of why people co-operate, for example, to carry out collective functions in water management. This section considers several perspectives that were helpful in developing key concepts for this study.

All theories seek to simplify a very complex world in which the ‘variables at work are almost infinite’ (Crespi 1989, p.130). It should thus be emphasised that these explanations are

- 33 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling models of the social world that make basic assumptions about the nature of human relationships. It is helpful to regard these explanations as constructs with which people have sought to describe, explain or even change the way society is governed (Parsons 1995, p.32). Note that it is possible to draw on more than one explanation at a time in analysing the way people organise to carry out collective activity.

The three classical explanations of social order are:

State (order achieved by authority, changed by authorised decision)

Market (interested exchange, change in demand, supply or preferences) (and state underpinning through rules of exchange, intervention when market ’fails’)

Community (achieved by shared norms, changed by changing values) (adapted from Colebatch and Larmour 1993, pp.16-27).

The people whose activities are being studied make sense of what is going on, justify their actions or mobilise others using these models (Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.8, Imperial and Yandle 2005b). Therefore, self-reflective social processes such as these influence the outcomes of social interaction.

All three models of social organisation see government as a particular form of imposed order. They therefore do not effectively explain the interactive and negotiative element in governing. Approaches that were more useful for understanding the research problem were those that talked of the interactive and negotiative element in governing. Therefore, other analytic approaches that have been developed for this purpose are discussed here, which have a particular focus on the horizontal dimension, including:

policy communities

governance

interpretive analysis

Institutional analysis addresses social organisation in general rather than governing specifically, but it was highly relevant to the discussion of change because it locates organisational forms within the relevant context of discourse and norms. These approaches are discussed below as a starting point for investigating social organisation in the case of urban water recycling.

- 34 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

2.4.1 Market

A major stream of thought explains social order in terms of markets, e.g. economic or ‘utilitarian’ approaches. Popular since the post-war period, market explanations tend to regard social order as flowing from relations between self-interested individuals who competitively pursue their interests. Society is presented as a kind of market place containing many individuals with their own preferences and capacity for action. Exchanges take place in the market place between people who want to buy or sell things for an agreed price. The model says that the best result for society is that everyone pursues their own interests since a person’s own interests often coincides with that of society (Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.168).

In some cases, the State is seen as an entity underpinning this social order by providing the ‘rules’ of exchange. Although individual self-interest is seen as an effective force for maintaining the social order most of the time, the state may intervene when the market ‘fails’. Thus change in the social order is seen as flowing from a change in supply, demand or in the rules of exchange.

Human preferences are seen as relatively unambiguous, consistent and to a large extent to precede a social choice (March and Olsen 1989, p.6). In other words, people know what they want before they are faced with a decision. This view is based on the tendency to assume individuals are the best judges of their own interests (Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.19) and will choose preferences optimally from among a range of opportunities available to them (J. Bentham in DeLeon 1997, p.47).

Much of the criticism directed at market models for explaining social order have been concerned with the lack of regard for the complexities of human interaction and motivation, and the related weaknesses in explaining the existence of the State.

2.4.2 Bureaucracy

These approaches conceive of social order as resulting from ‘state-centred’ activities i.e. the imposition of requirements by a legitimate higher authority (Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.20). The main type of organisation governing peoples’ choices through the hierarchical application of rules could be called a bureaucracy (ibid.).

- 35 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

State-centred explanations of collective behaviour were developed by organisational theorists early last century who tried to explain how societies organise to carry out complex tasks. This was happening in the context of increasingly complex and hierarchically structured organisational forms emerging in capitalist industrial societies for performing social functions e.g. provision of essential services such as health care, education, water supply, rubbish collection etc (DeLeon 1997, p.58). The approach draws on the ideas of Max Weber (1968/1921, p.223) who said:

"From a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings.” (Weber 1968/1921)

Those drawing on Weber’s ideal tend to present the State as a coherent, goal-oriented source of authority, which defines and implements public services efficiently on behalf of the public16. The main features of an ideal bureaucratic organisation are that organisation:

is a coherent whole,

is made up of impartial and obedient staff who share similar values and norms,

has full information about a problem or decision, and

is adequately resourced for the job (in Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.21).

Much of the literature drawing on State-centred theories of collective action explain social change as resulting from decisions by governments based on policies defined using ‘rational’ techniques, processes and information (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, p.36). Policy becomes "anything a government chooses to do or not to do" (Dye 1972:2 in Parsons 1995, p.xv). Government decision-making tends to be presented as a relatively logical and sequential process (e.g. in terms of policy cycles in Stokey and Zeckhauser 1978). A major criticism of this explanation of policy change, however, has been that it is unrealistic and lacks capacity to explain causation (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, p.14).

16 ‘Authorised choice’, ‘public choice’ or ‘rational choice’ theories are some of the more common labels given to this stream (in Howlett and Ramesh 2003, p.20). Liberal rational and welfare-economics are descriptions given by DeLeon (1997, p.77) and Bobrow & Dryzek (1987, p.32) for approaches drawing on authorised choice notions.

- 36 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Market and bureaucracy explanations have a tendency to assume that social change is achieved through “choice”, such that social actors choose what is to happen. These models see changes to institutional design or public policy emerging as a result of social actors making new choices (Krasner 1988). In market theories, the key social actor is the self-interested individual who chooses the optimal outcome from a range of alternatives17. State-centred approaches assume the key social actor is representative government, which makes authorised decisions on behalf of citizens.

Although State-centred explanations of how societies organise have been influential, the idea that policy outcomes are a result of decisions made by the State (i.e. public authority) became increasingly controversial through the 1970s and 1980s. State-centred approaches emphasised the ‘vertical’ dimension of government as the primary arena for action, but said little about the role of other actors in governing processes (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, p.12). This interpretation of the way government functions was often incompatible with people’s experiences of public administration and policy processes. Increasing recognition of the complexities of governing (i.e. the negotiative and interactive elements) and empirical studies of intentional change in the 1970s highlighted major disparities between authorised government intentions and outcomes (e.g. Pressman and Wildavsky 1973). This undermined assumptions in the theories that policy change was simply implemented by ‘responsive politicians and compliant bureaucrats’ (Atkinson and Coleman 1992) and instead suggested that policy outcomes depended on the various understandings, values and expectations of a large number of actors inside and outside government18.

2.4.3 Community

Another classic basis for explaining social order is that people develop affiliations with a group and act together since it is “appropriate” as a member of a particular group to do so. The source of collective action is not (or not only) self-interest or a rule, but derives from an affiliation to the group’s accepted norms and values (Atkinson and Coleman 1992, Colebatch

17 See for example Mancur Olson’s [(1965) 1971] work The Logic of Collective Action, in which he theorises that individuals will only join a group and participate in organised collective action if the benefits of doing so are exclusive to the members of the group (Olson [1965] 1971).

- 37 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling and Larmour 1993, p.21). This form of organisation could be called a ‘community’. Traditionally, the idea was that communities developed shared values and norms through frequent interaction among people who are in close proximity (ibid.) e.g. local groups. But there are many other bases for group affiliation such as a shared understanding, experiences or training which can define ‘communities’, e.g. professional affiliation, social movements and common interest groups.

Many have taken up this theme in explaining why people co-operate, i.e. social order. For example, Michael Taylor identifies ‘communities’ as group activities based on:

shared values, norms or beliefs

direct, many sided relationships

reciprocity

social sanctioning19 (e.g. public shaming) (Taylor 1976, Taylor 1976, p.133 in Colebatch and Larmour 1993).

The idea of social norms also emerges in the work of social economists in relation to group behavior. Woolcock (1998), for example, speaks of social capital as a broad term “encompassing the norms and networks facilitating collective action for mutual benefit,” (Woolcock 1998, p.155).

2.4.4 ‘Governance’

Over time, the tasks of government have increasingly been viewed as an activity involving many other actors than the term ‘government’ implied. This has had implications for theoretical understanding of public organisation and policy change. The terms themselves became problematic – e.g. ‘government’ – because empirical work showed that it was difficult to specify the precise ‘point’ at which a decision was made.

There was concern that government was not necessarily a coherent entity because there were different parts to it and public functions were accomplished through negotiation with a

18 For example, Lipsky (1980) identified the critical role of ‘street level bureaucrats’ in policy making (in Lipsky 1980, p.3) 19 ‘Moral suasion’ has become a well-known term to denote the informal social control mechanisms that may be employed to discourage certain social behaviors (Ostrom et al. 2002, p.124, Ostrom 1990).

- 38 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling range of different actors with contrasting goals and interests (Peters and Pierre 1998). How the variety of other groups and actors influenced the formulation of ‘problems’ in the system of governance gained increasing scrutiny (e.g. Stone 1997). This signalled a general flourishing in the 1990s of concepts that described the idea that public functions were accomplished through complex governing processes and structures – increasingly referred to as ‘governance’ rather than ‘government’ (Kooiman 1993, Rhodes 1996, p.659, Peters and Pierre 1998, Reddel 2002, Hill and Hupe 2002, p.111, Bressers and Kuks 2003). There was less concern for a central point of decision-making, and more for diffuse centres of influence in the formulation of policy problems and outcomes20.

The traditional focus on the verticality of government decision-making was increasingly challenged by recognition of what Colebatch describes as the horizontal dimension of social organisation (Colebatch 1997). There were varying conceptions of what this meant. As Peters summarizes, the following general trends underscored the changes in the way people understood the process of governing as implied in the concept of ‘governance’:

increasing importance of networks of actors,

government role from ‘control’ to influence,

blending of public and private resources, and

the use of multiple instruments in policy (Peters and Pierre 1998).

This new interest in the idea of a system of ‘governance’ as important in shaping problems and outcomes linked back into several theoretical streams that had attempted to conceptualise both horizontal and vertical dimensions of collective action.

2.4.4.1 Policy communities and networks

This horizontal dimension of organisational or policy analysis, as reflected in the concept of ‘governance’, made its appearance in several theoretical streams, gaining popularity in the

20 There is a range of views on what ‘governance’ means. Some question the extent to which it signals an actual shift in the complexity of the governing structure or a change in our theoretical perspective of it or both (Colebatch 2002).

- 39 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

1990s21 (Powell 1990). Some of the main conceptual developments could be described as structured interaction theories because they attempt to explain policy change in terms of a ‘negotiated order’ among groups of social actors (e.g. Richardson and Jordan 1979). Change is broadly seen in these theories as driven by coalition building activities, conflicts between the groups or changes in belief systems. This extends the analysis of collective organisation beyond the confines of state-centred and market approaches by providing the potential for “self- organizing networks,” (Ostrom 1990, Rhodes 1996). Drawing on a series of empirical studies, this idea was articulated by Elinor Ostrom who observed that individuals may co-ordinate their use of common-pool resources through stable self-governing regimes (Ostrom 1990, Marinetto 2003).

There have been many attempts to describe the kinds of policy-relevant ‘groups’22 one finds in a governance system. Concepts such as the ‘policy community’ was proposed by Richardson and Jordan (1979) to identify the relatively well-defined range of people and organisations who could reasonably expect to be consulted about a policy issue (Richardson and Jordan 1979, p.44, 74). Another term in use is the ‘issue network’ coined by Heclo (1978) in the sense of a policy-making process that is fragmented and populated by a wide range but unpredictable set of participants (Heclo and Wildavsky 1974, p.xv). In contrast to the flexibility of this definition, Rhodes (1992) conceived of the ‘policy community’ as more of a permanent, integrated and hierarchical set of actors who share basic values in relation to a policy issue (Marsh and Rhodes 1992). Drawing on this approach, Kickert discusses ‘network governance’ in the context of the Dutch public sector, which illustrates a 'structured' kind of interaction between organised bodies (Kickert 1997, Kickert et al. 1997). Despite terminological difficulties, the approaches tended to emphasise the interaction of actors and the way they negotiated their interests. Policy outcomes or changes within the policy system in terms of allocations of resources or reforming coalitions were seen as dependent on the way problems were framed and addressed in the governance system.

21 This work in some ways draws theoretical inspiration from ‘pluralist’ notions about the primacy of groups in the political process from around the 1950s and earlier (Howlett and Ramesh 2003). 22 Conceptualising the nature of these concepts proved highly controversial (Atkinson and Coleman 1992).

- 40 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

This approach relates somewhat closely to elements of a framework of negotiated interaction formulated by Sabatier et al in the 1980s in which a ‘policy subsystem’ was presented as a useful unit of analysis in the determination of policy outcomes (Sabatier 1986, 1988, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). The ‘policy sub-system’ contained groups of actors who shared common beliefs and on the basis of these, tended to form 'advocacy coalitions' to advance their goals in competition with other groups in the system (Sabatier 1986, p.39). Changes within the policy sub-system are understood to derive from the different capacities for action of the groups (resources), changes in either their ‘core’ or ‘policy’ values (which are respectively harder and easier to change) and conditions and events external to the policy sub- system. The system was driven by more or less stable or unstable pressures conceived as being external to the policy sub-system e.g. natural resources, socio-cultural values (stable), changes in policy or the governing coalition (unstable). Members could be from various public and private organisations e.g. politicians, bureaucrats, community members, private groups, researchers and representatives of the media. Governments are usually considered as one of the actors with varying influence or, as in the case of Sabatier’s model, a kind of arbitrator between the different coalitions.

The idea that policy change depends on a negotiated interaction of various actors in a structure or system is an important one for this study because it accounts for many players in the system of water governance including ‘the state’. The emphases as presented in this and similar models, helps conceive of policy change in terms of the complexity and uncertainty of group dynamics within a system of governance in relation to a particular problem or issue – an improvement on the state or market theories reviewed above. Approaches similar to these have been adopted as a basis for water governance studies on behalf of the European Commission (Bressers and Kuks 2002). These ideas have relevance for this study, which needs some way to account for change in relation to increasingly complex organisational environments in water management.

However, they do not come without critique. Despite general agreement on the meaning of some key elements of analysis which need consideration in any system of governance (i.e. the network - the nature of the 'linking process' within a community (Atkinson and Coleman 1992)), there is less agreement about the nature and role of those elements (Marsh and Smith 2000). There have been several recent attempts at strengthening and clarifying these concepts to

- 41 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling generate cohesive frameworks for analysis (see Marsh and Smith 2000, 2001), but the theoretical and empirical basis supporting the approaches remain relatively weak. Of particular controversy has been the existence of any causal relationships between ‘networks’ and policy outcomes (Imperial 1999, p.453).

These drawbacks make the approach less appropriate for the current study. A general problem pointed out by Atkinson (1992) is the lack of clarity about what relation the sub-system has with macro political institutions that influence change (Atkinson and Coleman 1992). For example, with respect to Sabatier’s approach, it is not clear how ‘external events’ and ‘stable system parameters’ of the model are recognised and incorporated into the policy sub-system – are they internalised by participants? This particular dilemma arises because of an assumption according to DeLeon (1997) that the social actor is primarily rational: that actors are best placed to define their objectives based on their beliefs (‘core’ values and ‘policy core’ values are distinguished) though little is said about how they come to hold these beliefs. How or why beliefs change as negotiation proceeds in a political process also remains unclear. DeLeon suggests that these variables of change are not such a good predictor of which coalitions will arise, because it is not clear when or how people’s values cross from ‘core’ values over to ‘policy core’ values (DeLeon 1997, p.77).

Another issue applicable to some approaches in this stream is the extent to which historical paths determine present choices. The processes of negotiation have an uneasy relationship with the governance structures (often seen as ‘exogenous’ factors). How are collective actions structured? The subsystem is presented as ‘given’, however, the institutional structures in which these changes take place had to come from somewhere. It is thus apparent that the approaches are not particularly effective at explaining historical change processes, which is of particular importance for this study. With these issues unresolved, it would appear that a more sophisticated analysis of theoretical developments is needed in search of explanations of social change, which somewhat complement or enrich the concepts of 'governance’, with a view to finding an appropriate analytical framework for this study.

- 42 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

2.4.4.2 Communication approaches

The role of discourse in policy change processes has attracted recent interest as a concept and analytic approach for studying social interaction and decision-making. Described here broadly as ‘communication’ approaches, these have variously been termed ‘interpretive’ (Yanow 1998), ‘narrative’ (Roe 1994) or ‘discursive’ (Fischer 2003) analytic approaches in the literature. ‘Discourse’ is increasingly understood as something said or done in a particular social context that represents or reinforces a knowledge base and organisational power arrangement (Foucault 1986). Recent interest in discursive approaches for analysing policy change (the ‘argumentative turn’) suggests a focus on the way various participants create the world through interactive discursive negotiations (Fischer and Forester 1993, Hajer 1993, Majone 1989).

Reminiscent of the idea of a community, a ‘discourse coalition’ is an analytic concept proposed by Hajer (1995) to conceptualise a group of actors who share a social construct, i.e. those who share a collection of ideas, language and concepts through which shared meaning and purpose is developed (Hajer 1995). The analytic focus on ‘discourse’ and ‘discourse coalitions’ has been applied in several cases to understand the development and outcomes of technology and/or environmental policy controversies (e.g. Dryzek 1997, Throgmorton 1991, Wynne 1996, Jelsma 2001). More recently, collective action frames have been used to analyse policy change processes in their institutional context (Morrill and Owen-Smith 2002). ‘Discourse’ analysis has been used to understand how individuals and/or groups interactively construct and ‘frame’ problems in the processes of governing and how they negotiate solutions or influence outcomes. These processes have variously been described as ‘policy framing processes’ or ‘collective action framing’ (Morrill and Owen-Smith 2002).

‘Collective action frames’ – the latter term - entered the policy sciences in the 1970s and 1980s through the work of Rein & Schon, Dryzek and Fischer (see for example Rein and Schon 1994, Dryzek 1997, Fischer 2003). ‘Frames’ (with the metaphoric origins of a picture of a scene) are similar to a ‘paradigm’, ‘lens’ or ‘filter’ through which an issue is viewed and develops among groups or communities through association or interaction. As Yanow notes, a ‘frame’ directs attention to some elements of a problem while diverting attention from others and thus entails certain problem definitions and courses of action (Yanow 1998, p.11). Problem

- 43 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling statements are thus contending interpretations of policy issues made by different communities of meaning (Ibid.).

‘Frames’ has been used to describe the way different people or groups interpret problems and respond with solutions in policy debates, calling attention to the links between cognitive aspects (shared categories, similar acts, language), normative judgements (shared values, group norms or customs) and social positions (supported through organisation). Founded on a perspective that there can be multiple interpretations of problems, the approach sees policy as the outcome of discursive negotiations between different policy participants, and recognises the power of discourse to construct as well as interpret reality (Foucault 1986)23.

This relates to the concept of an ‘interpretive community’ which is a non-place specific group that develops shared meaning in relation to particular phenomena through association (Yanow 1998). Group framing concepts derive from the ‘social construction’ perspective that assumes multiple realities are possible in making sense of events (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Knowledge is considered to be not just ‘factual’ information, but communicated and acquired through interpretation and subjective processes within a broader context of social action.

The contrast with the ‘network’ approaches just discussed is that the ‘forces for change’ are not seen as external to the actors. Rather they are internalised as understandings and arguments (cognitive systems) and expressed through action. This analytic approach can be seen as a ‘bridge’ between structured interaction and institutional theories.

2.4.5 New institutional theory

Institutional theorists are interested in how institutions come into being and how they change. Therefore, institutional theory has relevance if we are considering how ideas like ‘sustainability’ could become part of the social fabric. A revival of interest in ‘institutions’ as explanations for the development of social order and change grew from dissatisfaction with explanations offered by market approaches that were considered too simplistic and empirically

23 Recent work on collaborative planning mechanisms, drawing on a model of ‘communicative action’ theorised by Habermas, have proposed ‘free speech’ forums for discursive negotiation (Webler and Tuler 2000)

- 44 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling weak24 (Keman 1997, p.11). A distinguishing feature of institutionalist approaches25 is the proposition that social institutions matter to the way that social life is constituted (Jessop 2001, Goodin 1996, p.3, March and Olsen 1989, p.1). Social institutions are cast as habitual patterns of behavior associated with relatively enduring systems of social meaning and beliefs (Scott 1987).

A central theme is the way that historical patterns of institutional development come to shape social institutions in the present and future (Goodin 1996, p.4). Though individuals may come and go, an institution endures. However, there needs to be a distinction made between organisations and institutions. Organisations are distinct entities but, as Selznick commented, institutions are the values, ideas and practices that diffuse across a range of different groups, organisations or societies (Selznick 1957). Adopting Scott’s definition, we can define ‘institutions’ as any long-term, stable patterns of formal or informal interaction between social actors26 (Scott 1995). This draws attention to the way various groups and organisations interact with each other and evolve within their socio-cultural environments.

Individuals experience the shared systems of values and conceptions of an institution as an ‘external reality’ though they are socially constructed. Therefore ‘institutional structures’ include the patterns of beliefs, ideas or values associated with an organisational system. These systems are passed on to other members through cultures and routines (Scott 1995, p.52). Thus in the institutional literature there is a sense that ‘path dependence’ is important in explaining the long-term stability of social structures (Krasner 1988). However, this social order is seen more as a result of shared conceptions of social reality and common values, than driven by self- interest as in market explanations of society.

New institutional sociological theory draws on the view that reality is socially constructed. The social order is based on shared conceptions of social reality, which are human constructions, being created in social interaction (Scott 1987, Ostrom 1980). This principle

24 The concern grew out of findings from many empirical studies of organisations and their environments from the 1970s, which showed that viewing them as rationally designed systems was highly problematic (Scott and Meyer 1983, p.159, Meyer and Rowan 1977). 25 This short overview mainly draws on new institutional sociological theories. 26 For the purposes of this thesis, social actors can include individuals, groups, or indeed, recognisable organisations.

- 45 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling owes much to the work of sociologists Berger & Luckmann (1966) who theorised the nature and origin of the collective order27. The concept has particular relevance in understanding the process of institutionalisation in which actions become repeated over time and are assigned similar meaning by oneself and others becoming an accepted part of a person’s ‘external’ social reality (Berger and Luckmann 1966).

What is important for the current study is that new institutional theory is centrally concerned with processes of institutional change. The theory seeks to explain how collective action is enabled by institutional structures, but also how collective action is constrained within them. This theme of the process of change is of central interest for understanding how institutions might evolve to support an idea like ‘sustainable water management’. New institutionalists can be distinguished from ‘old’ institutionalists who apparently put more emphasis on the stability of formal social structures such as the administrative-legal system, bureaucracy, political system etc, but had trouble explaining institutional origins or how institutional change occurs (Scott 1995, p.6). ‘New’ institutionalists on the other hand tend to present institutional structures not only as the rule systems, but the meaning and normative systems that support the organising (Scott 1983). Thus institutional change is associated with the deployment of alternative systems of meaning that challenge or modify established patterns of practice (Berger 1966, p.80), but how social values and ideas become institutionalised over time is not terribly precise.

Though there may be groups or powerful individuals taking the opportunity to realise interests they value (‘institutional entrepreneurs’) (DiMaggio & Powell 1988, p.14 in Scott 1995, p.72), institutional theorists take the general view that broad social change is not reducible to the actions of one specific actor or individual.

The existing social systems provide a set of pre-dispositions which tell the social actor how best to ‘play the game’, but they are not understood as deterministic of social behavior (Pierre Bourdieu 1977 & 1993 in Trommel 1997, p.49). The social actor has the capacity to challenge the existing interactive order and modify the institution through everyday activities (or can re-affirm the institutional structure). Institutional change is thus seen in terms of an on-

27 Social construction principles can be traced back to many other social theorists, e.g. Husserl, the German idealists (late 19th centrury), and phenomenologists (early 20th century) (see Yanow 1998, p.6).

- 46 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling going process of feedback and adjustment between social actors and social structures (Giddens 1984).

New institutional theory challenges the notion put forward in previously reviewed theories that the social actor primarily makes decisions based on self-interest or that policy outcomes are a result of bargaining among collective interests. They reject the notion that preferences are preconceived and argue that preferences are determined in the course of social interaction (March and Olsen 1989, p.66). Without precluding the role of interests, they emphasise how meanings are negotiated, diffused and associated with certain habitualised actions in institutional systems.

2.4.5.1 Scott’s approach

Scott (1995) is one of the leading proponents of new institutional theory. He advanced a useful explanation of institutions that incorporates these different ideas. Drawing on the analyses of various new institutional theorists, he proposes three explanatory variables as interrelated propositions: cognitive, normative and regulative elements (Scott 1995, p.33). Each variable – or pillar - is brought in to explain the way social institutions persist or change. The systems overlap and are closely inter-related, providing stability and meaning to social behavior. The following description of the three pillars is based on Scott’s framework (drawing on other ‘new institutionalists’ such as Meyer & Rowan 1977, 1983; March & Olsen 1984, 1989; DiMaggio, 1997; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 1991). Institutions can be explained in terms of their:

Cognitive elements: (or meaning systems) (Scott, 1983) refers to the shared conceptions of how society works that guide practice e.g. shared beliefs, categorisations, rationales or logic. It includes the shared knowledge frameworks that are considered legitimate for shaping problems and actions. From this flows prescriptions for action and the purpose of the members of the institution because they help to define what they regard as their interests, preferences or choices in a situation. Social actors make sense of the world through attributing meaning to phenomena, but this is seen as a dynamic ongoing process. “Meanings arise in interaction and are maintained – and transformed – as they are employed to make sense of the ongoing stream of happenings” (Scott 1995, p.40). Collective goals can be relatively uncontroversial or there can be deep-seated

- 47 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling controversies as to the nature of the mission (Scott 1983). Competing interpretations can seek to characterise a problem and define actions to address it (i.e. various ‘interpretive communities’, Yanow 1998 or ‘frames’). The main institutional carriers of cognitive systems are the social identities of classes of actors (e.g. engineers) such that they are endowed with certain properties and capacities for action (performances, scripts) and through organisational cultures (‘the way we do things’). Cultures are codified patterns of shared meaning experienced as external reality by members and often expressed as widely held beliefs, perceptions or taken for granted assumptions (DiMaggio 1997) e.g. technically defined procedures. The emphasis on shared meaning systems is one of the key differences between old institutional approaches and ‘new’ institutional approaches, particularly as conceptualised by Scott. It draws on the work of social constructionists such as Berger & Luckmann (1967) who argue people act according to the meaning that things have for them (in Yanow 1998).

Normative elements: refers to both the values shared by members of the institution (conceptions of the desired state of affairs) and norms (judgements about the legitimate means to pursue the valued ends) shared by members of the institution. What members value (‘how things should be’) helps shape the shared purpose of the members. Normative elements could include standards against which current practice is compared or preferred goals (e.g. making a profit). Normative systems can be shared by all in the field or organisationally and group based. The emphasis is on the roles or positions of selected actors, such as specific values and norms that are “conceptions of appropriate action for particular individuals or specified social positions”. (Scott 1995, p.38). These are expressed as expectations of what an actor should do in a situation as held by other actors (‘what is appropriate for me to do as an engineer?’). Normative aspects describe the various rights and relationships between these classes of social actors as well.

Regulative elements: refer to the way practice is organised to pursue these shared values via legitimate means (normative), and supported by shared meanings (cognitive) (after Brown 2003, p.31) This includes rules, laws and their sanctioning or enforcement processes, which guide and constrain social behaviour. Coercion in this pillar is the driver of compliance and social order. Social structures propagate regulative systems in the form of networks of social actors and power structures that define what actors must do (i.e. governance system). Correct procedures are specified with clear sanctions for non-compliance (Hirsch 1997, p.1710). Regulative

- 48 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling activities can involve the capacity for making rules, monitoring conformity to them and either sanctioning for not doing so or giving rewards for doing so. People comply with rules because the system may punish them if they don’t and thus it is in their interests to do so (it is expedient). Institutionalists are also concerned with informal social structures and sanctions, such as shaming or shunning activities that may arise in response to social transgressions (Scott 1995). For example, the term ‘moral-suasion’ (i.e. moral persuasion) as just such a mechanism of compliance among community groups (Ostrom et al. 2002, p.124).

Institutional Description Social carriers and logic pillars

Shared interpretations, meaning systems Carried in identities and or understandings; giving rise to shared organisational cultures; using a Cognitive purpose logic of conventionality (knowledge Knowledge, ideas, categories and and discourse) typologies (‘frames’) considered legitimate to shape problem definitions and solutions Shared conceptions of the preferred or Carried by regimes and systems Normative desirable state of affairs (values of authority; using a logic of supporting practice) appropriateness (values and Expectations of appropriate means of norms) pursuing one’s values (norms underpinning practice) How practice is organised; ‘rules of the Carried by governance structures, Regulative game’ and their enforcement through laws systems of power, protocols, and sanctions standards and procedures; using a logic of instrumentality (organising) Formal and informal social sanctions and restraints

Table 2.1 Scott’s framework for understanding institutions (drawn from Scott 1983, 1995, p.33-52) These variables can operate at different levels or in different spheres of society (e.g. “industry system” Hirsch 1972; “societal sector” Scott & Meyer 1982). Scott suggests that the inter-organisational field, societal system and world system contexts are important levels commonly used as boundaries for analysis (Scott 1983, 1995, p.56). While the world context is expected to be of less immediate relevance as a variable in this study28, the societal and organisational field contexts are expected to be the significant arenas in which social actors negotiate and frame issues. Although a debated concept, a “field” suggests “the existence of a community of organisations that partakes of a common meaning system and whose participants

28 The ‘world system’ context is thus shown in grey in Figure 2.1.

- 49 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside of the field.” (Scott 1994 pp. 207-8 in Scott 1995, p.56). This reflects similar variations in defining the extent of a ‘policy community’, ‘issue network’ or ‘sub-system’ (see Section 2.4.4.1 'Policy communities and networks’), and there is no clear agreement about the boundaries applying to these concepts. Nonetheless, it has implications for the analysis of institutional context of action in this thesis (discussed below).

World context

Societal context

Organisational field context Participants, groups and/or organisations Regulative, normative & cognitive systems

Figure 2.1 Levels of institutional analysis (based on Scott 1983, p.161-4, 1995, p.55-56)

2.4.6 Justifying the use of institutional theory and governance concepts in this study

Despite some gaps in the institutional approach, it is considered the most appropriate one for underpinning the research agenda for this study. The framework standardised by Scott offers three important variables (cognitive, normative and regulative systems) operating at different levels and which change over time. This will provide sufficient direction for carrying out a study of change in the system of water governance, focussing on experiences with social organising to recycle water. This broad approach will be supplemented with reference to governance literature, which seeks to understand outcomes in terms of the power structure and thus differences in power among various ‘players’ at various levels in the system.

Institutions and governance are two broad concepts that address the main research issue: how the system of water governance works and how it could be changed to support sustainable water use. Theories of governance emphasise the influence of various stakeholders and the public in ‘framing’ problems and participating in the action which shape and are shaped by the

- 50 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling structures of water governance , recognising that interaction can be structured in terms of both ‘horizontal’ (negotiative) and ‘vertical’ (authoritative) dimensions of the system of governance.

The institutional theory offers a framework for explaining the driving forces behind the development of social systems and how they change based on several explanatory variables: cognitive, normative and regulative aspects of institutional change. Although there is overlap between these and other approaches, they are considered an appropriate theoretical and practical base from which to extend understanding of how and why problems and solutions are ‘framed’ in the water-recycling debate and the relationship with practice.

2.5 Adapting governance and institutional concepts for the case of urban water recycling

2.5.1 Adopting an institutionalist approach in this study

The aim of the research is to extend understanding of social organisation and participant framing processes in urban water recycling practice and, in doing so, to explore ways sustainable water management practices might be encouraged. A governance / institutionalist approach will be adopted as the basic framework with which to undertake this study. This proposes a perspective of the difficulties in adopting sustainable water uses, such as water recycling, that recognises that governing is not just about determining and pursuing pre- determined preferences. Rather, it involves the interaction of diverse groups of stakeholders drawing on different values and knowledge bases (Scott 1995, Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.108-116) (see Figure 2.2). The presence of multiple stakeholders emphasises that outcomes are a result of the process of ‘governing’ – which means the recognition that various groups and organisations are involved in water use and management (e.g. government, businesses (corporatised / contracted), non-government organisations, environmental groups and communities). This is important to the current study as it seeks to understand how people organise around collective problems such as sustainable water use and how sustainability can become part of normal social practice. Taking this perspective signifies a practical and theoretical shift away from the idea of purely authoritative ‘government’ based decision- making.

- 51 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

‘Institutions’ are any long-term, stable patterns of social interaction – including formal and informal interaction (i.e. cultures, norms and organised action) (Scott 1995). Governance is about networks of people interacting in relation to a policy issue. This last idea focuses attention on who participates, how the problem is framed and what resources are brought forward to address it (Rhodes 1996). This broad concept takes into account a range of different participants who influence water planning and management outcomes, including the public. In this thesis, it is assumed that an institutional perspective characterises three interdependent pillars of institutions – cognitive, normative and regulative – to help explain complex social behaviour and how social actors are socially structured (Scott 1995) (see Figure 2.2). If we want to analyse how the institutional field of water management is supporting sustainable water use patterns we would have to pay close attention to these systems.

Analytic construct 1: Scott’s interactive regulative, normative and cognitive explanatory elements in an analysis of how social institutions support water cycle approaches in practice (applied in Chapters 3 & 4).

Organisation Interpretation (Regulative) (Cognitive)

Values (Normative)

Figure 2.2 Three interactive pillars of social institutions (drawn from Scott 1995, p.33-52, in Colebatch and Larmour 2002, p.93)

2.5.2 Governance and multiple institutionalisations of practice

Social groups draw on the systems or pillars described above differently in relation to policy problems and their actions are constrained but also enabled by the existing social structures (Giddens 1984). Therefore there may be alternative ‘institutionalisations’ brought forward by different stakeholders, which draw on different ‘problem frames’ – i.e. knowledge, values and expectations - to make sense of a particular issue. This is especially relevant to the

- 52 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling case of water recycling where for example, various stakeholder groups can be involved. This recognises that ‘problem frames’ (interpretation and values) are closely related to the organisational dimension. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind how different levels (e.g. administrative) as well as different actors that make up the organisational dimension affect the way sustainability problems are shaped in the action (Bressers & Rosenbaum 2003; Bressers & Kuks 2003).

‘Frames’ (with the metaphoric origins of a picture of a scene) refers to similar acts or language brought to bear on a policy issue. A ‘frame’ directs attention to some elements of a problem while simultaneously diverting attention from others (Yanow 1998, p.11). Problem statements are thus contending interpretations of policy issues made by different communities of meaning (Yanow 1998). ‘Frames’ give rise to different discourses (i.e. language), flowing from different understandings and values, which develop among groups or communities through interaction, and entail certain problem definitions and courses of action (Yanow 1998). This approach recognises that participants’ interpretive frameworks are part of the social construction of practice and avoids privileging one interpretation of events over another. It recognises the central role of values in the construction of a policy problem as interpretations are not just about information, but the way values, norms and organisation shape the way people make sense of problems in ambiguous situations.

Discursive or interpretive policy analytic approaches are not incompatible with the institutional approach. Discourses constitute the informal understandings that provide the context of social interaction, and are as important as formal institutional rules. As Dryzek (1997) put it “discourses can constitute institutional software while formal rules constitute institutional hardware," (Dryzek 1997, p.19). (For the new institutionalists, this ‘software’ – would be equivalent to the cognitive dimension of practice – the knowledge and interpretation as expressed through social discourses, which are essential for explaining social action.) This approach rests on the idea of a socially constructed reality, which emphasises the role of the cognitive dimension in structuring the social order. This is important because ‘frames’ of reference may be embedded in or reinforce established organisations – i.e. institutional rules, routines and hardware - which makes them harder to modify (Jelsma 2001).

Analytic construct 2: The concept of multiple ‘frames’ (or multiple ‘institutionalisations of practice’) is a means of characterising the ways participants socially construct policy issues.

- 53 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

This is a view that policy participants, drawing on different knowledge, values and norms, interpret policy issues differently.

This construct has implications for the methodology, which will be explained in more detail in Chapter 5. For the moment it means the enquiry will draw on interpretive policy analysis to explore contending meaning systems (cognitive) in wastewater management and the relationship with values (normative) and organisation (regulative) as these are considered critical to the structuring of practice.

The last construct relates to the need to define the nature and boundaries of the organisational field of study. What boundaries do institutionalists / governance theorists tend to set on an analysis that draws on these constructs? What is the delimitation is to be put on the system of water governance? Several approaches are offered in governance and institutionalist literature.

The approach taken in this thesis will draw on Scott’s institutional approach, which suggests that the problems in urban water recycling can be understood in the context of different levels in the organisational field of practice (Figure 2.1). Elaborating the concept of the organisational field a little further, it is useful to think of this as involving both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ dimensions of action (Figure 2.3) (Scott 1983; Colebatch 2002, p.79; Bressers & Rosenbaum 2003; Bressers & Kuks 2003). While these categories are not precisely defined in these sources, vertical structuring tends to represent the connectivity of local organisations to non-local, vertical hierarchies (i.e. local, state, national administrative levels). Horizontal structuring on the other hand captures the non-hierarchical, negotiative interaction of community-level systems. These concepts are consistent with viewing the location of action as a system of water governance and provides adequate guidance for the study.

- 54 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Vertical structuring (hierarchical; non-local, e.g. administrative levels)

Policy problem

Participants, groups & organisations Various cognitive and normative systems

Horizontal structuring (non-hierarchical; negotiative, local e.g. Time & community groups) Learning

Figure 2.3 Organisational field context: vertical and horizontal structuring in the regulative dimension of practice (drawing on Scott 1983; Colebatch 2002; Bressers & Rosenbaum 2003; Bressers & Kuks 2003)

2.6 Conclusion

In looking for a way of analysing what could be viewed as episodic social problems in water management (water recycling), this review has outlined the thought processes behind the selection of a conceptual framework for understanding collective organisation of water functions that will be applied in later chapters. The chapter outlined how public organisation was given marginal attention in water management literature, which has only recently focused on participation and water governance (this will be taken up more fully in Chapters 3 and 4). The public participation literature focussed on the dynamics of expert-public interaction in change processes, but was theoretically weak and lacking consideration of how the organisational context affects the outcomes of participatory processes. The discussion then moved to different frameworks for understanding problems of governance and change in social science literature. The constructs adopted for this study are drawn from institutional theory (cognitive-normative- regulative) and governance (multiple participants, multiple levels and various ‘frames’), as these are seen as providing a good basis for understanding social order and social change processes in relation to urban water management. It was shown that this is

- 55 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling consistent with a governance approach that recognises complex interaction between different policy participants with diverse problem frames contributes to the structuring of practice.

2.7 Definitions of terms

This brief set of definitions defines the way certain terms are used in this thesis.

Co-operation: an activity involving two or more groups, agencies or sectors that aims at some integration of operations, while not sacrificing the autonomy of either party (Kay and Adler 1999).

Discourse: refers to a set of actions, practices or to speech that seeks to describe, to express, or to represent a phenomena (Ricœr 1986, Eng. tr. 1991, “Model of the Text” essay, p.146- 67). Through the work of Foucault, discourse has also come to refer to the systems of ideas, power or knowledge underlying these practices (Foucault 1986).

Institution: a stable pattern of social behavior embodying particular knowledge bases, understandings and/or interpretations (cognitive) guided by shared values, routines or procedures (normative), constrained or enabled by sets of rules or laws (regulative) (March and Olsen 1989, Scott 1995).

Interpretive policy analysis: taking a view that problem statements are contending interpretations of policy issues made by different communities of meaning (Yanow 1998).

Interpretive community: a non-place specific group that develops shared meaning for a particular phenomena through association (Yanow 1998). Similar to ’discourse coalition’, which is a group of actors who share a social construct i.e. a collection of ideas concepts and categories through which meaning is attributed to phenomena (Hajer 1995).

Interpretation: the way that people tacitly or explicitly construct a framework of meaning to make sense of problems (Yanow 1998). Used in this thesis in a similar way to ‘understanding’.

Organisational culture: the ‘system of publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given groups at a given time’ (Pettigrew 1979).

Management: the governmental processes for collective oversight of the use of water resources. An alternative term is ‘governance’ (Gardner 1999).

- 56 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

‘Frames’: patterns of ideas about an issue expressed through similar acts or language, reflecting group values and norms. From this can flow certain solutions or courses of action. Frames tend to be developed by groups or communities through association e.g. certain professional groups (Yanow 1998). Alternative terms are ‘interpretive framework’, ‘policy frame’, ’collective action frame’ or ‘problem frame’.

Stakeholder: A person (such as a volunteer, client or employee) or group who has a special interest in the activities and decisions of an organisation (Mitroff and Mason 1981). For the purposes of this thesis, the term will also be used to refer to any concerned person or group, e.g. government agencies, elected representatives, business representatives, issue groups, environment groups, the media etc, including the general public unless otherwise stated.

Water cycle management: an approach to managing the urban water resource such that optimal use is made of water sources and water uses in a catchment, while the needs of different water users are respected and natural water system integrity maintained.

Water governance: “refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society” (GWP 2003a, 2).

Urban water recycling: is defined in broad terms as the reuse of greywater, blackwater, municipal effluent and industrial wastewaters for beneficial purposes.

- 57 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 58 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

3 Existing patterns of water management: An institutional / governance approach

3.1 Introduction

To understand why there has not been more significant appropriation of the benefits of all types of urban water recycling for sustainability, it is first necessary to look at the way water is governed in Australia. Present water management patterns in Australia need to be seen in the context of historical social, regulatory and cultural traditions. This is because past practices have consequences for attempts at institutionalising sustainability into the system, such as in initiating ‘closed loop’ approaches to water use, since any changes to practice may be constrained (or enabled) by institutional factors. Therefore, the institutional and governance concepts introduced in the previous chapter are used to characterise early, traditional and modern patterns of urban water management in Australia29 and to set present issues for urban water recycling in the context of historical practice. This chapter broadly sketches the development of water management institutions in the cities of Australia up to the 1990s (after the 1980s-reform period) and indicates where and how urban water recycling fits into this picture. Particular attention is given to the kinds of institutional forces that shaped practice and the role of stakeholders, such as the public, in the established paradigm of management.

3.2 Applying institutional and governance concepts to managing the water cycle

An institutional approach to the adoption of sustainable water uses, such as water recycling, recognises that governing is not just about determining and pursuing pre-determined preferences of government. Rather, governing involves the interpretation and interaction of different stakeholders drawing on different values and knowledge bases (Scott 1995, Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.108-116). The presence of multiple stakeholders emphasises the process

29 This discussion is presented as a compilation of analytical ideas that are required to set the stage for the research into the particular stakeholder problems around urban water recycling which are to follow. Much of it draws on work done by other members of the interdisciplinary team at UNSW, including that of Rebekah Brown (already graduated) and Daniel Livingston (current PhD candidate) and discussions with supervisors. All work is referenced where appropriate.

- 59 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling of ‘governing’ as one where various people, groups and organisations (i.e. social actors) are involved in water use and management e.g. water managers, engineers, planners, health officials, consultants/private groups, environmental groups and community groups. This recognises that understanding the way people organise around collective problems such as water use is a critical first step to promoting sustainable water use as a social practice.

‘Institutions’ were defined by Scott (1995) as any long-term, stable patterns of social interaction – including formal and informal interaction (Scott 1995). As described in Chapter 2, an institutional approach may be characterised as involving three interdependent pillars of institutions – cognitive (knowledge and shared meaning), normative (values and expectations) and regulative (the organising) – to help explain complex social behaviour (Scott 1995) (refer Table 2.1, Chapter 2).

Governance is a concept, which lays emphasis on networks of people interacting in relation to a policy issue. This sees the present system of governing as the product of historical development of collective action with a logic and basis of its own. The approach thus draws on the view that institutionalisation - the establishment of a pattern of governance - has its own history and time-dependent line of development. This history is especially relevant to questions of how social change may come about when one considers that urban water management principles changed little over the past 100 years (Beder 1998).

The concept of institutions and of governance are related concepts adopted in this thesis that focus attention on who participates, how problems are understood and what resources are brought forward to address them. This takes into account the roles of various actors who influence water planning and management outcomes, including the public. Understanding the dynamics of the system of governance is an important step towards understanding the problems in urban water recycling.

Colebatch (1998) identifies three distinct ‘patterns’ of theorising public organisation in Australia: ‘traditional’, ‘modern’ and ‘post-modern’ (Colebatch 1998). He suggests that the theorisation of public organisation is an exercise in retrospective ‘shaping’ as people seek to impose meaning on complex changes. While not specifically concerned with changes in water management, this conception of the different patterns of public organisation in Australia provides insight into the governance of natural resources including water, since responsibility for water was primarily vested in ‘the state’ in Australia. Earlier theories and accounts were

- 60 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling concerned with ‘government’ not ‘governance’ (since stakeholder interaction as implied in the term ‘governance’ was only conceptualised from about the 1990s).

The following sections provide a broad historical progression of the changing nature of water management, labelled for convenience as ‘early’, ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ patterns of water management. The discussion draws on a range of sources (e.g. Butlin et al. 1982, Hancock 1961 (1930), Colebatch 1998, Davis et al. 1988, Smith 1998, Brown 2003) and broadly considers the patterns of governing water as described in these in light of the three pillars of institutions (i.e. Scott’s cognitive, normative and regulative pillars). The implications of more recent change (particularly the rise of ‘sustainability’ discourses) and the significance for the case of water recycling is discussed more fully in Chapter 4.

3.3 A short history of water governance in Australia

Throughout much of the last two centuries of Australia’s history, it was taken for granted that the exploitation of natural resources was a prerequisite that was required for national development (Sadler 1994). In this regard, water use was no different. Water systems were mainly regarded in terms of their utility to humans, e.g. for improving the standard of living, economic growth and industrialisation. Institutional development since European settlement was driven by human needs for essential services such as adequate fresh water supply. In Australia, water in particular was seen as ‘a vehicle for national development, with many developments driven by visions of greening a drought-ridden continent’ (Handmer et al. 1991a, p6). While water and wastewater engineering practices and institutions in most developed western countries are based on the same principles and have undergone similar evolutions (Tarlock 2001b), the peculiar tendency of Australians was to rely on ‘the state’ as service provider. Butlin observes there was a 'tendency for Australians to find statist answers to collective action problems' which, he says was much more the case than in other Western developed countries (Butlin et al. 1982, p.4).

‘Early’, ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ institutional patterns (Table 3.1) evolved in the context of broad socio-political concerns (normative and cognitive institutional aspects) and these concerns were reflected in the organisation of the public sector (‘the state’) around water functions.

- 61 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The discussion calls attention to the origins of urban water institutions as an important part of understanding present day issues in the water sector. In particular, the rise of the professionally controlled state monopoly (‘statutory authority’), which was the particular administrative answer to organising urban water supplies in Australia, is an important factor in the stability of these institutions. Historical-sociological accounts by Smith (1998) (and others) highlight the logic of ‘instrumental rationality’ that underlies the provision of water services by professional groups as reflected in the organisation of urban water functions (‘instrumental’ in the sense that water management was about the efficient supply and disposal of water for human use rather than for any environmental purpose (Smith 1998, p.143)).

Institutional Early Traditional Modern pillars pre-1901 1901-1970s 1980s-1990s Supply and disposal Supply and disposal Water resource Cognitive Feed demand Feed demand management (shared Knowledge poor - Mono-disciplinary Multiple users and meaning) ‘miasma’ knowledge (technical goals judgement) Manage risks Exploit and discard Standards of practice ‘Managerialism’ Remove sewage Exploit and discard Water conservation/ Normative ‘filth’ Sewage as a waste/’filth’ efficiency (values) Ad hoc responsibility Government Sewage valued as a Reactive to crises responsibility resource Customer service Uncoordinated Professionally controlled Legislative activity state monopoly frameworks Regulative Local council Functional activity Corporatised public (organisation) controlled (sanitary service engineers) Challenges by non- experts Water carriers/ wells, ‘Big pipes’, national Sewage treatment street pumps, cesspits infrastructure (dams), plants, advances in Infrastructure and street drains water treatment plants, tertiary treatment, deep sewage outfalls ocean outfalls

Table 3.1 Summary contrasting ‘early’, ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ patterns of urban water institutions and associated technology (adapted from Brown 2003, drawing on Colebatch 1998, and Smith 1998) These evolving modes of practice (or paradigms) are discussed in institutional terms, elaborating on the discussion in Brown (2003, p.36-44), in the following sections.

- 62 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

3.4 Early water management (pre-1901): Ad hoc reactive responses

It was not until the pioneering period in the nineteenth century that the shaky consolidation of water management functions began to take shape as a form of public organisation in Australia30. The initial emphasis in the capital cities was on the provision of reticulated water supplies for human use (Smith 1998, p.144). Butlin (1982) comments that public organisation around urban water functions emerged quite late in Australia’s development31, but there was some form of public action extending back to the 1840’s (p.243).

The approach to urban water management at this time can be characterised as rather ad hoc (i.e. improvised) with reactive “late responses to immediate water shortages or ‘nuisances’” (WRC 1984, p.36). There were intermittent actions by colonial administrators e.g. early but disjointed public health legislation (Butlin et al. 1982, p.243, Coward 1988, p.309), but little in the way of large scale planning or organisation. In short, ‘water management’ was hardly even conceptualised as an issue. Though the colonial administration took some actions to bring in water, city householders were generally expected to obtain their own water and provide private sanitation for themselves (normative). However, water provision for the most part became the concern of local councils. Clark argues that the growth of municipal local governments was of mid-nineteenth century tightly connected to concerns (cognitive / knowledge) about sanitation and demand for water supply (Clark 1978, p.54). But councils were the creatures of the state governments (they had no basis in the constitution) and were entirely dependent on loans and grants from the States to assist with the provision of increasingly complex and expensive infrastructure (Smith 1998, p.144).

Death rates from disease were on the rise in the major cities and their suburbs in the late 19th century, due to unsanitary practices such as the use of cesspits in back yards for the disposal of human sewage. In 1887, the mortality rate in greater Melbourne from typhoid was 10 times

30 Water was nationalised in Australia in 1880, which vested care and custody of water functions in government (The Crown). This had a profound effect because it mandated that water was a public responsibility (Smith 1998, p.152), rather than a private or individual concern. 31 F.J.J. Henry comments that prior to 1842 when an Act was passed incorporating the Township of Sydney as a City and providing for the administration services by a municipal council, sewerage and drainage functions was given virtually no attention at all (Henry 1939).

- 63 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling the rate in London32 (Gardener 1987, p.1-2). It was thought that building a system of sewage drainage as in Europe would reduce the risk of infection (Lens et al. 2001, p.42). Thus reticulated public water supply and sanitation systems began to be built in the cities in an effort to combat filth and ‘miasma’ (bad odours) at this time. The contemporary theory of disease – the knowledge base for the practice - was the belief that foul and unsanitary air (‘miasma’) was the cause of sickness. Although many scientific breakthroughs in disease causation had occurred in the nineteenth century, the theory of germs in the propagation of disease was not widely accepted until the twentieth century (Gardener 1987, p.2).

Early urban water institutions in Australia can thus be characterised in terms of understanding, values and organisational forms as follows:

Cognitive basis of ‘early’ water institutions in Australia

Continual water shortages essentially drove the development of urban water institutions as urban populations in the capitals grew prodigiously in the second half of the century (1850- 60)33. It was taken for granted that the main task was to find clean water (cognitive). There were various competing concepts of disease causation,34 but the more widely accepted one was that of ‘miasma’. This was the belief that disease was generated spontaneously from decomposing organic matter and general ‘filth’ and transmitted by gas (“miasma”) (Haley 1978, p.10). The theory was accepted by powerful figures in the colonies of NSW and Victoria from the 1850s, including medical practitioners and engineers35. Based on the fear of epidemics and beliefs about disease causation filtering in from Europe and America, a ‘sanitary reform’ movement developed advocating cleaning up the cities. Thus a secondary task was to remove ‘filth’ which

32 21 per 1000 compared with only 1.7 per 10,000 in London (Gardener 1987, p.1-2). 33 Victoria’s growth went from 77,000 to 538,000 (Crawford 1960 in Gardener 1987, p.2). 34 There had been several breakthroughs in public health knowledge by the mid 19th century, such as the epidemiological study by John Snow linking an outbreak of cholera to a contaminated water supply in 1853 in London (Nelson and Alexander 2004). Some in France and Germany believed in contagionist theories, which were bolstered by discoveries of microorganisms (by Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch). But, these ideas were highly contested in the public sphere even after the turn of the century. In Britain, powerful and persuasive figures believed in ‘miasma’, such as Chadwick’s sanitary reformers (Porter 1999). 35 The engineer who designed the western Sydney sewers, George Stayton, expressed the view that “it is well known that …diseases have their origin in defective drainage, polluted water, foul air and filth,” (Stayton, G. in Coward 1988, p.64).

- 64 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling included foul wastewaters from urban areas (Porter 1999). According to Coward (1988), These ideas were easier to promote in Australia since British ideas possessed intrinsic authority (p.7).

Normative basis of ‘early’ water institutions in Australia

People generally held the view that nature could be exploited for human benefit (normative). In addition, the belief in ‘miasma’ entailed a whole set of moral judgements that linked poverty and disease with morality and virtue (Lens et al. 2001, p.42).

Because of the belief in ‘miasma’, people generally thought that ‘filth’ should be removed. As death rates from disease outbreaks increased in the major cities and suburbs in the second half of the 19th century due to unsanitary living conditions, people became increasingly convinced that a more structured approach was needed to clean up the cities. Between 1875 and 1877, middle class investigators highlighted the dangers of cesspools as part of the push to sewer with water carriage technology (Coward 1988, p.91). People thought that building a system of sewage drainage as in European cities would reduce the risk of infection (Gardener 1987, p.2). Hamlin (1997) argues that water supply and sewer construction (which were seen as ways of physically removing ‘miasma’) appealed to middle-class groups because they could be undertaken without actually dealing with the underlying conditions of poverty and the ‘dangerous classes’ (Hamlin 1997).

The first ocean drainage systems were built to redirect sewage flows away from Sydney Harbour to Bondi in the late 1870s (Beder 1989, p.99) (even as the theory of miasma was being disproven).

Regulative basis of early water institutions in Australia

These beliefs and values were supported initially through ad hoc (i.e. improvised) actions, but gave way to more organised pursuit through City Councils in the nineteenth century (regulative). There were major difficulties in keeping city water supplies clean. The tightening of regulation by municipal councils to control the emptying of cesspits (c.f. Sydney’s Nuisance laws of the 1870s) was a major nuisance to enforce.

Water tasks in many urban areas became too great for local governments with varying capacities to administer and efforts were made to improve co-ordination through the formation

- 65 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling of permanent public Water Boards in the capital cities36 (Smith 1998, p.144, Gardener 1987, p.3). State governments characteristically ‘hived off’ what was considered detailed and routine work to separate bureaux or boards outside the ministries as it allowed ministers to get on with policy work (Wettenhall 1986, p.14, Gardener 1987, p.95). These semi-autonomous boards or ‘statutory authorities’ were staffed predominantly by technical experts (professional engineers) and were allowed much freedom, self-reliance and managerial enterprise, which enabled closer identification of the organisation and staff with particular and easily identifiable purposes (Wettenhall 1986, p.14). The task of the Boards was to combat the disease and continual water shortages by expanding supply, overseeing water and sewerage systems and planning further ahead for future water use and infrastructure. Though these organisations had a considerable degree of autonomy, they came increasingly under the control of state governments over time (Gardener 1987, p.24-7). Local governments remained responsible for water and sewage services in smaller towns and in country areas in many states (Smith 1998, p.144). However, in the major cities, most functions were vested in metropolitan Water Boards by the late 19th century, and local councils retained only residual drainage functions.

Despite the creation of centralised administrative systems for co-ordinating water tasks and the significant investment of public funds, sewerage was still a matter of many dispersed undertakings with a number of different service delivery systems running concurrently - pan delivery systems, cesspits, septic tanks etc (Butlin et al. 1982, p.243).

Key characteristics of ‘early’ water management institutions in Australia are summarised in Table 3.1, in terms of Scott’s three pillars of social institutions (drawing on Colebatch 1998, Smith 1998).

3.5 Traditional water institutions (1901-1970’s): Dominance of professional engineers

The origins of established water administrations in Australia developed more or less on an ad hoc basis from a need to supply and dispose of water for urban users, into what has been called a ‘traditional’ mode of organisation of water management tasks (Brown 2003, p.32,

36 The London Metropolitan Board of Works created in 1855 to provide a sewerage system for London was the administrative model used (Gardener 1987, p.3 & 91)

- 66 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Colebatch 1998). In Australia, the emergence of such a traditional model from the early twentieth century reflected broad social value for ‘developing’ the nation and the significant involvement of the state in accomplishing this task (Hancock 1961 (1930), Butlin et al. 1982, Davis et al. 1988, Colebatch 1998). As Hancock observes, Australians tended to look upon the “State as a vast public utility, whose duty it is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Hancock 1961 (1930), p.55).

Many commentators point out the key role of public authority in providing infrastructure for the nation, e.g. rail, electricity and dams. Many authors including Mouritz (1996), Brown (2003), Beder (1998), Smith (1998), Colebatch (2005) and Haas (1992) (‘epistemic communities’) draw attention to the rise of professional engineering influence as a key factor shaping the accomplishment of these tasks in Australia and abroad.

This section applies the institutional analysis to conceptualise established water institutions, drawn from the sources mentioned above. Elaborating on the approach presented in Brown (2003, p.35), the discussion highlights the main values and norms that supported and reinforced traditional administrative organisational forms of urban water management.

Cognitive basis of traditional water institutions

The cognitive basis of practice describes the kind of knowledge on which the practice rests, bearing in mind that knowledge closely shapes the purpose of those in the organisational field (as presented in Chapter 2, Table 2.2). The main characteristics from the literature touching on the cognitive elements of ‘traditional’ urban water institutions tend to emphasise:

– Water supply and sewage disposal. The purpose of urban water systems was to bring in plentiful clean water supplies to urban dwellers, remove sewage waste and prevent flooding, utilising linear once-through design principles. It was a field where expert judgement was seen as a predominant source of credible information. Though there was often conflict over which ‘experts’ i.e. health officials, engineers, or indeed the educated public (e.g. conflict over dry conservancy approaches versus water carriage technology in Beder 1998), it was still a matter for experts.

The popular explanation of ‘miasmas’ (bad odours) as an explanation of disease causation when public water systems were conceived in the 1850s-1880s – gave way to scientific knowledge of ‘bacteriology’. Underpinning the scientific knowledge were

- 67 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

different causal paths of risk, which identified the sources of risk as pathogens – forming the fundamental logic of system design and in an institutional sense, public health risks associated with these pathways were regarded as ‘solved’ through the separation of water from sewerage pipes. However, as Melosi comments there was little change in purpose or methods of managing water (Melosi 2000), which had become highly standardised (e.g. as organisational routines, professional roles, standards and supporting regulation).

– Feed demand. It was taken for granted that demand for water would be fed37. The conventional approach to inadequacies in urban water supplies was an engineering or structural response with system augmentation works to satisfy predicted requirements (Pigram and Hooper 1994, p.118, Handmer et al. 1991b, p.13). This drove the construction of many dams throughout the country and the importation of large quantities of clean water into urban areas. The emphasis was on drought proofing by building huge storages, that were unmatched elsewhere (Handmer et al. 1991b, p.10).

– Reliance on technical judgement. Legitimate knowledge in this institutional field became technical judgement. Australian engineers looked to Britain and United States for the science of methods, procedures and technical management of engineering practice (e.g. Metcalf and Eddy 1915). The basis of early design knowledge tended to be ‘rule-of thumb’ and pragmatic responses (‘the practical man’) to immediate needs (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.95). Engineering practice drew a lot from the ‘scientific management’ schools, which emphasised the use of logic applied to production and the systematic use of staff expertise in management (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.130). Engineering activities were seen as ‘problem-solving’ tasks amenable to statistical and rational decision-making (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.131). These tasks and methods became more or less associated with engineering professional identities and work places (laying emphasis on planning, organising and controlling to achieve ends) (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.132). This mode of action rested on assumptions about the human or organisation as a goal oriented entity which pursues their interests through a

37 Munro notes how politicians accepted policies of ‘pampering’ the capital city-dwellers, who "took it for granted… that they were never inconvenienced in their home garden watering to even the slightest degree," (Munro 1974, p.167-8).

- 68 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

rational selection of the best course of action based on available possibilities (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.133). Rational thought was reflected in instrumental attitudes to work and practice, and in culturally defined means ends relationships and technologies (Meyer, p.265-7 in Meyer and Scott 1983). Large-scale systems of engineering production that required both analysis and organisation grew into a bureaucratic systems of control and routine (Glover and Kelly 1987, p.138). What did this mean for public water systems? The tasks were treated as a technical problem of conveying water ‘towards’ urban areas and conveying sewage ‘away’ from places it would likely be in contact with people, or what Melosi describes as elaborate transportation networks (Melosi 2000). Conceptually urban water functions tended to be seen as three separate concerns requiring three separate systems of pipes (but not always): water supply, sewerage and drainage38. While this categorisation was often problematic, it was increasingly reflected in the development of specific professional credentials and division of labour – different groups with expert knowledge bases, training and roles (e.g. sanitary engineer, water supply engineer). This division of labour became reflected in the largely functional separation of tasks in an organisational sense and reinforced through professional associations and training.

Normative basis of traditional water institutions

The normative sphere encompasses the values that support the practice and the means considered appropriate to achieve the goals (Chapter 2, Table 2.2). In the traditional engineering paradigm, certain methods of achieving water services became norms (accepted ways of doing things) that were valued in themselves.

Supplying water and disposing of wastewater came to be seen primarily as a technical engineering problem, and as a public sector responsibility. Water supply and sewage disposal was the basic value and was achieved through the industrial expansion of large piped water systems.

38 In many cities there was water supply and a general category of ‘drainage’. This meant that sewage and stormwater was captured and conveyed away through the same pipe (Brown 2003, p.14-15). In early Sydney, for example a large combined sewer systems of this type was built in the 1800s to convey both sewage and other drainage waters.

- 69 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

– Technical standards. Throughout developed cities, piped technology became the ‘norm’ for handling water and sewage and these complex systems required significant organisation and labour to build. Beder’s research illustrates how Australian standards of practice around sewage management did not come about without controversy, but developed through struggles between politicians, health professions, emerging engineering professions and the public over whether dry conservancy or water carriage technology was the appropriate response in the 1880s (Beder 1998, p.101- 112). Water carriage technology became established, evolving into the standard practice with which we are familiar today, because most professionals endorsed it (Beder 1998, p.111). From around this time, the conception of appropriate practice centred on the pipe-based technology for transporting these products to and from dwellings (see Figure 3.1). This gained increasing legitimacy as a means of pursuing public goals of water supply and sanitation. Several commentators argue that the technology, organisation and routines were merely refined in the twentieth century rather than changed. The focus moved more to water pollution and end-of-pipe mitigation devices (e.g. sewage treatment technology), but the approach to building water systems did not change substantially.

– Exploiting and discarding resources. Water was regarded in terms of its utility to humans and people had little regard for the intrinsic environmental value of water (e.g. Randerson 1951, Chap.xvii). Munro observed in 1974 that, “it was assumed that there was only one objective to be considered – national economic efficiency as measured in dollars, with perhaps some lip service regarding intangible benefits…“ (Munro 1974, p.164). Water supply in regional and urban Australia took a spurt forward every time a drought occurred (Munro 1974, p.136).

– Sewage was regarded as a ‘waste’ with disease potential and valued in the sense that it should be conveyed away as quickly as possible from living areas. The nineteenth century moral argument for cleaning up the cities with sewers remained a prevalent justification for engineering practice well into the 20th century39.

39 “Civilization and civilized life… are based, to an extent few realize, on improved sanitation… a revolution in town life created by the sanitary engineer…” (H. Sutton 1945 in Randerson 1951, Forward).

- 70 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

– Water and sewerage services a government responsibility (welfare state). As the major service provider, government was expected to fulfil supply and disposal objectives thus reinforcing an assumption that people ‘are entitled to access enough clean water to satisfy their needs’. This was because water supply and sanitation services were seen as an ‘essential service’ and a ‘public good’ and their provision became an intrinsic part of the welfare state. As Hancock pointed out (1930 [1961]), Australians in this period came to regard the state as a ‘vast public utility’ whose duty was to provide everything that its citizens needed (p.55). State intervention and protection was taken for granted – expected – in other industries as well. Indeed, as Porter (1999) suggests, part of the justification for the centralised bureaucratic state was to relieve the burden of diseased workers on the state (p.162).

– Dominance of technical experts in water and sanitation activities. In Australia, water planning was largely an “elitist and technocratic process which supported, and was driven by, representative political processes.” (Sadler 1994). Professional experts (engineers) became closely identified with tasks of water management that they performed in the context of government. ‘Rules of thumb’ became bureaucratically normalised (routine) and carried on as professional training, work tasks and patterns of behavior (e.g. standardised operating practices, guidelines and codes of practice) reinforced through engineering education and professional associations.

Regulative basis of traditional water institutions

The regulative basis of practice describes the ways practice is organised to pursue the shared goals and values in the cognitive and normative dimensions, as introduced in Chapter 2 (Table 2.2). The main characteristic of ‘traditional’ forms of organisation was, as noted above, the vesting of authority for water and sewerage functions in statutory authorities.

– State-owned statutory authorities as monopoly supplier with strong regulatory powers. Wilenski describes how professionally run state organisations had enormous influence and relative independence from government oversight and control primarily because they had powers to raise much of their own funds through charges, rates and loans (Wilenski 1986, p.239). Much of the time, decisions about programs (what to build, where, when and how) for making use of these funds was independent of government control. There were many separate government bodies with varying - 71 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

independence that impacted on water functions – water boards, transport commissions, public hospital boards, local councils, main roads departments – each jealous of their independence from others and defining the public interest in their own way (Wilenski 1986, p.238). The high degree of fragmentation of the system of governance had significant implications for co-ordination of public water functions (which were largely uncoordinated for a long time).

– Functional activity. These values for water based on supply and disposal were reflected in formal rules and laws which gave legal rights to these separate bodies to affect the water environment. Public tasks were carried out by separate and distinct agencies (e.g. statutory authorities). Indeed the urban water cycle in the traditional paradigm was managed by a variety of organisations, some of which had little to do with the direct tasks of water supply or disposal for human use yet having an impact on the water system, for example, urban roads authorities, urban planning departments and local councils (Brown 2003, p.44). Public water monopolies really only managed supply and disposal functions. There was little sense of the water system as a whole ‘water cycle’ or a catchment; rather, it was seen in terms of its component parts and their usefulness to people (drinking water, sewerage/drainage functions).

– Dominance of specialist technical professions. Water management organisations were staffed by technical professionals such as engineers and surveyors, reflecting the view that water was a ‘technical’ activity, along with building roads, and running trains on time (Wilenski 1986, p.239). Any political interference was widely regarded as a hindrance to undertaking these ‘technical’ activities and professional autonomy (distancing of technically based organisations from ministerial oversight) was deliberate. This was motivated by a concern that elected officials could be manipulated by special interest groups (Colebatch 1998). The technical expertise of entrenched professional groups often overshadowed ministerial influence. Their autonomy was reinforced through the use of career employment patterns, which ensured long-term employment and agency specific experience (Colebatch 1998). This led to erosion of centralised (ministerial, parliamentary) control over decision-making (in the U.S. Haas 1992, p.10) and raised significant questions about who held power: the permanently tenured experts or transient and amateur Ministers? (Colebatch 1998,

- 72 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

p.288-9). In this institutionalisation of practice, little communication was needed or expected between technical personnel and the rest of the community. Broad public participation was not conceptualised as an issue: the public were passive recipients of government services (Foster and Plowden c1995, p.53).

The application of the institutional framework shows the interaction of what people in the organisational field know (cognitive), what they value (norms) and the way practice is organised (regulative). Specific kinds of knowledge, norms and values became closely associated with the identities of engineers as the main profession involved in tasks of urban water management. These elements are interactive and can be understood as building up over a long period of time into a powerful stable social system of practice (Scott 1995).

3.5.1.1 Conventional Urban Water Systems

A characteristic outcome of traditional water management patterns was the conventional urban water system40. As was noted in Chapters 1 and 2 the ‘water system’ is regarded as the whole ‘system of water governance’ for the purposes of this thesis. This discussion outlines the physical and technical component of that system. What were the consequences of traditional institutional arrangements for the kinds of water systems that were constructed? How were urban water systems conceptualised by the engineers who designed them? This has significance for contemporary practice because the physical structures of the past still exist and shape our ability to respond to new problems.

The centralised system of management as discussed above, run by a monopolistic operator, with ‘big pipes’ extended to cover the entire city initiated during the nineteenth century became widespread during the twentieth century (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.241). Although urban water systems are often referred to as part of the ‘water cycle’, they were typically conceived in engineering terms as a linear flow of water (CoA 2002, p.12). Mouritz (1996) offers a conceptual representation of how a conventional urban water system was understood to work as a box model of inputs and outputs (Figure 3.1).

40 ‘Conventional’ implies conforming to an accepted tradition or practice.

- 73 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Rainfall

Stormwater runoff

Imported water Receiving Urban Settlement environment

Inflow Sewage discharges

Infiltration

ONCE THROUGH

Figure 3.1 Conventional Urban Water System as a box model of input and output flows (Mouritz 1996, p.200)(adapted in Brown 2003, p.60, Czemiel Berndtsson and Hyvonen 2002, p.520)

According to this simple representation, water flows in from large water storages at one end, is used in work places and homes and then removed as a waste product at the other end of the urban water system (Mouritz 1996, p.200, Brown 2003, p.61). In many cases, the used water was discarded into the nearest waterway with little regard for the health of the environment.

The centralised (or ‘conventional’) water system is widely regarded as having many benefits, including:

lower costs of a centralised supplier compared with many small ones serving the same urban area (Lens et al. 2001, p.43, Butlin et al. 1982, p.243),

being essential in the fight against waterborne disease (Melosi 2000, Bitton 1994),

hydraulic reliability and efficiency (Ellis & Marsalek 1996, p724 in Brown 2003, p.13),

facilitating control of water quality (Lens et al. 2001, p.43).

The concept put into practice by these arrangements closely resembled Edwin Chadwick’s ‘continually flowing water systems’. Chadwick41 had proposed an 'arterial system of drainage' to stop the build up of filth which included provision of adequate and constant water supply under

41 Edwin Chadwick (1800-1890) was perhaps the most influential public health reformer in England in the nineteenth century and was a leading proponent of sewer construction. - 74 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling pressure to every dwelling and the use of water closets and discharge of domestic waste waters direct into a sewer (in Stanbridge 1976, p.32). The popularity of the idea of water continually flushing out waste was because of the belief that there would be no time for disease carrying odours to develop (Flinn 1965). Melosi describes the outcome of this thinking about supply and disposal as a system of ‘elaborate transportation networks’ bringing clean water in and dirty water out of cities (Melosi 2000). The principles of this practice have changed little since the nineteenth century (Beder 1998, p.133). The underlying conceptual framework of production, usage and wastage of a product reflect an ‘industrial’ process (Lens et al. 2001, p.42), or as Ohlsson et al. describe it, a paradigm of develop-supply-use (Ohlsson and Lundqvist 2000, p.vii).

Urban water drainage systems were designed to physically separate water and sewage when it became feasible in order to prevent waterborne disease, although this is still a work in progress in many cities of the world (see the discussion in Lens et al. 2001, p.100). Separation of water from sewage through extensive piped networks has been the major engineering ‘project’ of the twentieth century. In many cases, people still rely on on-site sewage systems e.g. septic tanks, especially beyond or on the fringe of metropolitan areas (Ho et al. 2001, Beal et al. 2005). This basic design and additional modern improvements in sewage treatment are widely referred to as ‘conventional technology’.

Industrial technology for transporting water to and from dwellings was more or less standardised in Australia by the 1920s. The technology, organisation and routines were refined thereafter with the practice later including end-of-pipe mitigation devices (e.g. sewage treatment technology), but the approach to building water systems did not substantially change for the most part of the 20th century (Beder 1998, p.133). The principles and practices of water and sewerage engineering gained global legitimacy in the mid 20th century as a means of achieving modern public water supply and sanitation goals.

In engineering practice, this urban water system is further divided into sub-systems, including water supply system and drainage (including sewerage and stormwater) system. “Traditionally, government and local authorities have managed their water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage systems as separate entities” (Ponting 1991, p.354). In the past, ‘drainage’ included both stormwater and sewage wastes in a combined sewer system and this still exists in many cities of the world.

- 75 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Lens (2001, p.42) describes typical water and wastewater management activities undertaken in cities of industrialised countries:

1. acquisition of fresh water from protected areas ( e.g. protected groundwater areas and water reservoirs),

2. controlled purification of raw water and safe distribution of high quality water in sufficient quantities all year round,

3. collection of sewage and stormwater by means of sewers,

4. transportation of the collected wastewater out of the urban area42 (Ponting 1991, p.354)

3.5.1.2 Recycling or reusing water

Water recycling43 does not traditionally have a high profile in the conventional urban water system. It was a marginal practice mainly undertaken where the disposal of excess wastewater via a waterway was not readily available or, later, to comply with state pollution control requirements. However, there was some opportunistic use of human excreta for agricultural production.

Water recycling has a long history, but it is difficult to find any discussion of its significance in institutional terms, as it was hardly conceptualised, being an opportunistic practice. However, historical references to the practice suggest that reuse of drainage waters or human sewage was not only commonplace but an important part of food production and the economy in some urban settlements in the past (Chocat et al. 2001). In pre-industrial times, human sewage was mainly reused without treating it. As Ponting (1991) notes, this tended to contribute to widespread disease, particularly infestations of worms and flukes e.g. China (Chocat et al. 2001).

42 Lens includes extra steps: 5. advanced treatment of wastewater and stormwater remote from the collection site, 6. control of the treated water before discharge into natural surface water bodies, and 7. treatment and utilization or controlled disposal of waste sludge (Lens et al. 2001, p.42). However, these were not generally part of water and sewerage practice until the 1970s. 43 The term ‘water recycling’ is generally used synonymously with ‘water reclamation’ and ‘water reuse’ (US EPA 2005) and this will be the approach taken in this thesis.

- 76 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

As mentioned in the discussion of industrial water institutions above, sewage has been seen in several main ways:

as a nuisance, ‘filth’ and/or health danger (traditional institutional perspective)

In the traditional pattern of water management, the mixing of sewage and drinking water sources was associated with disease causation and the shared goal to eliminate contact with sewage. This was done by the deployment of conventional urban water systems (as above), that separated water and sewage. In the context of resource abundance, there was little reason to view human sewage as a resource.

Some found economic value in the use of sewage. It was regarded as having some value in pre-industrial cities, but the practice was not done in any systematic manner (Chocat et al. 2001, Beder 1998, p.101). In Paris and in NSW, for example, highly valued sewage was collected and made into ‘poudrette’ (powder) after heating, then sold to farmers as fertiliser (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.254). As a result, Paris was a net exporter of fresh vegetables in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Flinn 1965, p.59). Fresh produce for human consumption was also grown using human manure as a fertiliser in Edinburgh in the nineteenth century (Flinn 1965, p.59). However, the practice was mainly unregulated (undertaken by many small collectors - scavengers or ‘cartsmen’ - and small-scale suppliers and purchasers) outside the authoritative institutional framework and was frequently a source of disease outbreaks.

Reuse of sewage was sometimes seen in terms of its potential economic returns in the pre- industrial era. Problems of urban sewage disposal were largely ignored and reuse never gained popularity because of widespread condemnation of the practice by the medical authorities (Flinn 1965, p.60). For example, according to one historian, although Chadwick felt that disposing of sewage into rivers was like pouring away ‘liquid gold’44 health authorities discouraged the practice on health grounds. The collection and reuse of human waste increasingly assumed negative value through ‘miasmatic’ eyes, as sewage filth became associated with public health risk. As Flinn (1965) comments, until the invention of chemical and other methods of treatment of sewage, the only known, or accepted, alternative for removal of sewage was to pour it into

44 Chadwick (1842) appealed for the use of untreated sewage as field manure to pay for the cost of sewerage, but this never eventuated on a large scale (in Flinn 1965, p.59-60).

- 77 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling rivers (p.60). In many cases though, sewage outfalls were regularly placed directly upstream of water intakes, so ‘unplanned’ reuse regularly occurred though was generally unacknowledged.

as a potential resource (modern institutional perspective)

In the context of increasing water scarcity, pollution and environmental concern, the planned reuse of sewage was increasingly viewed as a means of enhancing efficiency of the water system and controlling pollution. (This will be taken up further in Chapter 4).

Regulatory changes and the need to meet the more stringent sewage disposal standards mainly drove the modern day practice. Recycling of sewage effluent has been practised in Australia and elsewhere for many decades, but generally regarded as an extension of wastewater treatment – as a way of getting rid of wastewater on land beneficially. Later, the practice was to direct the sewer water to treatment facilities for treatment to control wastewater pollution of the environment (Handmer et al. 1991a, Colebatch 2005, Colebatch 1998, Dryzek 1997, p.63). With the shifts to ‘modern’ institutions in recent years, (outlined below) the reuse of wastewaters, particularly the reuse of human sewage, became increasingly viewed as a potentially valuable resource. Reuse was enabled by the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities, which rendered the sewage innocuous45.

However, recycling introduces complexity into the organisational arrangements for water and ‘a loop’ into the once-through piped water systems conceived in the nineteenth century. These systems were not geared towards water cycle approaches. The practice of reusing or recycling water thus has tended to have a dual personality, as either an nuisance or a resource.

Reflecting the monopoly status of state run authorities of ‘traditional’ institutional patterns, reuse projects tended to be of the large-scale centralised variety. These did not challenge the dominant technological or institutional forms. In the United States, water reclamation has been undertaken on very large scales by huge engineering organisations, e.g. the California Water Reclamation Authority for aquifer protection, beneficial reuses since

45 Changing value for sewage among engineering professions can be seen in handbooks on wastewater engineering practice (e.g. the Metcalf & Eddy series). The 1930 version is called ‘Sewerage and Sewage Disposal’, reflecting traditional assumption of disposal, but by 1972 the book was re-titled ‘Wastewater engineering: collection, treatment, disposal’ reflecting the introduction of sewage treatment to comply with wastewater quality standards. The 1991 version was updated to ‘Wastewater engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse,’ reflecting the increasing interest in sewage as a resource.

- 78 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

1960’s. Indeed it is mandated in some U.S. state laws that lower quality water be used for some purposes (i.e. “fit for use”) (refer Chapter 4, Footnote 50). In Australia, recycling has much less of a history.

3.6 Modern water institutions (1970s-1990s): Recent changes

A modern model may be overstating recent changes; nonetheless, there was a shift in thinking and practice from the 1970s. The beliefs and values guiding traditional patterns of governing water, including the overuse of natural resources and the concentration of power in the hands of technical experts, was increasingly criticised (Handmer et al. 1991b). This was underscored by conflicts over the use of water resources (McMahon et al. 1990, Pigram 1986, p.118, Munro 1974, p.164, Productivity Commission 1992) in the context of increasing social awareness of broader environmental problems (see Chapter 4). Scarce water supplies drew attention to the wastefulness of traditional water management patterns and the inefficiencies in large public monopolies.

Challenges to traditional patterns were felt in each institutional pillar – the knowledge bases considered legitimate (cognitive), the values supporting the practice (normative) and the organisation of the practice (regulative) (Table 3.1). The critique was part of a general trend in Britain, the United States and New Zealand that questioned whether the Weberian ‘ideal’ of hierarchical bureaucratic organisation was the most efficient form of organisation for delivering public services. (Chapter 2, Section 2.4.4 discussed the general shift in thinking about public organisation.)

Cognitive shifts include:

– Water resources management. There was a broad shift towards the concept of managing water resources with its emphasis on efficiency of use rather than further exploitation (Dryzek 1997, p.64). Dryzek (1997) suggests that a resource management perspective arose out of the early conservation movement that aimed to prevent the squandering of renewable natural resources for future human extractive use rather than for any intrinsic environmental value (Mara 1996). (Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the implications of the environment movement and concept of ‘sustainability’ for modern

- 79 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

water management.) Nonetheless, Mara suggests there was a realisation that the appropriate strategy for maintaining water resources was to work better with the available water than to build new dams and divert more water (Pigram 1986, p.118). There was "…increasing evidence that urban water authorities are looking beyond improvement of traditional sources of supply and considering a combination of options…” (Colebatch 2005).

– Competing knowledge bases. Knowledge needed to accomplish these new tasks competed with traditional engineering technical knowledge e.g. risk management, marketing, outsourcing, consumer behavior (Brewster and Buros 1985). In the Australian urban water sector, there were concerns about population growth, demand pressures and water scarcity and about pollution impacts of urban water systems (e.g. sewage pollution). The interest in alternative or ‘unconventional’ sources of water (Handmer et al. 1991b, p.9), the promotion of greater efficiency of water use, and modification of demand through pricing all required new kinds of knowledge apart from engineering.

– Multiple users and goals. More attention was focused on resolving conflicts of interest between water resource users. Handmer et al (1991) observe how until the 1980s the relatively high per capita abundance of water caused little competition for water resources and until 1983 there was no comprehensive account of the available water resources (Lawrence and Reynolds 1995). There were pressures on water supply capacities from urban growth and increasingly stringent social and environmental expectations (Dryzek 1997, p.70). Modern approaches emphasise various goals of management (not just supply), e.g. maintenance of water resource system, mediation between upstream/downstream and urban/rural users.

– Technical analysis. The modern administrative model saw an emphasis on prediction and control of water resources and legal and financial risks. Dryzek (1997) notes the growing importance of managerial techniques such as cost benefit analysis and risk assessment for optimal problem solving and the dominant role of technical experts in the application of these techniques to determine the public interest (Colebatch 1998).

- 80 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Normative shifts include:

– Belief in the efficacy of private sector management principles for the public sector (i.e. ‘managerialism’). The provision of welfare services by the state, which had been the primary assumption of traditional water management institutions, became less popular and increasingly equated with inefficiency and monopoly. The fragmentation of public authority among functionally separate agencies hindered whole-of-government responses to increasingly complex social and environmental problems. These changes occurred in the context of increasing environmental concern and a push for more coherence (i.e. organisational integration) (Colebatch 2005). This can be described as elements of a broad trend toward ‘managerialism’ in government – the application of business management principles to the delivery of public services. Reformers attempted to transform government run monopolies into more entrepreneurial organisations according to business principles (Foster, 1995, p.44). The emphasis was on competition, customer service and ‘user pays’. This occurred as State authority was increasingly contested by a wider group of stakeholders in policy and decision-making including central government actors and organised outsiders (Pigram 1986, p.107). The shift of power from the agencies to central governments was evident in the regulative sphere of practice where increased interaction could be observed.

– Alternative water sources. Water scarcity, increasing concern about the effects of sewage pollution and the introduction of regulatory controls on discharges were part of an emerging conservation discourse. This was accompanied by interest among engineers in alternative water sources, such as rainwater tanks, desalination, renovation and reuse (and thus the resource potential) of sewage (Schellong 2005).

– Public consultation and a ‘customer’ focus. Through the 1990s, there was increasing demand for accountability and transparency on the part of resource managers from external groups. This went together with questioning of expert authority linked to conservation concerns (about impacts of urban water systems on the environment) and customer service (Foster, 1995, p.53). But there was a continuing tension between managerial oversight and the role of the public (since redefining citizens as ‘customers’ implied a passive commercial transaction rather than active political engagement) (Sadler 1994, p.12). Many planners and decision-makers in the water industry regarded public involvement beyond

- 81 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

raising public awareness as questioning their professional role (Sadler 1994). Arguably, there was uneven penetration of public participation concepts across traditionally engineering organisations (Torgerson and Paehlke 1990, p.8, Amy 1990, p.60) – and broad ‘public acceptance’ of administrative decisions was still expected46.

Regulative shifts include:

– Legislative frameworks. Many industrialised countries introduced legislative frameworks and administrative agencies in the 1960s and 1970s to counter water resource overuse and water environment degradation and to ensure treatment of industrial and domestic wastewaters prior to disposal, reflecting changes in the administration of water in modern institutions (Wilenski 1977 in Wettenhall 1986, p.134).

– Corporatised public water suppliers. State-owned water organisations forms were increasingly criticised for being anti-competitive and economically inefficient from the late 1970s. Criticism centred on their tendency to be ‘natural monopolies’ (Productivity Commission 1992). Reformers argued that water authorities had ‘unclear and conflicting objectives’ and lacked public accountability for their performance (Colebatch 1998). Reforms aimed at breaking down the monopolies and introducing more flexibility, efficiency and competition into water service provision. This was realised by the 1990s in Australian water industry through structural reforms, including corporatisation. The organisations were oriented to making profits, and required to outsource key tasks. Senior executives were aligned to the centre through the use of individual performance based contracts (encouraging loyalty to central government) in contrast to the tradition of merit by accrual and seniority (Bunting 1996) (Furedi 2005). Rewards became tied to ‘outcomes’ (e.g. performance based contracts) rather than bureaucratic processes.

– Challenges by non-experts. All of these changes were linked with the erosion of influence of engineering professionals in water planning, especially in the context of environmental assessment processes in the 1990s. This came about due to:

the activism of external groups (e.g. environmental, consumer and other organised interests) demanding more service flexibility and participation in government

46 Recent research on public participation in water/wastewater management reflects this; Section 2.3.3.

- 82 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

decision-making (i.e. ‘end of deference’ to expertise (Colebatch 2005, Roughly and Salt 2005))

the creation of new agencies (e.g. natural resource management, environmental regulators and independent pricing/competition regulators) curtailing the autonomy of the expert, and

the appointment of non-technical business managers. Senior executives were drawn from outside the organisation (seen as skilled individuals), but with no previous experience in the agency (Cotgrove 1982, p.17, Pearce and Warford 1993, p.7, Grumbine 1994).

These changes to institutional forms in recent years in the cognitive, normative and regulative dimensions of practice are regarded as modifications of traditional modes of established water management.

3.7 Conclusion

Drawing on the institutional framework introduced in Chapter 2, an analysis of established patterns of governing water in Australia has been undertaken. An account of the development of the administrative organisation of water in Australia highlighting the involvement of the ‘state’ as a provider of water services to the community has been provided. The dominant paradigm of engineering practice (to the late 1980s) has been explained in terms of Scott’s cognitive (knowledge), normative (values) and regulative (organising) pillars of institutions, drawing on the approach presented in Brown (2003). The dominance of expert professionals in this bureaucratic system of governance was noted as has the relatively minimal role of water users (‘the public’) in the management of urban water. This model was somewhat modified by drivers of change since the 1980s in Australia, and the present system of water management was characterised as ‘modern’ with the emphasis on more optimally managing water resources, but still a strong technical instrumental basis. In the ‘traditional’ model, unplanned ‘water recycling’ was characterised as a ubiquitous, but little known phenomena in Australia. Increasingly in the ‘modern’ water system, water recycling is conceived in terms of as large scale piped systems and a means of sewage pollution control or land disposal. The next chapter discusses what a ‘sustainable’ water system based on ecological principles might look like.

- 83 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 84 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

4 Challenge of environmental sustainability: Reframing urban wastewater management

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, consideration is given to the contemporary shift towards environmental sustainability, its implications for urban water management and the role of water conservation and recycling. It therefore expands on ideas introduced in Section 2.2.2. Urban water systems are examined here from an ecological (or ‘sustainability’) perspective. These changes in thinking about urban water use can be seen as one of the strands of change shaping modern water institutions (see Section 3.6). ‘Sustainable water management’ is a form of practice that seeks to incorporate current environmental sustainability discourses into water management, arising since the late 1980s. However, it is still largely an aspiration rather than a reality. A sustainable perspective highlights the problems caused by conventional water systems, but offers controversial pathways of change. The institutional approach is applied to contrast established water management practices47 with the demands of sustainable practice. Technological strategies are the more commonly cited means envisioned in the literature for promoting sustainable urban water patterns. However, there is growing interest in public participation and institutional change as avenues for incorporating sustainability values into practice.

4.2 An emerging environmental consciousness

Environmental issues began to generate widespread global concern since the 1960s and 1970s in response to problems of environmental quality (ABS 2004, NSW EPA 2003, p.12). In

47 For the purposes of this discussion ‘water management’ includes governing or managing the whole water system i.e. water supply, wastewater, stormwater as well as the human dimensions of these activities.

- 85 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Australia, concern about environmental problems has remained high48, which suggests recognition of the environment as a key issue in the context of sustainability (Dryzek 1997, p.14, Cotgrove 1982, O'Riordan 1991). These changes reflect the emergence of modern environmentalism, a diverse social and political movement that is concerned with the limited ability of the earth to sustain human life (Imperial 1999). In analysing these changes, O’Riordan (1976) identifies the ‘ecocentric’ perspective as one that involves awareness of human responsibilities for the life-supporting processes of the natural surroundings (p.3). Awareness emerged partly because of the enhanced understanding of cause and effect relationships underlying many environmental or ecosystem problems (Daly and Cobb 1989). Though environmentalism describes a general trend, many argue that there is a range of views on the environment that reflects a diversity of environmental values. Cotgrove (1982) for example conceptualises a continuum of different views or paradigms (i.e. ‘maps of the world’) on the environment: with the ‘dominant paradigm’ of industrial society at one end and an ‘alternative environmental paradigm’ at the other (see Appendix (1)).

The basic problem, as identified from the ecological standpoint is that society is dependent on the “ecological system”, not the other way round (Harding 1998, p.19). This perspective challenges traditional notions that the natural environment can provide resources and assimilative capacity for ever-increasing human needs (Harding 1998, p.19). This view sees dominant (widely termed ‘technocentric’) perspectives of the environment as incorporating beliefs in the necessity of growth and development and in human ingenuity/technological innovation as the main means of solving environmental problems (Cotgrove 1982, p.38-9, Dryzek 1997, p.156-7). Cotgrove argues that those drawing on an alternative environmental (or ‘ecocentric’) perspective would tend to view many practices associated with current resource use as unsustainable because they differ on fundamental values for the environment (WCED 1987). An underlying value characterising a technocentric perspective is that it is acceptable for nature to be used - albeit more wisely than at present - for the benefit of humanity. This casts the traditional and/or modern patterns of water use and management theorised in Chapter 3, as part of a dominant, i.e. technocentric mode of practice.

48 Surveys show a decline in public concern about environmental issues in Australia over recent years, but suggest that satisfaction with progress in addressing the issues may explain this rather than a decline in importance attached to environmental quality (ABS 2000).

- 86 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

While there continues to be debate about how widespread and how deeply held environmental values are, they are widely regarded as central to the emergence of an environmental consciousness.

4.3 Concept of sustainable development

As introduced in Chapter 2, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ gained recognition in the late 1980s as a global political agenda for action in order to achieve global environmental ‘sustainability’ (Harding 1998, p.18). In its broadest sense, sustainability is a state in which something is able to continue undiminished over a period of time (WCED 1987). A definition launched by Brundtland in 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and Development was that development is sustainable if:

‘…it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ (Pearce and Warford 1993, p.41)

The concept pushes the terms of the debate from environment protection as an obstacle to development, which was the mainstay of ‘limits to growth’ agendas of the 1960s and 1970s, to more complex tradeoffs between environment, economic and social priorities in development activities (United Nations 1992, Chap.18). The pathway to sustainable development was incorporated into a more detailed action plan (at the 1992 Conference) – Agenda 2149, which sought to define specific actions to implement sustainable development. Actions identified for fresh water resources management included resource conservation through optimisation and use efficiency, pollution prevention and control, public participatory techniques and new and alternative sources of water such as wastewater reuse, among other strategies (Cicin-Sain 1993).

While many would agree that systematically reducing environmental stress is necessary, some are concerned that the concept of sustainable development remains problematic and its pathways for implementation controversial. While the actions promoted in Agenda 21 (of which many have been confirmed in recent summits50) represent ambitious efforts to provide policy guidance across the spectrum of environment, development, and social concerns (Dernbach

49 Agenda 21 was the 40-chapter action plan that was agreed to by all nations participating in the 1992 Earth Summit. 50 e.g. the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, 2002

- 87 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

2003), others point to the lack of progress on achieving these goals (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.2). Newman (1999) sees the problem of the sustainable development agenda as an attempt to reconcile seemingly divergent goals of protecting the environment while simultaneously promoting the pursuit of social and economic development priorities, especially for developing countries (Margerum 1999, P.152). The uneasy balance between these objectives makes the concept highly applicable to water management practice, but difficult to operationalise (United Nations 1992, Chap.18).

The sustainability agenda has had lasting effects on the way people think about the interactions of humans with the natural water cycle. Sustaining fresh water resources is recognised in Agenda 21 as fundamental to sustaining all life on the planet (e.g. Newman and Mouritz 1996, Niemczynowicz 1999). Many people active in water management advocate the re-framing of current approaches to urban water management, based on sustainability arguments that highlight the role of water in the broader ecosystem (Mouritz 1993, Mouritz 1996, Brown 2003, Niemczynowicz 1999, Esrey 2002, Newman and Kenworthy 1999, Lawrence and Cullen 2002). For the purposes of this thesis, a working definition of ‘ecosystem management’ will be adopted incorporating a systems view following Grumbine (1994); i.e., “ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term” (Newman and Kenworthy 1999).

4.4 An ecological perspective on urban water (re)use: Urban metabolism

One of the central concepts behind ‘sustainability’ of urban environments is the need to conceive of the city as an ecosystem (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, Imperial 1999). The ecosystem approach has emerged because there is greater recognition that a system of interrelated problems should be managed as a system (or ecosystem) instead of as a series of isolated problems (Wolman 1965). Though a city perspective was not central to Agenda 21, such a focus is seen as appropriate due to the significant impact of cities on the environment (Newman and Kenworthy 1999).

While there are several approaches to adopting an ecological perspective, one is to conceptualise the city as an entity like the human body with a ‘metabolism’ that converts resources into energy (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.7). This approach allows consideration

- 88 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling of the various pathways of resource inputs and outputs, and can be used to develop management systems, technologies and models that allow for the development of sustainable processes (Wolman, p.177 in White 1994, p.41). A focus on the cycling of the resource is a central concept in the current re-framing of urban consumption processes from an ecological perspective and underpins the interest in water conservation, recycling and efficient water use and management. The inter-connectivity theme is taken up in literature on sustainable consumption which emphasises how the activities of households are dependent on the activities of all others attached to the service networks and on the provider groups that operate them (Shove 2003).

The metabolic requirements of urban settlements were defined by Wolman as “all the material and commodities needed to sustain the city’s inhabitants” (Hermanowicz and Asano 1999). The idea is that the cycling of resources should be sustainable - that resource use should not exceed the long-term ability of the surrounding ecosystem to provide these services. The approach suggests that the best way of reducing the impact of cities on the environment is to reduce the input of resources into the system. This establishes a hierarchy of appropriate sustainability actions to “reduce, reuse, recycle”51 energy and/or materials, which have been widely adopted as a mantra for action in relation to (solid) waste management.

Mass balance approaches are highly applicable to the analysis of water cycle effects as the production and use of water is a major part of the mass balance of resource flows through cities. Indeed, water is the product with the largest mass that is imported and exported through cities, with significant energy requirements (White 1994, p.46), and thus a central issue in the sustainable management of cities.

The significance of the perspective is that it focuses attention on the way urban systems do not ‘consume’ but rather transform resources into residuals (Douglas 1983, p.11). The approach shows that currently the problems of waste and pollution are exported in time and space rather than solved locally. As Douglas (1983) notes, the organism analogy does not intrinsically help to understand how cities change or institutions evolve, but is a reminder that cities are highly

51 The suggested hierarchy of actions are to reduce (to lower the amount of resources used), reuse (to use again for another purpose without substantially modifying the product) and recycle (to use for another purpose after modifying the product materials) (http://www.epa.gov/msw/reduce.htm).

- 89 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling draining on the environment in their use of vital resources, air, water and food (Lundqvist 2000).

4.5 Towards sustainable management of urban water systems

The sustainable management of urban water systems has been a central concern within water management fields (Hall 2005, p.113). Agenda 21 contains commitments to support the sustainable management of water systems (in Chapter 18) through the proposed adoption of an integrated approach to water resource management (IWRM), including such actions as incorporating scientific knowledge into decision-making and developing public participation mechanisms (Gleick 2000, Tarlock 2001b, Butler and Maksimovic 2002, p.98, Vlachos and Braga 2001).

4.5.1 Sustainable urban water systems

Although the specific idea remains somewhat debatable, a ‘sustainable urban water system’ is widely thought to be one in which human needs are satisfied while the integrity of natural water environments is maintained in the long-term (ASCE 1998 in Loucks 2000). Attempting to capture the essence of a situation in which sustainable water management has been achieved, Loucks (2000) suggests a definition that has been adopted in this thesis:

‘Sustainable water resource systems are those designed and managed to fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the future, while maintaining their ecological, environmental, and hydrological integrity.’

This means that the availability of water resources in a city, as with any materials and energy does not exceed the long-term ability of the surrounding ecosystems to provide them.

An ecological perspective has consequences for the design of urban water systems. A sustainable water system, following Loucks’ definition above, would be one where a balance is achieved between the ecological needs of water systems and human needs. The ideal pattern would involve ‘returning the linear pattern of conventional systems to its natural cycle’ (CoA 2002, p.12), which implies mimicking and incorporating natural processes into the urban water system as much as possible.

- 90 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The application of a water cycle model for understanding ways of improving the cycling of water and nutrients in urban areas has been conceptualised by Mouritz (1996, p.202), and elaborated by Brown (2003, p.62), as shown in Figure 4.1. As discussed by these authors, the main actions include the minimisation of imported water and the minimisation of stormwater flows and sewage discharges downstream of the settlement, while maximising infiltration and increasing efficiency of water use in the urban settlement itself. The principle would be to manage the water cycle as a system rather than disparate parts of it, taking into account the upstream/downstream interactions, the needs of different water users, optimizing the use of water and maintaining system integrity, such that ‘each component of the urban water management system is not viewed in isolation from other parts of the system and its management is integrated with the management of other urban infrastructure’ (Mouritz 1996, p.202, Brown 2003, p.62, Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.8, Lundqvist et al. 2001, p.353, Czemiel Berndtsson and Hyvonen 2002, p.521). Thus, a water cycle approach to managing the urban water system would mean planning, managing and optimising urban water supply, stormwater, wastewater and recycling functions in a co-ordinated manner within the carrying capacity of the broader ecosystems supporting these functions.

Rainfall

Reduce* storm water runoff * Reduce imported water Receiving environment Urban Settlement Inflow Reduce* sewage discharges

Increase* infiltration

Figure 4.1 Conceptual representation of a ‘sustainable urban water system’ (Mouritz 1996, Brown 2003, also Balkema et al. 2002)

* compared with the situation illustrated in Figure 3.1

Researchers, experts and policy-makers have attempted to elaborate what a sustainable urban water environment would be like physically. Some have defined management

- 91 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling actions/approaches that would need to be in place to enable this. Formalising these ideas, the CSIRO in Australia have proposed broad indicators for the sustainability of an urban water system (CSIRO, Submission 47 CoA 2002, p.15-19) including the requirement for adoption of such tasks as:

conservation and enhancement of public health;

conservation and enhancement of aquatic ecosystems and associated environments (water quality);

conservation and management of water resources (flow control);

satisfaction of economic and institutional constraints;

meeting of political and social constraints; and

promotion of reuse, recycling and sustainable water use (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.8).

As an important element of the analysis of mass throughput of the system, many analysts argue that the best way of reducing the impact of urban water resource use on the environment is to reduce the input of resources into the system (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.249).

4.5.2 Role of water recycling in the reframing of the urban water cycle

Many in the water management field also talk of optimising use and availability of water within the urban settlement by introducing feedback loops to improve efficiency of use (as represented conceptually by the loops inside Figure 4.1). Or, as some call it, ‘closing the loop’, such that recycling of nutrients and water occurs where possible (Mouritz 1996, p.202). This view has significant implications for the potential of water recycling to contribute to the overall sustainability of urban water systems.

As touched upon, a related debate surrounds what scale this could or should be done in order to maximise the contribution of recycling to the management of the whole water cycle. Some argue that it will take more than just adding a ‘single big loop’ back into the system (e.g. from the end-of-the-sewer-pipe back to water source) and will require flexible approaches at multiple scales and thus extensive supporting institutional and behavioural changes (e.g. Kärrman 2001, Otterpohl et al. 1999, Bressers and Kuks 2003). Or, this may mean introducing

- 92 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

‘many small loops’ (i.e. multiple, community scale, at-source and/or decentralised approaches) into the urban settlement as depicted conceptually in Figure 4.1.

In the urban water management field, there has been much interest in innovative technologies and practices that could help achieve water conservation and water use efficiency at the small scale (Newman and Mouritz 1996). While Newman and Kenworthy (1999, p.17) contend that the ‘community scale’ movement has some basis in sustainability, they caution that it tends to be highly ideologically driven. Nonetheless, there is increasing interest in practices that facilitate the conservation of water through local water recycling and other innovative sources at the domestic level e.g. rainwater, stormwater, grey- and blackwater etc, is illustrative of efforts to become more sustainable (QWRS 2001).

This signals a shift away from the one-size-fits-all / one-quality-fits-all approach characteristic of conventional practice. Some jurisdictions have adopted the philosophy that water quality should be matched to its purpose, i.e. ‘fit for use’ (PMSEIC 2003, NSW EPA 2003, p.12). Some states in America have adopted this criterion as a legal requirement52. The versatility of water recycling in its many different forms – in terms of scale and configuration – are some of the main reasons for viewing this technical solution as having potential to contribute significantly to the sustainability of urban water systems (Otterpohl et al. 1999, Czemiel Berndtsson and Hyvonen 2002, Esrey 2002). Indeed, there are many ways that the loops could be closed at different scales in the urban water system. This is why, for the purposes of this thesis, water recycling has been defined as encompassing both the traditional methods of recycling (i.e. recycling municipal sewage effluent for golf courses/playing fields/green areas), but also the reuse of greywater, blackwater, stormwater and industrial wastewater streams at various scales.

52 E.g. The California ‘fit for use’ legislation states that a public agency; “…shall not use water from any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for nonpotable uses, including cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, and industrial and irrigation uses if suitable recycled water is available” (California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water June 2001 Edition, http://www.dhs.ca.gov/).

- 93 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Upstream interventions such as ‘source separation’ and at ‘source controls’53 as part of this debate are an emerging area of interest. These approaches are increasingly seen as potential means of saving water, nutrients and energy (through a reduced need to transport and treat water) (Niemczynowicz 1999, Esrey 2002). Some advocates of sustainability call for more fundamental rearranging of social institutions to accommodate ecosystem needs, suggesting change at varying scales – e.g. greywater, blackwater, household level sanitation etc (Thomas & Mcleod 1992 in Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.249). Since up to 85% of the capital in urban water systems is invested in the provision of pipes and pumps compared to less than 15-20% in water treatment, many argue that there are good reasons to move away from large-scale water- based transfer systems (CSIRO Submission 47, p.34 in CoA 2002, p.12). Recent research suggests that more self sufficient systems for the provision of water to urban areas offer major opportunities for enhancing water sustainability through lower dependence on mains water supply and on waste sinks (Esrey 2002).

Esrey proposes that 'ecological sanitation' techniques, such as the self sufficient systems mentioned above, represent a philosophical divergence from conventional approaches because they rely on principles of integration and prevention rather than treatment and disposal (Esrey 2002). Modifying water and sanitation systems to such an extent holds implications for social change because, as many of these authors point out, there may be a need for behavioural change on the part of users to be more involved in managing small-scale systems. Indeed, as Shove (2003) and others emphasise, the relationship between service provision and user behaviour is not so easy to unravel with systems of provision partly constructing demand patterns (Shove 2003, Chappells and Shove 2003, also Spaargaren 2003, Chappells et al. 2000, Southerton et al. 2004).

Hermanowicz et al (1999) and others list specific ways that water recycling - implemented at various scales - could enhance the sustainability of urban water environments and include:

1. reduced need to import more water by displacing the use of ‘mains’ water (particularly for purposes that do not require drinking quality water),

53 ‘Separation sanitation’ means keeping streams of faeces, urine, and grey water separated at the source for the purpose of separate treatment and disposal of each (Czemiel Berndtsson and Hyvonen 2002).

- 94 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

2. being a cost-effective environmentally appropriate means of treating and disposing of urban wastewater by beneficial reuse,

3. providing secondary benefits; such as crop production by irrigation and downstream pollution reduction (Newman and Mouritz 1996),

Hermanowicz & Asano (1999) note that another advantage of using existing urban wastewaters as sources of supply for appropriate purposes is the availability of supply through all seasons.

The debate as to the relative advantages of alternate water and sanitation practices at different scales remains unresolved, but suggests there may be appropriate approaches for each circumstance or locality (Lundqvist et al. 2001, p.352-3).

Nonetheless, the increased importance given to recycling water in a sustainability context reflects changing values and understandings around human impacts on the water cycle. This is reflected in the increasing regard for sewage as a potential resource rather than simply a waste and the significant interest in creative techniques to solving water cycle problems54. These shifts amount to a re-framing of water management reflecting concerns for water scarcity (recent drought awareness in Australia for example), the search for new water sources, as well as the significant problems of ongoing investment required in maintaining large centralised pipe-based water systems.

While the need for sustainable water management of urban water systems and sustainable consumption patterns are broadly agreed (at least by many professionals and researchers in water management), how to implement such practices remains a great challenge. Additionally, although much of the literature in this area tends to focus on technical viability, there tends to be less appreciation of the challenges and implications of changing social systems, or at least of the inter-dependence of technical and human systems. Nonetheless, it is increasingly recognised that reaching more sustainable patterns of urban water use whether through at-source controls, decentralised systems or recycling or any other approaches, largely depends on recognising and

54 Articulating this view, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, strongly pointed out that treated sewage effluent, stormwater and industrial wastewaters should all be seen as valuable resources, not as disposal problems (ATSE 2004, p.121).

- 95 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling addressing the human dimension of practice (Hall 2005, p.113). Increasingly, the human dimension has emerged in multi-disciplinary conferences and forums, where there has been growing appreciation for the complexity of institutional adaptation to facilitate change (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.21).

4.5.3 Pathways for change: Institutions for sustainable urban water management

Managing the environment involves challenges that centre on the complexity and interdependency between natural, built and social systems. The question of how to ‘organise’ more sustainable urban water use patterns remains a challenging problem. Although there is increasing recognition of these as broad social problems in water management, there has been relatively little attention paid to the organisational dimension of practice. While various pathways for change are offered in a range of broader multi-disciplinary literature, two related activities/concepts are often raised in conjunction with agendas for change in the sustainable urban water management literature: the role of integrated management of the natural water system and, the need for community participation, as part of this endeavour (e.g. United Nations 1992, Chap.18, GWP 2003b, Ayre and Callway 2005). The significance of these and several related concepts are discussed below.

4.5.3.1 Integrated management of the urban water system

A central theme in the discussions about change for sustainability is integrating management of different parts of the urban water system. This would be required, it is often argued, in order to better co-ordinate efforts to reduce human impacts on the natural cycle. The idea of ‘integration’ has been taken up enthusiastically in the urban water management field and the term has become ubiquitous in forums, conferences and discussions about sustainable water management problems. The concept has been adopted by various international bodies as a unifying concept, a strategy for action and overall good goal for water management (Matondo 2002).

- 96 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Although specific meaning of the term is still debated, integrated water management (IWM)55 can broadly be conceived as a situation where all levels and sectors of government coordinate their water resource activities and responsibilities at a catchment level (Dernbach 2003, Brussard et al. 1998)(Bressers & Kuks 2003). This would mean environmental, economic and social goals be incorporated into decision-making processes concerning the water cycle and not treated as separate or independent from these concerns56 (e.g. United Nations 1992, Chap.18). This recognises the multidimensional character of the system (Niemczynowicz 1999, Thomas and Durham 2003, Loucks 2000, Brussard et al. 1998, Bouwer 2000, Dernbach 2003, Marselek et al. 2002, Rogers 2003, p.4-5, Lawrence et al. 1999, Lawrence and Cullen 2002). Many commentators have identified the necessary aspects of integrated water management (IWM) as:

Temporal – managing for the long-term integrity of the natural/built water system,

Spatial - recognising the catchment or watershed as the basic hydrological unit of analysis and management,

Multidisciplinary – use of different knowledge bases and expertise, and

Participatory – involvement of regulators, water users, providers etc (Lawrence et al. 1999, Lawrence and Cullen 2002).

In theory, if the human management of the whole water cycle were integrated, the water system could be managed as an interdependent, multi-dimensional entity (in terms of quantity, quality, ecological integrity, multiple users and water use purposes). This would become a situation similar to ‘total water cycle management’ as elaborated by Lawrence (Lawrence et al. 1999).

International advocates identify the ‘human dimension’ of integration as an important research area if the goal is to progress the kinds of ‘joined-up’ and inclusive approaches to management (as implied in the term ‘integration’) necessary for co-ordinating action to protect

55 Variously termed ‘integrated water resource management’ (Rogers and Hall 2003, p.4-5), ‘total water cycle management’ (Lawrence et al. 1999, Lawrence and Cullen 2002) and more recently ‘watershed governance’ has been used (Imperial and Kauneckis 2003).

- 97 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling and improve natural resources (Lundqvist et al. 2001, p.353). Integration has been adopted, more recently, as a key principle of ‘good’ water governance57 and is often characterised as a way of overcoming a lack of coherence or co-ordination in ‘traditional’ water resource management institutions (Lundqvist et al. 2001, p.353). Lundqvist (2001) for example, points out that an additional element for inclusion in the conceptual model in Figure 4.1 would be the required resources and competence needed to implement sustainable water management tasks within the human settlement, e.g. interdisciplinary competence, institutional capacity and political will (GWP 2003b). But the pathway to integration is somewhat undeveloped and there are various views on what this would mean for current institutions.

4.5.3.2 ‘Good’ water governance

The concept of ‘good’ (or effective) ‘water governance’ has begun to stir interest in the sustainable water management community. In 2003, the United Nations Development Program held a dialogue as part of the 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto, which identified the link between achieving sustainable water use and systems of governance (Rogers 2003, p.2). Their response to the ‘water crisis’ has been to emphasize an integrated approach to water resource management through effective water governance (Ibid.). The term ‘water governance’ tends to denote the integration of the human dimension (i.e. water users, multiple uses, human activities and organisation) into understanding sustainable water use problems. According to the Global Water Partnership (GWP-UNDP), ‘water governance’ refers to:

‘…the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society.’ (Rogers and Hall 2003, p.5)

Rogers & Hall (2003), reporting on behalf of the GWP, suggest that ‘governance’ is a new analytic concept for the water community, but will become more important as members seek to advance change outside the water sector (Catley-Carlson in GWP 2003a, p.1). The term

56 This arose from a concern that the usual split of administrative responsibility between levels of government and/or different agencies/departments contributes to uncoordinated water resource management (United Nations 1992, Ch.8). 57 ‘Water Governance’ is a newer term in this neck of the woods as it has ostensibly been brought across from humanities disciplines (refer Section 2.4.4 ‘Governance’ ). - 98 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

‘governance’ has been of major interest in the development literature for some time but only now is being considered from a water perspective (Catley-Carlson in GWP 2003a, p.1). What ‘good’ (or ‘effective’) water governance actually means remains unclear and continues to be debated, but it is generally taken to imply institutional reform aimed at reducing sectoral fragmentation (European Commission 2001).

Putting integrated water resources management into practice is seen as a long-term process that will require significant changes to the interactions between politics, laws, regulations, institutions, civil society, and the water user. The capacity to make such changes depends on establishing better governance systems (Dernbach 2003).

4.5.3.3 Public (or community) participation in urban water management

Public participation, in the urban water management literature as with water governance, is seen as an important mechanism for achieving sustainable water management. Several broad arguments are often presented in support of this view: people have a democratic right to have a say, and it is thought that giving voice to different knowledge bases would help integration occur (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.23). The inclusion of a wider group of stakeholders including the public in the management of the water cycle is seen as a central part of co- ordinating functions for sustainable water management. Newman & Kenworthy (1999) comment that ‘sustainability and participation cannot be separated’ (Imperial 1999, Lundqvist et al. 2001, p.347). However, as the discussion of research into public participation in water recycling in Chapters 1 and 2 suggests, there are major implications for urban water management that have received relatively little attention. Indeed, the difficulties with implementing these complex concepts in practice have not been as extensively considered in urban water management fields as have the kinds of technological improvements that would facilitate achievement of sustainability (UNDP 2005, Universiteit Twente 2005). For example, ‘governance’ has been applied in a limited sense to water problems in developing countries where emphasis has been on reforming regulatory structures58 (Matondo 2002). However, this somewhat neglects the significance of the knowledge and value systems (cognitive and

- 99 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling normative dimensions) that support institution building, discussed in relation to new institutional theory in Chapter 2.

This being the case, the general lack of consideration of the implications of both integration and public participation has led to comments that the “missing link” in understanding the implementation challenges of sustainable development, particularly in the area of water resource management, is the institutional focus (Tarlock 2001a). Because of this, Tarlock contends, ‘sustainable development’ remains a set of “ideas without institutions” (Tarlock 2001a).

4.5.4 Theorising sustainable water institutions: Broad aspirations

An important issue raised in the previous discussion relates to the sort of changes to water management institutions likely to facilitate more sustainable water use (as reflected in the goals of ‘integrated water cycle management’). Some attempts have been made drawing on institutional theoretical concepts to identify broadly what kind of social institutions could contribute to sustainable urban water management (adapted from Brown 2003, p.69, drawing on Colebatch 1998). As discussed in Brown (2003, p.65-69), for example, sustainable urban water management patterns could be conceptualised drawing on Scott’s model of institutions (summarised in Table 4.1). This is a useful approach as it recognises institutions as relatively stable social entities consisting of people with shared interpretations of problems, shared norms and values supported by particular locations for organising (refer Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5). While recognising that ideas about appropriate institutional arrangements are controversial and likely to depend on the context of the situation or location, this discussion aims to highlight very broad directions derived from a range of literature building on this approach. These directions are largely aspirational and testing of their existence and relevance needs to be undertaken at an empirical level.

The intention is to propose that institutional change would not simply mean legal and organisational changes, but would require development of shared meaning/interpretations, and social values and norms supporting them. This considers change in the wider sense of broad

58 In a recent International Specialty Conference on Water Governance, for example, emphasis was laid on legal and regulatory frameworks and institutional arrangements that contribute to ‘good’ water governance (IWLRI 2004).

- 100 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling social transformation that has only been touched upon in the urban water literature (e.g. Marks 2005). Rather than being a fixed goal or proposition, this model is presented as a kind of comparative guide to the issues involved in institutional change. The attraction of such a model is that discussion of change is made clearer through comparison with established functions of water management institutions presented in Table 3.1.

Institutional pillars Towards ‘sustainable urban water’ institutional model

Water cycle management Cognitive Multiple users and goals (shared meaning) Transdisciplinarity Intrinsic value for environment Normative Water efficiency/conservation (values) Sewage as a resource Shared social responsibility Integrated catchment based management Regulative Interactive governing process (organisation) (‘governance’/participatory institutions) Facilitate collective goals

Table 4.1 Towards sustainable water institutions (Brown 2003, Imperial 1999, Berkes 2004, Brussard et al. 1998, Grumbine 1994, Slocombe 1998)

The general direction seems to be towards increasing the collaborative and adaptive capacity of organisations and communities to handle uncertainties in the human and biophysical dimensions of practice. The broad points below draw on theoretical discussions of institutional change and environmental and ecosystem-based management (Grumbine 1994, Slocombe 1998, Brussard et al. 1998, Imperial 1999, Berkes 2004), and also recent empirical case study work testing some of these propositions (Brown 2003, Bressers and Kuks 2002, Imperial and Kauneckis 2003, GWP 2000).

An institutional ‘model’ reflecting sustainable water management may consist of:

Cognitive institutional characteristics: shared interpretations or meaning systems (conceptual frameworks) for shaping problem definitions and solutions that highlight the water cycle. The literature suggests that diverse knowledge (i.e. expert/local; multi- disciplinary) would be needed in decision-making to manage uncertainties and support change for sustainable practices in a water cycle context. This contrasts sustainable urban water management with traditional institutions that drew mainly on a single

- 101 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

discipline (‘engineering’ technical know how), and would centre on ‘systems of water governance’, i.e. ecological systems impacted by human activities.

– Water cycle management awareness and understanding. A greater understanding of the causes and effects of ecosystem problems (as discussed in Section 4.4) would mean more emphasis on holistic management of the hydrologic cycle and its interactions so as to minimise the impact of human activity (Nowotny 2006). Achieving this would require a move away from the incoherence characterising traditional and modern water management systems and towards co-ordinated public water goals and functions across sectors and at relevant scales and levels (Bressers & Rosenbaum 2003, p.6). This has implications for the regulative dimension for organising management around natural boundaries (i.e. water catchments).

– Multiple users and goals. There is increasing recognition in the urban water field that a focus on the water cycle has implications for balancing priorities of different water users and their contending needs. This would mean moving away from a supply/disposal function characterising traditional water management objectives. Rather, it would involve optimising water uses (upstream versus downstream) and balancing the likely multiple claims to its use while at the same time, minimising any ecological impacts. Some see ecosystem restoration as part of the goal (Cullen 2000). Nonetheless, there is broad recognition of the need to balance the priorities of different water users (including the ‘environment’) in managing the water catchment as a whole.

– Transdisciplinarity59. The term implies going beyond current disciplinary boundaries for joint problem solving and developing a new language, shared meaning and institutional base to address the complexity of ecosystem problems (Waldrop 1993). Waldrop and others see this as important for building the necessary adaptive capacity to manage the complexity of natural and human system interactions (Coenen et al. 1998, p.2). This sees ecosystem problems as ill-

59 There have been calls for going beyond multi-disciplinary approaches to problem solving because multi-disciplinarity does not break down the boundaries between disciplines.

- 102 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

defined, tightly coupled with other sectors and reliant on elusive and transitory political agreement for resolution (Coenen et al. 1998, p.2). It implies co- operation would be needed between various expert groups. However, others argue for a less elitist approach and the valuing and inclusion of local knowledge in problem solving (Fischer 2000, Fischer 1999). The incorporation of local knowledge has implications for involvement by stakeholder and community groups in the regulative dimension of practice.

Normative institutional characteristics:

– Widely held values for environmental well-being. Procter (1998) and others argue that the degree to which people hold value for the environment, and in what circumstances, remains controversial (Procter 1998). Nonetheless, as discussed above, there is a general recognition that values for water environments are changing (Section 4.4). This being the case, it would contrast with the largely technocentric values that guided traditional and modern water management practice.

– Water efficiency / conservation. If we value the integrity of water environments, this would have implications for how society uses water. Appropriate actions would involve institutionalising new water practices, technologies and systems that help make water use more efficient and conserve the resource. This would mean recognising the inherent role of domestic technologies and large technical systems in structuring the resource use intensity of everyday life (Shove 2003, Van Vliet et al. 2005). This contrasts with traditional and modern goals of ‘once through’ use and disposal.

– Sewage as a resource. As part of improving efficiency, there is increased interest in urban water management discourses on making the best use of nutrients and wastewater based on valuing these as beneficial resources.

– Collective responsibility. Wide recognition of shared responsibility for the environment is often discussed in terms of the implications for governing in the regulative dimension. Specifically, as discussed above, this is widely thought to

- 103 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

imply stakeholders and communities (i.e. ‘users’) participate in decision-making processes and management of water systems.

Regulative institutional characteristics might include:

– Integrated catchment based management. As touched on briefly, there are significant implications for institutions if managing at ecological spatial and temporal boundaries. The catchment is widely regarded as the most appropriate and effective spatial boundary for managing water. Many argue that urban water management should be recognised and managed as a component of this larger system (Newman and Kenworthy 1999, p.240). There have been some moves towards catchment-based management (e.g. regional water reforms in Australia). However, these moves may contend with responsibilities as defined in existing socio-political institutions. Nonetheless, integration is increasingly seen as having implications for institutional reform.

– Interactive decision-making processes. As pointed out, many see the key pathway to sustainable water use in improved stakeholder and public participation (Matondo 2002, Newman and Kenworthy 1999). Some see this as important for encouraging shared problem recognition, ownership, generating lasting agreements on water cycle changes and engendering behavioural change. Indeed, recent governance perspectives recognise the task of water management would be one of facilitating collective goals of ‘various groups’ (rather than driving authoritative outcomes) (Colebatch 1998, p.296). In an alternative environmental paradigm, where a sense of shared social responsibility for water problems is seen as a central concern, participation of ‘users’ would be necessary. However, these particular perspectives may exist in tension with the more hierarchical forms of management and existing power structures (Dryzek 1997, p.86-7).

The institutional model discussed here illustrates the importance of conceiving of change in water management as part of a broader spectrum of inter-connected social change processes, rather than as simply implementing a new technology or disseminating new knowledge.

- 104 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

4.5.5 Water governance and sustainability: Recent empirical work

A number of recent empirical studies have investigated how the organisational dimension might facilitate or relate to the capacity to change towards more sustainable water management. Bressers et al (2002) considered the kinds of institutional conditions (drivers and trends) that promoted sustainable water management in a cross case comparison of twelve catchments in six European countries. The findings of this study suggest that several conditions are more favourable to integrated management of water (i.e. ‘coherence’) and thus, the institutional ability to take more sustainable approaches to water management. Conditions thought to be important included whether there was an existing tradition of co-operation among the relevant institutional players, the degree to which the players recognised water cycle problems as an issue and saw opportunities to make integration work (‘joint chances’ to make changes), and the extent to which there were organisational supports for co-operation available (‘institutional interfaces’) (Bressers and Kuks 2002). The last factor was multi-faceted, as they list several important examples of broad institutional conditions that had significance for facilitating change: clear roles and responsibilities between the relevant institutional players, a free media to alert people to challenges, the presence of process oriented actors, a small number of strongly organised representatives participating, and policy and legal supports for more integrative approaches (Ibid. p.36).

In a multiple case study of eight local councils in Australia, Brown (2003) evaluated which institutional conditions in the local government context facilitated better organisational performance towards more integrative approaches to urban stormwater management planning. The findings of this study suggest capacity for change was related to the development of shared commitment to water cycle goals among key players and the ability of key organisational actors to develop and maintain relationships with other groups in the catchment (Brown 2003, p.162). The two studies share some similar conclusions, with the emphasis seemingly on the development of shared goals among key stakeholders in relation to water cycle problems and the presence of effective organisational linkages as conditions favouring the ability to realise changes for sustainability.

Another recent study reported by Imperial (2005) investigated the use of stakeholder networks and collaboration (joint action) as a strategy for improving catchment governance

- 105 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling processes in relation to six catchments in the United States (Imperial 2005). Again with the focus on the quality of social networks in the organisational dimension, the study findings suggest that improving collaborative organisation had positive implications for the ability to institutionalise certain changes.

These studies are part of the growing body of empirical evidence suggesting that the quality and types of social linkages in the organisational context has implications for the ability to facilitate change towards more sustainable water management practices. In the field of water recycling, the significance of such approaches and findings for improving practice and encouraging sustainable outcomes has largely been neglected. Therefore, these findings are seen as part of the knowledge base on which this study seeks to build. While these studies discuss public involvement as part of a broader pattern of collaboration among stakeholders, studies of public involvement in urban water recycling have tended to present the public as a ‘problem’ or ‘obstacle’, with the focus on obtaining ‘acceptance’ of plans that experts have drawn up. This essentially avoids the question of how to integrate non-bureaucrats into the regime of governing. It will be increasingly important to take on board the lessons emerging from multi-disciplinary approaches as reviewed above, and incorporate both methods and insights to improve our understanding of potential problems in relation to recycling water for improved urban sustainability.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter outlined the challenges and complexities of achieving sustainable water management as identified in recent water management literature. A significant problem is that the water cycle is not conceived as a whole, and the different elements (i.e. supply, stormwater, drainage, building design, town planning, etc) are seen as separate functions and vested in different agencies and service providers. In addition, ‘users’ are largely seen as ‘captive’ consumers and are not well integrated in the governing process. Implementing technological innovations to address sustainability, such as water recycling, tends to be seen in terms of obtaining public acceptance for schemes. This suggests that even when the public is involved, particularly in relation to water recycling activities, it is largely to approve of schemes that have been designed by, and will be run by, professionals.

- 106 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Some see the realisation of change for sustainability as dependent on the organisational context of practice, i.e. institutions (the ‘missing link’). The institutional framework recognises the various elements of the system of water governance such as the different actors, administrative levels, perceptions of problems, rules and resources, and the interaction of the elements and helps to draw together these different elements (Bressers & Kuks 2002; 2003). However, the urban water management literature has tended to focus only on some parts of the governing problem, such as changing attitudes of specific groups. ‘Water governance’ is also being incorporated as an analytic concept into water management providing a new way of looking at the management of water in which the involvement of stakeholders is recognised as part of the dynamic rather than seen as a problem. A small range of empirical work has drawn on this idea, investigating vertical and horizontal negotiative elements in water management. What is needed is more empirical investigation of the way institutional arrangements for governing the water cycle support, or hinder, a sustainability approach, particularly (within the constraints of this thesis) schemes for water recycling. How this will be done in this thesis will be set out in the next chapter.

- 107 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 108 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

5 Research design and methodology: Exploring the ‘framing’ of urban water recycling

5.1 The research problem

The central research problem for this thesis as outlined in Section 1.2 is:

How could the system of water governance in Australia be changed to encourage sustainable water use through water recycling?

Episodes of conflict in urban water recycling in Australia, as part of efforts to achieve sustainable water use, are commonly approached from the standpoint of securing compliance for proposals from users and subordinates. The popular perspective that regards ‘public acceptance’ as the remaining challenge in advancing urban water recycling neglects the real impact that institutions have on policy outcomes. The question of how to encourage sustainable practices needs to be explored as a problem of the governing process and requires consideration of the way water institutions and systems of governance operate to support sustainable water management options. This has implications for water managers and engineers who are key players in water management. Such an exploration of the capacity of water institutions will be undertaken using social research methods of inquiry that are new to the ‘engineering’ disciplines.

5.2 Research aims

The goal of this study is to improve understanding of the conditions in which sustainable water uses can be enabled. The case studies explore participant framing processes in instances where urban water recycling was attempted or implemented in Australia in order to reveal more about the way people ‘frame’ urban water recycling problems and the relationship to practice in the institutional context of water management. The focus will be on the experiences and social context of participation to identify how the various stakeholder groups interpreted and negotiated their differences, including water engineers/managers, local community groups, agency staff, politicians and the media. This will form a basis for an analysis of the conditions

- 109 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling that supported or constrained choices for urban water sustainability (defined as water cycle management) in the context of water management in Australia.

5.3 Research questions

The research problem can be understood as several broad research questions relating to attempts to implement urban water recycling:

1. How did people interpret or frame urban water recycling problems in their social context?

2. How does the institutional base support or constrain opportunities for urban water recycling?

(a) How are interpretations (or frames) in urban water recycling shaped within the institutional context? What led to agreement?

(b) What conclusions can be drawn about the capacity of water institutions to support sustainability drawing on lessons from urban water recycling?

These questions have been chosen as the starting point for the exploratory study of specific cases of water recycling, drawing on an interpretive policy analytic approach. It is anticipated that by exploring these questions we can understand the way sustainable water use problems such as planning urban water recycling are shaped in the institutional framework and what would need to be done to encourage more sustainable practices.

5.3.1 Interpretive policy analysis of urban water recycling case studies in a ‘social construction’ paradigm

The paradigm that was adopted for the study draws on a social construction tradition of social enquiry. This involves taking an interpretive approach that enables exploration of conflicting discourses on problems in urban water recycling without privileging any one perspective. An interpretive policy approach recognises that policy problems are not pre- existent and self-evident, but are constructed by the participants and exist by virtue of the meaning given to them by participants. The interpretations of collective or policy problems are shaped according to the interests, affiliations and knowledge of the participants, but also reflect the organisational context.

- 110 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Interpretive approaches are highly varied but tend to make the assumption that people act based on meaning and that meaning arises in the course of social interaction (Esterberg 2002, p.15).60 I will take a critical approach which assumes that although social ‘facts’ exist, very few of them are independent of our interpretation of them61. From this standpoint, for example, all perspectives on risk in water recycling, including both expert and community perspectives, are open to critical analysis. Each perspective is ‘constructed’ although in different ways since they draw on different knowledge traditions (e.g. experimental versus experiential). The task of the interpretive researcher is therefore to identify and describe what the social constructions are and the institutional basis for them.

The reason for focussing on stakeholder interpretations is to generate a more comprehensive explanation of the way that stakeholders in their organisational context construct and constitute knowledge in relation to water recycling planning and management. Policy participants operate within the institutional setting and ascribe varying significance to policy information to lend meaning and significance to events they observe. But, there are usually multiple interpretations.

An interpretive approach emphasises the importance of the cognitive dimension of institutions in change processes. Scott (1995) observed that ‘institutions’ encompass more than simply the ‘administrative organisations’ but also the cognitive-cultural meaning systems and normative judgements of individuals that support the organising. This approach enabled insight into the cognitive, normative and regulative dimensions of the overarching institutional structure. The cognitive dimension of institutions is a way of explaining how people categorise, define and construct the social world. Trommel and van der Veen observe that the social construction of shared meaning systems (=cognitive) is an important part of the explanation of the way individual action creates and recreates institutions through discourse (Trommel and van der Veen 1997, p.47). Thus the development of shared meaning systems, which Berger and

60 The social construction tradition draws on a long history of thought in the social sciences - going back to Weber (1905; 1922) who stressed the dimension of meaning as an intrinsic part of social action. Social construction was popularised as a concept for social research in the study by Berger & Luckman (1967) who proposed that social reality is an on-going dynamic process of construction where a collective social reality is re-produced by people guided by their interpretations and their knowledge of it (Berger, 1966 ). 61 Searle (1995) for example distinguishes 'brute facts', which exist regardless of our statements about them, from 'institutional facts' which need social agreement to work, and thus their meaning and value changes depending on the social context e.g. the worth of money (Searle 1995, p.2).

- 111 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Luckmann (1967) label 'institutionalisation', is an important focus for this empirical work on urban water recycling (also Zijderveld 1966 in Trommel, p.47). For the purposes of accessing the cognitive foundations of water management institutions as they pertain to urban water recycling, interviews with participants in case studies will be the basis of the research design. This will enable detailed exploration of stakeholder framing and interpretive processes in urban water recycling in relation to specific proposals.

Exploratory social research methods are often applied in circumstances where the boundaries of the problem are not well defined (Yin 2003, p.22). Because this research seeks to widen the scope of enquiry beyond public attitudes to include the inter-organisational and multi- perspective aspects of urban water recycling initiatives, an exploratory social research approach is justified. In addition, little or no research grounded in the interpretive epistemology is currently available on participant experiences of urban water recycling initiatives. The approach can therefore assist in scoping the ill-defined social, political and institutional context of action and reveal important themes and issues in the system of governance that have implications for planning urban water recycling. The assumption is that the questions in urban water recycling are not settled, but dynamic and part of an on-going process of negotiating sustainability in the context of institutional change.

5.3.2 Role of the researcher in the research process

Having personal contact with the study participants has given me the opportunity to gain insight into the situation under study, more so than could be contained within these pages. I regard these personal experiences as a valuable part of the enquiry process and critical to understanding the problem in this study (see Patton 1990, p.40). As an interpretive researcher, I acknowledge that my own interpretation will shape my conclusions62. This is because interpretation is, at least in part, constitutive of the thing to be interpreted and also an exchange between different interpretations (Crespi 1989, p.128). Mine is inherently an ‘engineer/social scientist’ role and advocate of change for sustainability. However, the interpretive approach also lends certain strengths that would not be as available if working in a different paradigm. One

62 To interpret means 'to let speak and to listen, without overwhelming the other' (Paereyson 1985, p.49 in Crespi 1989, p.129). As Marradi notes, it is 'a humble disposition to find what we don't expect, more than what we are used to on the basis of our a priori models' (Marradi 1982, p.448 in Crespi 1989, p.129).

- 112 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling advantage is the opportunity for personal contact and thus better understanding of participants’ perspectives than, for example, a survey approach would allow. Another advantage is that one is more open to changing one’s own analytic models and pre-conceptions as one listens and observes. Though I recognise that I have a particular interpretation in addition to that of the study participants, I have tried to be self-critical and to constantly construct alternative explanations for what is happening (this is also an important part of the explanation building process). I have also sought to equally present different sides to the problems.

5.4 Research design

5.4.1 Conceptual design

There were two phases to the research project. The study started with scoping interviews with water industry specialists and the collection of relevant policy and planning documentation to identify major issues in urban water recycling implementation. The second phase consisted of in-depth empirical work concentrating on particular experiences at selected locations; i.e., case studies.

The study design aimed to make best use of the available cases in Australia, involving urban water recycling63 (Figure 5.1). Three case study sites were chosen to represent a range of locations and situations:

– two different states in Australia, and

– successful/unsuccessful urban water recycling outcomes.

63 A comprehensive list of existing urban water recycling schemes in Australia was not available when this case study design was being scoped in 2001-02. The extent of recycling tended to be discussed in terms of volume of sewage effluent recycled from STPs (GL/yr), with higher proportions of wastewater reuse (relative to effluent produced) occurring in country areas (see Footnote 65) (see Dillon 2000).

- 113 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Case study 1 Case study 2 Queensland NSW

Picton, Caloundra- Thirlmere, Jamberoo Maroochy Tahmoor (unsuccessful) Locations (unsuccessful) (successful)

Figure 5.1 Case study design

However, an optimal choice of case study sites for comparison was restricted because there was little in the way of a co-ordinated ‘policy’ or program dedicated to implementing urban water recycling to analyse.

There were instead, disparate and isolated moves to promote it by various people, groups or organisations in different locations at the policy or local community levels. Initiatives were usually associated with a ‘sustainable water management’ discourse, but not always. Therefore it wasn’t possible to develop a controlled, standardised ‘experimental’ design of cases. Rather a loosely based design was adopted that would help reveal broad but robust conclusions as to what issues or conditions might influence the potential for institutionalising sustainable water management, by considering recycled water experiences in Australia.

5.4.2 Boundaries of the study and basis for selecting case study sites

The empirical research presented in this thesis was confined to Australia’s urban water regimes both because of the perceived importance of urban water management in Australia and the lack of understanding of factors important to the implementation of domestic urban water recycling in this country64.

The case study sites were selected on the basis of:

64 This was also because a portion of the funding for the research was given on the basis it would be nationally focussed.

- 114 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The incorporation of water recycling in the proposed water management strategy

A reason for widening the selection of cases to failed attempts at implementing urban water recycling was because few successful cases were available at the time (i.e. successful in the sense of technical implementation). As outlined in the introductory chapter, part of the logic for the study in engineering was to find out more about the blockage in implementation - why there were few ‘successful’ urban water-recycling schemes, of whatever form. Most completed schemes are of a typical pattern: centralised sewage effluent treatment systems managed by local or state authorities in regional areas65. Fewer employed decentralised or at-source approaches to water management in urban areas66. Because there were few urban water recycling experiences to choose from, attention turned to failed attempts because much can be learned about institutional transition from these experiences as well. The study scope was thus widened to include instances where urban water recycling had been proposed or considered in the context of broader changes to the water regime and a change in the relationship between users and providers was implied.

Key stakeholders, especially members of the public, being involved in decision-making activities through consultation, activism or participation in the proposed changes

The focus in these case studies was not the opinion of householders, although this made up some of the secondary data examined in relation to the cases, but on the ‘policy network’67 interactions in relation to proposed changes to the water cycle. In particular, I aimed to talk with members of the public directly involved in proposed changes in order to explore the public-expert interface and contrast their interpretations of urban water recycling. Recognising people’s experiences of recycling are often part of an ongoing process of interpretation and negotiation for those involved; “closure” can be uncertain.

65 Radcliffe (2003) notes that between 20-40% of effluent produced is reused in country areas while only 2-3% (and 11% for Adelaide) is reused in the large metropolitan areas of Australia (i.e. NSW, Vic, WA and SA, 2001-02 figures) (Radcliffe 2003, Radcliffe 2004). Radcliffe (2004) has since provided a list of jurisdictions/areas that have implemented water recycling schemes. But again, although this suggests more than 500 now exist in Australia, most of these schemes are in rural and regional areas rather than urban areas (Radcliffe 2004, Appendix 1). 66 This currently remains the case, but was more so when this study design was being scoped in 2001-2. 67 Stakeholders mainly included government agency staff and managers, elected representatives, non- government organisation representatives, representatives from the media, community groups and residents (see Table 6.1).

- 115 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Therefore, attention was given to projects that were over or nearing “closure” (defined as an agreement leading to physical implementation/non-implementation of changes). This generated sufficient case study material for the study to proceed. Therefore, the cases tended to be retrospective although one was still going on at the time of interviews (Case 2 (a), Jamberoo).

The determination of risk being problematic; generating debate or conflict

The determination of risk was an important issue because water industry specialists had identified this as a controversial issue during the scoping interviews. Higher levels of controversy or conflict allowed a better contrast between interpretive communities and revealed latent meanings systems and cultural constructs that reflected the institutional order. This was evident in whether, for example, conflicting views were published in the media or parliamentary documents. We anticipated risk would be a key discourse of negotiation and institutional change. It therefore needed to be available as a theme for analysis. By selecting cases where risk concepts were in dispute, it was anticipated that versions of events would contrast strongly and that key arguments, underlying values and motivations of the key participants in the institutional field could be more easily explored.

More than one policy/legal jurisdiction being part of the study to gain an appreciation for variations in institutional contexts of water management

Several other criteria were considered in order to facilitate case comparison: cases in several jurisdictions in Australia and the consideration of a range of different recycling technologies and/or product water applications (e.g. potable/non-potable, large/small scale). A range of political jurisdictions might have revealed any contrasts in institutional handling and a range of technical approaches to urban water recycling would lend scope for exploring the range and significance of institutional issues for different approaches. However, the full range of urban water recycling techniques (e.g. greywater, blackwater, decentralised, domestic) is not equally represented in practice. There are few experiences of urban water recycling in Australia that occur as routine institutional actions (and the reason for this constitutes part of the problem to be explored in this study). Schemes that are

- 116 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

currently operational have tended to arise out of special planning conditions68. These issues substantially reduced the range of routine cases of water recycling available for study.

These issues and constraints in case selection were weighed up and it was decided to carry out fewer case studies but to examine them in more detail. It was anticipated that significant insights could be obtained from a selection of three cases to address the research problem: that of participant interpretations of urban water recycling issues and the structuring of practice. An original contribution would best be achieved by complementing the existing large range of public opinion surveys targeting householders, by delving deeper into the ‘constructions’ of key policy participants involved in planning processes (as outlined in the interpretive approach above). It was anticipated that sufficient insight into the interdependence of the cognitive dimension (knowledge, categorisations, concepts, etc) with normative (judgements, values, norms) and regulative (sanctions, organising, etc) dimensions of water institutions would be possible.

5.4.3 Case study location and characteristics

The selected case studies were drawn from a short list based on the selection process outlined above. These were chosen mainly because interpretive conflicts were initially apparent. Preliminary information known about the selected sites at the initiation of the study is summarised in Table 5.1. The selected case study sites were:

Case study 1: Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study

Case study 2 (a): Picton Regional Sewerage Scheme (‘Backlog Sewerage Program’)

Case study 2 (b): Jamberoo Sewerage Scheme (‘Priority Sewerage Program’)

The three case study locations (Figure 5.2) consisted of different histories, communities, cultures and organisational frameworks, which meant that the responses were expected to be quite different. Where possible, comparisons were made between the different jurisdictions, but

68 E.g. the Olympic Village Water Reclamation and Management Scheme at Homebush Bay in Sydney was politically motivated/financed as part of the ‘Green Olympics’ bid. The Rouse Hill dual reticulation scheme in Sydney was fast-tracked by the NSW Government partly to address algae problems in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. The Mawson Lakes dual reticulation scheme near Adelaide was part of a special urban plan.

- 117 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling even if this was not possible, each case was fertile ground for the empirical study of the institutional responses to the common challenges of water system sustainability.

Case 1 (a) Caloundra-Maroochy. Represented indirect potable reuse in SE Queensland, the fastest growing region in Australia. This site was chosen because the implementation of water recycling options had been highly problematic. Indeed, it was well known that this was one of three attempts in the same region to introduce indirect potable recycling (out of six) that had been ‘vetoed’ by the public (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, Appendix 5), but as noted by a number of the specialists during scoping interviews, little was known about how or why this actually happened. It indicated the need to explore this experience more thoroughly69.

Case Implementation Debate Population of Project Name No. outcome about Jurisdiction study area Caloundra- Maroochy Indirect Queensland Wastewater 1 (a) Unsuccessful potable reuse (LG** based 200,000 Management (reservoir) system) Study No successful case Indirect - 1 (b) available* potable reuse N/A N/A Picton Sewage Management 2 (a) Successful NSW 7,000 Scheme Non-potable (combined Jamberoo reuse (agriculture) LG/State Sewage system) Management 2 (b) Unsuccessful 900 Scheme *Planned projects involving indirect potable reuse were unavailable for study in Australia ** LG = local government

Table 5.1 Case study sites and general characteristics

Case 1 (b). There were no successful instances of ‘planned’ indirect potable recycling in Queensland with which to compare the above case, so there is no Case study 1 (b). However, this does not invalidate the study design, since each experience will provide important lessons on its own. (A pilot survey of SE Queensland local councils was conducted to generate additional background and comparative information to support Case study 1 (a); see Section 5.4.4 below.)

- 118 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Case study 2 (a) and (b), consisting of (a) Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor and (b) Jamberoo, were chosen because they represent experiences of implementing non-potable water recycling on the edge of the metropolitan Sydney region in NSW. There seemed much opportunity to explore participant ‘frames’ in relation to water recycling in these instances because of the significant planned expenditure on public water infrastructure but little in the way of recycling happening. These experiences occurred in a different institutional context of wastewater management in the Queensland case, and it was anticipated this would reveal a range of issues for analysis.

Location of case study 1

Location of case studies 2 (a) and 2 (b)

Figure 5.2 Case study sites, Australia

5.4.4 Survey of water engineering managers

As noted above, a pilot survey was carried out by a co-researcher, Daniel Livingston, and myself based on the approach developed by Brown (2003). The survey was undertaken to provide background information for Case study 1, Caloundra-Maroochy, about which little had been written or was available. The purpose was to approach water engineers and managers of local governments in SE Queensland to generate further insights into the concerns of this key class of participants.

The results of the survey provided information about who this group was (gender, age, educational/training background), direction on how problems and solutions were ‘framed’ in relation to water recycling and what sort of organisational administrative context they were

69 The region of SE Queensland, from where this case is drawn, is under significant pressure from urban water supply shortages (and wastewater volume disposal problems) as the fastest growing region in

- 119 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling working in. This information was drawn on for the analysis of participant ‘frames’ in the SE Queensland case study (Section 6.2.5). The survey results have been reported elsewhere70 and are not presented in the thesis as such. Rather, the information gleaned from the survey and scoping discussions with industry personnel have been used to prepare a comprehensive analysis of each case study using the theoretical approaches developed in preceding chapters.

5.4.5 Participants and groups

The aim of the study was to consider the ways different stakeholder groups interpreted the problems and solutions encountered in urban water recycling and how negotiation occurred across these different conceptions and groups. Representatives of key stakeholder groups (Table 5.2) were approached to explore their interpretations of the problems (i.e. ‘frames’ = not only seeks to clarify a participant’s point of view, but also their values/beliefs supporting this position and how they came to think this way). Table 5.2 shows categories of participants with whom personal interviews were conducted for this study.

Appendix (2) contains code numbers used throughout the case study reports to refer to participants’ comments (codes were used to avoid breaching their confidentiality).

Interviews were conducted for two reasons:

1. Preliminary scoping interviews – water industry specialists

to identify broad institutional issues for implementing sustainable / alternative water management strategies (particularly that of urban water recycling) and

identify issues for further investigation in the case studies;

2. In-depth interviews - key stakeholders in relation to specific case studies

to explore the experiences and interpretations of participants in three urban water recycling proposals in their social context.

Australia, averaging an annual growth rate of 3.3% between 1996 and 2001 (ABS 2003). 70 The pilot survey findings were jointly presented by a co-researcher, Daniel Livingston and I at the Sewage Management: Risk Assessment and Triple Bottom Line conference organised by the Queensland EPA in 2004 (Livingston et al. 2004). The presentation of the findings was aimed at enhancing industry understanding of the institutional context of activities in relation to innovative water management practices and gain constructive feedback. This helped in addressing the broader research problem and provided useful background material for Case Study 1.

- 120 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Scoping Case study Case study Participant group Interviews Case study 1 2 (a) 2 (b) Sub-totals

Local government 2371 319 State government72 10 5 2 6 1 24 Quasi-government73 22 4 Non-government74 2 2 Private consultants 21 3 Elected representatives75 2 2 Community representatives76 14712 Media 1 1 Total no. participants 16 15 11 [6] 77 9 57

Table 5.2 Participants and groups (primary interviews) Participants were approached if they had some role in the events in the cases through their personal or professional capacity. However, the list of participants developed as the interviews proceeded and as more was learned about the case. Sometimes, using a snowball sampling technique (or ‘networking’ approach), one participant would point out the importance of someone else to the case and they were then approached and so on. Special care was taken to represent the different participant groups and the opposing arguments. This means that most of the key ‘voices’ in relation to the case were contacted for comment.

71 These primary sources were supported by a pilot survey of 11 council Water Managers in the SE Queensland region (reported in Livingston et al. 2004) 72 Departments of state including water organisations, ministerial departments and regulating authorities (e.g. EPA, Health). ‘State government’ participants included junior and senior staff (who held positions and insights were directly relevant to understanding the policy/planning process). 73 Quasi-government organisations are supported by government (e.g. funding), but are non-departmental e.g. catchment management organisations, scientific organisations, local government/industry associations, independent pricing tribunals etc 74 Non-government organisations are categorised here as independent because they raise most of their funding through donations, e.g. environmental organisations, community advocacy groups 75 Information on elected representatives’ views was mainly obtained from published sources e.g. media releases, newspaper articles, Hansards etc 76 Project or ‘Issue’ based community groups or representatives (i.e. non-professionals). Some were also members of community advocacy groups. 77 Six participants common to both cases were interviewed in relation to case studies 2 (a) and 2 (b) and are counted only once in the total number of participants for the study

- 121 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Interviews were particularly important with the people whose comments and contributions were less fully reported in published documents. This applied to many community and non- government participants, in addition to some agency staff. In some instances, much secondary source information was available (e.g. community surveys of opinion, planning documents) to confirm or contrast with information gained in the interviews (‘triangulation’ methods). As would be expected, more information was available on what high-level government staffers, Members of Parliament, Ministers or local members said (i.e. elected representatives) since their words are often published as a matter of course (e.g. in Hansards, parliamentary hearings, media/press releases, newspaper articles, public reports etc).

The participants were categorised according to their position/role when interviewed (or, according to the position they held during most of the planning process which the case covered, if they had moved on).

5.4.6 Interview protocol

Scoping and case study interviews were conducted with policy participants in relation to experiences implementing water recycling in New South Wales and Queensland between December 2002 and June 2004.

The scoping interviews consisted of a series of semi-structured discussions (duration ~30- 60 minutes) with 16 water industry specialists who had experience in planning or managing water recycling and/or alternative urban water use strategies as part of their professional experience (Table 5.2). These included water managers/engineers, water planning staff, water researchers, representatives from non-government organisations (participant groups are listed in Table 5.2). The participants were recruited either through water industry ‘network’ contacts or due to their organisational position that gave them direct policy experience of urban water recycling. The questions, on which these discussions were based, are presented in Appendix (3).

The scoping interviews were a means of identifying important issues and questions for greater scrutiny in the in-depth research. These also revealed views and concerns among water industry specialists. (For example, the discussions revealed that many talked of a ‘public acceptance’ blockage in implementing urban water recycling, which confirmed the value of exploring agency-community interactions in urban water recycling.) This phase also helped this researcher develop an understanding the regulatory framework for urban water recycling. The

- 122 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling personal experience of most social researchers is that they are always gathering ‘data’. It is thus noted that, in addition to these scoping interviews, there were many spontaneous and informal ‘encounters’ with people involved in water policy work during this study. I am grateful for those useful discussions, which helped my understanding of the perspectives of different interpretive communities involved in urban water management. This was useful in planning, investigating and writing the case studies.

In-depth case study interviews (~1-2½ hours duration) were conducted with people representing a range of stakeholder groups directly involved in the wastewater management planning activities of the three case studies (Table 5.2). The main purpose was to obtain detailed information about their interpretations of problems in relation to water recycling problems, options and preferences. (Note that in some instances, the scoping interviewees turned out to be important participants in the particular case studies on the short list, and scoping interviews became more in-depth.) The main stakeholder groups targeted for in-depth interviews included:

water agency staff (state/local),

elected representatives (state/local), and

communities (consumers, community activists, environmental groups etc)

Other important participants came from government organisations such as regulators (e.g. Environmental Protection Authorities, Public Health Departments), quasi-government groups, private consultants and the media (see Figure 5.3).

- 123 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

SOCIETAL CONTEXT e.g. social movements, political cycles etc

ORGANISATIONAL FIELD CONTEXT Water agency Elected personnel representatives Other groups: (state/local) (state/local) Government, quasi-government, non-government, private sector & Community groups the media (users/consumers, community activists, environmentalists)

Figure 5.3 Key participant groups targeted for in-depth case study interviews (after Scott 1983, 1995)

In relation to Executive Government, Ministers, pricing regulators and other quasi- government groups, much information was publicly available and therefore accessed through secondary sources. Secondary sources included published reports, planning documents, parliamentary inquiries, media information, and on-line information. Many of these were sourced from the interview participants themselves.

5.5 Data Collection

5.5.1 What data was collected?

Research, policy and planning documents were main secondary sources of information for the empirical investigations (e.g. published reports, studies, journal papers, policy documents, media etc). The primary data collected from the participants themselves, concentrated on the way they interpreted the problems in urban water recycling and their experiences of the process based on the research questions.

1. Scoping interviews - data collection

- 124 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

To identify broad research issues for the empirical study in the initial stages, information was collected on:

policy, planning and institutional aspects of urban water recycling in Australia and internationally,

planning and local issues for the case studies flagged by agency staff from the water industry in NSW and Queensland.

2. Survey of water engineering managers

The pilot survey of water engineers/managers in Queensland was conducted from February to April 2004 at the Centre of Water and Waste Technology (CWWT), University of NSW in Australia along with a co-researcher, Daniel Livingston. The survey instrument was based on the approach developed by Rebekah Brown, whose PhD thesis and supporting papers were the first produced by our wider interdisciplinary team (Brown et al. 1999, 2000, Brown 2003). However, in our case the pilot survey targeted 18 SE Queensland council water managers/engineers (11 of whom responded) and their views on innovative water use planning and was administered on-line.

As noted in Section 5.4.4 above, the findings of the survey are not specifically reported in this thesis. Livingston et al (2004) gives further information about the protocols, questioning and findings from this survey.

3. In-depth data collection (case studies)

In relation to the in-depth case studies, the main information sources included:

Primary sources (semi-structured one-on-one participant interviews) - interpretive views / narratives / accounts / experiences of attempts to implement urban water recycling,

Water engineer/water manager’s online survey – scoping planning and management issues for urban water recycling across eleven SE Queensland councils (supplementing information to the Queensland in-depth case study).

Secondary sources included published reports, local newspaper articles, minutes from stakeholder/council meetings and newsletters relating to the project.

- 125 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

5.5.2 Identifying and contacting participants

1. How were study participants identified?

Scoping interviews. Participants were initially identified in planning documents or by ‘word of mouth’ through water industry contacts – i.e. identification via a ‘network’ approach. They were interested or involved in the issues relevant to this research problem and were the starting point for the in-depth research. Some of the scoping study interviewees were also involved in the specific cases later identified for in-depth analysis (parts of the scoping interviews became case study specific).

Survey participants (as part of the Queensland case study) were targeted because they were professional water managers/engineers of local councils. The local councils were contacted by phone and/or email (addressed to ‘the water manager’). The council contact was directed to the CWWT78 website where the survey could be filled in on-line by the water manager/engineer. Respondents were given passwords (i.e. for authorised access only) and were advised that any personal information obtained (i.e. name, individual council) would not be used in a way that linked back to their responses. Follow-up calls were made to ensure a high response rate.

In-depth case study interviews. Participants directly involved in planning processes of the case studies were identified through Internet searches, public-planning documents, or suggested by water industry contacts or other participants in the case. Guiding this search was the goal of finding and representing as many contrasting views as possible on the case. A snowball sampling technique identified a network of people by their relationships or linkages. This leaves some room for bias, but an attempt was made to obtain accounts from the radically different camps. The approach draws on the “networking methodology” of the bottom up implementation researchers (a method used by Hjern & Hull discussed in Sabatier 1986).

2. Contacting participants: A researcher contacted each key participant (scoping and case study related) by telephone (and sometimes also email) and, after explaining the purpose of

78 Centre for Water and Waste Technology, University of NSW, http://www.cwwt.unsw.edu.au/managementsurvey/index.html

- 126 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

the study, asked them if they would agree to participate. A time and place was made for a meeting. Sometimes questions were sent beforehand. Transcripts were usually sent back afterwards for their review, accompanied by a ‘Thank you’ message.

5.5.3 Interview procedure

Information about the participant’s position and organisation was reviewed beforehand if it was available in order to understand more about their background and the likely ‘angle’ or emphasis that could most usefully be taken in the interview. The interviews were conducted either one-to-one or with two study participants present depending on their availability (some were conducted with two researchers present, the other being Daniel Livingston79, CWWT).

The interviews were semi-structured, with a set of questions pre-prepared representing the topics of interest for the research, but the direction of the discussion was flexible. This allowed for the possibility of following through on points of interest to myself or to the participant. The interview procedure and questions varied slightly with the particular experiences, comments or narratives of each participant and on the time they had available. (The duration of the interview was usually agreed on beforehand.)

The initial part of the interview began by giving the participant a brief overview of the purpose of the study. This was usually along the lines of: “The study looks at experiences and insights into the planning processes relating to water reuse / recycling schemes. We are seeking to find out about your experiences of the decision-making process in relation to the ____ initiative”. Secondly, a summary of why they were asked to be a participant (because they were directly involved in some way) was presented. A quick overview was usually given as to the kinds of questions that would be asked and what would be done with the information they offered (this helped to set the context and build trust).

The interview was recorded either with hand written notes or recorded on a digital or micro-cassette recorder if the participant was comfortable with this (a recording was only taken if the participant consented). Hand notes were more often used in short encounters, or if the

79 Approximately 20 (of the 60 or so) interviews were done with two PhD research candidates present (Nyree Stenekes/Daniel Livingston). Most of these were broad scoping interviews with industry specialists. The research problems under investigation by each researcher are different and the information and analysis is independently drawn from these joint interviews by each researcher.

- 127 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling participant said they were more comfortable not being recorded. In total, 36 of the 57 interviews were recorded using a hand-held voice recorder and transcribed verbatim into electronic format for analysis.

The pre-chosen questions covered personal feelings, experiences, values, impressions about the policy/planning problem, the agency staff and organisation, and how they were involved in the process. The questionnaire also asked whether they thought they influenced outcomes and how; how they perceived the health or environmental risks and organisational or social changes they saw, etc. Typical interview questions are listed in Appendix (3).

However, the participants were told they were free to talk on any topic/issue they thought important. Improvised questions were asked to further develop these points.

5.5.4 Difficulties and challenges of the interview process

One of the main challenges was developing and maintaining trust with participants on first acquaintance. This was handled by being as open as possible about the reasons for the research and why they were being interviewed (as in the interview protocols described above). There were several ways of maintaining trust; by being frank about the purpose of the study, adopting an open and friendly manner, assuring them that it was an independent study conducted by a university and stating clearly and openly how their anonymity would be protected. (It was important to ensure that everything promised to the participant was delivered post-interview, e.g. additional information.)

One of the most common concerns expressed by participants was confidentiality of the information shared (although a minority was not concerned at all). For this reason, a strict policy of confidentiality was adopted and precise information was given up front about the way their information would be used and that they would have a chance to review the transcript before it was used in the research. In most cases, a ‘thankyou’ note/email and verbatim interview transcript was sent back to them as a ‘member check’. It was explained that confidentiality would be maintained by not linking their names with their comments (unless they were comfortable with being identified).

Confidentiality was handled logistically in relation to the survey, scoping interviews and case study interviews by categorising and numbering each transcript (i.e. keeping personal

- 128 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling information separate from comments and anything that might identify them) and only referring to participants by code or group in the papers and thesis arising from the study. The study data was stored on a computer located in a secure place with password protected files to prevent access by any unauthorised people.

Sometimes, access to key participants was not possible due to the inability to contact a participant, their lack of time/availability or because they were unwilling to speak about their role or experiences in relation to the questions of interest. Lack of time/availability was more an issue for agency staff and became more pressing the higher up the participant was in the organisational ladder. This required flexibility of timing to fit the interviews in with their schedules and conciseness of interview questions.

One difficulty experienced was that people were sometimes reluctant to speak candidly if a tape recorder was used. This was especially the case with agency personnel and elected representatives who seemed less ready to talk candidly anyway in case their position was jeopardised.

5.5.5 Validity and reliability of the data

Internal validity relates to how well the data represents reality.

In this sort of study, when one relies on participant interpretations, different kinds of validity tests to those normally used for quantitative research are required. This is because of the reliance on ‘subjectivity’ of participant accounts. According to Weber (1949), social inquiry cannot be objective in the sense of knowing the ‘truth’, but should strive for objectivity in the sense of identifying ‘plausible’ explanations. Cook (1985) similarly argues that social science is 'concerned not with guaranteeing truth or utility, but with offering defensible interpretations of what is in the outside world' (Cook 1985, p.45). Therefore, social enquiry of this sort should be predicated on obtaining a pluralistic, multi-disciplinary and open exchange of ideas. Evaluation in this sense involves testing arguments and claims to knowledge, rather than advancing 'the truth' or 'the correct solution'.

Where possible, ‘triangulation’ or convergence was sought from independent sources (Miles & Huberman 1994, pp.266-7). Factual information stated by participants was checked against documented or other sources. One approach used in this study was to ask for feedback

- 129 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling from informants (i.e. ‘member checks’) where possible to verify information. This involved sending transcripts back to the participants for verification, modification or additional information. Only a few of the transcripts came back with comments or corrections.

External validity relates to how generalisable the findings of the study are to different settings.

The use of unique case studies somewhat limits the generalisable conclusions since the nature of local issues differs substantially from place to place. However, the aim of the research was partly to identify contextual factors that predispose certain ‘problem frames’, e.g. governing processes and institutional structures. In part, this reveals how problems in urban water recycling are not easily understood outside of their context. Nonetheless, there are common features in the approach to the problem: that participant interpretations matter, that there are some cultural, institutional and historical features in Australia that are likely to have a bearing on the way water recycling problems are interpreted.

Reliability relates to the ability to replicate the study findings if the same data collection procedure is followed.

The replicability of the study findings may be limited because of the uniqueness of the cases in their context and time, and variation in the interpretations of the participants over time. For example, an individual was asked for their view on a particular issue now, that view may be quite different to that given to the same question five years ago simply because individual’s perspectives change over time. Nonetheless, attempts were made to allow for replicability by using an ‘audit trail’ (transcripts/notes were kept on the researchers’ interactions with participants and may be inspected by any third party) and statements of decisions and assumptions are recorded with the transcripts.

5.6 Data Analysis Procedures

There is no ‘right’ way for the analysis of qualitative research data. Rather, the task principally requires the development of categories across which comparisons and contrasts can be made (Creswell 1994, p.153). For this study, data analysis was conducted simultaneously alongside data collection, data interpretation and report writing, allowing the emergence of

- 130 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling broad themes of interest. The institutional theoretical framework was the basis for the analysis of data in this study.

A governance approach was adopted to organise the empirical material collected in relation to each case study. This responds to the proposition80 discussed in Chapter 2 that the important issues to note in a system of (water) governance would be the historical context, organisations, people and their linkages, prevalent discourses and interpretive ‘frames’, and of course, what happened. The following format was used to structure each case study: (1) Introduction, (2) Hydrological and settlement background, (3) Organisational frameworks, (4) Policy narratives, (5) Participant ‘frames’, (6) Trajectory of action, and (7) Initial case explanations.

This approach complements institutional theory that identifies the interactivity of cognitive, normative and regulative rules as important explanatory variables for institutional change. Since little has been done in applying institutional theory to participant framing processes in urban water recycling, there was little previous research to guide the study. However, the approach taken was to look retrospectively to try to reconstruct what happened from different participants’ perspectives. This enabled insights into the capacity of current institutions through an analysis of knowledge and discourse (i.e. cognitive institutional elements) mobilised in the action.

The general procedure for data analysis in each of the case studies was to:

Transcribe interviews for in-depth analysis

The most common procedure was to transcribe the interview material from the tape recordings (or hand notes) into a word processor with the help of a voice recognition software package (“Dragon Naturally Speaking 7 Preferred” by Scansoft81). Dot point summaries helped identify the main points of interest while the experience was still fresh.

80 Harold D. Lasswell famously said politics is about ‘who gets what, when, how’ (Lasswell (1950 (1936))) 81 Licensed to: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of NSW

- 131 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Analyse the text/content of interview material

“Ethnograph”, a text analysis software tool, was used as a means of categorising shared meanings that arose from stakeholder accounts. This was done by tagging comments from the transcribed material that identified participants’ problem frames82 and which supported the institutional analysis of conditions of change and stability relating to water cycle management. Primary interview transcripts were tagged (i.e. coded) and searched iteratively in order to find any recurrent themes relating to the research questions. An example of a coding summary is included in Appendix (4)83.

Build up interpretive accounts into ‘narratives’ (drawing on Yanow 1998)

Tagging (or coding) comments enabled searches of particular narrative themes. This was done by searching the text categories for shared meanings, values and norms, regulatory constraints, local contextual issues, etc. Attempts were made to systematically represent participant or group narratives with the help of matrices, tables and/or diagrams. These helped show relationships among categories of information, e.g. stakeholder group, site, demographic variables, time ordering of the information and other possibilities (Creswell 1994, p.154). A similar process was used to that described by Miles & Huberman (1994) of inductively developing categories by searching for ‘clusters’ of meaning, noting occurrences of similar statements and/or through the use of metaphors (pp. 246-256). These were some of the main techniques used for finding patterns and reaching conclusions in the study. An example of the how the ‘clustering’ process was undertaken is given in Appendix (5).

Compile detailed ‘chronology’ of events (Yin 2003, p.125) to trace institutional patterns including conditions of change and persistence (i.e. how and why changes occurred in participant interactions, shared interpretations or values).

A chronological account of events (including key events relating to the way participants/groups negotiated their different perspectives in the governing process) was built up for each case study using participant accounts and case study documentation. To ensure greater

82 (i.e. What were their interpretations of planning/policy problems? What knowledge and values did this perspective rest on? How did this shape their goals and how did they organise to pursue these?)

- 132 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling validity, participant accounts of key events were compared with independently documented information through a process of ‘triangulation’ (described in Miles & Huberman 1994, pp.266- 7). Broad conclusions emerged about institutional barriers and enablers of change based on the researcher’s in-depth knowledge of the case study material assisted by Ethnograph, the case study documentation and the detailed chronologies/timelines of events.

All these activities helped build plausible explanations about the cases.

5.7 Limitations of the research

The major limitation of the study was that there were only three case studies undertaken on which to base the conclusions. Nonetheless, the major strength was the study’s ability to reveal contextual information about social institutions in these cases and how social institutions shaped the practice of recycled water. An innovative interpretive methodology facilitated insights into the discourses (articulated knowledge), norms and values (implicit knowledge) that key groups mobilised in the framing of problems and strategies in ambiguous situations. Other limitations of the research undertaken were perceived to be; i) subjectivity of participant recollections, ii) researcher access and knowledge of the action, and iii) uniqueness of cases.

i) The findings relied on the reflections of participants and their experiences of the processes of interest in this study, i.e. their interpretations of events. Any bias of participant recollection is to some extent mitigated by triangulation of case study information using independent sources. However, recollection bias is seen as less of a shortcoming in this study since the aim was to capture ‘sense making’ processes and the questions these processes raised about why participants interpreted events this way, and how problems were constructed in the institutional context of action. Incorporating interpretations of different participants into the explanation of problems in water recycling is recognised as one of the major contributions of this research in an area where some interpretations are often elevated above others.

ii) These findings depend on the ability of the researcher to access and know what is happening across a broad organisational field, involving interaction within and between

83 ‘Tagging’ or coding lines of text from particular transcripts enabled text-based searches of themes mentioned by participants across some or all transcripts, for example across those of a participant category e.g. agency staff, community etc.

- 133 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling different groups and organisations. It is acknowledged that the study has foregone some reliability in gaining depth: there are a limited number of participant interviews and limited information that one researcher is able to gather. However, the approach did what it was intended which was to capture the richness, complexity and contextual issues shaping collective interaction in water recycling practice.

iii) Each case was unique and has unique contextual factors (e.g. time, place, actors, discourses, institutions) making statistical generalisation unlikely. However, this limitation is partly offset by the strength of generalisations that were made in relation to institutional theory (as pointed out in Section 8.3).

The limitations of the study are acknowledged but they do not detract from the significance of the findings.

5.8 Ethics and consent

The University of NSW guidelines for ethics as UNSW policy requires were followed so that;

the confidentiality of participants’ personal information was retained,

no 1st, 2nd or 3rd parties mentioned in interviews were personally identified, and any other information that may give away their identity, unless they actually gave their consent to be identified, was deleted,

anonymity was maintained in the presentation of material for publication arising from the research,

wherever possible, participants in the study were advised of how their personal information would be protected,

confidentiality was also maintained through the secure storage of data (password protected files on computers, recorded information locked away).

5.9 Disclaimer

It is easier to identify likely reasons for events in the past. Therefore, in respect to those involved in the cases discussed in the study, none of the criticisms or analysis in this study is

- 134 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling meant to be personal. This work should be seen as part of current policy and educational efforts to encourage more sustainable water use in cities.

- 135 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 136 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6 Sustainability and participation in urban water recycling: Empirical case studies

6.1 Introduction

Presented in this chapter are three case studies analysing planning and policy experiences involving urban water recycling. The aim is to illustrate how urban water recycling initiatives proceeded (or failed to proceed) and to offer insights from these cases into the capacity (strengths and weaknesses) of existing institutions responsible for water management for achieving sustainability. This will contribute to answering the central questions for this thesis, which are: How does the institutional context shape the potential to implement water recycling as a sustainable management strategy in Australia? and How could sustainable water management be improved?

An institutional approach, as introduced in Chapter 2 (and applied in Chapter 5, Research Design and Methodology), is used to structure the presentation of case study information focussing on the evolution of organisational structures, policy ‘narratives’ and the dynamics of group interaction. Social and hydrological background information is provided in the initial sections, followed by the development of existing organisational frameworks relevant to each case (regulative aspects). This sets the formal institutional context in which the recycling initiatives were played out. Policy narratives are presented (policy discourses, values and belief systems) in order to examine the way questions of water sustainability were addressed by participant groups (cognitive and normative aspects). This has been aided by drawing on primary participant accounts and secondary documented information related to the water recycling initiatives.

Analysis of the way the institutional context shaped (i.e. constrained/enabled) social outcomes focussing on the potential for urban water recycling to contribute to sustainable water management is presented in Chapter 7 (‘Analysis of water recycling case studies: Stability and change in water governance’).

- 137 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2 Case 1: Wastewater Management in Caloundra-Maroochy , South East Queensland

6.2.1 Introduction

Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils in South-East Queensland launched a joint strategic study in early 1996 with extensive community consultation to investigate what could be done to improve wastewater management in their regional area: the ‘Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study’. This in-depth case study investigates the Caloundra- Maroochy joint initiative and its outcomes. The stated aims of the study were to ‘explore the long-term and short-term options for municipal wastewater management’ in the council’s area of operation, including recycling of wastewater for other potential uses. This occurred at a time when the population was growing rapidly and the councils were facing the prospect of expensive capital works to augment existing sewerage and water supply systems (possibly with a dam by 2010) (Lamble 1998, January 18). The outcomes of the study, which apparently indicated wide public support for direct and indirect potable reuse, were subsequently abandoned in October 1998 by Caloundra City Council as a result of a vocal anti-recycling campaign on the part of a small group of people from the Caloundra area. In fact, three out of the six proposals to recycle wastewater in SE Queensland were unsuccessful in the late 1990s, including this joint proposal of Caloundra and Maroochy Councils (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, p.A10-A11). Initiatives to recycle sewage effluent had also been undertaken by Noosa, Caboolture, Townsville, Gold Coast and Whitsunday councils (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, p.A10-A11). Several of these initiatives, which had considered indirect/direct potable recycling options as well, were viewed by many as having failed due to an inability to gain sufficient public support (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999). At the time, limited state and national policy guidance was available about the range and management of safe, acceptable water recycling practices.

Thus, the Caloundra-Maroochy experience has regional significance. The difficulties in progressing water recycling in this example raises significant questions about the ways that problems of water sustainability – e.g. water supply and sewage disposal - are conceived in the current framework of water management in Australia. The following case study examines the framework of water management institutions related to the Caloundra-Maroochy Wastewater

- 138 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Management Study (CMWMS) and outlines the values and actions of the main participants in an attempt to piece together the dynamics of policy interaction. The aim is to explain how and why this water recycling initiative failed to proceed, to offer insights into the capacity of existing institutions of water management for achieving sustainability, and to provide perspectives on how they might be improved.

6.2.2 Hydrological and settlement background

The Caloundra and Maroochy areas, located about 100 km north of Brisbane, began to be occupied by Europeans in the mid- to late nineteenth century. ‘Timber-getters’ moved in to log red cedar timber along coastal river corridors, including that of the Maroochy and Mooloolabah Rivers (Figure 6.1). Sugar, banana, pineapple and ginger industry entrepreneurs also took up land claims, which generated settlements.

As the need for self-government became more apparent, local government Divisional Boards were introduced in 1879 throughout Queensland (which had been proclaimed as a colony in 1859). The discovery of gold to the north of the area accelerated the completion of a north-south rail link in 1888 between Brisbane and Maryborough to facilitate transport access (see Figure 6.1). Towns grew up at Eumundi, Yandina, Nambour and Landsborough along this rail corridor from the late nineteenth century, but access to the coastal areas was mainly restricted to boats.

Timber and sugar processing mills and depots built in Maroochydore, Mooloolah and Nambour brought further development to the coast followed by town subdivisions and the making of the Maroochy Divisional Board in 1879. This was formalised as the Maroochy Shire Council after the Queensland Local Authorities Act of 1903 (MSC 2004b) (see Figure 6.1). More than 60% of the population now reside in the coastal areas of Maroochydore, Suncoast and Coolum (as of 1996) and most of the remaining population is in the rail corridor, particularly Nambour, which has about 12% of the total population of Maroochy. Several small villages (<3000 people in total) are scattered through the Blackall Range to the west (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.8).

- 139 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Figure 6.1 Upper Mary River Basin (shaded) and Maroochy and Mooloolah River waterways, overlaid by the Maroochy and (most of) Caloundra local government areas, including the major towns and water storages (Source: adapted from NRM 2002, p.6 and planning documents).

The town of Caloundra on the coast attracted fewer opportunistic industries and instead began to acquire its reputation as a seaside resort in the early twentieth century. The town’s population of 2,800 in 1961 ballooned in the 1980s into a large resort town, and now has more than 25,000 residents. Distinct coastal and hinterland communities have grown. For example, around 70% of Caloundra’s population resides in the lower coastal urban and rural areas of Caloundra City and Kawana, with just several towns and small villages in the railway corridor (~20%) and the mountainous hinterland areas (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.6, 194). The present local government boundary became Landsborough Shire Council in 1912 (seceded from the much larger Caboolture Divisional Board), which attained city status in 1987, and was renamed Caloundra City Council (see Figure 6.1) (MSC 2004c, p.2).

Jurisdictional areas of the councils, including water and sewage operation, are politically and demographically defined rather than catchment based (see Figure 6.1). Maroochy Shire Council’s present local government area (LGA) covers most of the Maroochy River catchment

- 140 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(642km2) which lies between the Blackall Range (elevation ~400m) and the Pacific Ocean coast. Just south of this area is the smaller Mooloolah River catchment (194km2) which extends 25km inland from the coast, straddling both Maroochy and Caloundra LGAs. Caloundra LGA covers this and some of the northern parts of the Caboolture River catchment further to the south (Healthy Waterways 2002) (see Figure 6.1).

In the early days, most people were reliant on self-provision of rainwater, bore water or wells for drinking and on-site sewerage facilities (e.g. infiltration trenches, septic tanks). Several small weirs and river intakes functioned as early town water supplies e.g. South Maroochy River intake weir (1957) (NRM 2002, p.50). However, as town populations grew, local councils (with financial support from central governments) began to organise bulk water delivery and sewerage collection services. Centralised water supply systems operated by trained professionals became the preferred means of service provision probably from the 1950s. Poona, Wappa and Cooloolabin Dams, which drain to the South Maroochy River (which joins the North Maroochy River just south of Yandina) were built in 1959, 1961 and 1977 to store drinking water for Maroochy’s urban residents (total capacity 19GL) (Healthy Waterways 2001). Towns in the shire were progressively connected to reticulated water services, with Maroochydore – the largest town – connected in 1961 (Foxton 2001). The coastal population boom of the 1980s drove the construction of new regional water storages to satisfy the increasing water demand. The Baroon Pocket Dam was constructed in 1988 (capacity 61GL) in the adjoining larger Mary River basin as part of a long-term strategy to provide drinking water to the coast (Figure 6.1). Assisted by central government finance, the construction of this water resource was undertaken as a joint venture between the two councils and is jointly managed by the Caloundra-Maroochy Water Supply Board (CMWSB), which is made up of senior engineers and councillors from both councils (NRM 2002, p.49). Two water treatment plants near Poona and Baroon Pocket Dams were added to the system to treat the raw water to drinking quality standards prior to delivery.

Centralised sewage collection and treatment systems, which began to be introduced in about the 1960s, became the predominant form of sewerage service. The first area to be sewered was Kenilworth in 1963, followed by Nambour in 1969 and Maroochydore in 1973 (MWS 2002, p.10). As awareness of the effects of sewage pollution arose, sewage treatment plants were built alongside many of the major towns. Currently there are seven sewage treatment

- 141 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling plants (STPs) operating in Maroochy (all except one draining into the Maroochy River). Four other STPs service the populated areas of Caloundra City and Kawana on the coast, and Maleny and Landsborough further inland (CCC 2001b). These STPs discharge (typically secondary level) treated sewage effluent via outfalls to the Mooloolah River (with the exception of Maleny which discharges into the Mary River basin) (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.2-3).

Centralisation of sewerage (and water) services is still a work in progress. Not all the population has been able to be connected to conventional sewerage systems and this is partly the cause of nutrient influx into the waterways. On-site treatment systems (e.g. trenches, septic tanks) are spread extensively throughout rural and hinterland areas in both the councils’ combined area of operations (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.177). In 1995/96, these systems serviced an estimated 30% of the total population, mainly those in the rural/residential and hinterland areas (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.183, CCC 2001b, p.31). It is important to note that overloading of septic systems in many of these areas has been exacerbated by the introduction of reticulated water. Septic systems are only adequate for the lower flows generated by people using limited water supplies from rainwater tanks (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.194). Landsborough, which was unsewered at the time of the wastewater initiative, was one such town with overloaded on-site systems servicing around 1,500 people (sewered in 1998) in the catchment area of Ewan- Maddock Dam (draining to the Mooloolah River) (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.194). Ewan Maddock Dam is currently off-line due to significant water quality deterioration (eutrophic conditions) probably exacerbated by nutrient influx from septic tank overflows from the township (Engineer 204). Several towns remain unsewered, including Mooloolah, Glass House Mountains, Beerwah and Beerburrum (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.194).

Over the last decade, populations in SE Queensland have continued to climb as people move to the coast from Brisbane, NSW and Victoria for lifestyle reasons. However, it is widely recognised that at current usage levels, water supplies in the region will probably reach their sustainable limits within 20 years. Growth rates are now well above the national average (around 4% per annum84)(ABS 2001). The combined population in the Maroochy and Caloundra council areas in 1996 around the time of the water recycling initiative, was about 143,000 people (made up of 56,900 people in Caloundra and 86,000 in Maroochy)

84Average growth rate between 1996-2001. The national average growth rate is about 1% (ABS 2001).

- 142 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(SKM/CDCE 1997a, p.viii) (Table 5.1). The population has increased to around 75,000 and 130,000 respectively in 2001 (ABS 2001), most of which has occurred on the coast. As a result of the very high growth rate, the population in the Caloundra and Maroochy areas are expected to double by 2021 (DLGP 2001 in NRM 2002, p.17). Tourism on the coast now brings in an estimated 30% increase in population during peak holiday periods (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.10).

Various council policies have been directed to address local water sustainability problems. In the years prior to the wastewater recycling initiative, a user pays pricing system and metering was introduced for all connections in the two council areas in addition to water demand management strategies (e.g. leakage reduction, water conservation education). In Maroochy, these activities brought about an average 38% reduction in water usage85 (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.67-8). Since the mid-1990s, under pressure from the state government to improve the state of the rivers, the councils have upgraded their main STPs’ processes with Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) capability to reduce the amount of nutrients entering waterways. This, however, does not address non-point source pollution (e.g. septic tank overflows) and, as a result, the SE Queensland Waterways Report (2001) gave a poor report card rating for the health of the Maroochy and Mooloolah River systems (i.e. rating them C and B respectively). The report also still implicates Maroochy Shire’s Sewage Treatment Plant outfalls as contributing factors to the poor health of the Maroochy River. It is estimated that 31% of TN and 53% of TP loads derive from STP point discharges in the catchment, while the rest derives from diffuse pollution from sources such as septic tank overflows, urban development, cane farms, beef and dairy farms, forestry and market gardens (Healthy Waterways 2001, Ch.3).

6.2.3 Organisational structuring of policy interaction

It was in this context that the Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study was undertaken as a joint council initiative in 1996-98. This background sets the scene for considering the course of the events related to the initiative, which for ease, will be referred to as ‘the study’ – i.e. the Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (CMSWM Study). This section outlines the regulative aspects of the case – the main

85 Per connection per day between 1991 and 1995-96 (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.68).

- 143 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling organisations involved, and the existing formal and informal organisations of water management.

The main groups include local councils (initiators of the water recycling strategy), central government, professional associations, interest groups and the media (the general public are a less formalised group). ‘Vertical’ authority includes the administrative organisation of water and overarching state legislative and local regulatory framework, which shape collective interaction. ‘Horizontal’ interaction includes linkages between groups e.g. council’s regional linkages, non- government groups, broader community etc. These organisational aspects help explain the structure of policy interaction – i.e. the way participants and groups related to each other.

6.2.3.1 Local Government institutions

The framework for water management in the state of Queensland had a significant influence on the dynamics of the CMSWM Study – mainly having the effect of constraining possible options for dealing with wastewater. The development of water, sewerage and other basic public services is closely tied to the rise of local government itself and is reflected in the description of the essential local government responsibilities: roads, rates and rubbish (Painter 1989, p168). Illustrating the centrality of these functions, the revenue generated from the collection of rates for water and sewerage services constitutes a large proportion of council income (Painter 1989, p.168). For example, Maroochy Shire Council takes in around 26% of its total revenue from water and sewerage rates and utility charges (MSC 2003, p.50, 2004a, p.81). Similarly, Caloundra City Council receives about 35% of revenue from water and sewerage charges (CCC 2001a, p.11).

Queensland councils have significant autonomy in water and sewage decision-making compared with most councils in urban NSW and Victoria, as they manage the water resources, their treatment, distribution and disposal in their areas of operation (Johnson and Rix 1993). As we’ve seen, ‘self-provision’ of water services, an institutional form that was based on the absence of formal collective organisation, has not entirely been phased out. Responsibility for the numerous on-site water and wastewater systems within their areas of operation is left entirely to private land occupiers, with local water authorities limited to managing publicly

- 144 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling owned water and sewerage facilities (i.e. mainly centralised systems)86 (SKM/CDCE 1997a, p.51).

‘Council’ really means two groups of people: elected representatives (i.e. councillors) and different career experts in the various departments (see Figure 6.2). Councillors – who are re- elected at three yearly intervals - are not ‘professional politicians’, but tend to be part-time unpaid volunteers with less obvious party affiliations than elected representatives in state or federal politics (Painter 1989, p.170, see for example MSC 2003, p.10-11). Each councillor represents a single sub-division of the local government area (LGA) with about 10,000 electors per division (Local Government Act 1993, Chap. 5). There are 12 councillors in Maroochy and 10 in Caloundra (MSC 2003, p.2, CCC 2006). Councillors communicate through council meetings and with their constituents through the local press (e.g. regular articles in local press stating opinion or policy). They maintain links with various community and supporting constituent groups through, for example, membership of civic organisations (see for example MSC 2003, p.10-11).

The elected Mayor is responsible for ordering council meetings and directing the Council’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to carry out policies and decisions made by the council. The CEO who is at the top of the bureaucratic ladder directs the employees of the council to carry out the tasks or policy directions which are set out by the elected council (Local Government Act 1993, Queensland, Chap.4). Below the CEO are Directors who run separate functionally defined departments, which carry out various public services. Typically these departments – or ‘silos’ - consist of engineering/public works, planning/environment, financial, and social services (Painter 1989, p.173) (however, re-structures have taken place in some councils over the years and these categories vary) (see Figure 6.2).

Water and sewerage functions are mainly carried out through the engineering/public works sections - unlike in NSW where for urban areas they have been given over to state-run regional water utilities. In line with National Competition Council reforms of the 1990s, some of the larger local councils, including Caloundra, gave their water and sewerage functions over to separate commercialised business units setting these groups at arms length from other council

86 Local councils play a support role to the land occupiers through maintenance agreements and the provision of operation and maintenance literature. However, septic system operations have not been

- 145 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling departments (Anon. 1998c). Thus, CalAqua (Caloundra City Council’s water business) and its counterpart, Maroochy Water Services (MWS), have responsibility for providing water and sewerage services to the community. Water managers and engineers (almost always civil engineers) are located in this business unit or engineering works department, i.e. CalAqua and Maroochy Water Services. Authority comes down through the hierarchy (i.e. from CEO to Director to Water Manager to engineers) (Livingston et al. 2004) (see Figure 6.2).

Council engineers have few organised links with residential water consumers and thus relations with the public tend to be mediated through the activities of the councillors. However, no councillors are allowed to interfere with the way an employee of the council performs their duties (Local Government Act 1993, Chap. 4). Internally, local government water managers/engineers in SE Queensland councils tend to interact mainly with the planning and financial council staff in those departments when decisions about water recycling have to be made (Livingston et al. 2004) (Figure 6.2).

Council engineers also interact with technical groups in other local councils. Interaction occurs between council engineers and those from private consulting firms who carry out much of the contract work for council (e.g. design, construction and operation of treatment works etc) (Livingston et al. 2004). Professional engineering associations at the regional and national levels provide forums enabling information and knowledge sharing (e.g. Local Government Engineers Association, Australian Water Association, Institute of Engineers Australia - Queensland Branch).

Councils undertake joint ventures with other councils such as in the case of major water supply projects. For example, the Caloundra-Maroochy Water Supply Board, which manages the Baroon Pocket Dam that supplies drinking water to the whole region, is made up of technical staff and councillors from Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils.

Other regional groups which represent broader council interests i.e. South-East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils (SECROC), Sunshine Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (SUNROC) function as local government vehicles for lobbying state and federal government on planning and infrastructure issues. Less is known about the community consultation history of the councils. However, the consultation for the CMWMS

monitored in the past and are only investigated if a complaint is received (CCC 2001b, p.31). - 146 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling appeared to be the first major public consultation on wastewater management issues (Engineer 204)(Environmental representative 201).

Mayor and councillors

CEO

Director Director Director Director

Engineering/ Planning & Council Water Finance & Community Environment business Administration Services Manager Water & Sewerage

Figure 6.2 Indicative organisation chart for Queensland local councils. Arrows indicate the typical interactions between council staff and departments for water recycling projects. Thicker arrows indicate more frequent instances of interaction (Livingston et al. 2004, adapted from Brown 2003).

6.2.3.2 Central Government institutions (Queensland State Government)

Local councils operate under the constant oversight of central governments and there have always been inherent tensions between state government control and local council autonomy (Painter 1989, p.166). Local Government water authorities in Queensland own, operate and manage their water and sewerage infrastructure, but they rely on the state agencies for regulatory approvals, technical advice and funding to carry out state-approved activities. Senior representatives of state regulatory agencies87 were interviewed and reviews of legal and policy documents were made in relation to water recycling as part of this study to gain an understanding of the way the state government enactments constrained the actions of local government.

The dominant legislation in Queensland in relation to water and sewerage management at the time of the study (1996-98) was the Water and Sewerage Act (currently administered by the

87 Relevant agencies included Natural Resources Mines and Environment (NRME), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Dept. Environment and Heritage (DEH), Queensland Health (QH) and Department of Local Government & Planning (DLGP). NB: the DEH was transformed into the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) on 11 December 1998.

- 147 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

NRME). This Act details, for example, how councils are to provide a water service or sewerage system. At the time of the study, there was no legislative framework available guiding councils specifically in the practice of safe and acceptable water recycling88. However, legislation prohibited greywater and blackwater recycling in sewered areas (except by special dispensation for research purposes). This was a major constraint to the consideration of different wastewater management options in the CMSWMS process89.

There were certain other tendencies that shaped the options. Queensland Health, which currently has an advisory role providing policy guidance on standards for water reuse, was very cautious about endorsing water recycling (Queensland Health 216, 2004). The EPA (previously DEH) was enforcing increasingly stringent nutrient discharge requirements (necessitating infrastructure upgrades e.g. Biological Nutrient Removal) which made water recycling look increasingly attractive as a means to utilise these investments.

Furthermore, the subsidy system favoured conventional approaches. Funding for major water and sewerage capital works is available from the State Government via the DLGP through a $65 million per annum subsidy program (1998-1999), which invites councils to apply for grants (Queensland Legislative Assembly 2002). Emphasis is placed on capital works (mainly to assist in upgrading existing centralised facilities) rather than non-infrastructural projects.90 For example, subsidies for up to 40% of the cost of works for raw water storage, water/sewage treatment works or disposal of effluent after treatment are available (DLGP c2004)91. However, pre-conditions for granting subsidies include approval of strategic and total water management plans from the NRME and the demonstration of compliance with discharge water quality regulations. Approvals/licences for water discharges or extractions had to be granted by the then Minister for Environment and Heritage.

88 Queensland councils were using South Australia’s reuse guidelines until about April 2004. 89 It is expected that some types of domestic greywater recycling will be allowed in sewered areas by early 2005 (Anon. 2004a). Existing legislation also determines that blackwater in sewered areas must be directed into the sewer at all times, and this is unlikely to change in the current legislative review. 90 This framework is currently under review. Further consideration is being given to subsidies for other activities, e.g. water reuse, holistic frameworks, cost-effectiveness and non-infrastructural issues e.g. leakage, demand management. 91 A new category of eligibility introduced after the CMSWM study was ‘water re-use’, but this is limited to the beneficial reuse of effluent sourced from an STP e.g. not stormwater or greywater sources (DLGP c2004, p.7).

- 148 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

In summary, the main state regulatory directives had the effect of 1) precluding domestic grey or black water reuse options (in sewered areas) and 2) requiring sewage nutrient reduction prior to wastewater disposal, thereby defining the level of appeal of various wastewater management options in the CMSWM study.

6.2.3.3 Regional environment groups and other non-government organisations

In the midst of the development of the water catchments the political landscape had undergone significant change over the years. Non-government groups increasingly contested the above technical model of water management. A number of these groups were important observers and participants of the CMSWM study process, particularly environmental groups. Environmental sustainability has become a concern for a broad cross-section of the community as well. Some councillors elected to represent the local community in recent years seemed quite sympathetic to the environmental cause: some were affiliated with the peak regional environmental lobby group, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC), which is an umbrella organisation established in 1980 encompassing about 50 smaller environmental organisations. (Jones 1999, Anon. 2004b). Furthermore, state Greens candidates received around 5% of votes in the electorates of Noosa, Caloundra and Maroochydore in the June 1998 State government elections (Newman 2001). Environmental concerns have also led to the development of catchment ‘watch’ groups in the area – i.e. volunteer based groups which involve ordinary people in water quality/river health monitoring activities (e.g. Waterwatch Inc.). The regional environmental lobby group is the peak regional non-government organisation for pursuing environmental protection goals (SCEC 2004). The group appears to be a highly committed volunteer-based network, relying on donations and grant funding to carry out its work. Although not always in agreement on methods, members in principle are dedicated to preserving the environment and are used to lobbying and working with government and community groups to pursue those goals. Group members meet and correspond regularly with other members and organise active outreach to their public support base (e.g. newsletters, website, fund-raising rallies etc) (SCEC 2004, Webb 1998).

Seeing an opportunity to have a say about sewage issues, environmental supporters became involved in the wastewater study at two levels. A representative was present on the CMSWM study’s steering committee, which defined and guided the study process. This group

- 149 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling was quite well institutionalised and was afforded ‘insider status’ by the councils. Secondly, many environmentally aware people attended the public meetings organised during the CMSWM study.

6.2.3.4 Anti-water recycling network

Citizens Against Drinking Sewage (CADS) was a group opposed to potable water recycling that developed after councils had invited public input and already ratified the wastewater study outcomes. How could such a group have such a significant impact on the course of events? Part of the explanation could lie in its organisation and commitment. The group could be characterised as an issue based, loosely linked network of people with a strong commitment to stopping potable water reuse. The group mobilised support from the wider community, but the network tended to operate outside of ‘official’ consultation channels, wielding most influence through the use of print media and internet. So it was not afforded ‘insider status’. According to one of the key activists, the 20-30 or so members of the network communicate with each other via email (Community Representative 202). The main means of applying pressure was through personal contacts and written correspondence; e.g. meeting with the press or public, and letters to government officials.

6.2.3.5 The Media / Press

This brings up an interesting question as to whether the media could be considered as part of the organising? The answer would have to be ‘yes’. The media, in this case the local and regional press, chose to takes sides against the water-recycling plan. They enabled smaller groups to leverage their concerns into a much wider public domain and thus gave their arguments greater influence. The press was instrumental in shifting the wider public’s attention to the risks related to potable water recycling instead of the benefits and this in turn constituted a destabilising effect and diminished influence of local and state elected representatives and council engineers. However, the story conveyed by the press occurred within a much broader volatile political scene which was unfolding at the state and national levels.

- 150 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2.4 Policy Narratives: Discourses, norms and values

Policy processes and outcomes can often be better understood by considering the claims and counter claims used to characterise the policy problem by different groups and the way these ideas are mobilised through the organisational framework. Policy narratives are the scenarios and arguments that underwrite and stabilize the assumptions for policy-making in uncertain and complex situations (Roe 1994, p.34). However, these ideas do not exist in a vacuum: values and belief systems in the normative dimension and organising in the regulative dimension underlie the different facts and issues people draw attention to. This section describes influential policy discourses and underlying value systems evident in this case study. Diverse policy participants might form an ‘advocacy coalition’ (Sabatier 1988, Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith 1993) positioning themselves similarly on a particular issue, without sharing the same values. Essentially, the claims and counter claims made by the groups are competing problem definitions.

Four broad policy narratives may be defined and used to make sense of the wastewater management problem (characteristics summarised in Table 6.1):

1. ‘Traditional’: natural resource exploitation,

2. ‘Reformer’: efficient use of water resources,

3. ‘Environment’: conserve water and the environment, and

4. ‘Community’: criticising government for imposing actions on ordinary people.

The following sections describe these key narratives, and underlying value systems, that were mobilised by different groups in relation to the wastewater initiative.

- 151 - Institutional ‘Traditional’ ‘Reformer’ ‘Environment’ ‘Community’ (Towards sustainable Pillar (Conservative model) (Modernist model) model) (Conspiracy Model)

Supply and disposal Water resource Water cycle management Public health dangers Cognitive Feed demand management Multiple users and goals Local knowledge (knowledge and Multiple users and goals discourse) Mono-disciplinarity Trans-disciplinarity Manage risks Exploit and discard ‘Managerialism’ Intrinsic value for Social construction of Sewage as a waste/’filth’ Water efficiency and environment risk Normative Government conservation Water efficiency and Community (values and responsibility Sewage as a resource conservation empowerment - ‘Us’ and expectations) Sewage as a resource ‘Them’ Public acceptance Shared social Distrust experts and responsibility government Professionally controlled Corporatised public Participatory institutions Loosely defined state monopoly service Catchment based organisation Regulative Functional activity Challenges by non-experts management ‘moral-suasion’ (organisation) (=informal social sanctions)

Table 6.1 Summary of competing discourses and values characterising Case Study 1 (based on Stenekes et al. 2004, adapted from Brown 2003, p.69, Colebatch and Larmour 1993)

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of N.S.W

2006 Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2.4.1 ‘Traditional’: natural resource exploitation

In the ‘traditional’ institutionalisation of practice, the main problem was to supply all the water that was needed for the benefit of individuals (to sustain living standards). This perspective was based on the assumption that natural resources were unlimited in their availability. For example, natural resource exploitation was a strong underlying basis for development and human settlement in SE Queensland. Essentially, this form is the base case around which present practice is structured. At the centre of this institutionalisation lies an emphasis on supply side management and a centralised administration of water functions.

6.2.4.2 ‘Reformer’: efficient use and management of natural resources

As difficulties with natural resource scarcity arose, the value of efficiency of water resource use replaced the exploitative value base. This perspective arose out of growing knowledge of the water cycle and human interaction with it. Supply side management is increasingly questioned as a solution, but water is still generally regarded in terms of its utility to humans. Environmental impacts are seen as an unwanted by-product of development, but they can be managed through prudent use of technology. Knowledge bases are largely technical and economic in nature, and these are seen as the key to defining future directions e.g. risk management. Technical expertise combined with business style management is seen as the best strategy to plan water resources efficiently. The public is increasingly regarded as a stakeholder e.g. public acceptance / customer service are considered the norm.

6.2.4.3 ‘Environment’: Conservation of natural resources

Environmental discourses emerged to challenge the exploitative values of unlimited development and environmental degradation. This discourse – ranging from deep to lighter shades of green – is part of the much larger global shift towards recognising the intrinsic value of nature (going beyond its utility to humans). In SE Queensland, the ‘environment’ perspective consisted of normative concerns about irresponsible development, the construction of further dams and the effects of sewage and stormwater pollution on natural water bodies.

- 153 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The ‘environment’ perspective is based on the knowledge that natural resources are not unlimited. Natural resources are seen as a limiting factor to population growth and development, and humans are understood as dependent on ecological systems. The central problem is therefore how people can live sustainably within the available resource base. Water conservation and natural resource use efficiency (e.g. sewage a resource rather than a waste) are seen as desirable strategies to achieve this goal. This holds implications for the regulative dimension, pushing the emphasis toward collective social responsibility for environmental wellbeing (stewardship, altruism) and public participation.

6.2.4.4 ‘Community’: What ‘They’ are planning to do to ‘Us’

The ‘community’ perspective is mainly based on a concern for community empowerment and grass roots organisation. This particular perspective manifested itself in the broader political climate of the 1998 Queensland election.

The Queensland State Government had changed hands three times during the 1990s and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party was gaining national influence. Hanson espoused isolationist and xenophobic policies that tapped into many existing grievances, including resentment against economic rationalist policies of the 1980s-90s, a backlash against ‘political correctness’ and distrust of the ‘elites’ and government (Grattan 1998, p.75). These events were almost certainly significant in shaping the mood around the wastewater initiative, probably by whipping up distrust of government thus shaping the opposing stance to water recycling. It is easy to see how any increased risk ‘imposed’ by government may become unacceptable in such a climate (i.e. suggestions of a government conspiracy) and any change appeared threatening. The opposition group itself may have reflected (and been mobilised by) this wider sentiment.

The ‘community’ perspective derives its cognitive basis from local or popular knowledge. Valuing the ordinary person’s advancement and aspirations was part of the discourse, e.g. having a green lawn etc, and environmentalists were seen as part of the problem. However, this ‘community’ perspective was arguably more case specific than the previous perspectives were. Similar to the resource exploitation story, water was seen as a basic right of ordinary people – and needed to underpin the standard of living – the government should supply it, not curtail its use. “Hey, this is the driest continent. It's criminal to let the water go into the sea” (Community

- 154 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Representative 202). In this case, expert technical knowledge was also seen as highly suspect because the sources of information were not trusted.

6.2.5 How was the problem defined by different groups?

Participants drew on these meta-narratives to define the policy problem differently. The following sections detail the discourses with which the main groups made sense of the wastewater management question based on first hand interviews and secondary sources. These discourses are indicative, drawing on various meta-narratives, shifted and overlapped as interactions and contact with the policy issue occurred (e.g. residents becoming experts; technical experts becoming environmental activists etc) (Throgmorton 1991).

6.2.5.1 Council engineers

Council engineers tended toward the ‘reformer’ perspective, but elements of the ‘traditional’ perspective came through. The ‘reformer’ perspective was reflected by an implicit move away from an exploitative approach to a water cycle management that considered multiple users and goals, and risk management. These rested on normative shifts such as increased value placed on efficiency and conservation, sewage as a resource and public acceptance of plans. In the current case study, the value of efficiency was expressed through the promotion of conserving, recycling and reusing water as practical strategies. Increased value for public acceptance was tempered with cynicism about the unreliability of public input. Public acceptance (and ignorance) of technical solutions was singled out as a significant obstacle to solving wastewater disposal problems (e.g. Engineer 205). It was seen as dependent on the supply of more factual information to the community (e.g. scientific facts were considered appropriate criteria to decide magnitude of the health risk, but they expressed difficulty in understanding public opinion on risk). The engineers, except for one (Engineer 207) who suggested that the community’s health concerns could be valid, mostly downplayed the validity of the public’s health risk concerns.

The ‘traditional’ perspective was evident in the faith in technology to solve problems, centralised management and government responsibility. Technical staff expressed a high degree of faith in technological means and technical options for wastewater management. They used technical, scientific and economic reasoning such as technical feasibility or the relative - 155 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling costs/benefits of options. A high level of faith was expressed in technological capability to treat sewage effluent to a quality safe for drinking; ‘I was convinced that it was technically feasible’ (Engineer 205). And there was a tendency to see scientific knowledge as more valid than non- expert knowledge e.g. disparaging references to the ‘paparazzi science’ as expoused by community activists (Engineer 204). Concerns about treatment plant reliability and treatment process breakdown was flagged by one interviewee with longer-term experience in water treatment as a potential problem (Engineer 207). Thus sewage management tended to be seen in terms of the technical means of addressing the problem, but deeper institutional/organisational change possibilities were less often part of the response.

For council engineers, the main ‘problems’ were 1) managing water shortages / sewage effluent volumes (‘traditional’ knowledge) and 2) the need for community ratification of any plans (‘reformer’ value).

6.2.5.2 Environmentalists

Local environmentalists tended toward the ‘environment’ perspective emphasising conservation and protection of the natural environment as the main problems. This perspective stressed not only human health issues, but also the importance of ensuring natural waterway health and the need for more careful stewardship of the environment (for its own sake). There was probably a range of shades of ‘green’ and degrees of commitment to this problem frame: with environmental values widespread in the broader community. For example, ocean STP outfalls tended to attract widespread criticism (Champion 2002). As a result of these convictions, the main problem was framed as how to get people to reduce their water consumption and to increase the efficiency of water use, which intersected with the agenda of ‘reformers’. Their broader aims, of course, were to prevent the loss of hinterland under a new dam and prevent water pollution by sewage.

The ‘environment’ perspective on shared social responsibility tended to converge with the belief in the need for ‘public acceptance’ of the ‘reformers’. Those with darker shades of ‘green’ emphasised direct action at the community level for pursuing environmental goals (Environment Representative 201). Several councillors at the time were sympathetic to

- 156 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling environmental causes (i.e. some were members of the regional environmental lobby group), which suggests the ‘environment’ perspective was quite well organised and resourced.

6.2.5.3 Elected representatives

Councillors (or political aspirants) were seen as having personal and career interests in retaining or generating public support (Social Psychologist 209) and were very conscious of public opinion (and thus the media) (Journalist 206). So their main problem frame may have been to be seen to be ‘doing good’ while maintaining popularity. This vulnerability is made more significant by the fact that their support base tends to be uncertain e.g. around 60% of people surveyed in Caloundra-Maroochy area didn’t know who their local representatives were (Rowland 1996b, p.53). Since few of them seemed to have obvious party affiliations, they were probably highly vulnerable to lobby group demands. While they initially aligned with either the ‘reformer’ or ‘environment’ perspectives, there was a tendency to sway with lobby group demands.

6.2.5.4 Community Activists, Anti-recycling group

A group representing the anti-potable reuse perspective developed at a later stage in the process (when the study outcomes were publicly announced). The thrust of the ‘problem’ for this group was a strong conviction that unknown risks were being imposed on the community by the government without consent and through an unfair process. Underlying this normative conviction was the cognitive idea that there were potentially devastating public health dangers from potable water recycling. In the traditional mode of thinking, sewage was regarded as a waste that had no place in the drinking water supply. Secondly there was a sense that direct / indirect potable reuse was not what the rest of the community really wanted or was prepared to accept, thus disputing what the ‘community input’ was (drawing on local knowledge).

Recycling water seemed to them an exercise of arbitrary decision-making power by the government under a false banner of ‘protecting the environment’. ‘…this was about money. It was not about the environment. It was not about introducing indirect potable reuse... It was all about introducing direct [potable] reuse’ (Community Representative 202). This ‘community’ perspective was founded on alienation and mistrust of proponents’ motives for initiating the

- 157 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling plan. It emerged from a completely different framework than those with the ‘reformer’ and ‘environment’ perspectives because there was no shared understanding of the problem.

6.2.6 Trajectory of action - what happened?

6.2.6.1 Implications of shared problem frame: Study initiation and rationale, Jan 1995 -

With imminent water scarcity and wastewater disposal issues approaching, Maroochy Shire Council approached Caloundra City Council officials in January 1995 to join them in forming a regional strategy for addressing wastewater issues starting with a ‘strategic wastewater study’92. (Figure 6.3 shows a timeline of events.) The stated aims of the study were to develop a strategy for dealing with the increasing volumes of sewage generated by intense population growth in the two council areas. Impetus for the study derived from concerns among engineers93 that previous wastewater management had consisted of ‘piecemeal development’ and there was a sense of ‘always just adding to what we've got now with schemes that are probably not ideal for the future’ (Engineer 204). It was thought that maximum sewage treatment capacity would be reached by about 2020 at current population growth rates94 (Engineer 204). They were also cognisant of potential water supply scarcity problems95. However, ‘…it was really to say this is one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia, wastewater management is going to be a real issue. We've got to make decisions now about what we're going to have to do with wastewater in future.’ (Engineer 205). Therefore, the study ‘…was initially aimed or predominantly aimed at disposal of effluent and reuse of effluent,’

92 Noosa Shire Council was approached but declined to join the study, having initiated their own in 1993 (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, A11). 93 Engineer’s views expressed are from interviews, emails and phone conversations with senior engineering representatives of three of the key organisations (CalAqua, MWS & CMWSB) and planning documents written by technical consultants related to the study initiative. 94 In fact, the volume of sewage treated in Maroochy Shire has increased by 40% since the study was done in 1997 (despite STP upgrades and reductions in nutrient discharges) (MWS 2002, p.11). 95 One indicated that water supplies would need to be augmented by about 2010 at current use patterns (Engineer 205)95. Another expressed the view that there was enough water to last until about 2025 (Engineer 204), so the figures were a little uncertain. (Estimates depend on assumptions about population projections & water conservation measures.)

- 158 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(Engineer 205). ‘We knew the agenda…’ (Engineer 204). Thus technical representatives argued for a long-term plan to provide enough wastewater services to meet rapidly increasing demands. The plan was to ‘…just look at wastewater -- what went down the sewer… as opposed to stormwater, which runs down into the surface water’ (Engineer 204). However, they were adamant that ‘There was no preconceived idea about what the outcome of the strategy would be’ (Engineer 205).

Council officials seek joint strategy for wastewater recycling (Jan 1995)

Phase 1 Focus groups Public consultation process (May 1996) Phase 2 Focus groups

(Jul-Aug 1996) Telephone survey (14-15 Aug 1999)

Phase 3 Public displays (release of results) (Oct-Nov 1996)

Queensland local government Landsborough Sewerage elections (29 Mar 1997) Scheme tender accepted (Aug 1997)

CADS issue network formed

“Men’s Worst Fear on Tap” published in The Sunday Mail (Jan 1998) Petition against potable reuse tabled to Council (early 1998) Council votes to remove potable reuse options from Wastewater Strategy (22 Oct 1998)

Queensland State Government refuses to issue licence for Landsborough Sewerage Scheme

Figure 6.3 Caloundra-Maroochy – Timeline of events

- 159 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Elected officials were convinced by this argument and participated in setting up a wastewater management study. A new organisational form was devised to pursue the study aims and to generate community involvement and commitment to the process and its outcomes (see Figure 6.4). Technical experts and councillors from Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City Councils were chosen to represent the two councils on a joint steering committee whose task it was to manage the study (the chair was a senior council engineer). Representatives from the state agencies (EPA and DNR), an independent urban planning group and the peak regional environmental lobby group, were also invited to join this committee96. This steering committee commissioned two different external companies in January 1996 to run the activities of community consultation and technical investigation at a substantial cost of $500,000.

6.2.6.2 Setting the agenda: Convergence of ‘reformer’ and ‘environment’ discourses

Members of the steering committee were sensitive to community concern about the local environment, and particularly water issues. There had been a history of protest against new dams and previous council decisions on sewerage outfalls and as a result, coastal residents seemed to have little trust for the councils in relation to sewage management decisions. In years past, there had been a public outcry about the existing sewage outfalls in Caloundra polluting recreationally important beaches and strong resistance to the prospect of any new outfalls (Journalist 206). Thus it was well known that no issue had wider community support than to ‘stop dumping sewage into the ocean, rivers and estuaries’ (Champion 2002). In the history of the region, there had also been lobbying to stop the construction of new dams. ‘…[P]eople living in the upper Mary Valley, were concerned that the State government was going to build a dam on the Mary River and flood part of the Valley. And they have been lobbying against that quite actively’ (Journalist 206). The councils were in fact in a difficult position, caught between the need to treat increasingly large volumes of sewage while avoiding the construction of new dams and sewerage outfalls. They ‘…had to try and find something more acceptable maybe than another ocean outfall…’ (Journalist 206). Shoring up support for a wastewater plan was potentially problematic, and the wastewater study was intended to generate this support.

96 The make-up of representatives on the steering committee changed as issues arose, e.g. for health risks, Queensland Health joined.

- 160 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Queensland State Government14 (various departments): Grants for

Caloundra City Council Maroochy Shire Council Councillors/Engineers Councillors/Engineers

Steering Committee - CMSWM Study 15 VERTICAL INTEGRATION

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Policy Community consultation process & outcomes: Technical feasibility study wastewater

The Community: business / interest groups / environmental groups / residents etc

HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION

Figure 6.4 Organisation of the wastewater study process envisaged by the steering committee97 (based on description in Rowland 1996a, SKM/CDCE 1997a).

In an effort to bring the strong environmental lobby on board and to diffuse potential opposition from those groups, the councils invited a lead environmentalist to join the steering committee. This representative ‘…was a very strong advocate…’ against dams, but for water recycling. Residents in the hinterland were ‘…politically astute and sort of steered the debate… to look at recycling drinking water, because one of the theories was that if we recycle drinking water on the coast then we won't have to have a dam in the hinterland.’ (Journalist 206). This idea was justified by the environmental representative on the steering committee who commented, ‘…it's no good saying 'NO' – you end up being called a NIMBY. You've got to come up with a positive alternative... Recycling is the way to go…’ (Environmental representative 201). ‘I certainly was making sure… the water recycling options were identified and kept to the fore...’ (Environmental representative 201). Thus some with an ‘environment’ perspective regarded the wastewater study as a vehicle through which water recycling could be moved forward onto the agenda as a solution to current water woes and perhaps be publicly

97 Representatives from the Dept. of Environment & Heritage (now the EPA) and the Dept. of Natural Resources were also part of the Steering committee (Rowland 1996b, see Appendix 2).

- 161 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling legitimated. Not everyone seemed comfortable with this strategy though, and some thought potable water reuse was being pushed too hard as a clever way of off-setting the need for a new dam (Journalist 206). For example, representatives of a local Waterwatch group not represented on the steering committee agreed with the overall objectives of addressing wastewater but were put off by the heavy handedness of the tactic (Community Representative 208).

The agenda to push forward water recycling as a solution by key environmentalists seemed for all intents and purposes to converge with the agenda of the engineers. Council engineers were sympathetic to the idea of centralised water recycling as a solution. It was a centrally administered technical response with which they were comfortable, it could enable the water scarcity and wastewater disposal concerns to be addressed simultaneously and it was happening everywhere anyway98. Local government management structures had historically given council engineers relative autonomy in centrally maintaining the water infrastructure. Part of their thinking was that the strategy needed to be guided (and options defined) by those with the appropriate technical knowledge. For example, ‘We wanted to go out and provide various options to the community and get them to receive that and say which of those they preferred,’ (Engineer 205). But, there was a preparedness to work with the community to achieve the goals because it needed the ‘…support of the broader community as much as sectional interest groups…’ (Engineer 204). Acutely aware of potential for public protest over issues such as sewerage outfalls, they ‘weren't about making decisions from a technical point of view, and then saying 'this is what we want to do'’ (Engineer 205). Thus the steering committee decided to set up a community consultation process to ask the broader community (not just lobby groups) to guide them in wastewater management decisions. This appeal to the ‘silent majority’ was probably as much an effort to diffuse local tensions around environmental issues as to provide enhanced legitimacy for council decisions.

6.2.6.3 Calling for community support: Public consultation period Jan 1996–Aug 1997

Identifying who the ‘community’ was and what the community wanted were central but disputed issues in the study process. The study began with the community consultants

98 There were many references by interviewees to the fact that uncontrolled wastewater discharges were occurring in the water catchments (Engineer 205)

- 162 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling organising public consultation activities in the main centres of Maroochy and Caloundra local government areas between May and August 1996 to “provide participants attending the discussion groups99 with information on the known technical options for wastewater management.” (Rowland 1996b, p.7). Press statements were released explaining “we are seeking participation from the silent majority in the broader community. We appreciate the valuable input of community and environmental groups, but this project aims to involve all community members” (Anon. 1996b, 10 April).

Accordingly, local papers were commissioned to write articles explaining the rationale for the study. "Given the millions of litres of wastewater being generated each day on the Coast, it is fundamental to the future of this region - given its reliance on waterways - that appropriate measures be put in place to tackle the issue well into the future" (Anon 1996, 17 April). The councils “pledged to spend millions on high-tech solutions to wastewater management” (Furler 1996c, 11 April). A popular local newspaper commented, "Ordinary residents should seek to have a part in this study ... too often, debate is confined to special interest groups who can push their own agendas as being reflective of the majority's viewpoint. While such groups have a role to play, this study aims to seek the views of the silent majority..." (Anon 1996, 11 April). Advertisements were also run to encourage ordinary people to attend discussion groups.

In the first phase of consultation, some 200 members of the community attended 23 focus groups that were held during the 4 weeks of May 1996. At each public focus group, an engineer (from the consulting company commissioned to carry out the technical feasibility study) explained the (technical and economic) advantages and disadvantages of each of the different options (Environmental representative 201). Technical consultants in conjunction with the council engineers had devised a range of options. This exercise aimed to reveal what option for managing wastewater was “most likely to have broad community acceptance” (Rowland 1996a, p.1). Fact sheets were handed out explaining the pros and cons of each option to community participants. The range of options presented at the community meetings and focus groups fell under the broad categories of:

disposal to water (freshwater, estuarine, ocean)

99 To be called ‘focus groups’ from here on – since consisted of a handful of people participating in a facilitated discussion forum.

- 163 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

application on land (irrigate local sugarcane, hinterland horticulture, pump inland)

recycling/reuse options (indirect potable, direct potable, on-site)

This first phase of consultation ‘tested the waters’ and found little support for ocean and riverine disposal of sewage among the community attendees. Reuse options such as indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR), however, seemed to have considerable support particularly if they could forestall the need for unpopular new dams and sewerage outfalls. Public feedback on the solutions presented for wastewater management, based on comments by attendees, is summarised in Box 6.1 (below).

Box 6.1 Community views on wastewater management options - Phase 1, May 1996

Feedback on the wastewater management options considered in the discussion groups were:

Disposal to water -- participants not supportive of ocean outfalls and estuaries for disposal.

Disposal to land – 1) Irrigation on cane-land and other commercial/agricultural land uses: issues included land availability, seasonal rainfall variation, storage issues, initial expense for farmers. “Not an ideal solution”. 2) Parkland and sports areas: Supported as a supplementary option. But health risk, land availability, salt problems. 3) Inland usage: areas in the west need water and cost issues, but a popular option among community.

Reuse options – 1) Dual reticulation: “not strongly supported, though some believe it has merit”, “too late for developed areas, too expensive to new developments”, and a “serious concern for community health and individual commitment”. 2) Indirect potable reuse: “makes sound sense”, “if treated to such as standard, why not treat further?”, concern about “effect of even minimal nutrients on current storage”, “strongly supported if reduces need for more dams” etc. 3) Direct potable reuse: “the only solution”, “community will have difficulty accepting this”, “will need time to get used to it”, “psychological barrier”, “definitely a long-term solution”.

On-site treatment and disposal – 1) Composting toilets: “ideal for non-sewered areas”, but “needs committed management policy”, concerns about responsibility of users. 2) Grey water reuse: “some support from community” but “constraints outweigh benefits” and “health risks acknowledged”.

Source: (summary of Rowland 1996a, p.14-35)

- 164 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The second phase of public consultation occurred in July-August 1996. This period was even more important, as a shortlist of options was to be defined by the steering committee for further technical investigation based on the public feedback received. About 300 people in the community attended 30 or so further public focus groups, which featured a presentation of technical options by consultant engineers followed by a discussion of the options. These meetings were widely advertised and held in towns throughout the local government areas of Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City – in both coastal and hinterland areas. This time, in addition to the attendee’s personal comments, a vote on the preferred options via feedback forms was recorded at the meetings.

Box 6.2 Community shortlist of preferred wastewater management options, based on a vote by discussion group attendees via feedback forms, Phase 2, July - August 1996

Ranking for “complete” solutions: Ranking for “supplementary” solutions: 1. Indirect potable reuse 1. Application to land 2. Direct potable reuse 2. On-site treatment & disposal 3. Irrigation – horticulture 3. Dual reticulation 4. Irrigation – sugar cane

5. Irrigation – inland

6. Ocean outfalls

Source: (Rowland 1996b, p.38)

It was concluded from the second phase that the attendee’s preferred options were 1) Indirect potable reuse, 2) Direct potable reuse, 3) Irrigation options in that order (as summarised in Box 6.2). This conclusion was based on a qualitative assessment of attendee’s comments made during the focus groups (Phase 1 and 2) and a vote by the attendees (via the written feedback forms). On the feedback forms, people were asked to rank their preferences for the given wastewater management options using a scoring system.

- 165 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2.6.4 The option shaping process

The role of the public was to choose an option based on technical advice about the pros and cons of each option. This relatively narrow role could be considered ‘public consultation’ rather than ‘public involvement’; as there was neither stated intention of giving the public decision-making power nor clarity on how public views would be taken into account. The purpose was to generate public input to the steering committee’s final decision. The range of wastewater management options on offer seemed quite wide – consisting not only of end-of- pipe options but decentralised approaches and upstream waste minimisation activities as well. In retrospect though, some of the options were amplified with positive attribute statements in the presentation material for the attendees, while others were presented with diminished attributes.

In the discussion groups, an ‘either/or’ framework began to be expressed with the use of the terms ‘complete’ solutions and ‘supplementary’ solutions (see Box 6.2). The presentation materials used by the engineers explained that “Two fundamental strategy types” were available – “total: capable of managing the entire sewage flow” and “supplementary: only manages a fraction of total sewage flow” (Rowland 1996b, Appendix 3). In the presentation materials, the complete solutions appeared to be valued over supplementary ones by stressing their positive attributes. This framework suggests engineers were focused on addressing sewage volume reduction with large-scale centralised solutions rather than integrated water management e.g. whole water cycle approaches. Indirect and direct potable water recycling were complete technical solutions that could offer “100% reuse in dry periods”. The technological components could “be retrofitted to an existing plant at any time”, and the ‘dams are already rich in algae, so nutrients in effluent are not a major concern’. More importantly, it “could stall the need for developing new water sources”. There was no mention of health concerns related to indirect or direct potable reuse options in the presentation materials (Rowland 1996b, Appendix 3, p.16- 17). The printed handouts100 described the pros and cons of wastewater recycling, suggesting discharging treated effluent “safely into Cooloolabin, Ewan Maddock and Baroon Pocket Dams… could guard against any public health risks and possibly delay the need to build more dams” (Rowland 1996b, Appendix 2).

100 each option was described in a Fact Sheet handed out at the discussion groups

- 166 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Other options such as dual reticulation and on-site treatment and disposal appeared to be less favourably presented. These were described as supplementary solutions that would only deal with a small percentage of sewage volumes (i.e. for dual reticulation “only 10% to 15% of the total sewage flow in new developments” could be reused). The constraints of supplementary options were stressed such as dual reticulation needing advanced treatment “to reduce health concerns”, and that “increased housing costs will result”. For on-site approaches, in the current management context, owners would be “responsible for operation and maintenance” (Rowland 1996b, Appendix 3, p.15 & 18). The regulatory regime also had the effect of shifting the emphasis away from alternative options, for example, council engineers “…did look at ‘grey’ water reuse – but it’s illegal [in Queensland] if you’re sewered – so there’s not much point in looking at it really” (Environmentalist 201).

Officially, “technical consultants provide input and advice” but were not “recommending any preferred strategy” (Rowland 1996b, Appendix 3) to the community. But the community feedback was probably highly dependent on the way these options were presented. Council engineers conceded, “[w]e were trying to inform them at the same time - like these options are okay but there are some that are not…” (Engineer 204). The effect of these shaping mechanisms meant that the solutions had begun to take on an ‘either’/’or’ format - framed as either indirect/direct potable reuse or a new dam.

The press very quickly adopted the simplistic message that ‘water recycling could prevent new dams’ explaining that the first round of consultation found “widespread support for the general notion of recycling effluent instead of building more dams” (Furler 1996a, 19 July in Rowland 1996). Unless wastewater management was implemented, “we will lose more fertile valleys like the Obi Obi” (Anon. 1996a, 11 July). Thus this apparent trade-off began to dominate the agenda indicating that the converged discourses of environmentalists and engineers had gained coinage in the public domain. By self-admission, the recycling agenda was “… kept to the fore…” by the steering committee’s environmental representative (Environmental representative 201). The presence of a lead environmentalist on the steering committee was seen by some as having flavoured the whole study with a pro-recycling message, and particularly the framing of the question as ‘recycling or dams’. Not only that, but a wider impression held sway that the pro-recycling agenda had been championed by several green

- 167 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling councillors (About the environmentalists: "maybe they had someone's ear") (Local Government Association Representative 214).

Many people in the community began to be alarmed by the thought of indirect or direct recycling into the water supply system. The Sunshine Coast Daily, which has the largest daily circulation101 of the local papers in the Sunshine Coast region, reported that local groups had begun to actively encourage members to have a say one way or another. For example, the Palmwoods Progress Association had distributed posters advising, “If you don’t fancy drinking recycled wastewater then you should make your opinion known now”. The Association’s president advised people to “register their views before its too late” (Furler, 1996, 5 July in Rowland 1996b, Appendix 7).

Early on, the president of the environmental lobby group had urged “its affiliate members” to contribute to the development of the wastewater strategy (Ruiz-Avila 1996, 19 April). Whether they substantially did or not, there was a perception that the dominance of environmental supporters at the community focus groups had favored a green agenda. An opponent of potable water recycling for example claimed that ‘…the people who attended Phase 1 and Phase 2 read like a 'who's who' of the environmental movement…’ (Community Representative 202).

In contrast, the council technical staff were careful not to appear to be influencing the process at all. The use of engineering and community consultants helped distance them and they felt that this would encourage the impression that they were not advocating a position. ‘I saw it really as the community's opportunity to tell me how they want this system managed and if I had become too involved in the process, then I could be seen to be trying to influence it’ (Engineer 204). However, their views shaped the presentation and weighing of options through their contact with the private engineering consultants and their participation on the steering committee. So while technical staff intended to interact less with the public during consultation than councillors, there was an impression among some participants that they had significant influence over the process.

101 The Sunshine Coast Daily’s circulation is 20,000 from Mon-Thurs and rises to about 30,000-40,000 on Fri-Sat.

- 168 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

By this time, many local people were actively supporting or rejecting the wastewater management solutions on offer. In an effort to counter the potential swell of opposition to recycling, environment group supporters tried to appeal to common sense by giving out a message that indirect potable reuse was already occurring regularly in the catchment. An environment group member told the local press that “Sunshine coast residents have been drinking recycled sewage for years” and are “none the worse off for it” (Anon. 1996a, 11 July). This was meant to call attention to the discharge of sewage from effluent from the Maleny Sewage Treatment Plant (and many faulty septic tanks) into the Baroon Pocket Dam, which supplies drinking water to sunshine coast residents (Anon. 1996a, 11 July). This appeal gained little coinage in the public debate. The general ignorance about this situation among the wider community was later demonstrated in results from the community telephone survey on wastewater conducted as part of the study process in which half the respondents (~49%) didn’t know they “had been drinking treated wastewater” (Rowland 1996b, p.66).

By late July 1996, the focus on a choice between indirect/direct potable recycling and another dam in the public debate had begun to polarise the community. The Sunshine Coast Daily reported that, ‘residents are divided over the prospect of recycling treated effluent into drinking water supplies’ (Furler 1996a, 19 July in Rowland 1996). The first round of consultation found "widespread support for the general notion of recycling effluent instead of building more dams", but "discussion groups had shown mixed feelings about recycling highly treated effluent back into drinking water supplies" (Anon. 1996c, 24 July). But the narrowness of the debate negated the ‘big picture’ issues, which had fallen by the wayside. The community consultants themselves commented, “Participants were concerned that the study did not have the opportunity to explore wider issues in regard to wastewater management” (Rowland 1996a, p.26). Participants had been concerned about population growth and development, effect of privatisation on treatment plant reliability, need for a regional approach to water management, lack of co-ordinated responses from council departments, lack of legislative direction on wastewater management and psychological barriers to drinking treated wastewater (Rowland 1996a, p.28-33). Although reported in Rowland’s reports, there is little evidence these issues were adequately brought into or addressed in the wider public debate – apparently receiving little further attention from the steering committee, councils or the media.

- 169 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

On the 14-15 August, in the midst of the second round of focus group meetings, the community consultants conducted a telephone survey to further identify the degree of support for wastewater management options. This was probably due to a perceived need to gain further credibility and legitimacy for the outcomes of the study process. The indicative support for potable recycling, as apparently indicated by participants of the Phase 1 and 2 discussion groups, was considered encouraging but insufficient (Rowland 1996b, p.38). The telephone survey was considered “statistically valid” and thus a more reliable indication of community support (Rowland 1996b, p.76).

The telephone survey revealed useful information about the shaping of options and the mood of the community and the main findings are revisited here. Out of 830 phone-based contacts, 301 people were interviewed across the study area for about 20 minutes each (i.e. a 36% response rate; with 28% refusals and 35% unsuitable/out/etc).

The feedback (as summarised in Box 6.3) confirms that ocean or riverine discharge of effluent was very unpopular, but that support for various other options were fairly volatile and dependent on the evaluative comments supplied by the interviewer. In questions 7, 8 and 9 for example, whether the option was associated by the interviewer with positive or negative attributes – e.g. cost, viability, safety - affected people’s support showing that support was dependent on context i.e. it was reflexive and dynamic.

Perhaps a more critical moment occurred at question 9 when the respondent is asked whether they would support indirect potable recycling. While about half the respondents are very supportive (assuming the definition read to them is fully understood), there are still 26% who oppose the idea. Even when government regulation is vouchsafed and the possibility of a new dam diminishes as a result of recycling water, the percentage against it only drops to 20%.

Despite question 12 (a) revealing that more than 90% of respondents thought the community was not ready to drink recycled wastewater, the consultants had concluded that the telephone survey results revealed “general community support for re-use options” (Rowland 1996b, p.76). While this is certainly not untrue, there was little acknowledgement of the considerable proportion of the community consistently against IPR and DPR whatever the safeguards. Interestingly, there was considerable support for the status quo, i.e. discharging effluent into the environment, if sewage treatment standards are properly regulated.

- 170 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Box 6.3 Selected community feedback - Telephone survey results, 14-15 August 1996

1. Most people knew what wastewater meant – i.e. sewage, waste from toilets, showers, sinks etc, water that goes down the drain at home. (Definition supplied by interviewer: “most wastewater comes from showers, baths, washing machines, dishwashers, sinks and toilets in their homes as well as from industry”.)

2. Most people understood that wastewater is treated to meet “necessary government standards” (~50%) and that it then goes straight into either the Maroochy River, or the ocean at Kawana and Moffat Beach (~70%)

3. The most important wastewater related issues were thought to be 1. Protecting the environment (68% agreed) i.e. impact on oceans and rivers, and 2. Protecting public health (44% agreed).

4. People thought that council should be considering in their management of wastewater (in the following order) –- 1. Protecting public health, 2. Environmental protection, and 3. Water conservation

5. Most people didn’t know who their local councillors were (i.e. 60.5%)

6. Most people didn’t support discharge to the ocean (~60%), but there is a significant proportion who do support the status quo (~30%). And this increases when people are told that the wastewater requires “rigorous treatment” to reach “strict environmental guidelines” prior to discharge (~65%).

7. Most people strongly supported irrigation for sugar cane and horticultural crops (~90%), but when told by the interviewer that this option isn’t very viable (since it would take a long time, be costly for farmers and there is high rainfall anyway), this support drops to 67%

8. Most people strongly supported inland irrigation (over the ranges) (60%), but when told that it could prove to be very expensive for ratepayers, this support drops to 40%

9. People were asked to consider “treating wastewater to a very high standard to recycle it into our dams and through our water supply system” (IPR102) and while around 47% of people were very supportive of this, 26% were against it. But if government regulation was present (i.e. “treatment to Department of Health, Natural Resources and Environmental standards”) and that it could reduce the need for a dam, then people were a little less negative about it (20% against).

102 Indirect potable reuse

- 171 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

10. When asked to consider if “wastewater was treated to a standard suitable for human consumption and mixed with the water to supply their homes” (DPR103) most people gave this a high level of support (~47%). But there was a substantial proportion against it (32%). This does not change substantially even with an education program and the wastewater is treated to a safe standard (still 25% against).

11. About half the respondents (~49%) didn’t know that “sunshine coast residents have been drinking treated wastewater from Maleny ever since the Baroon Pocket Dam came online for water supply to Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City”. (About 20% knew this to be true, and another 20% of respondents didn’t think that this was the case!) p.66

12. Most people agreed that:

(a) the community was not ready to “drink treated wastewater” (>90%) p.63

(b) there is “widespread support for recycling treated wastewater instead of building more dams” (70%) p.63

(c) disposal of wastewater through ocean outfalls is not environmentally sound despite the use of current technology (60%) p.64

(d) “there had been considerable concern that the marine park environment has been a sink for a variety of industrial and domestic pollutants” (89%) p.67

(e) the councils should use the cheapest method to manage wastewater (73%) p.69

Source: (Rowland 1996b, p.41-69)104

The results of the telephone survey gave the steering committee enough confidence to argue that public opinion supported indirect potable reuse as a long-term strategy for wastewater management in Caloundra and Maroochy. Based on this, the community consultants distributed a news release of the study’s results on 28 October titled, “Indirect potable re-use favoured”, to local newspapers (Rowland 1996c). The story appeared in 11 local newspapers including the Sunshine Coast Daily, which reported, "Sunshine coast residents want their wastewater recycled into the water supply rather than having another ocean outfall constructed”. The stated rationale was, "Technical investigations undertaken by engineering consultants... showed the two re-use

103 Direct potable reuse 104 Note: numbering does not correspond to that in Rowland’s report

- 172 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling options could postpone the construction of a new dam and the associated costs by up to 30 years" (Furler 1996b, 2 Nov). The paper explained, ”Indirect potable reuse - recycling treated wastewater into the water supply - has emerged as the community's favored option…Public discussion groups and an extensive telephone survey put the option ahead of seven other possibilities" (Furler 1996b, 2 Nov).

In November 1996, information about the preferred options for wastewater management - indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse and disposal to water105 in that order - was displayed in ten locations in Caloundra and Maroochy. The last event was a community workshop held on 21 November allowing interested members of community to ask more detailed questions about the technical components of these three final options (50 people attended).

In retrospect, it is possible to surmise that many people (at least 30% if we go by the telephone poll) did not support indirect or direct potable reuse of wastewater, but it seemed there was a tendency to discount this fact in the decision-making generally. Perhaps this is because of a general apathy among the community and little evidence that it translated into any immediate action. For example, a letter printed in the Sunshine Coast Daily in early December 1996 protested about the general apathy;

"On November 21 I attended a meeting on wastewater management... Those attending, I suspect were mostly greenies probably not on town water... all hell-bent in having us drink treated sewage… These are the people who are having all the input into this debate and unless the majority of residents get involved, these are the people the councils will take notice of… The outcome of this debate will affect all of us, so I urge my apathetic fellow residents to… get involved in this issue. Otherwise, the tree-huggers will hijack the debate and we will all be drinking treated sewage." (Young, 1996 #1179, 2 December in Rowland 1996c).

Any “resistance to this option” was attributed by the community consultants to a “lack of understanding of the process and perceived ‘leap of faith’ in moving to such a system” (Rowland 1996c, p.7). It was suggested “a high degree of public education” would be needed

105 The option of “irrigation to land” had inexplicably dropped off third place in the final list and was replaced by “disposal to water”. Various irrigation options had been the 3rd to 5th most preferred options according to the indicative ranking in the Phase 2 report (Rowland 1996b, p.76).

- 173 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling because “opinions for and against are likely to be magnified as the Councils move toward implementation” of the study findings (Rowland 1996c, p.7). The lack of visible protest action at this stage can probably be explained in that immediate implementation of the strategy was considered unlikely because potable reuse was meant as a far-reaching solution for the next 50 years (Engineers 204 & 205). Secondly, the decision-making process was rapid and the message probably had not yet sunk into the community’s consciousness (Engineer 205).

At any rate, the councillors decided to leave the decision to the incoming councillors who were to be voted in at the Queensland local government elections on 26 March 1997 (Engineer 205). Council elections occurred just as the study outcomes were presented to the incumbent councils, which meant that health risk issues could have become leverage for political challengers. However, there is little evidence that this actually happened. After a period of time in mid August 1997, and with little further public debate to be heard, both new councils formally adopted the study outcomes as a preferred long-term joint wastewater management strategy (MSC 1995-2003, 12 Aug 1997, Jones 1999).

6.2.6.5 A mandate for action? Immediacy of the study implications, Aug 1997 onwards

Whether indirect potable reuse was supported by the community or not had particular significance for Caloundra City Council, which had been planning for several years to construct a sewerage system in the town of Landsborough. Most people seemed to agree that the present situation of septic tanks was not desirable. The town had overloaded on-site systems servicing around 1,500 people in the Ewan-Maddock Dam catchment area, ultimately draining to the Mooloolah River (SKM/CDCE 1997b, p.194). The old dam was off-line because, “…there were septic tanks overflowing, and all the rest of it was eutrophic. So, the thinking was at the time that we can't make it any worse” (Engineer 204).

The apparent mandate of support for indirect potable reuse indicated by the results of the CMSWM study had emboldened the Council enough to announce they would discharge treated wastewater from the Landsborough STP into the Ewan Maddock Dam (Environment Representative 201). The plan was either to release treated wastewater from the new Landsborough STP into Ewan Maddock Dam via an artificial wetland or to irrigate nearby trees with the treated effluent (CCC 1996, 3 October). If support for indirect potable reuse had not

- 174 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling been forthcoming, treated wastewater would have been directed around the dam by pipe to the ocean and disposed via the Kawana ocean outfall (CCC 2001b, p.30). With rapid population growth expected in the area over the next 20-30 years, Ewan Maddock Dam was regarded as a future water supply (Engineer 204). At the time, this small dam was off-line because it was polluted and eutrophic. In Maroochy, the implications of the outcomes of the wastewater strategy were not picked up as an immediate concern, “…whereas for Caloundra it was immediate - they were going to put it into Ewan Maddock Dam in the next 12 months” (Engineer 205).

Thus, soon after the strategy supporting indirect potable reuse of wastewater was officially adopted, Caloundra City Council accepted a tender for the design, construction and operation of the Landsborough Sewerage Scheme (CCC 1997, 14 Aug). They had received State government subsidies for several schemes earlier in the year including the bulk supply of water to Maleny which was currently on rainwater tanks and the building of Landsborough’s sewerage reticulation and treatment plant infrastructure (CCC 1997, 8 May 1997). They had also sought increased state funding for the Landsborough Water Reclamation Plant and requested (and won draft) approval for the release of treated effluent into Ewan Maddock Dam from the Department of Environment and Heritage106 (CCC 1997, 14 Aug). In addition, they sought to have a pilot plant installed to generate 3 years of water quality test results to monitor the safety of potable reuse107 (CCC 1997, 14 Aug).

Although well intentioned, the council’s actions undermined the impression that IPR was a long-term strategic solution and instead, lent it a sense of immediacy. Caloundra City Council publicly disconnected the pipes between Ewan Maddock Dam and the mains supply pipeline to prove to the public that IPR was not now occurring, but was a long-term plan. They planned to put in place proper pilot plant monitoring to generate information and community acceptance108 before any treated effluent was actually put on line into the water supply (Engineer 205). According to a journalist, the council, “…had the local TV station along and a crane, where they actually lifted the piece of pipe out so that people can see that it was no longer connected”

106 Now, the Environment Protection Authority 107 Processes to include microfiltration, ozone and granular activated carbon. 108 via a referendum in 2003 (SKM/CDCE 1997a, p.26)

- 175 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(Journalist 206). However, the local community had little trust for local councils on sewerage issues, particularly on wastewater recycling. This was due to several unpopular aspects of Caloundra, Maroochy, Noosa and Caboolture council’s wastewater management policies in the recent past, which according to the interviewees had been divisive and led to the loss of some councillors109. This was mixed with concerns about the general pressure on road and water infrastructure as a result of immense regional population growth and a distrust of state governments for not keeping promises about regional infrastructure110.

In this context, the council was seen as going ahead with its plan without proper community consultation (Environment Representative 201). As a result, many people were off side and “…didn't really believe that the whole thing was just being done as a trial, but that it was actually for real” (Engineer 205). Support for the Landsborough STP was not forthcoming from the environmental movement either: “…it is not appropriate to have this plant on the banks of the lake, because if there's any problem with the plant, the sewage would go straight into the lake…” (Environment Representative 201). Engineers were defensive: “…it wasn't any riskier than what we're already doing with the surface waters that are running downstream and being extracted by downstream towns. They are reusing, so this risk is already there” (Engineer 204). In fact, they thought they were diluting and improving the water quality of Ewan Maddock because effluent from the STP would be ‘…better than quality than that of the dam with all its nutrients and bacteria and all the rest of it’ (Engineer 204).

Drawing on a completely different set of values and knowledge, some residents became increasingly concerned at news of the proposed ‘Landsborough reclamation scheme’. An issue- based network sprang up to counter the council’s recycling plans. “In 1998 when we realised

109 There had been Maroochy Council’s upgrade of the Maroochydore STP and unpopular discharges of treated sewage into the Maroochy River (Journalist 206). There was a perceived unwillingness to deal with “bad smells” and beach pollution attributed to an old ocean outfall in Caloundra (Journalist 206). There was an unpopular direct potable reuse proposal by Noosa Council in 1993, which attracted community opposition (Environment Representative 201)(Community Representative 202)(Engineers 205 & 207)(Journalist 206)(Engineer 207)(Social Psychologist 209)(State government Staff 212). Finally, there had been an unpopular decision in 1995 to construct a reclamation plant to indirectly reuse treated wastewater in the water supply (via river) as part of the South Caboolture Water Reuse Strategy (Environment Representative 201)(Community Representative 202)(Engineers 205 & 207)(Social Psychologist 209)(State government Staff 212). 110 The Goss Labor government, which had promised to remove the toll on the Sunshine Coast Motorway, had apparently not kept its promise to do so and as a result, distrust of government “dominated the whole

- 176 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling what was happening, we organised to start up CADS” - Citizens Against Drinking Sewage - to prevent the discharge of treated effluent into Ewan Maddock Dam (Community Representative 202). It was thought that environmentalists had co-opted the councils, ‘…to shut down the sewerage outfalls and get people to drink sewerage wastewater - that's what these environmentalists want.’ (Community Representative 202). It was thought that council’s main aim was to pollute the existing drinking water dams (thus removing the possibility of a new dam) to such a degree that direct potable recycling would be inescapable at some time in the future (Community Representative 202).

As in several of the US cases where potable recycling was considered, there was strong feeling expressed about the unfair social distribution of risk; that one part of the community was being unfairly used for another’s benefit. ‘I came into this – my wife came into this – we came in because I did not want myself, my wife, my family, my grandchildren to be used in an experiment… I didn't want that to happen, I won't allow that to happen.’ (Community Representative 202). ‘The idea was we're using coastal people in the experiment. People inland… will be the ones that won't be drinking it, so they will be the control group. They will be able to use the experiment to find out what's going on [with the health risk]’ (Community Representative 202). Thus at the extreme end of the ‘opposition spectrum’, the primary ‘problem frame’ was that councillors, council engineers, private technical consultants and environmentalists were co-conspirators and initiators of an ill-founded scientific experiment testing health risks on unsuspecting community members, suggesting a degree of alienation from the process.

This group believed the outcome of the community consultation process to be totally biased due to: 1) over representation of members of the environmental movement, and 2) the pattern of ‘either’/’or’ questioning in the phone survey/feedback forms that had the effect of pushing people into supporting potable reuse. A comment on this approach more generally: ‘...the way it works out is that in the end you can only come up with direct potable reuse - that’s how they falsify the information so that’s the only outcome…’ (Community Representative 202). These were the normative issues of concern, but the main counter-tactic consisted of raising doubts about the really weak point in the argument for potable recycling; that of potential health

coast” (Journalist 206). (The Goss government was replaced in Feb 1996 by the Liberal Borbidge

- 177 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling risks. It was certainly the case that some community members had gone to considerable lengths to inform themselves about risks related to potable water recycling in the wake of the consultation outcomes thus obscuring the boundary between experts and non-experts. Much of the stated information sources were from the Internet and internationally popular science texts111 on hormone disruption (Community Representative 202)(Journalist 206), the validity of which were dismissed by engineers as “paparazzi science” (Engineer 204). Some of the information came via other activists; one who had previously lobbied against potable recycling in the South Caboolture Wastewater Reuse Strategy in 1996 (Community Representative 202).

Several members of the steering committee commented that potential risk issues had not been fully addressed in the technical feasibility study and community consultation process (Community Representative 201) (and there were few mentions of it in the public debate more generally). Engineers had thought that risk issues could be addressed somewhere down the track since actual potable recycling was considered a long-term plan (Engineer 204). However, they were generally seen as ‘not having done their homework’ by those questioning the plans (Engineer 206). “We didn't really understand or appreciate the risk ourselves you know, we thought well, look we've got 20 years to implement this strategy. They are things that we will have to address on the way” (Engineer 204). In a defensive position, the committee tried to fill the knowledge gap in Feb 1998 by seeking information from international scientific groups about the potential risks from hormone disruptors in recycled water and to address doubts raised in the local newspapers112 (Jones 1999 in RAG 1999). However, there was little conclusive information forthcoming that enabled the potential risks to human health, particularly from hormone disruptors, to be quantified. Process breakdown was also a considered a difficult technical problem to address; “…[I]n reality it is a very difficult problem. And to look the consumer straight in the eye and say your water will always be totally pure all the time and the treatment plant won’t break down to the extent where contamination gets through, I could not say that” (Engineer 207). At any rate, the available factual information on potential health risks from hormone disruptors in potable recycling was complex and uncertain at the time. Arguably

government) (AEC 2004). 111 e.g. “Our Stolen Future” by Theo Colborn and “The Feminization of Nature" by Kate Short 112 The steering committee commissioned a supplementary report on risk (Community Representative 202).

- 178 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling even if this information had been forthcoming, it may have done little to re-assure groups opposing the plans at this late stage as their grievances related more to the non-technical aspects of the plan.

Members of the anti-recycling group approached the press and persuasively argued that human health risks linked to potable water recycling were unknown and that hormones couldn’t completely be removed from wastewater using current technology. Distrust about councils’ previous actions in relation to sewage issues was fresh in people’s minds, thus journalist/editors of The Sunday Mail were receptive to this story and printed it giving it the provocative title of “Men’s worst fear on tap”113 (Lamble 1998, p.7). This article, which was printed in January 1998, sensationally pointed out that the two councils were “…considering adding something to the water that shrinks male genitals” (Lamble 1998, p.7). The article pointed to the possible use of coastal residents as “guinea pigs” in an experimental potable reuse project. It claimed that the decision to recycle treated wastewater had come about due to political pressure from landholders and environmentalists opposed to the construction of a new dam in the hinterland (Lamble 1998). A group member commented, “It was almost like some of the stuff that the media was coming up with, that we’d researched, was way ahead of them” (Journalist 206).

The impact of these and other local news articles with similar messages (including doubts raised in letters to the editor, public meetings etc) on both the wider community and the councils can hardly be overstated. The emotional theme of male fertility had hit its mark114 (Engineer 205)(Community Representative 201). It was a symbolic and emotive issue that successfully generated concern about the impact of treated wastewater on human health. The steering committee had not anticipated these challenges and were shocked by the seeming recoil of public opinion from water recycling when the majority had apparently supported it in principle just 6 months before (Engineer 204).

The problem of not having thoroughly conveyed the risk and uncertainty aspects of the scheme was an important omission and perhaps one of the critical shortcomings in the consultation process. However, there was also a seeming lack of response from the steering

113 The paper has an estimated 1.5 million readership throughout Queensland and 40,000 strong circulation on the Sunshine Coast. 114 For example, a public meeting was held in Nambour on possible links between hormones in treated wastewater and the effect on wildlife and male fertility on 19 Aug (e.g. GCN 1998). - 179 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling committee, particularly to the press, for which they were criticised later (Engineer 205). ‘…[I]n the end it was decided to keep a fairly low profile’ (Engineer 205)(Community Representative 201). ‘I think the experience has been that you can never win when you try to fight something publicly, unless you get the support of maybe the local press. And in this case, the local newspaper in Caloundra seemed to be supporting the opponents of reuse…. everybody felt that it was a losing battle’ (Engineer 205). The committee chair responded to the articles in writing but ‘…sometimes it didn’t get printed or, it was just a small article or something like that’ (Engineer 205).

On the other side, the press defended not giving prominence to pro-recycling arguments saying they had approached council people with requests for information, but received responses such as “…'we're not in a position to comment, talk to the state government or talk to the mayor'…” (Journalist 206). The tendency of council engineers to step back from the public eye seemed to compound the problem by contributing to the appearance of a lack of transparency. The journalist commented, “…I couldn't get their side. They wouldn't really talk about it. What they would say was 'it's not going to be a problem'…but they wouldn't back it up” (Journalist 206). “The engineers were putting this up, on one hand, but on the other, couldn’t justify why they were putting it up… it really came from left field…” (Journalist 206). In particular, this journalist commented that one of the serious problems seemed a lack of real commitment to wider options, “They were talking about recycling sewerage. One of the biggest things was why do we need it in one of the highest rainfall areas of Australia? That was a huge issue… we would rather have drinking water tanks than do that” (Journalist 206). A councillor argued, “we believe the project has been foisted on us before we have been given the other options and alternatives. We object, and we are expressing our concerns publicly… to date Council has given no alternatives other than potable reuse and dams, and that in my opinion is not good enough” (Waites 1998, 27 Aug). The journalist also remarked that a significant factor in the anti-recycling stance had been the personal charisma and persuasiveness of the opposition group’s spokesperson – and in contrast, nobody convincing enough came forward to represent the other side of the story (Journalist 206).

- 180 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2.6.6 Political context: Demise of the scheme

The intensity of this public campaign against the council’s plans for potable recycling can be understood better in the context of political upheaval during the Queensland State election campaign115. It is suggested here that issues beyond the immediate policy process contributed to the ease with which opposition groups stirred negative public opinion. An atmosphere of suspicion in the broader political arena, with the rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, made it easy to divide the community and exploit fears of government conspiracy and secret experiments116. The inequities suggested by the allegation of an ‘experiment’ into the effects of hormone disruptors, using hinterland consumers as the control group and coastal consumers as ‘guinea pigs’, probably tapped into an already heightened paranoia.

The key to understanding the Hanson effect is that Hanson herself symbolised ordinary people who were ‘having a go’, wanting to speak their minds but being suppressed by powerful groups. The discourse brought many grievances to the fore, sent a backlash against economic rationalism, ‘political correctness’ and escalated a distrust of government and ‘elites’ (Grattan 1998, p.75). The turn of the argument to a ‘conspiracy’ (Stone 1989) to impose risk on ordinary people, expounded by the anti-recycling representatives from the early part of 1998, paralleled the general hostility of Pauline Hanson’s rhetoric117. One Nation candidates towed the party line in the Caloundra and Maroochy areas campaigning to clean up the “mess our two major parties have created” (Anon. 1998a) and bring the “voice of ordinary Australians” back into politics (Anon. 1998b). There were even claims that the anti-recycling cause was being used as leverage for political aspirations (Engineer 206)(Social Psychologist 209).

115 The Liberal Premier, Rob Borbidge, announced in May 1998 that there would be an early state election on 13 June. 116 Hanson expoused isolationist and xenophobic policies that, according to commentators, held considerable appeal for disenchanted and alienated groups, particularly among the white working class (Kelly 1998, p.89, Goot 1998, p.58). 117 One Nation ended up winning 23% of the vote and 11 seats in the June election (Newman 2001). One Nation polled strongly in the Sunshine Coast where it gained 25-30% of votes in the electorates of Nicklin, Maroochydore, Caloundra, Noosa and Caboolture (covering most of the Maroochy Shire and Caloundra City areas). Though polling strongly in these electorates, it only won the seat of Caboolture (Newman 2001). In contrast, the Greens gained a modest 5% of the vote (in the electorates of Noosa, Maroochydore and Caloundra) (Newman 2001). The result of the state election was so close that it was only decided when the Independent candidate of Nicklin (who was previously a Maroochy Shire councillor and Liberal party member) agreed to support a minority Labor government 12 days later (Newman 2001).

- 181 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

On the wave of this general backlash against government, CADS quickly collected 10,000 signatures from people specifically against the discharge of sewage into Ewan Maddock Dam. Caloundra City councillors and sitting state members were rapidly becoming concerned about losing support. The tabling of the petition in Caloundra Council (Social Psychologist 209) was a deciding moment for the water-recycling scheme. “[I]t was on the basis of that petition that council got very nervous and thought there’s 10,000 people that are prepared to sign a petition and there’s only 70,000 people in the shire – that’s a pretty good indication of the feeling“ (Engineer 205). Feeling the political heat, the State government, who had already issued a draft license for indirect potable reuse via top-up of the Ewan Maddock Dam, ultimately refused to issue the council a full licence for this release of treated effluent. Urging caution, they argued, "…because of the many unknown factors in the area of health associated with direct potable reuse of treated wastewaters, most informed people in the reuse field would recommend non- potable uses rather than potable uses of treated sewage effluent at this time" (letter from Welford, Ron (Hon.) in Jones 1999). “Well what can you do? You can’t go to the community and say we’ve got all the support of the State government agencies and everybody else... If the environmental protection agency doesn’t support you, you don’t have a leg to stand on. So you just have to distance yourself from the whole strategy” (Engineer 204).

Under pressure from above and below, the councils voted to remove potable reuse options from the wastewater management strategy towards the end of 1998. ‘Caloundra Council could see that if they continued to support the strategy, they were going to get voted out… and pulled themselves off the strategy’ (Engineer 205). In explaining their actions, the council said "…opposition to potable reuse in Caloundra and the DEH reluctance to issue a licence to release reclaimed water from the new Landsborough treatment plant into the Ewen Maddock Dam, Council, at its meeting held on 22nd Oct 1998, decided not to proceed with the proposed discharge into the dam" (Council correspondence, Dec 1998 in Jones 1999). The removal of potable reuse had completely changed the direction of the strategy and “…council is currently looking for further guidance from the State Government, who by the way were involved in the original strategy…" (Council correspondence, Dec 1998 in Jones 1999).

- 182 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.2.7 Initial case findings

The experience in Caloundra and Maroochy in relation to the water recycling initiative illustrates how, even with the best of intentions and public consultation, there is no guarantee of being able to gain agreement on what strategy should be taken, or indeed on the nature of the problem itself. The main problem was that key stakeholder groups had different values and interests and these differences were reflected in the organisational boundaries with particular groups separated from each other and alienated from the process. The community consultation process was brief and rather ‘persuasive’ – promoting particular technically defined ‘solutions’ - rather than engaging people on deeply held values. This provided little opportunity for interacting or negotiating these positions and led to an impasse.

The three pillars of social institutions – shared knowledge and discourse (cognitive), norms and values (normative) and the way organisation is structured (regulative) – are drawn on to guide the following initial explanation of how this problem arose. The aim is to identify aspects of institutional context, which contributed to a failure to reach agreement and facilitate the types of changes that would be needed to stabilise the human impact on the water cycle.

Cognitive and normative aspects of water management institutions supporting or detracting from the ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Although there was a convergence of aspects of ‘environment’ and ‘reformer’ problem frames, there were other key stakeholders missing from the process. Council engineers and those with an ‘environment’ perspective had developed a similar understanding of the nature of the problem (cognitive). The general understanding was that current water use patterns were unsustainable in the councils’ jurisdiction; there was an impending water supply shortage and increasing volumes of sewage to manage. They sought new solutions to these issues since ‘traditional’ technical solutions of feeding demand by building new dams or disposing treated sewage via ocean outfalls were highly unpopular. Those with a ‘reformer’ perspective (indicative of council engineers) and an ‘environment’ perspective (environmentalists/community members) agreed recycling water could be a practical solution. Though there were some doubts, most councillors were “reading from the same road map” and agreed there was some urgency. Opportunities for negotiating these views among council

- 183 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

engineers, environmentalists and councillors in joint forums (e.g. council meetings, advisory group meetings) facilitated this understanding.

– The convergence of values and interests of the three groups (engineers, councillors and environmentalist) implied a shift in the normative dimension on two counts. One was an increasing emphasis on water efficiency as a goal (and within this, sewage valued as more of a ‘resource’ than a waste), and the other was a belief in the need for shared social responsibility for solving water sustainability problems (i.e. local government administration has its limits). On a pragmatic level, the decision to carry out public consultation on the issue of wastewater management was meant to generate broader public legitimacy (i.e. popular acceptance of a decision or governing regime) for any decisions reached. This was the basis of a shift in the regulative dimension with the formation of new organisational forms, i.e. group meetings, public forums and information sessions.

– Shaping and selection of options / scope of study. Despite the sharing of values and understandings among the proponents, the dominance of technical advice brought a tendency to start with technological solutions (‘options’) rather than scoping the wider questions of sustainability and complexity related to the wastewater problems (within the water cycle generally). For example, the issue of population growth contributing to these problems went unquestioned except by one or two participants in the public discussion forums. Engineers (private consultants and council) and health officials avoided the possibility of community-based management and/or on-site/decentralised facilities. The tendency for engineers to conceptualise the water cycle into its separate functional parts (consideration of wastewater as a separate entity from water supply and stormwater) narrowed the study scope and reduced the potential for integrated solutions.

– Because of these conceptions, it appeared that the options with which engineers were more comfortable were more positively conveyed to the public in discussion forums. There is some evidence that the positive attributes of large-scale technical approaches were emphasised (lower cost, controllability of risk, all-in-one solution). The ‘favored’ solutions were generally more closely aligned with engineering knowledge bases, norms and compartmentalised organisational frameworks such as large-scale

- 184 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

physical solutions rather than decentralised approaches or behavioral/organisational change, which would have needed more co-operative approaches among agencies. This was particularly evident in the presentation of materials to the public which explained pros and cons of ‘known technical options’ and led to the framing of simplistic ‘either’/’or’ technical options for managing wastewater, in the wider public debate.

– The consulting engineers, who held the dominant role in ‘convincing’ the public of the legitimacy of technical options, were likely to have been ‘preaching to the converted’. As there was some evidence that self-selected people attended the public meetings, discussions or forums tended to be focussed on environmental issues and thus other groups with divergent views were not present. As was evident later on, people who would have disagreed with the values and assumptions of these groups were not present until the ‘decision’ was published in the media.

– Preference for large-scale technical fixes was encouraged by a state regulatory regime, which provided subsidies for large-scale, piped approaches to wastewater management. Connection to the sewer in sewered urban areas was mandatory at the time (thus legally precluding on site grey- or black-water reuse options). These factors undoubtedly contributed to a diminishing emphasis on rolling out decentralised or on- site options in the option assessments and presentations to the community, which may have afforded a greater degree of sustainability (through minimising exports of wastewater from the region e.g. new developments).

– Consideration of risk and sustainability. The proponents did not explicitly address the risk and broad sustainability implications of each of the options, yet these issues became critical in the arguments of various groups for and against the proposal. Indeed, there were quite different conceptions of risk. Engineers relying on the scientific knowledge tradition had largely dismissed the human health implications of chemicals (e.g. endocrine disruptors) in recycled water as relatively small (compared with mains water sources). But those opposing the initiative were suspicious of ‘expert’ risk predictions, preferring to rely on local and/or ‘popular scientific’ sources tended to think any risks to human health from recycled water was uncertain and most

- 185 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

definitely unacceptable, especially if imposed ‘from above’ by experts from whom they were distanced.

– In the absence of information and opportunities for interaction between the different groups, simplistic risk messages were easily mobilised, e.g. ‘male fertility’ (i.e. virility) at risk from endocrine disruptors in water. Expert advice was sought later, but it was not well received (i.e. was mistrusted in light of the polarised debate) and there was much suspicion of expert motives.

– In addition, opposition groups were unable to obtain guarantees that the practice would be 100% safe for human health. Experts could not give this assurance. In a wider sense, the complexity of environmental sustainability problems associated with wastewater disposal was not incorporated into the debate. For example, though technical experts were aware of unplanned water recycling affecting the existing water supply, the community was generally unaware of these water cycle issues. Proponents were not willing or able to open a public debate about important related issues: population growth, council management, lack of legislation etc, these being more difficult to realistically address from an organisational and political perspective.

– Thus, technical experts’ assurances about risk were not enough to convince CADS to lend their support indicating that respect for expertise is not an argument in its own right. Indeed, this points to the importance of the social construction of risk, which incorporates the notion that there are multiple realities – or ways of understanding risk. It suggests that understandings of non-technical groups are highly contextual, rather than based on the scientific ‘facts’ alone.

– Conditional and changing nature of public support. Broader public opinion on the worth of indirect potable recycling options seemed to shift from accepting to a more negative response largely in response to (negative risk) messages in the media in the context of One Nation anti-government, xenophobic messages (societal context). The lack of agreement on the problem among different groups tended to work against any change. Was the problem about minimising health risks to the community, managing wastewater, government accountability, and public groups as obstacles to plans or protecting local water environments? This suggests ‘public opinion’ changed as the issues arose as part of broader discursive interaction rather than representing any fixed

- 186 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

positions. The conditions that seemed to be linked with these shifts included a lack of faith in councils’ intentions (i.e. past relationships/trust) and the rising hysteria of One Nation rhetoric (i.e. distrust/paranoia). The launch of the wastewater strategy (policy) was not the starting point but a product of a continuous process of governing water.

Regulative characteristics of institutions supporting/detracting from ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Minor opportunities for public ‘problem framing’. Although engineers, councillors and environmentalists regarded public consultation as an important legitimacy building exercise, the public’s role had a tendency to be regarded as limited. In effect, public consultation really meant accepting ‘expert’ shaped solutions – a reactive role rather than pro-active or initiating role. The broad thrust of the problem and the kinds of solutions were largely decided before the process was opened to public comment.

– Formal processes for interaction with the public (consisting of focus groups) combined with the narrow focus (wastewater) allowed only minor opportunities for the broader community / ‘silent majority’ to deliberate the problem to any great extent, especially in the initial stages. Opposing groups that were not generally involved in the initial problem framing activities, not surprisingly, became suspicious of the scheme and its proponents (Colebatch, Pers. Communication 2004). This contributed to the search for alternative outlets for complaint on the Internet and the media by detractors of the initiative. Thus it was easier to block the project rather than initiate other solutions.

– The media itself (news and Internet) can be considered an important organising force that enabled deep cultural concerns about masculinity triggered by potable water recycling risks to emerge. These mediums enabled the construction of new cultural ‘realities’ for people i.e. the force of the discourse about potentially adverse effects on male virility.

– Co-ordinating authority for water across government. Not only was the wastewater strategy undermined from below, it was vulnerable from above as well. This vulnerability arose from a diffusion of authority between local and state governments for water cycle decisions and functions. The strategy was ultimately short-circuited by

- 187 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

a State Department (Environment and Heritage), which refused to give final approval for the plan in light of its detractors and the political heat they generated. This had the effect of revealing broader regulatory uncertainty with regard to wastewater recycling practice as it showed there was little governmental support and guidance available e.g. no guidelines for practice, water quality requirements and doubtful financial help.

– The case suggests that the disconnection of authority between councils and the state government in relation to the scheme was the remaining critical factor in its demise. Only the interested parties seemed to be present to ratify the strategy e.g. committed councillors, engineers and environmentalists. This suggests that if there is no common location for policy ratification, it does nothing to convince dissident groups of the positive side of the policy. Thus there was little commitment from the bottom and the top, making the water recycling strategy vulnerable.

- 188 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.3 Case 2: ‘Backlog’ sewerage programs in the Sydney Region, NSW

‘There are the recycling enthusiasts, the desalination zealots and the dam devotees, and each camp thinks it has the solution to Sydney's water woes. "They are basically religions," complains Sartor.’ (Devine 2005)

6.3.1 Introduction

Sydney Water Corporation, a statutory state-owned corporation with responsibility for reticulated water, sewerage and some stormwater services for around 4 million people, initiated a significant program of sewerage improvement during the last 15 years in the Sydney metropolitan region. One of several goals was to improve the city sewerage network in 60 or so ‘backlog’ sewerage areas, or the 21,700 (or 2%) of households in Sydney serviced by reticulated water, but without access to reticulated sewerage (IPART 1997, p.8). Backlog sewerage policies responded to community concerns about health and environmental contamination from uncontrolled sewage discharges and overflows.

In this in–depth case study, experiences of wastewater management planning in two backlog (or ‘priority’) project sites and their outcomes in the changing context of water sustainability concerns are examined. Picton/Thirlmere/Tahmoor (Case study 2 (a)) and Jamberoo (Case study 2 (b)) represent around 8,500 people on the western and southern fringes of the Sydney metropolitan region. These semi-rural locations, like many backlog sites in fringe areas of the Sydney metropolitan region, presented significant opportunities for realising the goals of sustainable water management (protection of waterways, water conservation, water recycling, technological innovation, integrated water cycle planning, public participation). Backlog sewerage schemes were initially about waterway protection but, throughout the course of conducting this case study in the 2002-4 drought period, arguments for recycling were increasingly centred on Sydney’s water supply security (DIPNR 2004b, p.13). The institutional context of these activities changed rapidly in recent years. In addition to increasing concern about sewage and stormwater runoff pollution, Sydney’s water supply catchments experienced

- 189 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling sustained low rainfall periods (2002-5) generating concern about the security of the city’s water supply and the effects of long-term climate change118. In addition, the organisation has the difficult task of balancing business, public health and ecologically sustainable priorities in carrying out its operations. (NSW Parliament 1994b). These circumstances provided compelling reasons to re-think conventional approaches, including the potential for greater water savings through water reuse/recycling. Such opportunities presented themselves in the ‘backlog’ sewerage towns, but for various reasons, only 2 out of 7 schemes identified in the programs119 have incorporated wastewater recycling (as at December 2005). With a modest estimated 3% of Sydney’s effluent being recycled, criticism was levelled at Sydney Water for its modest performance on urban water recycling (SKM 2000, Sendt 2005, p.35)120. The adoption of such practices in these cases might have contributed to Sydney Water’s ultimate goal of preventing all dry weather sewage discharges to waterways (NSW Parliament 1994b).

This gap between stated operational goals compared with outcomes raises important questions about the potential for achieving water sustainability in the current planning framework, and the role of various participants and organisations in that process. Recognising that Sydney Water is just one player in an increasingly complex institutional framework, the case study examines the way policy and planning participants conceived of water sustainability issues and how outcomes were negotiated. Drawing primarily on interview data, planning and policy documents, the discussion focuses on the values, expectations and goals of key policy participants and their interaction in relation to issues of risk, sustainability, environment and community.

The following section starts with a sketch of the historical development of wastewater management practice in the Sydney region. The latter parts discuss the participants, their

118 Sydney-siders were on water use restrictions in 2003 and by early 2005 Sydney’s water storages, which supply 60% of the state’s population, dropped to 41.5 per cent of their capacity – the lowest level since the construction of Warragamba dam in 1960 (Sendt 2005, p.27). 119 Backlog Sewerage Schemes completed (Picton-Thirlmere-Tahmoor, Gerringong-Gerroa, Bundeena- Maianbar) and Priority Sewerage Program schemes approved or completed (The Oaks-Oakdale-Belimba Park, Jamberoo, Illawarra Northern Towns, Brooklyn-Dangar Island) as at December 2005. 120 “Sydney Water’s schemes have had relatively little effect reducing the level of drinking water Sydney requires from its storages. The amount of effluent reused is around 14 GL per year, but much of this is reused for environmental protection in sewage treatment plants or in effluent disposal schemes. The amount of drinking water saved is a little over 4 GL per year, or around half of one per cent of Sydney’s annual demand” (Sendt 2005, p.35).

- 190 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling discourses and the planning processes. This conforms loosely to the institutional analytical framework introduced in Chapters 4 and 5, which identify discourses and knowledge, norms and values and organisational interaction as important variables in the analysis. Organisational frameworks in which planning for Picton and Jamberoo took place are similar, therefore significant features of Sydney’s organisational framework and broad policy discourses related to water are presented once only. The final sections of the two sub-case studies draw out likely conclusions based on the evidence presented, about the impact of the institutional framework on water management practice.

6.3.2 Sydney Region Hydrology and Settlement Background

Sydney is the largest city in Australia and is located on the south-eastern coast of the continent. The metropolitan region is home to 4 million people and covers much of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River and Georges River catchments. Historically, water managers in Sydney have been pre-occupied with the task of procuring clean water for consumers (as described more generally in Chapter 3 Section 3.3). Thus the problem has mainly been one of supply rather than of managing the water cycle. As the following brief account of the hydrology and settlement of the area illustrates, the task of securing water has been characterised by reactive responses to water demands. Efforts to manage wastewater were typically secondary to water supply priorities. Conveying sewage ‘waste’ as quickly as possible away remains a central task in wastewater engineering practice, as do efforts to expand Sydney’s centralised wastewater systems. This reflects the largely ‘traditional’ institutional base supporting water management activities.

6.3.2.1 The rise of the Sydney Water Board

In the first 20 years of European settlement, which began in 1788 with the arrival of the First Fleet, there were numerous early water shortages (Aird 1961). An initial supply was found near the early settlement from the Tank Stream, which also acted as a sewer for wastes. By 1826 the Tank Stream was so polluted that it ceased to be an adequate water supply even though the authorities attempted to protect its purity by erecting fences and penalising those who discarded their wastes into the stream (Henry 1939, p.43).

- 191 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

By the 1820’s the population of Sydney had grown to 10,000 people and by the 1830’s, engineers had begun to construct Sydney’s second water supply, which was a series of pipes called Busby’s Bore. This transported water from the Lachlan swamps area in eastern Sydney to standpipes in the settlement (Hector and Christensen 2004). Although the authorities organised to bring in a clean water supply, sewage disposal was generally left to individual householders. Demand for clean water soon outstripped supply and Sydney City Council which had been constituted as an entity in 1842, set about building a larger capacity scheme. Sydney’s third water supply carried water from the Botany Swamps area in the south of Sydney to the settlement (constructed 1859-1888) (Henry 1939, p.1).

The development of water services can hardly be considered separate from the development of institutions for the purposes of maintaining the existing systems and procuring new water supplies. Therefore, it is appropriate to note that as city water systems in Australia became larger and more complex, as they did in the late 1880s, the pattern was that responsibility for managing them was passed onto regional, usually government organisations. Thus when the Botany Swamps project was completed in 1888, responsibility for it and other existing water, sewerage and drainage schemes was handed over to a dedicated single authority – the Sydney Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board (MWSB). Prior to this, responsibility for water supplies lay mainly with the City Councils who were carrying out their own works (see Chapter 3 Sections 3.4 and 3.5). One historian suggests the thinking at the time was that a dedicated single authority with its co-ordinated ability to levy user fees and make its own decisions was thought to be more efficient than many small entities (Henry 1939, p.1). In 1924, full responsibility for construction of all water works passed to the MWSB including major stormwater drainage infrastructure – thus becoming the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (MWSDB) (Aird 1961, p.219).

When Sydney’s water supply nearly dried up completely in the severe drought of 1901-02, another regional scheme was planned that would extract water from the Nepean and Cordeaux Rivers in the far south and west. The Upper Nepean Scheme - Sydney’s ‘fourth’ water supply – was begun in 1888. While it was still undergoing construction, temporary water supplies and local bore wells were used (Aird 1961, p.18). The Upper Nepean scheme was designed to bring water from weirs in the Upper Nepean River system to Sydney via the Upper Canal and Prospect Reservoir in the west. Water demand however was continually increasing and the

- 192 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling city’s population had already grown to about 500,000 by 1901. To augment this water supply system, the MWSDB (generally known as ‘the Board’ or the ‘Sydney Water Board’) decided to construct the Cataract, Cordeaux, Avon and Nepean Dams (1907 to 1935).

Despite the continual procurement of new water sources and the expansion of reticulated water networks to service new houses, populations in the first half of the 20th century continued to grow. Thus the Board could not easily keep up with the provision of water services. Increasingly, this was the case in Sydney’s outlying areas to the west and south. To accommodate these changes, the Blue Mountains water supply schemes were constructed to the west of Sydney between 1905-1942 and the Woronora scheme in the south between 1927-1941 to supply these regions with water (Sydney’s fifth and sixth water supply schemes).

After World War II, and several droughts later (1934 to 1942), the population in Sydney boomed and the Board extended the reticulated water system. To keep abreast of the water demand and secure another reliable supply, further dams were planned on rivers beyond the Sydney metropolitan region. Warragamba Dam and its reservoir, Lake Burragorang (Sydney’s seventh water supply) was constructed on a tributary on the upper Hawkesbury-Nepean River system from 1948 and was completed in 1960. Lake Burragorang is 52 kilometres long, collects water from a 9,050 square kilometre catchment area and has a storage capacity of 4 times the volume of Sydney Harbour (or 2,031,000 megalitres) making it the largest water storage in Australia. With concerns that by the 1970s even Warragamba Dam may become inadequate to meet water needs of the city, the Board embarked upon the Shoalhaven scheme which was constructed between 1971-77 (Sydney’s eighth water source). This scheme had been planned since 1968 and included several water storages including Tallowa Dam.

6.3.2.2 The drainage of Sydney

The Board’s main goal was to expand the reticulated water system to meet the demand for clean water by new suburbs. Providing drainage services was expensive and difficult due to Sydney’s terrain and therefore lagged behind (Cleaver c.1982, p.18-19). Though the Board has responsibility for the reticulated sewerage infrastructure, on-site sewage disposal tended to be left to local councils and individual households (IPART 1997, p.7). The first combined sewer in Sydney - the Tank Stream - received both stormwater and wastewater in the early days of

- 193 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling settlement despite efforts to keep it clean. While this acted as a de facto sewer for many years, dedicated sewer works began to be constructed from 1853 to carry both stormwater and sewage from the city into Sydney Harbour (Hector and Christensen 2004). Before the sewers arrived, sewage waste was almost universally disposed of into cesspits in backyards (Beder 1998, p.91). Overflows from the cesspits often made their way into local watercourses causing pollution and contributing to unsanitary living. This situation was exacerbated by the introduction of reticulated water supplies (water closets) which encouraged increased water use and overloaded the cesspits (Aird 1961, p.4, Beder 1998, p.91).

By the 1870’s following rapid population growth and urban expansion, authorities were concerned that unsanitary conditions in Sydney, its harbour and of the general drainage system, was causing disease such as typhoid fever. The link between microbiological disease causing agents and public health problems was known and gave impetus to sanitary reform movements towards the end of the 19th century (Beder 1998, p.93). Pressure mounted on public authorities to manage sewage and stormwater more systematically (institutional changes are discussed more generally in Chapter 3 Sections 3.3 and 3.5). The levying of rates from Sydney landowners led to the financing and development of dedicated separate sewerage schemes; principally those in the north and south of the city. The north and south sewers, with their outlets at Bondi Beach and Botany Bay respectively, were constructed between 1880-89 (the south sewers were extended in 1924-36) to convey sewage flows away from the Harbour (Beder 1998, p., Aird 1961, p.148). The northern sewers (North Sydney) were constructed by the Government in 1891-98 and transferred to the Board in 1899 (Aird 1961, p.154).

Although there were heated debates about whether ‘dry conservancy’ approaches should be adopted rather than water carriage approaches during this period, the water carriage technology became the service standard (Beder 1998, p.106). It has been argued that water carriage technology ascended because large-scale piped technology required greater capital, industrial organisation, expertise and funding to achieve, which became a raison d’être for the rising sanitary engineering professions. Beder’s research on the ascendancy of sewerage technology suggests government authorities found centralised technology more convenient and amenable to central control (Beder 1998, p.106). There was little consideration of environmental impacts of different approaches.

- 194 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Despite experiments to utilise human waste on land at sewage farms121 in Sydney and the use of septic tanks in fringe areas, by 1920 almost all of Sydney’s sewage was being transported to the coast and disposed via ocean outfalls at Bondi, Malabar and North Head (Beder 1998, p.126). As early as 1936, reticulated water and sewerage technology had become the norm in the major cities122 (Beder 1998, p.124-6) and this means of controlling wastewater has undergone relatively little change since then. Although for many years Sydney’s sewage was disposed into the ocean with little or no treatment, primary treatment (screening and settling) was added in 1960 at the Bondi, 1975 in Malabar and 1984 at North Head sewerage treatment plants.

More recent assessments of water and wastewater management in the Sydney region have observed that 90% of the effluent produced in Sydney continues to be disposed to the ocean via ocean outfalls, and 70% of it as primary treated sewage123 (CoA 2002, p.205).

6.3.3 Organisational structuring of policy action

The regulative environment for urban water management in New South Wales is complex. This is partly because successive government administrations have significantly modified the organisational framework for water over the last few decades (modern water institutional patterns in Australia are discussed in Chapter 3 Section 3.6). Arguably, the reasons for change can be understood by examining contemporary discourses as found while carrying out this case study; the main aspects of which are discussed in the next section. This section sketches the nature of the organisations that impact on the decisions made in relation to NSW backlog sewerage schemes. The objective is to sketch the framework in which participants mobilised different discourses; the location of policy action, and to examine the way sustainability is incorporated into this framework. The structure, roles and responsibilities of the main

121 The Botany Swamps sewage irrigation area ceased in 1916, after about 30 years of operation, when the Western & Southern Suburbs Ocean Outfall Sewer was built to transport sewage from the southern and western residential areas of Sydney to Long Bay (Malabar) for discharge to the ocean (Henry 1939, p.173). 122 By contrast, much of country NSW relies on on-site sewage management systems of which there are approximately 284,000 currently operating in the state (Kenway and Irvine 2001). 123 Bondi STP has undergone an upgrade, bringing the volume of primary treated sewage nearer to 70% (Australian Water Association quoted in Peatling 2005).

- 195 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling stakeholder organisations that impact urban water management, and specifically sewage policy, in the Sydney region are outlined below.

Two main levels of government manage the urban water cycle in NSW: state and local. (The Federal Government has no direct jurisdiction over water.) A National Water Plan is currently being discussed to bring a more consistent approach to sustainable water management124. Local government is the primary provider and manager of sewerage in country areas, but Sydney Water (a state government organisation) is the main provider of water and wastewater services in the Sydney region.

6.3.3.1 Central Government Institutions (NSW State Government)

The New South Wales (NSW) State government presides over the most populous of the six states (and two territories) in Australia (Summers et al. 2002). While the Federal government has significantly more money than state governments, it has historically had less to do with water matters than the states. The NSW state government has responsibility for water management throughout the state of NSW. Local governments in regional areas of the state manage water infrastructure in their individual jurisdictions. State government technical, management and financial support for councils is provided through the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS)125 (Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program).

As mentioned above, interest in a national approach to water management has been growing in recent years (e.g. Coalition of Australian Governments 1994; National Water Initiative 2004; National Water Commission 2005) in response to drought and other economic and environmental pressures.

Sydney Water (formerly ‘Water Board’)

In the populous Sydney region (where 70% of the state’s population dwells), Sydney Water Corporation Limited (‘Sydney Water’) manages water supply, wastewater and some

124 The federal government, whose powers are set down in the constitution, can influence environmental matters on a negotiated basis with the state and territory governments. Its roles lie in national leadership, standard setting, intellectual contribution, and financial investment (CoA 2002, p.213).

- 196 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling stormwater services. The operational area of Sydney Water includes Greater Sydney, and parts of the Blue Mountains and Illawarra regions. Sydney Water is the regional statutory water authority126 with a politically defined jurisdictional area (rather than catchment based) covering the operational areas of interest for this study. Sydney Water shares management responsibility for water, sewerage and stormwater with local councils, who manage local stormwater systems and inspect privately run on-site sewerage systems. In backlog sewerage areas, this means the water supply services are publicly managed but sewerage disposal is privately managed; each of these services being the regulatory responsibility of a different level of government.

Sydney Water can be characterised in terms of the way it functioned before compared with after corporatisation (1 January 1995). McClellan QC describes the pre-1995 situation, which was the way the organisation had operated as a statutory authority when it was able to heavily subsidise its backlog sewerage programs:

“…the Water Board was a statutory authority, established under its own Act and directly controlled by a Minister in its day-to-day operations. Both the Managing Director and the members of the appointed Board were selected by the Minister and subject to direction. The role of the Board was ambiguous. Ultimately, the only independent function of the Board was its ability to express its opinion about decision making in a report to the Minister. Board members were not accountable under the Corporations Law.” (McClellan 1998b)

The Greiner Government wanted to remove the perceived weaknesses of this organisational framework through corporatisation. After complex and difficult negotiations, Sydney Water Corporation Limited was legislated in 1994 under the State Owned Corporations (SOC) Act as a company state-owned corporation. The Sydney Water Act 1994 applied the ‘company’ State Owned Corporations Act to the Corporation from 1/1/1995. This prescribed a corporate structure similar to that of any corporation, which must pursue commercial objectives.

125 Prior to March 2003, this program was administered by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. 126 Sydney Water is currently a NSW state owned statutory corporation.

- 197 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

As a state owned ‘company’, however, its shareholder became the NSW government, on behalf of the people of NSW127.

This situation was, however, re-evaluated after the Cryptosporidium contamination incident in 1998 when the organisation was brought back under increased Ministerial scrutiny (Jane and Dollery 2005) by being made a ‘statutory’ state-owned corporation on 1/1/99. The SOC Act still provides the basic framework for Sydney Water's corporate structure, its shareholder relations and the establishment of its Board (McClellan 1998b) but the Minister still has powers of intervention over the Board as recommended by the McClellan Inquiry128. McClellan justified this on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest between ‘business goals’ and the ‘public good’ in the ‘company’ objectives and the need for greater public scrutiny.

Figure 6.5: Sydney Water on the Government Department/Privatisation and Government Influence Scales (Reprinted with permission from the authors) (Jane and Dollery 2005)

The ‘statutory’ model allows the Minister to control and direct the Board to ‘provide information in the public interest’. Therefore, the organisation is more aligned to the Government of the day than it was and thus accountable to the Minister and through him, the parliament and the people. Jane et al (2004) explain these changes in terms of three movements,

127 The voting shareholder Ministers were the Treasurer and one other eligible Minister nominated by the Premier, and there were several other non-voting shareholder Ministers (including the Minister for the Corporation, who cannot be a voting shareholder) (McClellan 1998b). 128 Peter McClellan QC led the public inquiry into the Cryptosporidium contamination incident. - 198 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling with the most significant being the second in 1995 when the Water Board became a company state-owned corporation (Figure 6.5). This is reflected in the discussion of modern institutional changes in Section 3.6.

The objectives of this corporation were set out in the Sydney Water Act 1994129, including (1) being a successful business (operating efficiently, maximising net worth and exhibiting a sense of social responsibility), (2) protecting the environment (ecologically sustainable development) and (3) protecting public health (NSW Parliament 1994b). The goals are apparently equally important. The Act emphasises that in pursuing the special goals of reducing public health risk and preventing environmental degradation, the corporation should:

reduce the environmental impact of its discharges into or onto the air, water or land,

minimise the creation of waste by the use of appropriate technology, practices and procedures,

reduce the use of energy, water and other materials and substances,

re-use and recover energy, water and other materials and substances, used or discharged by it (NSW Parliament 1994b).

Environmental Protection Authority

The NSW Environmental Protection Authority played a key role in the formulation of the backlog sewerage policies. In 1996, the EPA identified which areas needing sewerage facilities more urgently. Two rounds of backlog area programs were considered: the first round considered 53 areas and was completed in 1996. It earmarked 7 areas that were of high priority based on environmental assessment criteria (together with social, economic and operational considerations).

129 Similarly, these same objectives are spelled out in Section 20E of the statutory SOC Act.

- 199 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

NSW Parliament

People of NSW

Non-Voting Shareholder Ministers: Portfolio Minister Voting Shareholder Ministers: Treasurer & Premier’s appointee

Board of Directors Shareholders recommend Board

CEO Portfolio Minister recommends CEO

9 Divisions Asset AWT Finance Sustainability Water Services Asset Solutions People & Property Customer Services Corporate Services Corporate

Figure 6.6 Corporate structure and lines of accountability - Sydney Water as of 2002 (SWC 2002d, NSW Parliament 1989, as amended in 2005, 1994b, as amended in 2005).

In 1999, the EPA (together with NSW Health and metropolitan water agencies) prioritised the remaining areas (and any new ones) which made 44 priority areas in Sydney Water’s area of operations.

In a desktop study, the EPA had given environmental rankings to the backlog villages based on:

the size of the unsewered area, in terms of the number of lots, population and areas;

the land use within the unsewered area;

the sensitivity of the receiving waters, considering drinking water catchments, agricultural, commercial and recreational uses and ecological values;

the environmental impact and human health risks of unsewered areas based on existing studies including water quality assessments, other evidence of contamination pathway and records of odour complaints;

- 200 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

cumulative impacts through consideration of other impacts, such as sewage treatment plant effluent, on the receiving waters (Lewis, N., Pers. Communication, 2004)130.

It is reasonable to conclude that there was significant uncertainty in the rankings due to the lack of available environmental risk studies. The 1999 desktop study relied on existing information: including the 1996 assessment, responses from local council through a survey and anecdotal evidence provided by SWC and others (Lewis, N., Pers. Communication, 2004). Therefore, evidence of actual environment and health outcomes from malfunctioning on-site sewer systems was sketchy. A participant of this study suggested such evidence had been amplified by the agencies to generate support for the backlog sewerage programs (Agency Staff 129).

In addition to their key role in the prioritisation process, the EPA is also responsible for the implementation of the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act 1997, and is involved in licencing the sewerage schemes.

The EPA is also responsible for the classification of waters under the Clean Waters Regulations. The classifications prescribed certain standards in relation to each class of waters in NSW131. However, these regulations meant conventional sewerage systems could not be implemented in some priority backlog sewerage areas since the effluent deriving from the schemes would not be allowed to discharge into classified waters132. As the Picton case study illustrates, this regulatory constraint caused delays in implementing some sewerage projects. This problem was eventually solved by a re-write of the regulations to allow effluent of a certain quality to be discharged into the classified waters in certain conditions.

130 For example, an environmental ranking of “A” (corresponding to a high environmental ranking) was given if the receiving waters were in a sensitive environment (drinking water catchment, primary contact recreation area or high ecological value) and were degraded, or if a significant risk was posed by inadequate sewage management (Lewis, N., Pers. Communication, 2004). 131 This is from Schedule 5 clause 6(3) of the POEO Act 1997 which provides that any condition of an environment protection licence that is inconsistent with these standards will not have any force or effect. 132 There are six classifications identified in the Clean Waters Regulations, including: Class S: Specially Protected Waters, Class P: Protected Waters, Class C: Controlled Waters.

- 201 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

New South Wales Health

NSW Health has responsibility for minimising public health risks from on-site sewerage systems in single home applications and in addition, approves the design of on-site sewerage systems. The main objective of NSW Health’s Water Unit is to minimise health risks to other waterway users (NSW Health representative 114). In regards to the backlog programs, NSW Health was involved with the EPA in prioritising the backlog sewerage projects.

New South Wales Treasury

Under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, a statutory state-owned corporation is required to have a share dividend scheme. The dividends are paid to the Treasurer on behalf of the State into the Consolidated Fund. The Treasurer has the power to determine the amount of dividends that are paid into Consolidated Funds (by both non-corporatised government businesses and statutory state owned corporations), however, in practice this is normally decided by the shareholders of the corporation133. When Sydney Water was corporatised, Treasury played an important role in deciding on the arrangements for funding backlog sewerage projects.

In addition, the NSW Treasury has overseen the retirement of $8 billion in government debt over the 8 years prior to 2003 - a “no debt” policy which, it has been argued, led to low investment and reduction in the social and economic benefits of solid infrastructure (C. Sheil in Anon. 2003).

Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources

The Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) is responsible for land use and development, natural resource management, planning and infrastructure co- ordination in NSW since it was formed on 1st July 2003, through various enabling legislation, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979. The Minister for Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources is the consent authority for major projects but the Minister must get an independent report from the Director General of the Department before

133 As set out in Section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983.

- 202 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling making a decision. DIPNR considers any infrastructure proposals in light of planning issues, such as the effect of reticulated sewerage services on urban growth patterns in the Sydney region.

Prior to 1995 when Sydney Water was a government proponent, the backlog sewerage schemes were subject to Part 5 of the EPAA Act. This meant that the Water Board’s Managing Director was the approval authority for the Board’s own projects. However, when the Water Board was corporatised in 1995, approval authority for its major development activities was passed to the Minister of Planning134.

6.3.3.2 Local Government

Councils in NSW135 regulate the installation and operation of on-site sewerage systems under the Local Government Act 1993. The Act specifies the performance criteria and standards so that councils can supervise their operation. This role was strengthened in 1998 by the NSW Government through the introduction of the SepticSafe Program, which involves implementation of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1999. Local Government is now responsible for the registration and approval of all on-site sewage management systems and the development and implementation of sewage management strategies in each local area. The aim is to identify faulty systems and implement appropriate management strategies. The Department of Local Government funds these activities (through the On-site Sewage Management (OSM) Program) with up to $2 million over two years per council available.

There are 12 councils in the Sydney region whose jurisdictions overlap with backlog sewerage program areas. As a result of perceived burdens of on-site sewage management, there is a tendency to want to hand over sewerage construction and management to Sydney Water.

134 Various re-structures have taken place to the Government departments involved since then (DUAP, DPNR), but approval authority remains with the Minister of Planning. 135 The structure of councils in NSW is similar to the previous case study. The elected Council members can be distingushed from the Council administration proper. Managing the organisation’s directorates and their ongoing duties is the CEO.

- 203 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.3.3.3 Quasi-Government Organisations

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal

The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) determines the pricing arrangements for reticulated water and sewerage services in the Sydney region. The Tribunal played an important role in determining the funding arrangements for backlog sewerage programs. The Government’s approach to funding was that capital costs associated with sewerage services in backlog areas should be recovered from the users (‘user pays’ principle). However, there were various arguments against this as will be seen in the case study.

Catchment Management Trusts

The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust (HNCMT) was an independent body formed in March 1993 under the Catchment Management Act (1989)136 to implement total catchment management in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River basin137. Sydney relies on this River catchment to supply most of its domestic and industrial water needs. Several other Trusts are in the Sydney Region (e.g. Sydney Harbour Catchment Management Trust, Upper Parramatta Catchment Management Trust), however the HNCMT encompasses the towns of Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor, which places it within the scope of Case Study 2 (a) and is discussed here.

The HNCMT was made up of representatives from community, local government, business, environmental/natural resource groups and State agency representatives (Sturgess c.1996, p.2). Its aims were to achieve a healthy, diverse and productive river system and catchment by fostering appropriate planning and management in the Basin. With over one million people living in the Sydney basin, algal blooms from phosphorus pollution of its waterways were identified as one of the major challenges. In its Draft Catchment Strategy, both reticulated sewerage factilities (i.e. sewerage treatment plants) and on-site sewerage

136 It was previously the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Committee, a voluntary group reliant on Government support. As a Trust, however, its powers were greatly enhanced. It raised levies from each household in the catchment to implement works identified in its plans. 137 Total Catchment Management was endorsed as New South Wales Government policy with bipartisan support in 1987 leading to the Catchment Management Act 1989.

- 204 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling management were identified as significant problems in the catchment. Until it was dismantled in 2001, the Trust had been working with councils to implement programs to improve on-site sewerage management through the NSW Septic Safe Program from mid-1998.

Healthy Rivers Commission

The NSW Government established the Healthy Rivers Commission (HRC) in 1996 to carry out detailed inquiries into the health of specific river systems throughout NSW. The Commission functions as an independent body and presents influential findings on the health of specific NSW river systems to Parliament. The inquiry into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system (August 1998) found there were too many organisations impacting on the health of the river and the complex management framework needed to be simplified. It recommended a single “river manager” (e.g. HNCMT) be given powers to implement actions needed to ensure the river’s long term integrity.

The Commission identified sewage discharges and effluent overflows as major management problems in the catchment, particularly in areas not serviced by Sydney Water (HRC 1998, p.). In response, it supported the installation of sewerage services in backlog areas and recommended that changes to the Clean Waters Regulations be expedited to facilitate this process.

6.3.3.4 Non-Government Organisations

Peak Environmental Non-Government Organisations (PENGOs)

PENGOS comprise a range of environmental groups in Sydney e.g. Nature Conservation Council (NCC). NCC is one of the peak groups representing 120 smaller groups. Such groups tend to draw on environment discourses as described in Section 6.3.4 ‘policy narratives’ below and seek to promote environmental views through community based actions. The NCC is democratically constituted, with an executive elected by the members each year (NCC 2004). The groups are often critical of the environmental performance of Sydney Water. PENGOs have a strategic influence, in that they contribute to awareness and advocacy on regional environmental issues beyond just their immediate membership. But there were some specific

- 205 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling instances where group representatives met with participants (Community Working Parties, see below) of these case studies to discuss backlog sewerage planning issues.

Community Working Party (or Community Liaison Group)

The Water Board (and later as Sydney Water) recruited residents in backlog areas to represent the community on local sewerage project issues. The Community Working Party of Picton was the first such group established by the Board for this purpose in 1991. This then became standard practice for all the backlog schemes, including those in the Priority Sewerage Program (this was the next group of 7 backlog sewerage projects announced in 1997). “The Board is genuine in wanting ongoing community consultation and is willing to provide secretarial services, a chairperson and a local venue for … meetings,” (Public Works 1994, Appendix B). Local Councils themselves were regarded as too politicised, disjointed and not representative enough of the community to function as the sole representatives of community interests. The official role of these groups is to advise Sydney Water on community concerns during the course of planning and constructing its projects.

The Media/Press

Information sources are more diffuse than in Case Study 1 as the policy domain is regional and the planning process spans time periods of more than 10 years. Many alternate information sources are available, including NSW parliament Hansard records online. One can say that the media is a structuring force, but only when groups (e.g. community working parties) closely involved in the negotiations went public. This most often happened when they were unhappy with the direction of the project and wanted to leverage their agenda to wider public notice. As in Case Study 1, the media was more likely to be receptive if there was a sensational element in the policy issue. It particularly picked up and ‘constructed’ public risk issues arising in relation to sewerage e.g. the oyster contamination scare in 1997. The main effect of media reporting risk issues associated with septic tank overflows may have been to drive backlog sewerage programs forward.

- 206 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.3.4 Policy Narratives: Discourses, norms and values

The importance of the policy narratives were explained in Section 6.2.4. In the Sydney cases, the question of ‘what to do about water’ could be viewed through four broad ‘frames’, which overlap:

1. ‘Traditional’: exploitation, reticulation and bureaucratisation,

2. ‘Economic’: efficiency and competition in the running of water businesses,

3. ‘Environment’: conserve water and protect the environment, and

4. ‘Community’: entitlement, empowerment and local action.

As suggested by Sartor in the quote at the beginning of this case study (Section 0), highly politicised groups are active on water issues in the Sydney region. Attributes of significant discourses and the values, on which they are based, are summarised in Table 6.2. This characterises several broad discourses evident from the analysis of case study related data (primary interviews, public documentation etc) and analytic discussions in Chapters 3 and 4.

Not only were there ‘traditional’ arguments evident about the case, but also others which could be characterised as ‘reformer’, ‘economic’, ‘environment’ and ‘community’ discourses. The following sections describe these four key narratives as they pertained to the wastewater management initiatives in Picton and Jamberoo.

- 207 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Institutional ‘Traditional’ ‘Reformer’ ‘Economic’ ‘Environment’ ‘Community’ (Towards sustainable (Local action Pillar (Conservative model) (Modernist model) (Market model) model) model) Supply and disposal Water resource Economic criteria Water cycle Local knowledge Cognitive Feed demand management Demand management management Public health (knowledge and Mono-disciplinarity Multiple users and goals Legal liability (risk Multiple users and dangers discourse) Manage risks management) goals Trans-disciplinarity Exploit and discard ‘Managerialism’ Water efficiency and Intrinsic value for Social construction Sewage as a Water efficiency and conservation environment of risk Normative waste/’filth’ conservation Competition Water efficiency and Community (values and Government Sewage as a resource Customer service conservation empowerment, entitlement, equity expectations) responsibility Public acceptance Sewage as a resource Shared social responsibility Professionally Corporatised public Entrepreneurial Participatory Loosely defined controlled state monopoly service business institutions organisation Regulative Functional activity Challenges by non- Catchment based ‘moral-suasion’ (organisation) experts management

Table 6.2 Summary of competing discourses and values characterising cases 2 (a) and (b) (based on Stenekes et al. 2004, adapted from Brown, 2003, p.69, Colebatch and Larmour 1993)

- 208 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.3.4.1 ‘Traditional’ discourses

Participants of case studies 2 (a) and 2 (b) had a tendency to take for granted the necessity of reticulating sewage services. The traditional discourse was deeply ingrained (taken for granted as a starting point for action). Reticulation could be described as the mainstay of the ‘traditional’ discourse of water management. Reflecting ‘traditional’ water institutions as described in Chapter 3 Section 3.5, traditional values were expressed in this study in terms of three influential notions as follows:

1. reticulated water and sewerage systems are an appropriate means of providing services (since they prevent waterborne disease),

2. reticulated services support the high standard of living, and are a basic right,

3. such services should be the task of a centralised government bureaucracy.

The traditional discourse can be illustrated more fully in terms of the way backlog sewerage programs were promulgated in Sydney.

Backlog sewerage programs

As described above, new housing developed rapidly in post-war Sydney. In the traditional discourse, protecting public health is one of the main justifications for having centrally controlled reticulated water and sewerage systems. The provision of sewerage was widely seen as necessary, but was one of the most expensive ongoing tasks of the Board and from the 1960s, it proceeded to reticulate water in advance of reticulated sewerage (IPART 1997, p.7, Cleaver c.1982, p.18). A considerable lag – or “backlog” – developed in reticulated sewerage service provision. By 1970 the population in Sydney was about 2 million, and 70% of households had a piped water supply but no reticulated sewerage service (IPART 1997, p.7). Thus in much of greater Sydney, water supply was publicly managed, but privately maintained on-site sewerage systems remained a common means of managing sewage. As standard sewerage systems were

- 209 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling considered socially and politically desirable, various programs and policies were directed toward overcoming the sewerage backlog138.

The ‘backlog’ became a national issue in the 70’s as the Whitlam government considered the lack of availability of reticulated water and sewerage a national shame. Whitlam proclaimed in 1969, “No other western nation has cities in which the incidence of urban sanitation is so primitive or so ludicrous as in the cities of Australia. Liberals neglect sewerage services because they are a socialist undertaking. We are the most effluent [sic] nation in what Liberals call the free world” (Whitlam 1985, p.376).

Whitlam was particularly concerned about “gross inadequacies” in the provision of the essential urban services in underprivileged areas of the cities. He drew attention to places like Blacktown in western Sydney, which he said were denied adequate sewerage, paved streets, drainage, public transport, jobs and schools by the NSW Government’s failure to promote good urban policies (Whitlam 1985, p.380). To address these deficiencies, Whitlam launched an ambitious national program of urban development (Summers et al. 2002, p.97). He announced his government’s intention to fund backlog sewerage projects through a National Sewerage Program.

The objective was to connect “every Australian home to modern sewerage services” by 1978 and was especially aimed at disadvantaged suburbs that had “missed out” on basic services (Whitlam 1985, p. 395). At the time, few questioned that “modern” sewerage meant the extension of reticulated piped systems in a conventional urban water paradigm (as in Section 3.5.1.1). Supported by Whitlam’s policies, the Sydney Water Board - still then a statutory authority - managed to reduce sewerage backlogs in Sydney from 158,884 in 1973 to 95,505 in 1978. Notwithstanding its significant achievements, the National Sewerage Program did not reach its goal of sewering the country by 1978 and this led to the revival of backlog sewerage

138 Amendments to the Sydney Water Board’s enabling legislation in 1964 meant private developers paid for water/wastewater services (Cleaver c.1982, p.22). Other changes encouraging sewer reticulation included the 1968 Sydney Regional Outline Plan stopping any new developments from going ahead without reticulated sewerage services provided (IPART 1997, p.7, Cleaver c.1982, p.22).

- 210 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling programs by Sydney Water Board senior staff in 1987, supported by the NSW State government139.

‘Traditional’ arguments for reticulating were broadly reflected in the way the Whitlam government made an association between the lack of standard sewerage services and social ‘disadvantage’, that were reflected in comments from participants of these case studies. Reticulated sewerage services are widely viewed as a government responsibility by Australians reflecting the traditional institutional base conceptualised in Section 3.5. This has implications for alternative approaches to service delivery such as private sector provision, on-site or decentralised approaches. This is because there is a tendency to regard alternative technologies (e.g. water recycling – centralised or decentralised) as a novel form of practice from the standpoint of the ‘traditional’ framework.

6.3.4.2 ‘Economic rationalist’ discourse

Economic rationalism is the term used here to describe the concept or set of principles that arose in the late 1980s to challenge the central tenets of traditional water management (e.g. efficiency versus waste). This particular institutionalisation was more strongly evident in discourses around the Sydney cases than in Caloundra-Maroochy and has thus been added as a specific discourse.

As the Sydney Water Board revived backlog sewerage programs, emphasis began to be placed on micro-economic reform to achieve greater efficiency and market competition in government activities. The main idea was that government enterprises should compete on an equal footing with other businesses despite having the advantage of being a monopoly owned by Government. The following background is necessary to illustrate the impact of this discourse on the Picton and Jamberoo sewerage management case studies

Upon winning office in 1988, the Greiner Liberal Government embraced the discourse of microeconomic reform. This led to major state reforms including corporatisation of its major Government Trading Enterprises (GTEs). The GTE reforms, as legislated in the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, were designed to give government businesses a more defined focus for

139 Even until around 1998, 2% of Sydney’s 1.3 million properties still remained on the backlog sewerage

- 211 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling their operations and greater commercial orientation for their management (IPART 1997). These moves were reinforced by the National Competition Policy in 1993, which encouraged competition and accountability (Hilmer et al. 1993). The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) maintained the pressure, with the well-known February 1994 reform package for incorporating competition principles into state and territory government activities.

These changes significantly impacted the water industry. In NSW, one of the first to undergo reform was the Sydney Water Board, which became Sydney Water Corporation (i.e. Sydney Water) with the passing of the Water Board Corporatisation Act 1994. An orientation towards increased economic efficiency as formalised in 1995 had permeated the organisation since 1988. Sydney Water’s Minister, Board of Directors, Managing Directors - and later, CEOs – were highly influenced by this discourse, which had significant implications for the organisation; for example, the number of employees almost halved from the period 1993 to 2002 (Jane and Dollery 2005, p.28).

These corporate governance changes influenced the way the organisation undertook backlog sewerage programs. It previously funded the capital costs of backlog programs either through special grants such as with the National Sewerage Strategy of the 1970s, or from its own funds. But it was evident that many of these sewerage schemes had been decided on political considerations rather than financial viability and in many cases it had subsidised both capital and operating costs (IPART 1997). The organisation wanted a reasonable rate of return for its shareholders by the early 1990s and it became clear that funds were no longer available from traditional sources to continue to subsidise the backlog sewerage programs, in addition to its other commitments (IPART 1997).

The Hilmer report on competition policy in 1993 provided further impetus for microeconomic reform with its recommendations that GTEs be exposed to competition, and no longer be empowered to force customers to bear the cost of cross water subsidies (Hilmer et al. 1993). In 1993, in response to the government’s policy that GTEs operate on a commercial footing, the Board decided only to proceed with sewerage schemes that were able to give a commercially viable return on their investment (Totaro 1994).

list (representing some 25,000 properties) (in SKM 2000).

- 212 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Economic rationalism thus emerged as a discourse impacting every aspect of government operation. Policies and projects were assessed on the basis of cost and benefit over other criteria, such as public welfare (which had characterised the ‘traditional’ discourses).

6.3.4.3 ‘Environment’ / ‘reformer’ discourse

‘Environment’ discourses began to be influential from the late 1980s in Sydney and also brought changes to the water industry. Some background is needed to illustrate when and how this discourse gained ascendancy in the Sydney case studies.

In the late 1980s, the fact that the Sydney Water Board was still applying minimal treatment to most of Sydney’s sewage effluent emerged as an environmental policy problem. Sydney’s reticulated sewerage systems were producing large volumes of primary treated effluent, which was being dumped into the ocean and inland waterways. Until recently, about 90% of Sydney’s sewage effluent was disposed to sea via three major ocean outfalls located at Bondi, Malabar and North Head after receiving only primary treatment (i.e. screening and primary settling). The rest was disposed to inland waterways, sometimes providing most of the flow for inland creeks. The consequences of inadequate sewage disposal, such as eutrophication (e.g. algal blooms) of important inland waterways and fecal contamination of Sydney’s popular recreational beaches, had become increasingly apparent and inappropriate in the broader public discourse.

The Water Board’s sewerage outfalls and overflows were heavily implicated in these problems. In 1989, the Board was criticised for not taking preventative measures; there were constant public complaints about beach pollution. In an effort to resolve this situation, the Board was in the process of building three extended deep ocean outfalls to carry Sydney’s primary treated effluent further from the shore, without endeavouring to improve the quality of the effluent itself. Things became controversial in January 1989, when information was leaked to the media that fish caught off the coastline were contaminated with organochlorines (Beder 1998, p.156). Sydney-siders dismayed at the extent of the Government’s reluctance to publish the results of the fish study, were shocked by attempts to downplay the seriousness of their implications (Beder 1998, p.160). Community groups organised mass public meetings and representations to urge the Water Board and State Government to take action to improve the

- 213 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling environmental quality of the beaches and waterways in the region (James 1997). Spearheading this action was a major protest held in early 1989 when 250,000 people gathered at Bondi Beach for the ‘Turn Back the Tide’ concert organised as a protest against beach pollution (Beder 1998, p.145).

As a result, the Sydney Water Board felt obliged to consider environmental impacts of backlog sewerage chiefly through the process of formal Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)140. Despite its often-quoted serious flaws, the EIS process opened a degree of public scrutiny into decision-making processes of businesses and government authorities whose activities were likely to impact the environment.

Clean Waterways Program (CWP)

As a result of mass public protests in 1989, the NSW Government committed itself to clean up Sydney’s waterways through an ambitious policy known as the Clean Waterways Program (CWP). The Manager of the Water Board at the time, Bob Wilson141, was personally committed to improving the environmental performance of the Board. He and several others developed the CWP with Board and Government support in order to clearly define the accountability of the Board (Moore et al. 1993, p.7). The ‘vision’ contained in the CWP was to achieve clean and healthy waterways in the Sydney, Illawarra and the Blue Mountains through a partnership with the community (James 1997). This program was a strategic plan for the management of wastewater assets and their impact on the environment. One of the original objectives of the CWP was to extend the sewerage system (i.e. continue the backlog sewerage programs) and this was the most expensive component of the planned works142 (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.3-4).

140 In 1990, the Water Board’s programs came under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it was a public authority (Part 4 applies to activities carried out by companies and corporations). 141 Bob Wilson was comfortable being openly identified as a participant of this study. 142 The CWP was the basis for the more recent Waterplan 21, which included the Priority Sewerage Program 1997 in its planned activities (i.e. the round of backlog sewerage projects announced by the NSW Government in 1997) (SWC 2002e, p.21).

- 214 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The Special Environmental Levy (SEL)

A Special Environmental Levy (SEL) was introduced in 1989 to provide funding for CWP related improvements to the urban water system in Sydney (5 years at $80 per customer per year) (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.160). The SEL was readily supported by the wider community for achieving clean waterways and was raised and administered by the Board along with their general rate collection functions (James 1997). By 30 June 1992, a significant amount of revenue totalling about $290 million had accumulated due to the Levy (James 1997).

Criticisms were levelled at the Government and the appointed Board that the SEL was not being used for what it was intended or in a way that was transparent to the public (Hansard 1993, 16 Sep, 1994, 20 Apr). At the same time, none of the schemes on the Government’s backlog sewerage wish list had been started, probably because backlog sewerage could not generate a return on investment and had thus fallen from the increasingly commercial interests of the organisation and the Government. Another concern at the time was that the $200 million in special dividends143 paid to the NSW Government Treasury by the Board in 1991 was a suspiciously similar amount to that raised on behalf of the Levy (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.151). The NSW government was accused of skimming off the SEL money into consolidated revenue and was in fact treating it like a hidden “tax” that was not being spent on CWP objectives (Hansard 1993, 13 May). Many thought that the money should be directed toward improving the environmental performance of the water system.

Not only did concerns centre on the use of the SEL and the lack of transparency of dividend payments, but on the management of the Water Board itself. Due to such concerns, a Joint Select Committee led by Dr. Peter MacDonald MP was set up in 1994 to investigate the operation of the Sydney Water Board. The committee found the Board’s roles and responsibilities in relation to the CWP unclear. Because the Minister appointed the Board and the Managing Director, it was felt there was too much political interference in the Board’s decision-making. This framework was perceived as weak and the extraction of special dividends by Treasury was said to be “arbitrary” and the policy relating to normal dividends “unclear” and

143 Craig Knowles, an opposition MP at the time commented; “Dividends from government trading enterprises have increased from an insignificant amount in 1988 to a point where about 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent of State revenue is collected directly from GTE dividend payments.” (Craig Knowles, Hansard 1993, 13 May)

- 215 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

“inconsistent”144 (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.152 & 155). No mismanagement was found to have taken place. But the committee concluded that these increasingly large payments were compromising the ability of the Board to undertake large capital expenditure programs such as CWP at a time when the “…organisation is being subjected to stronger environmental demands than ever before” (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.155).

These issues were partially addressed through the corporatisation of the Sydney Water Board in 1995, when it was turned into a “state-owned company”. This business model incorporated elements of the ‘economic rationalist’ discourse into the operation of the organisation (regulative shift to ‘government run business’, Table 6.2). ‘Environment’ groups, who wanted to include social and environmental goals into the organisation’s operating framework, contested the purely business model. Thus the draft Sydney Water Corporatisation Bill (1994) was initially rejected by the Legislative Council, but was passed by one vote (Jane and Dollery 2005) after the concerns of groups advocating ‘community’ and ‘environment’ objectives were included. As a result, the principal objectives of Sydney Water Corporation are now (equally) to achieve environmental, business and public health outcomes (see Section 6.3.3.1, Sydney Water (formerly ‘Water Board’)).

This illustrates how the ‘environment’ discourse found common ground with ‘reformer’ and ‘economic rationalist’ thinking in so far as they supported general principles of efficiency of service, water conservation and valuing sewage as a possible resource (shared values - normative, Table 6.2). On these points, the language found common terms since these principles could be both a means of reducing human impacts on the natural water systems and improving water business performance. However, the main thrust of ‘environment’ discourses contested the view that decisions should be weighed against narrow criteria of cost versus benefit (or expected rate of return) – a central tenet of the ‘economic rational’ discourse in this case. It is concerned with how the environmental costs of projects could be incorporated into the price of service provision.

In summary, the ‘environment’ discourse influenced public opinion more broadly and the Sydney Water Board as an organisation. Many of the perceived attributes of the ‘traditional’

144 While the committee did not find that there had been clear misappropriation of funds, it did find that accounting procedures of the Board had been unclear and imprecise and led to “…general confusion and

- 216 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling water authority - such as lack of transparency, inefficiency and too much government interference – were seen as negative attributes according to ‘reformer’, ‘environment’ and ‘economic rational’ agendas. While the organisation still reflected values of the ‘traditional’ discourse, it was remodelled to include some of the ‘economic rationalist’ and ‘environmental’ values post 1995 (see Figure 6.5 – depicting the changing corporate structure of SWC).

6.3.4.4 ‘Community’ discourse

There was arguably a ‘community’ discourse evident in the Sydney case studies, but this emerged slightly differently than in Caloundra-Maroochy where it was expressed as a negative reaction towards established institutions. It was descriptive of several related themes:

This ‘community’ discourse included a local action theme, which describes a disposition towards promoting the interests, values and support of the community through grass roots activism. This is illustrated in the way environmental groups and residents lobbied Sydney Water to safeguard the community’s interests in relation to sewage management and in the way residents were committed to working with the utility to achieve better outcomes for their towns.

The second was the notion of entitlement to a standard of service i.e. reticulated centralised sewerage system, which was complementary to the ‘traditional’ discourse where it was taken for granted that basic services ought to be provided by the government using our taxes. ‘Entitlement’ was expressed in the way that many backlog residents felt they had the right to access a sewerage service like the rest of Sydney’s population since they had paid taxes for such things. For example, the widely held view was ‘sewerage is a health matter but is taken for granted by the majority of us… it should receive its proper priority from Water Board and government to remove the health hazards and deprivation in backlog areas…’ (Woods 1988).

Social equity - that no one should be disadvantaged in service provision - was another element of this ‘community’ discourse. It was used as an argument for reducing cross- subsidies and blunting the sharp edge of micro-economic reform that had introduced

doubt about the source of the funds for the special dividends” (NSW Parliament 1994a, p.173).

- 217 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

funding dilemmas for backlog sewerage programs. Cross subsidies were a problem because “…Some people who live in backlog sewerage areas have had to fund their own systems… as well as contributing through their taxation charges to the provision of sewerage for others.” (IPART 1997, p.17). Disadvantaged groups should receive additional government support to pay for sewerage services, which was manifest in the Government’s social program, i.e. commitment to ‘community service obligations’, to enable non-commercial backlog schemes to continue. A strong argument for subsidising backlog sewerage programs was that sewerage provision brought social and environmental benefits to the whole community, not just ‘beneficiaries’ of sewer programs.

In the ‘community’ discourse, consciousness of risk was also a significant driver of change. Many participants interviewed for this study, especially community members, regarded health and environmental dangers as the main reason for the backlog sewerage program. Nonetheless, actual evidence for a link between existing on-site wastewater treatment systems and environmental and public health problems was relatively scarce and seemed highly dependent on the location and the management systems in place rather than the technology itself. IPART questions the link:

“…while it is well recognised that on site sewage management systems often contribute to environmental degradation and pose public health risks, this is not always the case. Some on site sewage management systems are operated in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. Further, even in areas where environmental problems are known, the available evidence is inconclusive about the degree to which onsite sewage systems are responsible for these problems, compared with other pollutant sources, especially general urban run-off. Thus, it may be difficult to positively identify 'polluters'.” (IPART 1997, p.17).

Nevertheless, Sydney Water and regulators represented the existing situation as one of diffuse risk to convince people to support sewerage programs as a solution to various environmental and public health concerns.

The ‘community’ frame was discussed in relation to Case 1 and described as a ‘conspiracy model’. This arguably represents a different problem frame than the one evident in this case, which has been described as a ‘local action model’. While both the ‘conspiracy’ and ‘local action’ models are considered community discourses because they concern the nature of - 218 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling relations between the community and officials, there was a significant difference in the degree of trust held for authority. Those adhering to the ‘conspiracy model’ expressed much more scepticism of expert knowledge, distrust of the motivations of officials/consultants and an underlying discourse of exclusion/alienation from established institutions of science and government.

Though these themes are less apparent in the Sydney cases than in Queensland, the emergence of exclusionary discourses nevertheless presented a potential threat to established institutions in all the cases. Though there was much more buy-in among the community representatives in Sydney and a stronger sense of working towards a common goal, there were instances when community representatives (e.g. Picton) abandoned the official process and approached the press to promote their cause more publicly (e.g. when agreed plans were abandoned for example). ‘Community’ discourses are therefore considered part of a continuum of values and expectations with distrust/exclusion at one end and shared goals/participation at the other. While the differences are recognised, the categories – ‘conspiracy’ and ‘local action’ – are simply placed under the label of ‘community’ discourse because they are primarily concerned with relations between communities and officials.

- 219 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 220 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.4 Case 2 (a): Picton Sewerage Scheme

6.4.1 Picton hydrology and settlement background

The towns of Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor situated 70 kilometres south west of Sydney are in the Nepean River gorge area (See Figure 6.7). The gorge area is part of the Nepean River Catchment, which is recognised, along with the Hawkesbury River, for its significance as the source of almost all the water for domestic and industrial use for the Sydney Region from a series of major dams (Dames & Moore 1990, p.3).

Figure 6.7 Map showing southern portion of Nepean River Catchment and Picton locality (Map source: DLWC 2003, p.11)

The towns are just outside the Warragamba Dam drinking water catchment boundary and thus do not impact on Sydney’s drinking water quality145. Stonequarry Creek, which passes

145 The nearby towns of Nattai, The Oaks, Oakdale and Belimba Park, which also rely on on-site sewerage systems lie inside Sydney’s major drinking water catchment adding to health concerns.

- 221 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling through the centre of the largest town of Picton, is an environmentally important tributary of the Nepean River (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8 Map of Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor townships, rivers/creeks and main roads (Map source: ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.2.2)

In the early days, the towns relied on local water sources (e.g. rainwater tanks) and wastewater management with cesspits or septic tanks. As one of the oldest towns in NSW, Picton received a reticulated water supply as early as 1899 (from the Bargo weir), which was later extended to Thirlmere and Tahmoor.

More recently, a large proportion of households in Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor still relied on septic sewage systems (Table 6.3, 1994 figures). A conventional reticulated sewerage system was proposed to address the perceived sewage problems in the 1950s, after the Water Board took over operation of the water supply system (Aird 1961, p. 281). However, the cost of sewering the towns was considered prohibitive and the towns were placed on the Water Board’s sewerage backlog list (Dames & Moore 1990, p.3).

Public health risks and downstream environmental risks from sewage overflows were widely accepted justifications for implementing conventional sewerage systems, although there

- 222 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling was little direct evidence of stream pollution from septic tanks available for these particular towns146.

Percentage of Sewerage System Type Households

Septic tanks with on-site disposal 56% Septic tank with pump out to tanker 22% Aerated wastewater treatment (AWT) systems (garden recycling) 22%

Table 6.3 Distribution of sewerage system types in Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor prior to reticulated sewerage (Public Works 1994, p.3-4). What information there was on the effect of septic tank performance on receiving water quality indicated reason for concern. A study of the contributions of sewage and stormwater to receiving water quality in nearby catchments (testing a range of biological and nutrient parameters) showed that the most polluted catchments were those containing septic tanks147,148 (in ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.6.5-6.6). However, it was not clear to what extent stormwater versus sewage escapes were the problem, suggesting a holistic approach was needed to address the problem.

Picton residents had complained to Council about on-site (septic tank and AWT) system overflows and their general lack of adequate maintenance. An issue of importance to many people in the area was that users of pumpout systems were tempted to avoid proper disposal of their sewage. Users had to pay volumetric fees for collection and disposal of the waste by Council (collected sewage was simply dumped into holding ponds beside the Bargo River!). But reports from participants from this case study suggested some residents regularly emptied their pumpout systems into gutters at night to avoid or reduce the volumetric charges, contributing to downstream pollution of receiving waters. Councils could inspect the on-site systems and fine owners if they breached regulations, but maintenance was a private responsibility.

146 The significant proportion of badly performing on-site wastewater systems in the Sydney region (between 50-90% according to EPA 1997) suggest that similar performance problems existed in Picton. But few studies have demonstrated direct linkages between poorly performing septic systems and adverse impacts on receiving waters (Whitehead et al. 2001). 147 Out of the three types of systems studied (i.e. conventional sewered, aerated wastewater treatment system areas and septic tank areas) septic tank areas produced the highest bacterial counts (Maartens & Warner in ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.6.5-6.6).

- 223 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Consciousness of these issues contributed to the widely accepted view that sewers were overdue in towns in the upper reaches of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment. Investigations into a sewerage system for Picton thus began in 1988.

This case study examines the way key participants in negotiations conceptualised these water cycle problems and how their discursive interaction contributed to policy and project outcomes.

6.4.2 How was the problem defined by different groups?

6.4.2.1 Managers, planners and engineers, Sydney Water

Participants from Sydney Water interviewed as part of this study represented various layers of the organisation: from senior managers to project managers (13 in total)149. The size and complexity of the organisation, means it is more useful to talk in terms of broad discourses than speaking in terms of individual points of view. The main discourses evident in the organisation in relation to the Picton sewerage project were ‘traditional’, but this was tempered with ‘environment’/ ’reformer’ and ‘economic’ problems statements (Table 6.2). Having said that, a common view was that septic tank problems should be solved by technical means.

The most commonly mentioned driver for embarking on backlog projects was the presence of malfunctioning or badly maintained septic systems that could potentially cause health problems or problems in receiving waters. Whatever the evidence for this, the tendency was to assume that large-scale conventional solutions were the appropriate response, reflecting a historic technical institutional base and function of the organisation to prioritise and deliver large-scale technical solutions to water supply and sewage disposal (cognitive; traditional frame). Attitudes according with this model were reflected in comments such as, ‘…its about finding one technology that fits 100% of properties rather than just one that's good for 10%, but poor for the rest. It’s got to justify itself everywhere…’ (Agency staff 113). This suggests a ‘one

148 Such circumstances may have contributed cumulative downstream impacts on river environments (e.g. toxic cyanobacterial blooms) (NSWBGATF 1992). 149 Five in-depth interviews with SWC staff in relation to the specific case study, but also eight scoping interviews plus discussions with other staff on an informal level (see Chapter 3 – Research Design & Methodology for more details).

- 224 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling size fits all’ technical approach was a dominant starting point for many in the sponsoring agency.

However, views compatible with other discourses were also expressed such as ‘environment’ and ‘economic’ values and norms - sometimes the same people expressed different views reflecting values and norms from more than one discourse. The environmental concern in the organisation and among staff, partly driven by statutory requirements, was evident in the expression by a senior manager that backlog sewerage, “…was about protecting waterways…” (Agency staff 129). This was tempered with general concerns for minimising cost escalation, maximising efficiency and using sound business practices – all evidence of language and principles of the ‘reformer’ - or modern institutionalisation of practice. It was evident that staff were attempting to balance statutory priorities: to ‘be a good business’ but account for ‘environment’ and ‘social’ concerns in their social function – there was a suggestion that the organisation was trying to satisfy too many social objectives and somewhat railing against those obligations.

The rise of alternate discourses echoes changes in the organisation’s orientation over time, particularly from state-owned monopoly to profit-oriented government business (refer to Section 6.3.4.2 on changes in the organisation’s structure and role).

6.4.2.2 Local Council

Council staff saw the sewerage scheme as beneficial. The initial reaction was that Council has, “…nothing to do with the Picton scheme. Council's role is on-site systems – “ (Council Staff 122). Suggesting that the problem was largely Council’s main concern was that, “…the present means of servicing allotments in unsewered areas is inadequate, costly and difficult for residents.” (Water Board 1991, p.70). Critical of on-site wastewater management systems, staff mentioned a number of environmental and health-related issues with the current situation.

The general criticism was ‘on-site sewerage disposal doesn't work, not unless you've got a huge property,’ (Local Elected Representative 136). However, there was the suggestion that justifications for the sewerage scheme drawing on health concerns about septic tanks were not thoroughly backed up by evidence of negative health outcomes in Picton. Rather “it's a notional assumption that Sydney Water will say if we sewer an area, it's better,” (Council Staff 136). An

- 225 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling over-riding concern was the abuse of on-site pump out systems by householders in their efforts to avoid paying pump out fees. ‘…People use the drainage systems to pump out their effluent…’ and ‘…the health and environment inspectors were always getting complaints either about failed septic tanks or people illegally pumping out into the streets,’ (Council Staff 136).

Council staff themselves resented their increased responsibility for on-site systems, which they felt had been off-loaded onto local government in 1998. It was felt that adequate resources to achieve these tasks were not available. “The EPA used to licence on-site schemes, but the State government handed community licensing to councils – who are overworked.” (Council Staff 122)150. On-site facilities made up only a small fraction of Council’s responsibilities, but apparently there were 11,000 of them in the local government area (LGA) and only a couple of compliance officers, making compliance a significant burden151 (Council Staff 122). Staff felt that council’s inspection fees were resented by the public; ‘…our time is wasted by debating issues with the public – like why they have to pay a $30 fee’ (Council Staff 122). Council staff felt these tasks were detrimental to the Council’s standing among local residents.

Because of these concerns, council staff viewed the project as positive because responsibility for managing sewage in the towns could effectively be handed on to Sydney Water. A sewerage system was also seen favourably because it would, “…increase the potential for development in the area…” which was afterward shown to be correct, since ‘house prices went through the roof,’ (Council Staff 136).

Other stakeholders involved in the scheme viewed council (as a whole organisation) very differently. The organisation was regarded as self-interested, cash strapped and pro- development. “The Council had ambitions for growth…” (Agency staff 129). “Wollondilly were interested in development. They didn't particularly want to clean up their own act – they were looking for new subdivisions. They couldn't get the subdivisions through, unless they had

150 The NSW Government gave increased responsibility to Councils through the Local Government (Approvals) Amendment (Sewage Management) Regulation 1998 in March 1998 (and the NSW Septic Safe Program) which require them to approve the installation and management of both new and existing on-site systems. 151 To the extent that, ‘complaints come in at the rate of about 7 a day for new problems – and 1 complaint per day regarding systems they already fixed up.’ (Council Staff 121). “It's such a large area, with a dispersed community. It's impossible for council to inspect every system,” (Elected Representative 137).

- 226 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling the sewerage. So I can't say that they were a force for positive solutions, they were looking for an economic solution,” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04).

Stakeholders from the community regarded the operation of the organisation as uncoordinated and lacking in commitment to the community and the environment. “I suppose that conservation issues are not cost issues… they're just not interested in them. Until it comes back to the bottom line and how it's going to be of assistance monetarily to the council, they don't see it as being a problem,” (Community Representative 134). Council’s flexibility was seen as very low when an opportunity to recycle water back into the town was not taken up during placement of the sewerage pipes in the ground (Agency Staff 129)(Elected Representative 143)(Community Representatives 127 & 134). This suggests the expression of ‘environmentally sustainable’ values was frustrated when operational problems, economic or other practical interests arose.

In theory, the local Council was also meant to represent the interests of its local constituents. But Sydney Water staff decided to supplement their local information by organising direct representation - through a Community Working Party (CWP) made up of local residents152. Sydney Water staff suggested the reason for side-stepping Council was that, “…some of the councils become very political and they use information that comes into the community liaison group153 for their own ends,“ (Agency Staff 129). “Talk to anyone in the street and they won't be very complimentary of the local council and their efforts – they're very suspicious of the local council and quite a lot of what they do and their ineptitude,” (Community Representative 127).

Council staff saw their role in the scheme as minimal. From this standpoint, it is possible to explain the lack of commitment to the planning process (e.g. sending junior staff to represent the Council at Community Working Party meetings) (Community Representative 134). This

152 A CWP member commented: “It is interesting that Sydney Water would want to have a community body other than the council to be liaising with the community and so on through this system. One would think that if they had confidence in the local council they'd have said let's liaise with local council and have our system working through them… Unfortunately we didn't have same sort of relationship with the council officers who seemed to... not exactly resent our existence, but feel we were quite irrelevant.” (Community Representative 127). 153 Note the term used for the group, initially “Community Working Party” in 1991, was changed to “Community Liaison Group” from around 1995 when consultation for the third EIS was undertaken. Participants’ use of the term therefore changes.

- 227 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling provides evidence of the way the responsibility split between local government and Sydney Water might contribute to non-integrative approaches to managing the water cycle.

6.4.2.3 Elected representatives

Elected representatives’ (state and local) first concern was to represent the interests of their constituents,154 which meant hurrying along the progress of the sewerage scheme.

The State Member for Camden at the time related complaints about existing sewage management arrangements from local residents to State parliament (Hansard 1993, 20 May, 1994, 19 Mar, 1996, 25 Sep, 1997, 27 May). In these speeches, she related how the delays were unfair for her constituents who had to ‘manage with sub-standard sewage management systems’. This was supported by classic ‘community’ discourse that cast the problem as one of credibility in maintaining public health infrastructure, which would be achieved if sewerage were available and was a way of reminding policy-makers of their obligations155.

Local elected representatives held the general view that the ‘sewerage system’ would be a good outcome for the area (Local Elected Representative 137), but that the high cost of connection demanded by Sydney Water was a major problem (expressed many times to council representatives). While it was observed that “the council just reflects the community's views.” (Local Elected Representative 137), there was little evidence suggesting it had significant involvement as a stakeholder in the planning process for the scheme, reflecting the pattern of a project driven by the regional water utility.

6.4.2.4 Community representatives

Community representatives are the people who formally represented the Picton, Thirlmere and Tahmoor communities on Sydney Water’s Community Working Party (CWP). Those

154 Views of elected representatives (Councillors and State MPs) sourced from interviews as part of this study and documented public information e.g. hansards, press releases, news articles etc. 155 “It is an insult when the Minister says that he will do certain things… and leave the people of Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere in the same position they have been in for years with progress on the scheme continually being stopped” (Kernohan in Hansard 1996, 25 Sep).

- 228 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling interviewed drew on ‘community’ and ‘environment’ discourses to define the problem, which centred on concerns about:

risks to public health from on-site sewage overflows (shared local knowledge)

the quality of the riverine environment from diffuse source pollution (shared value for the environment)

being involved to make sure things were done properly (community ownership/empowerment) (Community Representatives 127, 133, 134 & 135).

The major motivator for CWP members was personal experience (local knowledge) of overflowing on-site systems in wet weather and the dumping of sewage into stormwater drains at night (to avoid pump out fees). “We had septic tanks here that overflowed into the gutters. For some years, the Imperial Hotel had sewage running into the gutter. You could see it running down the gutters and you could smell it. The ... maintenance of these on-site systems was not good…” (Community Representative 127).

The members believed that pollution sources were diffuse, such as “…septic flows coming into all these river systems and pollution from different sources - chicken farms and things like that and other stormwater drainage” (Community Representative 134). This was thought to be the cause of the pollution: there were “…many faulty septic systems in the area that were polluting all the streams” (Community Representative 127). Sewerage overflow problems appeared to be worsening with development, where: “…Houses became larger and blocks of land became smaller. Backyards couldn't cope with the run-off from septic tanks, which were eventually polluting gutters and getting into streams and waterways” (Community Representative 135). In fact, Council dropped minimum block sizes from 975 to 700 sq. m (Council Staff 136).

Their personal interest in participating in the consultation process derived from a shared motivation to address these problems and safeguard the local area. “Well, it's just the general welfare of the whole area. Because I live here, I feel I should take an interest in what's going on. And this was a big change to the whole area - a sewerage scheme… I was just interested to see it was done properly,” (Community Representative 135).

Community representatives, key figures from Sydney Water and elected representatives - the main stakeholder groups - agreed on the need for the project because they held similar

- 229 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling understandings of the need for a solution: that the existing sewerage systems in the town were posing risks and these problems needed to be rectified. There were shared expectations that reticulated sewerage would be the approach (though this changed as the process got underway and new discourses challenged this assumption).

6.4.3 Trajectory of action - what happened?

The Picton planning/policy process was long and complex, involving three Environmental Impact Statement ‘cycles’. Therefore, a simple version of events is shown in the ‘timeline‘ below (Figure 6.9) to help guide the reader through the discussion. The main events are shown as a series of steps in the flow chart while significant political and institutional changes affecting outcomes are shown on the right hand side.

6.4.3.1 Water agency proposes sewerage expansion: “Backlog sewerage” revival 1987

The Water Board began planned the sewerage system in the small towns of Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere from 1987. Much of the impetus for the revival of sewerage backlog programs at this time came from senior planners and managers in the Water Board who felt an obligation to provide sewerage for backlog towns in their area of operations in line with its ‘traditional’ service obligations (normative thinking). Sewerage expansion had been a strategic goal of the organisation since before the Whitlam years (1970s) and access to reticulated sewerage was accepted as the norm.

- 230 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

1st Environmental Impact Statement 1990 Government stakeholders’ Written public submissions comments Determining Authority’s Report (April 1991)

Further environmental Consultation with EPA investigations (1991/92) Formation of CWP Fahey (Liberal) replaces Greiner as Premier (24 June 1992) Water Board decides to prepare ‘supplementary’ Ongoing consultation on (2nd) EIS (July 1992) Bob Wilson resigns as project Managing Director of SWB (Early 1993). Replaced by Paul Broad Exhibition of ‘supplementary’ EIS (Feb 1994) Dr. MacDonald calls for inquiry into the SWB (13 May 1993)

Multi-criteria design & analysis workshops Government Clean Waters Regulations stakeholders’ comments amendments passed (31 Mar 1994) Sydney Water’s decision on preferred option Consultation with community SWB inquiry report published & government stakeholders (Apr 1994)

Exhibition of 3rd EIS (Jan 1996) Written public submissions Corporatisation of the SWB (1 Jan 1995) Representations (by SWC & DUAP) on public submissions (July 1996) Carr (Labor) Government elected (25 Mar 1995)

DUAP Director General’s Determination on EIS (Nov 1996)

Wallis Lakes Oyster Minister (DUAP) Contamination / Hepatitis A Crisis (Jan 1997) signs EIS (Jan 1997) NSW Government announces further 7 areas under PSP Program (Feb 1997) Tender process IPART determination on backlog pricing (Jul 1997) BOOT contract signed Codd Report on sewage management (Oct 1997) Completion of scheme (Feb 2000) HRC Report on river health (Aug 1998) Figure 6.9 Timeline - Picton case study - 231 - One of the key players in reviving the program was the Managing Director of the Water Board (1988-1993), Bob Wilson156. He was mainly concerned about improving the health of Sydney’s waterways and social welfare of people in unsewered areas. “I put pressure on people - put pressure on the people that worked on developing the sewerage schemes, 'you have to solve Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere. We have to put money in the program to solve that and you've got to come up with a solution'.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Under Wilson’s leadership, the Board proposed several backlog sewerage schemes including Picton/Thirlmere/Tahmoor, Geringong/Gerroa, Bundeena/Maianbar and areas in the Blue Mountains. However, the Picton157 area was at the top of the list because it comprised the largest population centre in the Sydney region that had a water supply, but no reticulated sewerage. The NSW Labor Government at the time agreed to these proposals and in 1987 announced a revival of the backlog sewerage program.

6.4.3.2 Contending frames: Economic rationalism versus environmental performance

The Water Board wanted to put a conventional sewerage system into the backlog areas, which was the preferred approach in sewerage engineering at the time. ‘Conventional’ meant sewage collection via pipes to a central location using a gravity based transport system and then conventional treatment followed by effluent disposal into a waterway (see ‘conventional urban water system’ outlined in Section 3.5.1.1). In institutional terms, this represents a shared logic of ‘supply and disposal’ (cognitive dimension of ‘traditional’ discourse). A senior planner frankly described how, ‘In those days, people only looked at conventional options,’ (Agency Staff 129). However, the context had changed since the last backlog sewerage programs ended in the 1970s, and the question of how to manage sewage was being re-framed.

The first indication of a major challenge was the environmental evaluation process required as part of the new planning laws. The Board was required to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Picton Sewerage Scheme in 1990 - its first ever sewerage scheme EIS (apart from its deep ocean outfalls) (Dames & Moore 1990). As the Board was a public authority, the Managing Director, Wilson was the determining authority in regards to the EIS (Water Board 1991, p.6). Although the determining authority had to seek and take into

156 Wilson was deputy MD prior to 1988.

- 232 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

account public comment on the EIS, there was no obligation to revise it (Bates 1992, p.105), which gave the organisation significant autonomy in relation to approving its own projects.

Personally, Wilson was strongly in favor of a water cycle approach and had wanted to incorporate water reuse into the Picton scheme. He wanted to manage stormwater runoff and sewage together (in an integrated manner), using the argument that in the natural water cycle, they interact anyway. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to causes of stream pollution in the area: diffuse stormwater runoff or point source sewage discharges (or both) could have caused it. Therefore, he believed “If the objective of the scheme is to clean up Stonequarry Creek, sewerage isn't going to do it alone and it never was…” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Internally, “...the solution that they first came up with wasn't satisfactory to me. So I said, ' you need to put in recycling and reuse'.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Without an integrated approach, including managing stormwater as well as sewerage he argued, the problems of the waterway would remain and “…some of the engineers at the Water Board were persuaded by this.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Because of the interactive nature of stormwater and sewage, various innovations were considered worth incorporating into the Picton sewerage scheme, including stormwater management techniques (artificial wetlands), effluent irrigation onto land or dual reticulation.

Despite new interest in water cycle management among engineers in the Water Board, there were competing problem statements circulating in Government. Environmental innovations had to compete with a strong microeconomic reform agenda being embraced by the Greiner Government as it came to power in 1988. These two new discourses were challenging the assumptions of ‘conservative’ groups in the organisation. The Board of Directors of the Water Board was increasingly concerned with escalating costs and the organisation’s dwindling sources of funding. In light of these issues, they were not convinced that a recycling scheme was necessary for Picton.

Possibly due to views among the Board of Directors, Wilson and his team officially proposed a conventional sewerage collection and disposal system in the first EIS (1990). They did not recommended water recycling, citing cost concerns and the lack of alternative options (e.g. bad soils; few industrial use options) and there was little consultation with the

157 Reference made to ‘Picton’ is taken to include Thirlmere and Tahmoor.

- 233 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

community158. Instead, the proposal was for the collection and transportation of sewage from the 3000 properties (stage one) in the area zoned as ‘residential’ using gravity and rising sewerage mains (including nine sewage pumping stations) to a single sewerage treatment plant located just south of Picton. Treated wastewater from the STP would be discharged into Stonequarry Creek in Picton, which fed into the Nepean River (Dames & Moore 1990).

Several variations of the centralised reticulated system configuration were proposed in the EIS. However, any alternatives to reticulated sewerage were dismissed in a single paragraph159.

Conflict over the conceptual design of Picton’s sewerage scheme arose in the context of growing pressure from the public and environment groups on the organisation to improve its environmental performance. The preparation of the EIS coincided with public rallies calling for comprehensive actions to protect Sydney’s beaches and waterways from sewage pollution from the Board’s sewage treatment plants (James 1997). A senior Water Board manager ventured to say that if the Picton scheme had been built earlier than 1987160, there would have been no objections to a conventional approach and no need for a recycling scheme (Agency Staff 129).

6.4.3.3 Community and environment groups’ concerns

As it was, people in backlog sewerage areas had been waiting for many years to get a sewerage system and many were thrilled at the prospect. “When SWC came along and said we're going to sewer the area, people said 'hooray' we're going to get sewerage.” (Community Representative 127). This illustrates general stakeholder agreement on the need for the project. Notwithstanding the initial excitement, most of the public submissions to the EIS expressed concern about the design put forward161, as did the regulators. Wilson recalls, “…the protests were fairly strong. People didn't want a piped system – they wanted to use a system of Envirocycle – where you spray irrigate…” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04).

158 For the first time, the organisation had to accept written public submissions as part of the EIS process. 159 The paragraph reads: “The application of smaller scale alternative sewerage systems to the Picton, Tahmoor and Thirlmere area, alternative low cost systems such as common effluent drainage, vacuum sewage systems and on site disposal systems were not considered appropriate because of limitations of topography, level of development, poor absorptive capacity of local soils and design and capacity of the scheme.” (Dames & Moore 1990, p.6) 160 Note that this is the year that the international conference on sustainable development was published (“Our Common Future”) (see Section 4.3). 161 Submissions came from residents associations, sporting groups and conservation groups.

- 234 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The wave of green activism in Sydney had sensitised people to the impact of Sydney Water’s effluent management activities on the environment. There were two main problems that community and environmental groups saw with the ‘conventional’ proposal for Picton. The first was that a sewerage outfall to the Nepean River system was not going to prevent river pollution, but likely increase it (according to the Board’s own modelling). The nutrient modelling presented in the EIS, showed that sewage disposal from a Picton STP would cause water quality deterioration in a 19km stretch of the Nepean River (See Figures 6.6 & 6.7). According to consultants who wrote the EIS,

“Effluent discharged from the STP could cause algal blooms during low flows, which could be of blue-green algae and these could become toxic and cause health problems,” (Water Board 1991, p.15).

The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Council162 agreed that elevated nutrient levels would be a problem because it provided ideal conditions for algal blooms (Water Board 1991, p.75). Secondly, some community groups objected to the input of nutrients from treated sewage effluent because of the potential impacts on public health at swimming holes (Water Board 1991, p.77). Problems with water pollution in this stretch of the river were likely to be worse than they currently were, since the river was regulated by weirs and sometimes suffered from low flows.

Wollondilly Shire Council conditionally supported the scheme particularly because a single body other than themselves would operate and maintain it. However, the Council agreed that it was “…undesirable that the water quality of the Nepean River should decline as a result of the discharge of treated sewage effluent into the river” (Water Board 1991, p.70).

At this stage a community working party had not been formed, but there was informal interaction between the Water Board and leading members of the community. One commented “…SWC out sourced the first EIS and when it came back it was quite a glossy document and really it was full of holes – it wasn't really a satisfactory environment statement at all. It didn't really address the reuse of treated effluent. It was just a sort of a general statement really of providing sewerage to these areas full stop. It wasn't really addressing any of the environmental concerns in any significant way.” (Community Representative 127). This view typifies the

162 Forerunner of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust (HNCMT).

- 235 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

divergent norms and values emerging between the community and environment groups on one hand and those in the sponsoring organisation holding a ‘conservative’ view on the other (exploit and discard water resources characterising ‘traditional’ institutional values versus intrinsic value people had for the environment).

The cost of the project and source of funding was an ongoing concern for the Board. Previously, the organisation would have covered all the capital costs, but because it was now passing dividends to the State government, it would only agree to cover a maximum of $14,000 per lot of the costs of connection (Dames & Moore 1990, p.63). This diverged from traditional backlog policy according to which the organisation covered the full costs. Therefore, residents were uneasy that in the case of a blow out in the cost above $14,000 per lot, they would have to pay the difference. Many would not be able to afford to connect from the property boundary. As well as possible capital cost over-runs, each household would have to pay ongoing costs of about $350 per annum per lot (1988/89 figures). Therefore, while the 22% of residents on pump out systems were expected to make savings, the rest (on less expensive on-site systems) would have to pay more than their present ongoing costs.

6.4.3.4 Accusations: Breaches of existing effluent discharge regulations

Few questioned the need for the project, but the unpopularity of the design was spearheaded by criticism of the Board’s poor environmental performance. This was pitched in accusations that effluent discharge restrictions were being breached at many of its sewage outfalls. Indeed, Picton’s treated sewage effluent would have discharged into restricted Class “P” (protected) waters and water quality criteria specified in the Clean Waters Act163 had to be met, if the project was to go ahead.

It was unlikely to meet these criteria because of current technology and the requirements of the NSW Environment Planning and Assessment Act (1979) which were so stringent that they practically prohibited sewage overflows into Class “P” waters (Agency staff 129). Investigations into this legal constraint in relation to Picton exposed how the Board was already

163 The waters of nearby creeks were zoned Class “P” protected waters in the Clean Waters Regulations of 1970. This standard had come into effect in 1976 and specified, among other parameters, a limit in the concentration of nutrient discharges into these waters of Total Nitrogen (TN) <5 mg/l and Total Phosphorous (TP) <0.02 mg/l (NSW Parliament 1972, now repealed). The designed sewage effluent

- 236 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

in breach of the regulations in a number of other places. This created difficulties for Sydney Water’s Minister, Tim Moore, who was told by Peak Environmental Non-Government Organisations (PENGOs) that the Government was already operating illegal STPs throughout the State. The Government was caught by surprise and distanced itself from the activities by saying it had been granted licences to discharge by the State Pollution Control Commission (SPCC)164, though the licences contravened the Act (Agency Staff 129).

Aside from this, the technological constraints were such that affordable conventional technology was not available to achieve the discharge standards prescribed in the Act165. In wet weather, or in some other circumstance (e.g. power failure), for example, Picton’s sewage must overflow into Stonequarry Creek and breach the criteria166. The Board made a practical argument that the water in the river near Picton had already deteriorated167 and advised the public that Class “P” status was outdated and was no longer needed (Dames & Moore 1990, p.73).

The effect of this episode was that the Board had to acknowledge the problems of the conventional disposal system and was obliged to begin discussions about the alternatives with regulators. The idea of incorporating principles of water cycle management met with resistance from regulators, such as the SPCC. Wilson recounts, “I'd try to persuade them that we should put in wetlands, and things like that, to start taking some of the nutrients out and that we needed to look more at natural systems for treating effluent - they said, they couldn't allow it. They said, if you put a wetland in, we'll regulate your discharge from the wetland and prosecute you if you discharge high nutrients from that wetland.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). The SPCC was inflexible about improved on-site sewerage management as well; “…they said the soils couldn't take it. It's fairly rocky, with a thin covering of soil in the area…” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Improved on-site systems were not popular with the council either. Their public

discharge concentration from Picton as stated in the first EIS was to be TN = 5 mg/l and TP = 0.25 mg/L, which would have breached the Act. 164 Predecessor of the NSW Environment Protection Authority 165 According to the Board, treatment technology was not yet available to obtain a concentration of lower than TN = 5 mg/l in the treated effluent (Water Board 1991, p.77) 166 Compliance with the regulations was not possible 100% of the time since the regulations required compliance in effluent quality at all times (Public Works 1994, p.ix). 167 Concentrations of nutrients in Stonequarry Creek and the Nepean River at Maldon Weir being measured at levels higher than the prescribed limits in the Regulations (mean ambient concentrations were around TN = 0.5 mg/L and TP = 0.02 mg/l (Dames & Moore 1990, p.73)).

- 237 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

health concerns about effluent runoff from on-site systems had caused them to cease to approve anything except new pump-out systems.

The SPCC was responsible for administering the water classifications. They agreed to lower the effluent discharge standards to accommodate the overflow of sewage into the local waterway. They also argued that Class “P” waters in the Upper Nepean area - including Stonequarry Creek in Picton - were no longer needed for the security of Sydney’s water supply168. This had significance for ten other backlog areas near similarly classified waters as the required level of treatment dictated the technology, and affected the cost of the projects. Accordingly, the SPCC dismissed the requirements of the Act in the EIS and set ‘desirable’ limits for the Water Board’s effluent that could be reached by conventional technology of the day without huge expense169 (Dames & Moore 1990, p.73). The Board and the SPCC proposed that the Government change the Act to legalise this approach.

Their efforts to change the Act without adequate public consultation were not appreciated by environment and community groups, and a noted opposition MP Peter MacDonald attempted to challenge these moves in parliament (Hansard 1994, 17 Nov). He led a campaign to prevent the changes to the Clean Waters Regulations, which was ultimately unsuccessful. This outcome allowed the EPA to approve previously prohibited activities on a case by case basis as it saw fit. Some community groups interpreted this as the EPA and Water Board contriving to stifle innovation and implement the preferred conventional disposal system - ‘concrete and chemicals’ – to the detriment of the State’s waterways.

However, influential figures within the Board agreed with the community, including the Board’s Managing Director who signed off the sewerage project, but included several important conditions of approval:

pursue amendments to the Clean Waters Regulations,

conduct additional environmental impact studies,

investigate sewage minimisation and effluent reuse options,

168 These discharge standards were originally requested by the Water Board when that part of the Nepean was thought to have been strategically significant for the security of Sydney’ drinking water supply (Public Works 1994, p.41). It was apparent that the Board no longer regarded these waters as necessary for drinking water supply purposes. 169 i.e. TP <1 mg/l and TN <10 mg/l

- 238 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

consider alternative forms of tertiary treatment e.g. wetlands and tertiary filters, and

establish a Community Working Party (Water Board 1991).

These actions represented significant changes by the Board – a considerable deviation from business as usual – and a rejection of the original ‘exploit and discard’ proposal. Wilson recounts, “…we decided to change the EIS - and I used my natural scientists in this - to talk about a system where could use water on trees and we could work on integrating it with a stormwater system.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Because the conditions of approval were extensive, the Board decided to undertake a ‘supplementary’ (i.e. second) EIS to allow the public to consider the conditions in more detail. One member of the community working party commented on the 1990 EIS, “It wasn't the committee [i.e. Community Working Party] who rejected it - Sydney water rejected it. They said this is not good enough… so we had to get a second [EIS]...” (Community Representative 127).

To enhance the legitimacy of the subsequent process, and supplement their local information base, the Board formalised the Picton Community Working Party in 1992, which consisted of around 6 or 7 committed local residents (Community Representative 127). The interactions associated with this innovative organisational form would be a key factor in negotiating an agreed solution for Picton in the complex regulatory framework explained above. The Working Party met with the Water Board, Public Works, Council and private contractors monthly for nearly 10 years providing opportunities to develop shared norms and values on the proposed changes. The group was regarded as an important ‘conduit for information between the Board and the community’.

6.4.3.5 Effluent recycling: A compromise between key stakeholder values and regulatory hurdles

From the start, members of the Community Working Party (CWP) regarded any effluent discharges entering the Creek as a significant problem with the design. During their negotiations, they urged agency representatives to consider recycling the sewage effluent as an alternative to discharging it into the river. A CWP member recalls how they were, ‘…looking to completely separate the scheme from the river system, and to use the recycled water - the water from the scheme – in industry and parks and gardens and other areas.’ (Community Representative 134).

- 239 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Recycling was their preferred solution for various reasons. The idea of recycling the effluent apparently arose through contact with people concerned with the environmental impacts of the project during the Working Party meetings. “Recycling was suggested largely by the EPA and a lot of the PENGOs of the time,” (Agency Staff 129). For example, “…there was one lass… very concerned about the environmental matters, she… was saying that it was absolutely wicked to be using pure water on gardens, you know, and what are we doing about grey water?” (Community Representative 135). The idea radicalised the community representatives because it provided an accessible solution to their basic problem: to improve the collection system, but to control sewage discharges that would be detrimental to the health of waterways. Encouragement came from those holding a ‘reformer’ perspective within the Water Board and EPA.

Bob Wilson, a key agency ‘reformer’, paid a visit to Picton on 10 December 1992 to come to an understanding with the Picton community (visit referred to in Public Works 1994, p.8). “I wanted to know what they thought… Bureaucracies have too many things on the way up that block you.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). He and senior staff met with the public and the Community Working Party and discussed various issues and options with them.

The account given of this meeting varies. The (1994) ‘supplementary’ EIS makes no mention of any promises: “Representatives of the Board and the EPA answered resident’s questions. The meeting showed strong support for the scheme.” (Public Works 1994, p.8). The version told by participants of this study - CWP members and Water Board staff - differ from this account. Significantly, one member said Wilson committed the Water Board to providing a recycling scheme (dual reticulation) at Picton170. We “…had a visit from the then current head of Sydney water, who made a commitment to provide recycling all the waste back to our homes for grey water usage… which we would have wanted but hadn't been pushing for at the time. We were very much in favour of that.” (Community Representative 134).

Some Water Board staff (who could be described as ‘reformers’) seemed sympathetic to the idea of recycling effluent. One Community Working Party member observed, “I have feeling that… a large proportion of those people who worked in Sydney Water agreed with our ideas on this. But they didn't say so because their jobs depended on doing what they were told

170 This was similar to the approach that Wilson was had negotiated on behalf of the Water Board for Rouse Hill in north-western Sydney in 1987.

- 240 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

from on high.” (Community Representative 127). Bob Wilson, the Managing Director, recalls “…we were really having trouble until we talked about recycling,” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04).

The Picton Community Working Party was delighted with Wilson’s commitment to support effluent recycling and they continued to work with Public Works and Water Board staff on the design of the scheme. Regulators (not pleased with on-site approaches or artificial wetlands) were coming on board with the idea of recycling the effluent, though in a ‘centralised’ manner. A compromise was essentially brokered on the basis that all the immediate stakeholders - Water Board staff, regulators and community representatives - would support water recycling. Wilson recalls that, “The EPA had also come up with same idea – so both of us were pressuring Sydney Water to do that. Sydney Water at one of the meetings, said ' we've been thinking about disposal, we've not been thinking about water cycle',” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). Agreement on this strategy among the small groups of key stakeholders was shaken by the emergence of alternative discourses in state politics.

6.4.3.6 Shifting goalposts: Corporate governance changes 1994-5

In June 1992, John Fahey was appointed Premier of NSW171. This meant a renewed emphasis on cost cutting by the State Government, which was largely under the influence of the NSW Treasury (cost-benefit discourse in the ‘market’ model). There were lengthening delays on backlog sewerage projects, none of which had been agreed among the stakeholders. In this context, it was difficult to see where the funding for ‘environmental’ works such as water recycling or artificial wetlands would be found. Though the Special Environmental Levy (SEL) had been in place for about five years and significant funds were available for environmental works, there were disputes over what this money should be used for and whether it was being properly administered. Opposition MPs raised questions about this and other related issues in parliament, which precipitated a major enquiry into the Sydney Water Board led by Dr. Peter MacDonald (refer Section 6.3.4.3 ‘Environment’ / ‘reformer’ discourses for a more detailed discussion of the relevance of these events).

171 After Nick Greiner resigned over charges brought against him by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (later dismissed).

- 241 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Wilson advocated using part of the SEL to fund backlog sewerage and other environmental programs. However, he came into dispute with the Minister, Robert Webster (National Party) and with the Board of Directors of the Water Board, over the use of this money and resigned in early 1993 (see Hansard 1993, 16 Sep). A former accountant, Paul Broad, was then appointed by the Minister to replace Wilson as Managing Director.

Agency staff and the Community Working Party continued to presume the inclusion of effluent recycling into the scheme as had been agreed. This was seen by most participants as a means of resolving the environmental concerns of the community within the constraints imposed on the agency – i.e. the effluent discharge limits as specified in the Clean Waters Regulations, which had yet to be resolved (Agency Staff 129). Therefore, the effluent recycling agreement formed the basis of the draft ‘supplementary’ (variously called ‘second’) EIS.

This agreement was highly vulnerable to ‘veto’ by external groups within the government hierarchy in light of the inquiry and the corporate governance changes going on. The idea in vogue was to corporatise public departments and cut costs. The new Managing Director, who had not been involved in the making of the agreement, was more concerned about ‘the bottom line’ than ‘environmental works’. The Government began to make plans to corporatise the Water Board, which officially occurred on 1st January 1995 through an Act of Parliament. However, the goal posts shifted in relation to backlog sewerage programs well before the passing of the Act.

Late in 1993, Wilson’s commitments to the Picton Working Party to integrate the works with the natural water cycle – including stormwater management and effluent recycling - were suddenly scaled back by the new Managing Director in the ‘supplementary’ EIS (February 1994). Wilson comments, “The new Managing Director eliminated from my determination of the EIS that we involve stormwater at all. He wanted to just stick to doing what he was doing, and only look at the sewage system by itself.” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). The ‘supplementary’ EIS, which investigated matters arising from the first EIS in 1991, such as artificial wetlands and effluent reuse, had been re-written to indicate that conditions had changed and there was no guarantee for including such ‘environmental works’. The new Managing Director had written in the preface, “the exact mix of these options cannot be declared at this stage as final decisions on discharge limits from the plant to receiving waters have not been determined… Only when those objectives have been set will the Board be able to decide on the precise methods of effluent management…” (Mr. P. Broad in Public Works

- 242 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

1994). He was not prepared to go ahead with anything unless the Clean Waters Act had been amended (Agency Staff 129).

The Board of Directors, “…were concerned about the blow-out of cost with reuse. I have the feeling that the Board was not convinced that it needed to go down the path of recycling. They watered down our original proposal for recycled water in the area,” (Agency Staff 129). The new Managing Director put in practice the ‘user pays’ philosophy (‘economic’ discourse and values). The approach was that backlog ‘beneficiaries’ should pay the full $18,800 for capital costs per lot (and $130 per quarter for operation and maintenance charges for the life of the scheme) (1993 dollar values) (Public Works 1994, p.63). Up front user fees were unheard of for backlog sewerage programs, which had been 100% financed by the Water Board in the pre- 1980s period. The Board asked Treasury for the funds. It was explained that these user charges may be subsidised by the Government or sourced from SEL funds, but no guarantee was given.

The ‘supplementary’ EIS attracted strong criticism from regulators and community groups because it reneged on agreements that had been made with the community by the previous Board’s management. The EPA was increasingly supportive of aspects of water cycle management and critical that the Board had side-stepped important commitments, such as recycled water and water quality outcomes (Agency Staff 129).

In March 1994, the NSW Parliament passed the proposed amendments to the Clean Waters Regulations, removing obstacles to the development of the scheme as originally preferred by the Board. The Regulations were modified so that the EPA could issue licences at specific locations to allow controlled overflows. It did this by modifying the Total Nitrogen and Ammonia discharge requirements such that overflow events could be allowed in the event of high flow conditions (Agency Staff 129). “Somebody with clever ideas saw that they could work on a sewerage system that stored the effluent until heavy rain and then discharge -- using what it could on trees and wetlands -- but store and discharge in heavy rain events,” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04). There was a clear need to retain the water recycling option so that the sewage discharges could be discharged in a controlled manner to comply with the regulations.

6.4.3.7 CWP members “go political” to hold the Water Board to its promises

The Community Working Party (CWP) members were frustrated and disappointed with the 1994 ‘supplementary’ EIS, which had side-stepped commitments made to them by the

- 243 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

previous Water Board management to include ‘environmental works’ i.e. effluent recycling in the scheme. They were very reluctant to accept that the ‘beneficiaries’ should pay the full price of the sewerage system since they had initially been led to believe that it would be subsidised by government. Though the consultation process had not been problem free, progress had been made with agency staff on the question of how to achieve a solution to these issues in over three years of negotiations.

Because of on-going conflicts between groups inside government and corporate re- structuring inside the Board, the Board had twice failed to include ‘environmental works’ in the project. (The ‘first’ EIS had ignored the problem of environmental works altogether and the ‘second’ had backed away from promises made to the community to include them.) This amounted to a breach of the public trust and gave an impression of lack of agency credibility. Community representatives felt they had been ignored and that the consultation process had been a waste of time.

One member recalls how, “…without any reference to the committee [Community Working Party], the draft EIS was changed and they backed away from the reuse program,” (Community Representative 127). “The arguments given were that it was an aberration of Bob Wilson to come out with that and that it was too expensive and shouldn't be considered,” (Community Representative 134). Another criticised that, “…when he left, we had a reversion back to another scheme, which had basically no recycling…[it] cut back on all those areas that we were pushing for. So, we said we'd take it further – take it public...” (Community Representative 134).

“The second [EIS] walked away from the favoured option… the community were expecting the EIS to propose a certain type of scheme with certain environmental safeguards. Sydney Water, for some reason, went away from that clear mandate and put up an EIS that had less environmental safeguards. And they wanted the community to pay more than just a connection fee. So the community rose up and said this is not consultation. We've put all this time and effort in and the pathway leading us to the EIS that should look like this and it looks like that,” (Community Representative 133). “As far as we were concerned, the community were committed to reusing the effluent,“ (Community Representative 127). There was a sense of

- 244 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

“burnout” due to the many changes and the different organisational messages and confused lines of communication up and down the hierarchy within the Board (Hackney c.2000)172.

Group members began to pursue their cause outside formal consultation channels (i.e. self-described as “going political”). Members of the CWP approached the local press and state politicians to argue that the environmental safeguards should be re-incorporated into the Picton project. Approaching state politicians “embarrassed Sydney Water greatly” as it easily showed they had had abandoned their commitment to the process of community consultation. “…it was so easy to demonstrate that we had been going up this track, but the EIS looked like that. In fact, Sydney Water had gone off on its own,” (Community Representative 133).

The government “agreed that Sydney Water had inappropriately departed from all the consultations leading up to it. That was chartered in the minutes; it was hung by its own paperwork. So it was told to start again,” (Community Representative 133). “Politicians must have put pressure on Sydney Water Corporation and said 'you've gone too far' and so we then had third [EIS],” (Community Representative 127). “…They took it back, had a re-think again about it and came back with a compromise.” (Community Representative 134). Wilson suggests, “I think, what happened was they just couldn't get a system through the community once they went back to that old system,” (Wilson, B. Interview 28.04.04).

There was a revolving door of community relations people (Community Representative 133). But what held the process together during this difficult time was a more senior person – “the stayer” - who was committed to ensuring that the messages of the community representatives went to the right people in the organisation. ‘The stayer’ formed a long-term connection between the working party members and senior management in the organisation through the periods of uncertainty173.

Other members of the CWP quit from the process, feeling their contribution had been ignored. “I became disenchanted because obviously all these meetings we had added up to

172 The community consultation group “were suffering burnout. That is, through meeting monthly for years, they had put energy and effort into the usual processes… But then they used a lot of energy fighting political battles against inappropriate EIS’s, which turned away from the favoured options of the community. They had to fight those battles. Quite a few community people had over-committed themselves, were sick of the subject, were exhausted and so on.” (Community Representative 133). 173 ‘The stayer’ was the “…touchstone, the person that chaired the meetings, designed the agenda, and took our views in terms of our agreements with Sydney Water… occasionally when we were unhappy, we would tell [them] and [they] would relate that usually straight to the CEO,” (Community Representative 133).

- 245 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

nothing. It was a waste of time…that committee was dismissed. We were asked to reapply. And I just said 'forget it',” (Community Representative 135).

The Water Board’s apparent lack of commitment to environmental outcomes and lack of respect for community values had been the main issue that led to community actions to overturn what they considered an ‘inappropriate’ second EIS. The Picton scheme gained certain notoriety mainly because of the inconsistency of agency messages. This was a valuable learning experience for the organisation174 and as a result, increasing emphasis was given to early and effective regulatory and community consultation from within the organisation175,176. There was recognition of the centrality of good community and stakeholder engagement in subsequent backlog projects (Agency Staff 112).

6.4.3.8 Agency-community interaction: The third EIS cycle, 1996

The Water Board’s processes for assessment and selection of options improved in inclusiveness, balance and transparency in the ‘third’ and final Picton EIS cycle (January 1996). Much of the agency-community interaction had occurred during the ‘failed’ second EIS negotiations that had been ‘vetoed’ by upper management.

Sydney Water staff, NSW Public Works and Picton community representatives had continued to meet throughout 1994 to negotiate the content of the EIS document. In addition to this, intensive workshop formats were developed by agency staff to incorporate a range of values and interests earlier in the development of the EIS (i.e. before public exhibition) (Figure 6.9). To encourage greater probity, an external consultant was brought in to facilitate a series of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) workshops (31 October and 19 December 1994) to weigh up the competing values of key stakeholders. The purpose was to develop and reassess sewage management options for Picton. “It was the first time we actually did this sort of process - that I

174 Lessons learned from the Picton scheme guided training programs on community consultation programs in the organisation (Council Staff 136)(Agency Staff 112). 175 The Chairman of the Board said in 1999, “Sydney Water is committed to involving the community at the earliest possible stage in major activities to ensure their concerns and interests are given due consideration” (SWC 2000b, p.2). 176 The ‘Customer Services’ branch in Sydney Water after 2000 encompassed ‘customer service/call centre’, ‘community consultation’ and ‘customer research & marketing’ activities (refer Figure 6.2 – SWC organisation chart, 2002)

- 246 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

was involved in anyway. It was a way of - there were so many issues to resolve - policy, legislation…” (Agency Staff 129).

This series of meetings gave the parties opportunities to deliberate and negotiate the issues and reach a compromise. It was confirmed that effluent recycling satisfied the community’s desire to keep the rivers free of sewage and for Sydney Water to save money and comply with the amended Clean Waters Regulations. However, Sydney Water who retained significant control over the agenda and the format of negotiations initially scoped the options for consideration. Staff aimed to “…meet the no dry weather discharges conditions” and with the stakeholders, “came up with idea of reuse” during negotiations to satisfy this requirement (Agency Staff 129). The other parties largely favoured this outcome.

Sydney Water invited ‘the dissenters’ (i.e. people who had submitted comments to the controversial ‘supplementary’ EIS in 1994) to the workshops. The Managing Director thought it was important to incorporate opposing points of view. And thus attendees included residents (several from the Picton CWP), regulators, environmental organisations and advisory organisations177. During the deliberations, 22 options were put forward by Sydney Water for sewage management in Picton (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996). Of these, 6 were shortlisted by the attendees using multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques to assess their merit.

Box 6.4 Option selection process for Picton (‘third’) EIS 1996 – Overview

MCA was a means of ranking the desirability of each option using qualitative and quantitative criteria, as an alternative to narrower approaches like cost-benefit techniques. Selection of the criteria and weightings were nominated by the attendees, and reflected interests, values and expectations of the stakeholders as well as the ranking methods used. The contingency of outcomes on the kinds of stakeholders’ present and supposed ‘arbitrariness’ of the criteria and weightings is one of the main criticisms of MCA. In this case, the workshop participants chose an extensive list of environmental and social criteria against which they weighed up the options. These options consisted of variations on 5 major themes: (ranging from on-site to centralised design approaches)178.

177 There were 7 local residents, 6 regulators, 5 environmental organisations, 3 advisory organisations and 2 ‘other individuals’ present at the MCA meetings (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.8.5). 178 The options on the table were: (1) on-site treatment and disposal, (2) on-site treatment and further off- site treatment and disposal, (3) centralised collection and treatment, with local disposal, (4) centralised collection and treatment, and transfer to an existing STP followed by disposal, (5) centralised collection,

- 247 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Several options for effluent application were considered as a replacement for disposal. These included: discharge to creek/river (presumably environmental flows), crop/pasture irrigation, tree irrigation, park/garden/golf course irrigation and industrial reuse at the Maldon cement works (NSW Public Works 1992 in ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.6.4).

Workshop participants selected criteria and weighted them according to issues of concern. They agreed that the most important issue of concern was to prevent nutrient contamination from getting into the local creeks and rivers179. Community members’ value for environmental outcomes had the opportunity to emerge in the negotiations as reflected by the higher importance given to biophysical effects than those connected with the social or built environment.

Outcomes of the stakeholder MCA process:

Using the above criteria and weightings, different ranking methods were used to find preferred options. Sewage transfer options to existing STPs (e.g. West Camden STP) consistently ranked lower than all other options. What is interesting is that the on-site options ranked highly using most of the ranking methods, “…because they performed better against the majority of criteria” (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.8.12). However, it was noted in the EIS that on-site options did not rank as well on criteria that the workshop participants valued more highly (i.e. biophysical requirements), and were sensitive to ranking methods.

The on-site options were dropped from the list not because agency staff argued that nutrient discharges from the existing systems would be too detrimental to the health of Stone Quarry Creek. The EIS justifies this noting that the “community recognised that with on-site systems, existing problems would get worse with further development,” (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.8.13). However, there is no mention of the link between on-site sewage system management practices and on-site system performance, which one would have thought of particular importance in establishing their merit. Some of the behavioural and institutional issues around on-site systems were avoided, such as illegal discharging of sewage by owners,

transfer of raw sewage and treatment at an existing STP followed by disposal (ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, Ch.7) 179 The issues of concern were as follows – (a) Most important - Total daily Nitrogen (TP) & Total Phosphorous (TP) loads generated in local rivers/creeks (including Stone Quarry Creek and the Nepean River at Camden), (b) Quite important – Removal of viruses and fecal coliforms, the impact on aquatic ecology, the potential for overflows and the quantity of water going back into waterways, (c) Less important – Potential impacts on social and built environment (these ranked lower than effects on the

- 248 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

the uncertain pricing and regulatory regime (and the role of the Council as inspector) nor the uncertainty of the evidence of a link between on-site performance and river health. This suggests that the multi-criteria analysis process contained unelaborated assumptions that suggested deeper institutional and cultural values for centralised piped systems.

Five options were shortlisted for the overall scheme, all of which conventional technology and approaches to management. (The only option that represented a substantial divergence from conventional practices was Option 1):

- Activated sludge treatment with total effluent reuse for silviculture (trees)

- Activated sludge treatment with effluent discharge to Nepean River at West Camden

- Activated sludge treatment with effluent discharge to Malabar Deep Ocean Outfall via Glenfield STP

- Raw sewage transfer to West Camden STP

- Raw sewage transfer to Glenfield STP

Agreement

During a second participant workshop on 19 December 1995, the community representatives were asked to select their preferred option from this shortlist and agreed to the final option, which was:

centralised gravity sewage collection system, with

local effluent treatment and reuse (SWC 2003).

After more than 10 years of negotiation, this very modest but difficult to achieve concession to sustainable water use patterns would recycle 1.2 ML/day of sewage from the towns. Reuse of the treated sewage effluent for agricultural and tree farming activities on a farm adjoining the new sewage treatment plant was expected to eliminate the need for dry weather overflows into the Nepean River system. Finding a reuse site and market was difficult and in the end, “We ended up buying the Carlton Stud, which was up for sale (I jokingly had suggested this at the start!). It had limited options for reuse.” (Agency Staff 129).

biophysical environment), (d) Least important – Local access, disruption of private property & sewer- induced growth (summary from ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.8.12-8.13).

- 249 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Members of the community were disappointed that the scheme had not gone further toward water cycle approaches. There had been suggestion that integrated water cycle approaches could have been used in the towns to conserve water and thus alleviate some sewerage capacity problems. Several members of the Community Working Party had in fact put a water cycle management strategy to Council to consider local regulations to reduce water usage, as part of the sewerage scheme (Community Representative 134). But because of the drawn out nature of negotiations and a lack of agency-agency co-operation – among Council, the Water Board, regulators and the private consortium - this option was given very little attention. Looking at upstream as well as downstream at water cycle interactions would have required the installation of water saving devices (dual flush toilets, low flow showerheads, recycling for irrigation) – unwelcome expenses for the Council. These actions deserved more attention since they could have offset the likely increase in water usage, which access to a sewerage system encourages.

The Community Working Party’s initial goal had been to ensure that no overflows were running into the river or creek and they had thought that effluent reuse would facilitate such an outcome (Community Representative 134). The compromise for them was based on an understanding of why the effluent overflows were necessary (e.g. in the case of component breakdowns or wet weather). Though the final option almost satisfied this requirement, Sydney Water was adamant that wet weather overflows would have to occur. Even though several community members remained dissatisfied as to whether all the practical details had been addressed in this system180, an agreed compromise was reached because key parties had been able to develop shared understandings. Sydney Water’s compromise had been to build extra capacity into the scheme’s pumping stations and effluent holding ponds to support this outcome.

6.4.3.9 Political context: Success of the scheme

The Picton scheme and other backlog schemes were subject to continuing delays, mainly because of the major changes in corporate governance. However, a new Labor Government, elected in March 1995, supported the agreed scheme. Picton stakeholders were brought together

180 For example, “…how they were going to be measuring that? Where it was, was it going to be over extended storm periods, or what was the time period of flow at 8 ML before excess flows could go into the river? Now, that was a series of debatable points. It was very hard to tie down exactly how it was going to work,“ (Community Representative 134).

- 250 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

once again in May to clarify their positions in light of the political uncertainty. They made few changes at the ‘value management workshop’181, which revisited the options, their selection and project issues. The ‘third’ EIS was therefore published with considerable community support in January 1996 and the report on public submissions in July 1996182.

Financing the scheme remained the only significant problem. Members of Parliament of backlog constituencies were frustrated by the lack of funding183. The main question was whether the new Government would provide a subsidy for sewerage connections and if so, how would this work. With the dominance of the ‘user pays’ philosophy in the higher ranks of Sydney Water, subsidies were not popular and there was a possibility that backlog residents would have to pay the full cost of connecting to the sewerage schemes184. However, differential sewerage pricing was immediately discarded by the new Labor government as an attack on people’s entitlement to essential services. The Minister for Urban Affairs criticised Sydney Water’s Managing Director for allowing such an “inequitable” proposal; “…economic rationalists in Sydney Water should wake up to themselves. They will lose this battle. This is a theoretical exercise that would be unfair to pensioners and families.’” (Totaro 1997c). The matter was handed to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) which sought representations from the public on whether the costs of sewer backlog projects should be funded through an increase in Sydney Water’s base charges (i.e. impact on all Sydney Water customers), just backlog residents, or both? (IPART 1997, p.34).

Community groups from Sydney’s backlog areas appeared at the Tribunal and argued that capital costs of connection should be subsidised by Government as they had in the past (‘traditional’ value for government responsibility). Two members of the Picton Community

181 Value Management Workshops became a standard means of working through problems and options associated with a project by Sydney Water and its stakeholders. They are attended state agency staff, regulators, environmental groups and community representatives. 182 The scheme was modified to include a 280 megalitre storage in order to eliminate all dry weather flows (plus a de-chlorination process to minimize the impact of treated effluent discharges on the aquatic ecosystem). 183 In September 1996, the State MP for Camden (i.e. Picton) argued: “The promises have gone on for too long… Has the Government or Treasury reneged on its promise to fund Picton's environmental works from the special environment levy?“ (Hansard 1996, 25 Sep). 184 According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Water planned to charge 30,000 people waiting to connect to sewerage on Sydney’s fringes, $2,700 a year for the next 20 years (Totaro 1997c).

- 251 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Working Party presented their case expressing how subsidies were taken-for-granted185. Communities from several backlog schemes strongly advised the Tribunal that people would simply not be able to connect if the full price was charged. As one member put it, “…why did we have to bear the cost when the whole of Sydney would benefit? - the cost should be shared,” (Community Representative 135).

The social ‘equity’ theme was evidently a powerful discourse in the pricing debate, and in July 1997 the Tribunal ruled that the case for retaining traditional subsidies was largely accepted186. Thus the user pays doctrine was supported in principle, but on the basis that there were substantial benefits accruing to the wider community from sewering the countryside, in terms of environmental and health benefits, subsidies were retained187.

In light of this decision, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning swiftly announced the Government’s decision that in fact, there would be no differential pricing at all, and even the $3,000 once off fee per property would be dropped (Bissett 1997, Totaro 1997b). The NSW Government agreed to cover these costs through their social program and the remaining delays to the Picton scheme were related to the tender process and sewerage pricing review process.

The Picton sewerage scheme was operating by 2000 (completed 12 months after a tender was accepted from a ‘private’ consortium188) with an effluent recycling facility, which used 100% of dry weather sewage flows. The system had capacity to serve 7,000 people with reticulated sewerage. At the time of writing, there have been no wet weather sewage overflows from the effluent holding ponds into the Nepean River system, and thus the ecological health of the river has been afforded some protection.

185 CWP members argued, “…we should be treated exactly same as all previous extensions to the sewerage system. Just because we happen to be one of the last we shouldn't be discriminated against.” (Community Representative 127). One reflected, “…the people we call 'bean counters'... seemed to be calling the tune [in Sydney Water]. They put a proposal to the pricing tribunal that the people of Picton should pay for the capital works for this thing, which is a matter of $60mn. Now this had never happened before with the backlog sewerage program…” (Community Representative 127). 186 “…The judge seemed to agree with us... that … we shouldn't have to pay the full cost of what would benefit everybody further down the river… Well, they dropped it. I don't know how or why it was dropped, but they dropped it.” (Community Representative 135). 187 Beneficiaries only had to contribute a maximum of 25% of capital costs (capped at a once off $3,000 charge per property) for the connection from the sewer main at the property boundary to their house. The wider Sydney Water customer base would contribute the remaining capital costs (and the operating costs as well) through an increase to the common sewerage charge by a few dollars (transparency of cross- subsidies).

- 252 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.4.4 Initial case findings

Picton was a much more complicated case than that of Caloundra and Maroochy, as it involved significantly longer time scales and a highly complex regulatory environment. However, there are several issues, which contributed to the ability to reach an agreement between all the parties affecting how the water cycle would be managed. The three pillars of institutions are again drawn on to structure the explanation as to how governance structures affected the ability to take up more sustainable (water cycle) approaches. The initial factor favouring an agreement was that the proposed scheme did not represent a huge divergence from traditional values and norms of practice.

Cognitive and normative aspects of water management institutions supporting or detracting from the ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Convergence of aspects of agency ‘reformers’, environment and community groups’ problem frames. The problem was to obtain a modern sewerage system for the community group. But through affiliation/contact with environment activists, in the context of beach pollution protests (societal level changes), shared values for protecting the ecological health of the river came to dominate their objectives. For the sponsoring agency, the problem was to support policy action to secure clean waterways, but also to navigate an acceptable solution to wastewater management through a period of significant institutional change and community disapproval. Unlike in the Queensland case, there was a common basis for understanding the problem among the immediate community and regulatory stakeholders (i.e. gaining an improved sewerage collection system). Since the solutions proposed by the agency were conventional there was little significant threat to conventional values and norms supporting the social order.

In any case, the overall thrust of the approach was largely decided before the ‘public consultation’ stage was reached (i.e. that sewerage was necessary to support ‘clean waterways’ policies). This was the main weak point. In these circumstances, there was no strategic policy conversation about the management of the whole water cycle:

188 The construction contract was given to ‘TransUtilities’ which was actually a consortium of Sydney Water itself and other private works contractors.

- 253 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

backlog schemes were undertaken on a case by case basis for a largely predictable outcome (i.e. reticulated sewerage). Sydney Water and the NSW Government were successful at justifying this outcome in terms of securing public health and environmental protection in light of badly performing septic tanks. A key assumption was that a technical solution was the only solution. (Existing on-site wastewater management systems in the towns were culturally framed as posing increasing health risk, rising cost, inconvenience and a lower standard of living, c.f. comments linking small-scale systems to ‘Third World’ sanitation.)

Nonetheless, the emergence of water cycle thinking in Sydney Water (previously the Water Board) among some technical staff headed by the Managing Director (‘reformers’) as well as environment activists and community groups manifested as a struggle over the conception of the problem. Those holding ‘reformer’ views saw this as a problem of minimising the impact of humans on the water cycle, while those holding ‘conservatives’/‘economic rationalist’ views on the Sydney Water Board contended that incorporating water cycle concerns into the design of the scheme would be too expensive.

The clash of discourses over this at the state level, influenced events in Picton. Increasingly limited funding for backlog projects and regulatory constraints (Clean Waters Regulations) narrowed the range of options acceptable to the sponsoring agency, which were already fairly narrow (i.e. all conventional, ‘once through’). The push for innovation came from below from those holding ‘reformer’ views who believed effluent recycling would protect the river, but at the same time, accommodate the ‘traditional’ values for piped centralised sewer systems. The Clean Waters Regulations were even changed to accommodate a reticulated sewerage scheme entailing overflows into the Nepean River, indicating how regulations are not ‘givens’, but can be changed by influential institutional actors.

– Shaping and selection of options / scope of study. Initially, conventional options were proposed by the agency with little public consultation, but the options broadened to include recycling during the third EIS cycle after ‘bottom-up’ pressure was applied to the agency by active ‘reformer’ groups who had support from key politicians and the media. Given that the outcome of that process was an agreement for conventional collection but ‘end-of-pipe’ effluent recycling, brokered by key agency staff-

- 254 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

community representatives, the option selection process appeared more a justification of a privately agreed strategy, rather than an objective selection process (e.g. improved decentralised options were dropped because they might ‘threaten river health’ which represents an inexplicably high rating of one criteria over all others; yet whether these options work or not depends on the kinds of management strategies in place)

– The idea of effluent recycling arose because of cross-pollination of ideas between a small group of technical experts (‘reformers’), environmental representatives and members of the Community Working Party – who began to lobby for this outcome. This may have been because, like in Caloundra, end-of-pipe recycling for agricultural purposes posed less of a challenge to the existing institutional arrangements, since the scheme remained under the control of one organisation (which has implications for controlling risk).

– Conditional and changing nature of public support. Government administrations continued to promote the normative rhetoric of pipe-based sewerage expansion. Community group members were happy to collaborate, but not shy of going public if the process was not going the way they wanted. They drew on ‘environment’ and ‘community’ discourses to understand what was happening and pushed outcomes they valued as the opportunities arose. This support was complicated from above by the significant changes to corporate governance in Sydney Water. The process was experienced as uncertain and confusing for community members (e.g. unclear lines of responsibility in agency, separateness of local/state government and lack of holism in approach etc). An agreement was only maintained in light of this through a shared commitment to the agreed outcome (shared values and norms) and the support of strategic institutional actors.

– Consideration of risk and sustainability. Public health (as ‘traditional’ values) and environmental risk (emerging ‘environment’ values) were motivating factors for key actors and these became important criteria for scheme selection. Although there was nominal recognition of the need for environmental precaution (‘sustainability’), there was not enough organisational integration to support holism. Because the organisational structuring was so fragmented, there was little support for integrated water cycle approaches in the town (community members proposed a water cycle

- 255 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

approach for the village, but this was ignored by agencies bent on achieving own separate priorities and interests).

– Good opportunities for shared ‘problem framing’. Given the scope of proposed changes on offer were narrow (with the broad thrust of the project decided, but configuration negotiable) and initially little stakeholder interaction, it is remarkable how a long period of interaction facilitated between a small group of stakeholders (community group and agency staff) enabled change. The opportunities for frequent interaction facilitated problem framing - the shared understanding, objectives and approaches – that encouraged ownership, commitment and support of the overall project. Starting from a position of agreement on the need for the project helped this. Despite the terms of engagement being largely defined by the agency (i.e. agency dominated agendas; agency control of information flow; community ‘advice’ giving only; overwhelming technical and financial ‘jargon’), the community representatives were able to overturn agency plans if they conflicted with deeply held values. This was most apparent when the community group felt strongly enough to ‘go political’ over incorporating the desired ‘environmental controls’ that would prevent river pollution by sewage effluent. This case study shows that public consultation largely intended as an ‘add-on’ to justify/legitimate expert-shaped plans could evolve into an important vehicle for institutional change.

Regulative characteristics of current institutions supporting/detracting from ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Co-ordinating authority for water across government. The non-integrated organisational regime for water impeded the ability to find and adopt holistic approaches. It gave a predisposition for non-integrated solutions e.g. centralised pipes approach/large scale recycling in conventional style that was supported by concomitant cultural and normative thinking. This tended to discourage opportunities for environmental sustainability gains. The big problem working against integrated water cycle approaches was that sewage was considered separately from other water cycle aspects.

– Stakeholder interaction. The quality and nature of stakeholder interaction across the organisational divisions (agency-agency and community-agency) were critical factors in the ability to obtain agreement on the approach/design of the scheme. Through

- 256 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

long-term relatively frequent interaction (compared with Caloundra) shared norms and values were developed between a small number of community-agency representatives which helped them find common ground and reach compromise on issues that could have brought conflict and impasse (e.g. inclusion or not of ‘environmental works’). Mutual understanding and commitment that developed as a result of these deliberative processes facilitated agreement even though the parties did not entirely like the outcomes. The Picton experience suggests the importance of having institutional actors (‘institutional entrepreneurs’) in support of such a process, for example:

agency staff members with recognised integrity and personal commitment to inclusive processes (liaison facilitators; middle level managers) who could make (and keep) agreements over a period of time, and

higher level managers co-ordinating with agency staff and community representatives; especially important in the context of an uncertain and changing corporate governance environment.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process itself required some stakeholder input despite its limitations as a tool for effecting broad social change for sustainability (i.e. the Water Board as its own ‘determining authority’ for the EIS). The rejection of the EIS twice by the community signifies the potential for communities to use the ‘veto’ if not included, and their ability to force the agency to consider their views. On the whole, opportunities for external groups’ involvement in changing the substantive form of the scheme were fairly modest. Given that public involvement tended to come well after the agency had set out the broad thrust of its plans, opportunities for improving conservation through alternative plumbing or sewage systems were missed – such as planning controls to reduce water usage, recycling effluent for field irrigation etc - as these implied broader social, policy and management changes. This led ostensibly led to a compromise with ‘end-of-pipe’ effluent recycling outside of town, rather than support for water cycle management in town. In the second round of consultation, the sponsoring agency found it more practical to head off public opposition before it arose by including ‘dissenters’ (those that opposed the first EIS) into the official consultation process. After the second EIS process, there were more predictable steps/timing, and avenues for public comment/dissent; increased agency accountability and transparency than before, and

- 257 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

agency staff learned how to consult better over time. This case study suggests opportunities for interaction in the regulative dimension were the more important basis on which key groups reached understanding and compromise in water sustainability issues.

- 258 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.5 Case 2 (b): Jamberoo Sewerage Scheme

6.5.1 Jamberoo hydrology and settlement background

Jamberoo is a small village situated seven kilometres west of Kiama in the foothills of the Illawarra escarpment (Figure 6.10). The village lies in the Minnamurra River Catchment coastal floodplain known as the Terragong Swamp (SWC 2002b, p.2). Early European occupation began in the 1800s with timber getters who harvested red cedar trees – ‘red gold’ – in the rainforested areas between Kiama and the Jamberoo Valley. In the later part of the nineteenth century, farmers drained the swamp for grazing purposes and subsequently the area was used for dairying (CoA 2001).

Hyams Creek runs through the centre of the village and joins the Minnamurra River just below it. The village became part of the Municipality of Kiama in 1869, gaining independence in 1891 and later re-incorporated into Kiama Municipal Council in 1954 (Kitka Design 2002-5). The 1996 census identified 316 dwellings in the village and a permanent population of 883 (SWC 2002b, p.2).

6.5.1.1 Water supply in Jamberoo

Jamberoo’s reticulated water supply is pumped from the Kembla Grange Water Filtration Plant south of Wollongong. This plant treats raw water from Sydney’s Avon Dam (average daily flow at the plant is about 120 ML/day) and supplies filtered water to the Illawarra region south of Sydney (SWC 2002b, p.4-2).

- 259 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Figure 6.10 Map showing Jamberoo locality (Source: ERM Mitchell McCotter 1996, p.2.2)

The townspeople consume about 96 megalitres (ML) of fresh water per year and this rate is expected to increase as “constraints imposed by septic systems are removed” (AWT, 1998 #1301 in SWC 2002b, p.4-2).

6.5.1.2 Sewage management in Jamberoo prior to reticulation

Jamberoo residents operated an estimated 327 privately maintained on-site sewage management systems (AWT Engineering 1999 in SWC 2002a, p.12). In 2001, there were about 2,875 on-site sewage systems in the Kiama local government area (LGA). The distribution of these systems in 1994 is shown in Table 6.4. Many were identified as contributors to high nutrient levels in the local waterways (KMC 2001, p.49) and this was widely seen as a reason to prioritise and implement a reticulated sewerage collection system for the village.

- 260 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Figure 6.11 Kiama Local Government Area (Source: Kiama Council 2000 in KMC 2004, p.7)

Percentage of Sewerage System Type Households Septic tanks with on-site disposal 37% Septic tank with pump out to tanker189 40% Aerated wastewater treatment (AWT) systems (garden recycling)190 23%

Table 6.4 Distribution of sewerage system types in Jamberoo prior to reticulated sewerage (KMC 1994 in SWC 2002b, p.2).

Some evidence is available on the effects of the village on downstream water quality or public health effects. The information available suggested that downstream contamination derived in part from human sources, which implicated on-site wastewater treatment systems in

189 Approx. 16 ML/yr of effluent is tankered to a pump out discharge point that is connected to the Kiama Sewerage System (SWC 2002b, p.4-1)

- 261 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

the village as a source191. A survey of the 33 on-site wastewater treatment system in Jamberoo found that 15% had performance problems, the most common being weed growth and leakage (AWT 1999, p.4-4). While it was clear that the present systems had performance problems, the extent to which downstream contamination was caused by system management – e.g. illegal emptying of on-site wastewater systems (i.e. dry weather overflows) - was not clear192.

Sydney Water asserted that the practice of illegal emptying of on-site sewerage tanks into stormwater drains was not known about (SWC 2002b, p.4-5), however, accounts from local people interviewed for this study suggested that the practice was commonplace (Section 6.5.2.4). Therefore, it is concluded that although on-site systems in Jamberoo were the cause of downstream pollution, the risks were dependent on the appropriate operation and maintenance of on-site systems, rather than any inherent problems with the technology.

The existing practice was to collect sewage from the pumpout systems and truck it to the Minnamurra Waste Depot for disposal (40% of the total volume). This practice was widely denounced as unsustainable and in the few years leading up to the Jamberoo sewerage scheme Sydney Water agreed to accept effluent from Jamberoo into the Kiama Sewerage Scheme (KMC c1999, p.86-102).

It was on the basis of a desktop study that the NSW Government had included Jamberoo in the priority sewerage program in 1996 (see Section 6.3.3.1 ‘Environmental Protection Authority’). The water quality studies (dated 1998-2002) came well after people began to agitate for sewerage in Jamberoo, which suggests that scientific knowledge of risk was not a necessary pre-requisite for people to support the project. There was also local knowledge, which led to sewage concerns.

This case study examines the way that stakeholders made sense of the problems and issues of wastewater management in the Jamberoo local area, including what was made of the link

190 Or ‘Biocycle’ systems (commercial name). 191 One study used faecal sterol biomarkers (identifiers of human origin contamination) to establish that wastewater contaminating surface waters downstream of Jamberoo derived at least in part from human origins (though the main source was manure from dairy farms) (AWT-EST 1999, p.6-6). Another found that stormwater runoff from the village had measurable impact on water quality in Jamberoo Creek and other local drainage lines causing levels of nutrients and fecal coliforms that exceeded the guidelines (AWT EnSight 1998, p.6-6). 192 Illegal disposal was particularly tempting for those on pump out systems whose average annual charges for pump outs was estimated to be as much as $898/year (compared with only $90/year for adsorption trenches and $490/year for AWTS systems) (SWC 2002b, p.4-5).

- 262 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

between on-site sewage systems and downstream health/environmental risks. It probes the way key stakeholders negotiated agreement (or conflict) on management of the water cycle.

6.5.2 How was the problem defined by different groups?

6.5.2.1 Managers, planners and engineers

Participants from Sydney Water (12 in total) representing various levels of the organisation (senior management to project management), drew on discourses similar to those presented in Section 6.3.4. In relation to Jamberoo, staff expressed elements of ‘traditional’, ‘reformer’/’economic’, ‘environment’ and ‘community’ discourses. According to the staff (and reflected in supporting documentation), the sewerage activities of the organisation were justified on the basis of bringing in conventional sewerage solutions to the areas that had missed out. The main problem related to faulty or badly maintained existing on-site sewage systems and the potential health or environmental risks from sewage overflows (Agency Staff 113a).

In terms of technological strategy, ‘traditional’ approaches such as large-scale conventional systems were still seen as the appropriate response to the lack of reticulated sewerage and formed the basis of initial option selection. However, reform discourses, such as ‘environment’ and ‘community’ discourses, suffused staff comments. For example, they advocated the value of community engagement in planning processes. Community engagement had become more sophisticated and more fully incorporated into the organisation’s strategic approach to priority sewerage communities. It now appeared much better co-ordinated, suggesting the lessons from other backlog projects (specifically Picton) had been effective.

The ad hoc consultation experienced by Picton residents had changed to an integrated project delivery team-based approach193 to manage ‘planning through to delivery’. The team approach was ‘extremely efficient’ and there were ‘not many players,’ (Agency Staff 113a). Staff working on the program saw Sydney Water’s role as one of managing the demands of multiple players, rather than going it alone suggesting a ‘reformer’ approach (normative value for managing challenges by non-experts through a more inclusive approach, see Table 6.2).

- 263 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

“As time goes on, expectations become greater. We manage expectations, try to educate perception… Our roles are as brokers – we have to think with multiple ‘hats’ on all the time,” (Agency Staff 133). Agency staff recognised the importance of mediating the views of many stakeholders (suggesting ‘reformer’/’environment’ value for incorporating ‘multiple users and goals’).

‘Economic’ discourses were also strongly evident in agency staff comments. Further cost tightening in Sydney Water had meant they were more open to technological innovation if it reduced costs. However, this discourse seemed to occur within the conventional ‘frame’ of thinking in terms of centralised collection, treatment and effluent disposal systems. Thus we see that Sydney Water staff talked about a cheaper centralised low-pressure sewerage system, which does not use gravity, but relied on maceration and pumping (for hilly, rocky or otherwise difficult terrain). The main justification was that it saved money on piped infrastructure (especially in deep, rocky or hilly areas typical of Illawarra backlog areas) and sealed pipes prevented ingress of stormwater into the sewer system, which reduced the propensity for overflows.

6.5.2.2 Local Council

Council saw a sewerage scheme as an opportunity to improve the amenity of the local area. A staff member involved with the scheme commented that there were “…benefits for waterways and properties in Kiama from an environment and public health perspective,” (Council Staff 118). The Minnamurra River catchment was regarded as an important natural area that supported tourism and the local community. The staff member explained, “…the overall purpose of the PSP is to make sure that unsewered areas get access to sewers…“ (Council Staff 118). Though this seemed to prescribe a certain kind of system from the outset, in fact, the “…type of system was not so much the issue. We didn't mind what collection system there was, as long as it occurred,” (Council Staff 118).

193 Integrated team structure: Project Manager (responsible for planning through to approval) supported by a Communications Manager, Technical Manager and Environmental Manager (Agency Staff 113a).

- 264 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The practice of tanking Jamberoo’s sewage (from pumpout systems) to coastal sand dunes for disposal was very unpopular194. Awareness of the public health implications of sewage dumping and poorly performing on-site wastewater systems was reinforced by the threat of legal liability if anyone became sick. The widely publicised oyster contamination incident in 1997 presented general concerns for coastal councils in NSW about just such a scenario (discussed in Section 6.5.3.2)

More generally, Kiama Council appeared interested in advancing the possibility of water recycling at Jamberoo to protect the local waterways and scale back use of the ocean outfall at Bombo. They had helped fund the well-known effluent reuse scheme in Gerringong-Gerroa195, which operated in their LGA. “Council has fairly strong environmental streak and wanted good environmental outcomes,” (Council Staff 118) suggesting high value for water cycle management.

Though relations seemed harmonious enough with Sydney Water and with the community, a certain lack of faith was expressed on the value of community engagement. This was related to two expectations (as expressed by the council staff member). Firstly, that if councillors and MPs were representative of the community’s interests, there was no need for Sydney Water to directly consult with the community. “Politicians are elected to know how to represent the community. So why go out and say what do you think? There is only a place for education. I've become an anti-consultation person because it makes things difficult and complex. It confuses decisions and politicians.” (Council Staff 118) Secondly, that if everyone agreed on the need for a sewerage system, why was consultation necessary? “The objective was to connect to a sewerage system, not to ask the community's opinion.” (Council Staff 118). (This last view was consistent with those among some community representatives as well.)

Regardless of this apparent scepticism of the value of community consultation, community representatives had described the council as supportive and helpful. Members of the Jamberoo community had asked the council to lobby the NSW Government for sewerage on their behalf: “…there's more power going through council and your local representatives,”

194 Arrangements were made with Sydney Water to deposit the sewage into the Kiama sewerage system as the sewerage scheme came on line. 195 This project which was commissioned in 2002 was a state of the art tertiary effluent treatment process (using UV). The treated effluent (capacity 2.2ML/d) was being used for fodder production on a farm purchased by Sydney Water (Boake 2006).

- 265 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

(Community Representative 138a). “We would write to them [SWC] and the response would be ‘we are looking at it, but go back to council - contact council’. (Community Representative 138a)

This suggests that there was a widely held consensus on the problem: on-site wastewater systems were inconvenient and presented a public health and environmental risk and an alternative was needed. Sewerage was considered an essential outcome from any consultation process, suggesting preference for conventional technology, and a recycling scheme would have been nice, but was seen as less essential.

Council staff seemed to have a co-operative working relationship with Sydney Water staff; there was “…a close liaison with them since we had the same objectives of the best environmental outcome,” (Council Staff 118). There seemed to be in-house co-operation on environmental objectives. Council adopted the role of ‘steward’; “to look at how Sydney Water impacts on the physical environment – and set the standards for restoration,” (Council Staff 118). Such a role extended to decisions on the order in which households connected to the sewerage system (Council Staff 118).

6.5.2.3 Elected representatives

Several Labor party state members – Bob Harrison and Matt Brown196 – promoted the plans for sewerage on behalf of the community in the parliament. The parliamentary speeches focussed on the plight of the residents with sub-standard systems and the ‘failure to provide’ a ‘sewerage scheme’ for which there was a ‘dire social and health need’ (R. Harrison in Hansard 1995, 7 June, R. Harrison in Hansard 1993, 13 October). Advantages were highlighted, such as preventing raw sewage pollution from on-site systems into the Minnamurra River. Members of the Jamberoo community commented that elected representatives were “…very good - they've lobbied very hard for us. They've been right behind us and council has been very supportive too.” (Community Representative 138a)

196 Views of elected representatives (Councillors and State MPs) are sourced from documented public information - hansards, press releases, news articles etc.

- 266 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.5.2.4 Community representatives

Community representatives are the people who formally represented the Jamberoo community on Sydney Water’s Community Liaison Group (CLG)197. This group consisted of about half a dozen self-nominated local residents, business owners and farming representatives. The seven participants interviewed for this study framed the problem in a similar way to those involved in the Picton scheme, drawing on ‘community’ and ‘environment’ discourses (c.f. section 6.4.2.4 ‘Community representatives’).

As with Picton, the major motivator for their involvement was concern about public health, operational and financial issues related to on-site systems, receiving water quality concerns and making sure that the project was done properly by the agency. They generally thought sewerage would help improve the town and contribute to its viability. However there was more of an emphasis by many in the Jamberoo community (as conveyed by the CLG members and supported by Sydney Water’s surveys of community opinion (IRIS Research 2002, in SWC EIS 2002, Vol.2) on giving up the responsibility and financial uncertainty associated with existing on-site systems. A higher proportion of households had pumpout systems (40%) compared with only 22% in Picton, which may explain this198. However, this view was not uniform, and residents with ‘biocycle’ systems were generally much happier with the current situation (only 5% of this group wanted to change and 53% supported Sydney Water’s preferred option) (ibid. p.12,14). This suggests there was some support for existing, improved and/or alternative at source, on-site, decentralised or recycling systems that would have brought environmental benefits.

Pumpout fees, which were in the range of $1,000 per year, worked out to be considerably higher (mainly for families/large households) than the sewerage rates paid by the rest of Sydney (SWC 2002b, p.4-5). This was expected to change with the introduction of reticulated sewerage: “I don't have the problem of pumpout, but the people on pumpout - it's just diabolical. They pay

197 There were some linkages prior to 1997, when Sydney Water negotiated with the Jamberoo Resident’s and Ratepayers Association members (JRRA) and some of these representatives were the same as those on the CLG. 198 Nearly all (i.e. 92%) of the people in Jamberoo with pumpout systems wanted to change and 72% supported Sydney Water’s preferred sewerage scheme (respondents to a Sydney Water survey by IRIS Research 2002, p.12,14).

- 267 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

about $3000 a year just to have their system. Their rates will drop…” (Community Representative 139).

Because of these drawbacks, on-site systems were widely seen as an ‘expensive’ and ‘vastly inferior service’, and comparisons were made with the bad old days when the area boasted 700 pan toilets (Community Representative 139). Soggy backyards were commonly attributed to on-site sewage irrigation systems and a relatively high annual rainfall (~2000mm) (Community Representative 141).

Illegal dumping of sewage from pumpout systems was a related issue identified by most community participants as a problem in the area. “Plenty of people have illegal connections of their septic tanks to the stormwater system…it reduces the cost of getting it pumped out… but they would never admit to it” (Community Representative 111)199. Participants expected a sewerage system to yield substantial reductions in household expenditure of those with pumpout systems and lessen their abuse since everyone would have to pay the same rates as everyone else.

Another common reason for supporting the scheme was that many just did not want the inconvenience of on-going maintenance and operation of on-site systems; “…why should we have to do all this when everyone else can just push a button and it disappears?” (Community Representative 140). It was an attractive proposition to simply hand over responsibility to the agency; “…the whole concept is it just goes straight down the pipe and you never see it again. You can't argue with that,” (Community Representative 140). Again, it suggests that with a careful management regime, innovative technology or more sustainable systems could have been introduced.

In this context of dissatisfaction, people tended to attribute health problems to leaking or overflowing on-site systems (e.g. hepatitis, diarrhoea), though when asked about the evidence, it was generally admitted that such views were based on anecdotal evidence of sickness since health studies for the Jamberoo area were not available. Despite the lack of evidence of any human health effects, potential health risks were cited as the most common personal

199 Two others explained “…you go up the street at night and all of a sudden you see bubbles going down the gutter,” (Community Representative 140); “…you go past in the early the morning and there's sewage going down into the gutter,” (Community Representative 141). And “Of course, what a lot of people did was just to run the effluent down the gutter at night to save costs. There were a few prosecutions, but that's what happens...” (Community Representative 139).

- 268 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

justification why community representatives became involved in the sewerage planning process (Community Representatives 138a, 139, 140, 141). “The aims of it were to get the system in so that they would replace septic tanks (some of which were leaking)… some of it was going down the river, there were problems there and checks were done on the river systems and creeks. It was found that there was quite a bit of - quite a few health problems with that. We felt that we have to get it in ASAP. So we pushed and pushed, and got it going. The main reason was that health worry.” (Community Representative 138a) This suggests that the accepted justification was a link between health/environment risk and septic tank overflows, promoted by the sponsoring agency and other groups.

These views closely reflected the shared view that the townspeople lacked a basic service other city dwellers in Australia enjoyed200. Promoters of the scheme tapped into a culture that valued government responsibility for reticulated sewerage collection (suggesting strong influence of the ‘traditional’ institutional model). And this complemented the way Sydney Water staff viewed the problem: “People in those areas expect to have same level of service as those in the inner cities… We work towards finding a middle ground that's acceptable to Sydney Water as the owner/operator of the system,” (Agency Staff 113a). One community participant said that there was such a high degree of shared understanding and value for the project that he thought public consultation was superfluous201.

6.5.3 Trajectory of action - what happened?

A simplified process of events related to Jamberoo planning process is shown in Figure 6.10 to guide the reader through the discussion. The main events are marked as a series of steps in the central flow chart while significant political/contextual factors linked with these events are shown on the right hand side.

200 This was equivalent to having a “… basic service - you can't have a decent town without sewerage,” (Community Representative, 139 Lines: 37-40). The situation in the village was likened to a ‘Third World country’ (Community Representative, 141 Lines: 122). 201 “They didn't really need to have all this consultation. Everyone was pretty much in agreement on what was needed – we needed a sewerage system !” (Community Representative111b: 27-30).

- 269 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

6.5.3.1 Community pushes for a sewerage service, 1988

Members of the local community pushed to join the revived backlog sewerage program (announced in 1987 by the Sydney Water Board) (Community Representative 140). The Jamberoo Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association (JRRA), the representative group of the community, wrote to Kiama Council complaining of sewerage problems in 1988. There was concern about potential environmental and health problems associated with on-site systems, but equity of service was more frequently mentioned as the logic for starting the process; “…we started to push, because up until then, we were the same as a lot of other towns, which had no sewerage. And we thought, ‘why not?’ So we started pushing buttons.” (Community Representative 140) Kiama Council and the ALP State member for Kiama (Bob Harrison) were supportive and lobbied on behalf of Jamberoo residents (and other towns in the electorate, including Gerringong and Gerroa). The Water Board said it would “…make a decision by April 1993 on the type of sewage management system most appropriate for the village” (500 persons) (Lamb 2002).

The Council supported the plan and developed a concept design for a sewerage system (Lamb 2002). But the Board was reluctant to commit to a specific time frame for the project202. The Minister indicated the Board would complete its investigations by November 1991 and begin construction by 1995 (Lamb 2002), but the community participants of this study said they were not confident of the Board keeping its commitment. They were warned that if they did not accept the Board’s preferred (centralised) scheme, they may be penalised with a later commissioning target date (April 1996) (Lamb 2002).

At any rate, the community was kept waiting for a number of years. Contributing to the delay were corporate governance changes in Sydney Water (discussed in the Picton case study, Sections 6.3.4.2 and 6.4.2.1). Jamberoo was well behind other, more populated, sites on the backlog sewerage list, such as Picton, Gerringong-Gerroa and Berowra. An exchange of correspondence continued for several years in which the Board promised action and drew up project schedules, but little actually occurred. Kiama Council, the state member and residents of Jamberoo became increasingly impatient for action. There was a suggestion that funds had been

202 In a letter of reply to the state member, the Minister for the Environment appeared reluctant to commit funds on the basis of this feasibility report, and advised “the Board is committed to undertaking the project in the future.” (Lamb 2002, letter dated 9/7/90).

- 270 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

diverted to other sewerage projects in the Blue Mountains and North Sydney (Harrison in Hansard 1993, 13 October). The people of Gerringong, Gerroa and Jamberoo were ‘completely fed up’ and had been ‘consulted ad infinitum’ but no scheme materialized (Harrison in Hansard 1993, 13 October).

- 271 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling Jamberoo community lobbies Water Board for sewerage implementation (1988-)

Wallis Lakes Oyster Contamination incident / Hepatitis A Crisis (Jan 1997)

Public meeting at Jamberoo NSW Government announces further Consultation with community & 7 areas under PSP Program government stakeholders by (Apr 1998) including Jamberoo (Feb 1997) Sydney Water

Jamberoo ‘Community IPART determination on backlog Liaison Group’ (CLG) pricing (Jul 1997) formed (May 1998)

‘Value Management Study’ Codd Inquiry finds sewage held management in NSW coastal region to be ‘ad hoc’ (Oct 1997) (Government, private, community groups identify values, raise issues and options) Ongoing consultation (Aug 1998) with Jamberoo CLG (Jun 1998-2005) Preliminary Planning Focus Meeting (Govt. stakeholders) (Jan 1999) NSW State election: Carr government retains office Multiple Criteria (Mar 1999) Assessment (MCA) workshop #1

(Aug 1999) High Court finds the State government, council and oyster Effluent reuse & grower not liable for the Wallis environmental Lakes oyster contamination investigations incident (Aug 2000) (Aug 1999 - Apr 2001) Sydney Water announces revised proposal: low-pressure sewerage MCA workshop #2 pipes, 100% effluent transfer to (Mar 2002) Bombo STP and ocean disposal (9 Apr 2002)

Community conflict over ‘Big Poo’ protests by Bombo disposal & public meeting residents against effluent disposal Draft Environmental in Kiama (29 Apr 2002) Impact Statement exhibited (May 2002) (sewerage only) Minister (Knowles) announces reuse (Jun 2002) capability study to go ahead (May 2002)

Community groups agree to ‘de- Effluent capability study couple’ sewerage scheme from reuse finds reuse feasible (draft) scheme (May 2002) (Feb 2003)

NSW State government election Minister decides against (22 Mar 2003) reuse scheme in Jamberoo (~Jun 2003) Mr. Sartor appointed Minister for Energy & Utilities (Apr 2003) Sewerage scheme completion (early 2005)

Figure 6.10 Overview of events, timeline – Jamberoo case study

- 272 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The Water Board was undergoing corporatisation and other changes during the period from 1988-1997, and there were political and funding issues occupying its attention. If one accepted the inevitability of a ‘conventional’ approach, as from the Board’s perspective, Jamberoo was only a small village (900 residents) that would have required significant government investment per lot to sewer using conventional approaches (possibly up to $30k per lot) (Lewis, N. Pers. Communication 2004). Any discussions that may have taken place about environmentally friendly approaches to water management were crowded out as frustration mounted over getting any sewerage scheme in the set timeframe at all.

However, the prospect of advancing the scheme significantly improved when in March 1995 the Labor Government, headed by Bob Carr, was elected. The new Minister for Planning was ready to meet with deputations from Kiama to talk about the sewerage scheme (Knowles in Hansard 1995, 7 June).

6.5.3.2 Reactions to the NSW oyster contamination crisis of 1997

A contamination incident involving oysters in Wallis Lakes in early 1997 brought about a renewed interest in sewerage programs. About 440 people contracted Hepatitis A allegedly from eating oysters grown in Wallis Lake near Port Stephens (Ebsworth & Ebsworth 2000). The Department of Health quickly issued a health warning and local oyster farmers voluntarily recalled their products from sale (Fowlie 1999). The outbreak was potentially devastating for the oyster industry. It was a significant concern for state and local government authorities since they had considerable powers vested in them for managing and controlling wastewater.

A class action initiated against the oyster grower, local council and state government in the Federal Court on 13 March by 185 of the people affected by the oysters scared the authorities (See Appendix (5)). There was much uncertainty surrounding claims of responsibility, and blame shifting moved into top gear203. The state government hastily announced a plan to address the contamination problem at source, including sewerage service

203 The NSW Minister for the Environment was quick to attribute contamination to sewage runoff, most likely from septic tanks, which were overseen by local government authorities: “the report from the [Great Lakes] council has identified several high-priority possible sources of contamination. Those sources are septic tanks on both residential and commercial properties…” (P. Allen in Hansard 1997, 8 April).

- 273 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

upgrades for the Wallis Lakes area204. The source of contamination remained unconfirmed and responsibility disputed (DHA 2003, p.23). However, an EPA report concluded the viral outbreak probably occurred after heavy rainfall washed sewage from unsewered urban development into the Wallamba River, the major tributary leading into Wallis Lake (in Nason 1997)205.

The evidence from the court case and other documents suggested the problem was not so much the failure of on-site sewage systems (although many were failing206), but that many owners were illegally emptying the contents of their pump out systems to avoid paying fees for pumpout services. The evidence supporting this theory was that pumpout figures for the town of Nabiac in the Wallamba River sub-catchment of the Wallis Lake area were only half the expected volume207. Justice Wilcox (1999) reported that he had received many complaints about sewage and unpleasant odours from on-site systems especially in the township of Nabiac with its 600 people 208. Human activities in and around the lake, including waste disposal from boats, were also possible sources of the sewage contamination.

6.5.3.3 Risk discourses and reactive policy-making? Announcement of the Priority Sewerage Program (PSP) 1997

The Wallis Lakes incident brought about significant change in relation to the disposal of human waste in NSW. It was not until 2000 that the local/state governments found the case against them was dismissed by the High Court (see Appendix (5)). State liability in relation to sewage management and health risk stimulated many policy developments. An inquiry into the

204 A reticulated sewerage system was extended to the Nabiac-Wallamba district, and controls were strengthened in relation to on-site sewage disposal, public toilets and waste disposal from boats in the Wallis Lakes area (announced 20 March in Hansard 1997, 8 April, DHA 2003). 205 Contamination could have derived from multiple sources, including stormwater drains and local sewerage facilities, such as septic tanks in caravan parks, tourist facilities and private residences (in HCA 2002, p.419 quoting from: Ryan v Great Lakes Council (1999) 102 LGERA 123 at 209–10 (297)–(301).). 206 About one third of the on-site systems in the catchment were found to be failing (Brooker 1999 in Geary 2003). 207 “The survey covered 418 premises in the Wallamba catchment area, 30 vessels in Wallis Lake, 4 other premises within the Lake, and 30 oyster sheds. Council found that 14 premises were discharging polluted effluent into waterways, 53 premises were a high risk of polluting the waterways, and another 94 premises could pollute the waterways under high rainfall conditions” (Brooker 1998 in DHA 2003, p.22). 208 This prompted NSW Health to advise that “…a single pump-out charge for each service rather than a charge per litre is much more effective in minimizing illegal discharge.” (EPA 1997).

- 274 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

management of sewerage and its by-products in the Sydney Coastal Region, undertaken by Commissioner Mike Codd, recommended the NSW government take action to better manage human waste. This was partly based on evidence relating to the Wallis Lakes incident (EPA 1997).

A particular concern of the enquiry was the hydraulic overloading of on-site systems209. The Health department acknowledged that the volume base charging system was contributing to illegal discharges (DLG 2002).

Policies arising from the enquiry included the implementation of tougher standards for on- site sewage systems. Increased powers were given to Local governments to enforce them (e.g. the SepticSafe Program, see Section 6.3.3.2) (Hansard 1997, 7 May, 1997, 27 May).210,211

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning announced that the NSW Government would spend $3 billion over the next 20 years improving water quality (announced February 1997). This became known as the Clean Waterways Package. One hundred million dollars of this huge package was destined for the Priority Sewerage Program (PSP), which was directed at extending the sewerage system to additional backlog sewerage areas in Sydney212 to avoid sewage overflows (Hansard 1997, 7 May, 1997, 27 May). The program was meant to “reduce the risk of environmental degradation and associated public health problems that result from partially treated or untreated sewerage entering the environment…” (SWC 2002b, p.1 1).

As a result of this activity, the EPA prioritised the high-priority backlog areas requiring immediate action (see Section 6.3.3.1 ‘Environmental Protection Authority’). Seven of the existing 53 areas assessed as high-priority213, including Jamberoo, represented 4,700 of the

209 NSW Health reported that daily design flows used to calculate septic tank design capacities were based on non-reticulated water supply usage (EPA 1997, p.88). 210 Other policy changes stemming in part from the EPA inquiry were the Early Action Stormwater Program to stimulate stormwater management planning since this was recognised as a significant contributor to water pollution (September 1997) (in EPA 1997). 211 Even the Howard Government contributed a $1 million package to improve water quality in the Wallis Lakes-Port Stephens area which spanned a marginal federal electorate (Brown and Tailby 1998). 212 Over and above the $30 million that had been earmarked for existing backlog sewerage projects, including Picton/Thirlmere/Tahmoor, Bundeena/Maianbar Gerringong/Geroa and Winmalee (Totaro 1997a). 213 The seven areas making up Stage 1 of the Priority Sewerage Program (PSP) areas were: The Oaks, Oakdale and Belimba Park; Silverdale, Wallacia and Mulgoa; Jamberoo; Stanwell Park, Stanwell Tops, Coalcliff and Otford; Menangle and Menangle Park; Brooklyn and Dangar Island; and Mt Kuringai industrial area.

- 275 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

remaining 21,700 backlog properties in Sydney (SWC 2000a). Situated in the Minnamurra River catchment, Jamberoo ranked as the “highest priority for reticulated sewerage” (SWC 2002b, p.1-1). The uncontrolled sewage overflows placed sewage contamination on the agenda as a serious public health risk and many people accepted this as justification for the new sewerage programs.

6.5.3.4 Stakeholder and community consultation in Jamberoo, 1998

The oyster contamination incident was seen by some as a reason why “…their enthusiasm for supporting us suddenly increased,”214 (meaning Kiama Council and its Mayor) (Community Representative 141). In anticipation of receiving funding, Sydney Water quickly undertook preparations for planning the scheme. A public meeting was held in Jamberoo in April 1998 and Community Liaison Group (CLG) members were nominated by the public to act as ‘information conduits’ between Sydney Water, Kiama Council and the Jamberoo community.

CLG members were mainly socially active members of the community who had already begun to lobby for sewerage. They “…were long-term residents and all well-respected by the rest of the community,” who came “…from the sports [clubs], from the ratepayers, from the community - we had six or seven maybe eight [regulars]... to have the meetings and talk directly to Sydney Water.” (Community Representatives 138a & 138b)

Community liaison committee members provided Sydney Water with supplementary local information, but it as made clear that their job was to provide advice only215. Members understood they were there to “…present the facts, and the conditions and the reasons why the different people in the community needed the sewerage.” (Community Representative 141). Indeed, agency staff apparently “…felt that having a small group was better than trying to talk to a large group with a couple of hundred,” because “over six months or so, you would find different people coming in with different ideas. This way, you got down to what most of us agreed with.” (Community Representative 138a)

214 There were no oyster farms in the Minnamurra Estuary, but it was reported there was recreational removal of oysters and fishing activities (Community Representative 141). 215 Sydney Water made the role of the group clear; to “…identify issues regarding the provision of sewerage to Jamberoo, identify potential options for the provision of sewerage and provide advice to SWC regarding the consultation process.” (SWC 2002b, p.2-3).

- 276 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Others members reflected that the community representative selection process avoided those who might oppose a sewerage scheme. One member had the impression that Sydney Water “…didn't want to appoint anyone onto the committee who wanted to stop it [the scheme]. You know the royal commission already has the answer - you don't want people that will give you a funny answer,” (Community Representative 139). Another noted how some were “excluded from the consulting process… as they were probably embarrassing to Sydney water in some way - progressively attacking - being unreasonable, pushing their agenda.” (Community Representative 141)

Most of the community in Jamberoo supported a change from current sewage management practices, which were generally regarded as inadequate and potentially hazardous to the environment and to public health – an impression reinforced by the oyster contamination incident. Most agreed with Sydney Water that the purpose of the scheme was to attain a fully reticulated sewerage system to replace the existing on-site ones (as discussed in Section 6.5.2.4 ‘Community representatives’). While the consensus was clearly for a change, there was concern to prevent any environmental impacts from sewage. “They wanted to see an improvement… they were concerned about the problem of things going into the water and rivers etc,” (Community Representative 138a), but “…a lot of people [were] motivated by the damage being done to the environment.” (Community Representative 141)

6.5.3.5 Negotiating wastewater management outcomes

Context of stakeholder talks: Water cycle policy discourse

Most people in Jamberoo (as in Picton) supported a reticulated collection system, but many were uncomfortable with disposing sewage effluent into the ocean (via the Bombo STP). Similar to Picton resident’s views, it was this distaste for effluent outfalls - stimulated by the beach pollution protests in Sydney in the late 1980s - that drove support for effluent recycling in the Kiama districts. This was also stimulated by more recent discussions of whether sewage was a ‘waste’, or whether there were potential benefits of water cycle (or nutrient cycle) approaches to effluent management (e.g. the Codd (NSW EPA) inquiry).

- 277 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

At the time, there was no co-ordinated effluent reuse policy in NSW (EPA 1997, p.105)216. However, effluent reuse had been a key issue in many submissions to the EPA‘s public inquiry into the Oyster contamination incident, led by Commissioner Mike Codd (EPA 1997, p.20). Environmental and community groups called for sewage to be recognised as a resource and managed within the total water cycle (one third of the submissions to the inquiry supported effluent reuse) (EPA 1997, p.104). Sewage effluent reuse and smaller scale domestic systems were also seen as potential means of using water more sustainably e.g. saving water. The issue of how, when and where to recycle became part of the agenda for consideration by policy makers.

There were cross currents in the way that such policy options were being framed. Commissioner Codd recommended sweeping changes that would have seen sewage managed in NSW within a total water cycle framework with the objectives of maximising environmental (including health) performance (EPA 1997, p.23). However, senior departmental staff took more conservative positions. Echoing widespread doubts, a participant in this study expressed frank concerns about sewage; we should ‘…start from the premise it's a dangerous substance…’ that it has distributed offensive substances for the last 200 years (EPA Representative 119) (sewage as a waste/’filth in the ‘traditional’ institutional framework). It should be ‘…removed from the living environment immediately…[and]…taken to properly managed centres…for disposal in a way that does not impact on the environment’ (EPA Representative 119) reflecting the strength of ‘traditional’ justifications for conventional water system approaches. Indeed, the Health department had expressed concern to the enquiry about the potential public health impacts of such approaches (in EPA 1997, p.104). Yet others claimed the NSW waterways program was a disguised attempt to entrench conventional sewerage technology through the use of existing or new ocean outfalls for effluent disposal (Hazzard MP in Hansard 1997, 7 May).

Taking many recommendations from Commissioner Codd on board, the Minister for Planning said the waterways program “…will see a decreasing reliance on ocean discharge. It will prevent sewage pollution on all bathing beaches, from Palm Beach in Sydney’s north to

216 Apart from draft EPA guidelines for using treated effluent for irrigation purposes (EPA 1995).

- 278 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Bombo near Kiama on the south coast …the whole Sydney Water system will be reconfigured to promote effluent recycling for commercial users.”217

While there is no doubt that these were positive words, the lack of a coherent or detailed policy framework for putting these statements about recycling into effect made the recycling aspect of the Waterways Package seem unlikely to come into play. Indeed, the conservative views of regulators and functionally specific technical institutional base for managing the water cycle made it difficult to organise and co-ordinate agency responses that would handle the urban water cycle as a whole system and manage the sewage effluent as part of this.

Stakeholder negotiations in Jamberoo: Outcomes of initial option evaluation processes, 1998

Under the influence of these tensions between ‘environment’, ‘traditional’/‘reformer’ and ‘community’ discourses, Jamberoo stakeholders met to consider the design options for managing sewage. A ‘Value Management Study’, convened in September 1998 involving representatives from government, private groups and the local community218 provided the opportunity to identify different options, raise issues and review previous work to establish a preferred servicing strategy (SWC 2002b, p.4-10).

Box 6.6 Values expressed in the Value Management Study, September 1998

Participants of the Value Management workshop agreed that present sewage management practices in Jamberoo were inadequate. Two approaches emerged as possible solutions to the problem in these discussions: (1) a local STP in Jamberoo (and local reuse of effluent), or (2) transferring the effluent to the existing STP at Bombo (reusing some treated effluent and disposing the rest via the existing ocean outfall). The value management workshop was an

217 This is a “…policy that is centred around the principles of reuse, recycling, and regarding waste water as a resource rather than something to be wasted should fundamentally have the potential to achieve a degree of consensus, at least around the core values associated with that policy.” (Knowles in Hansard 1997, 7 May) 218 Representatives included Sydney Water, Australian Water Technologies, Environment Protection Authority, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Kiama Municipal Council, Illawarra Catchment Management Committee, Community members, Jamberoo Farming Representatives, SMEC Australia (EIA Consultant) (SWC 2002b, 4-10)

- 279 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

effective means of reaching a compromise, though it was evident that the stakeholders already agreed on the nature of the problem. The major issues were as follows.

Community representatives were concerned about whether Sydney Water would be able to deliver the project within the committed delivery timeframe (SWC 2002b). Their shared interest in getting the project underway and concern that if they did not co-operate the project would be withdrawn, as mentioned in Section 6.5.2.4, meant they generally complied with the directions set down by agency staff. However, there was much interest in reusing the effluent beneficially in order to avoid disposal. (“Recycling came up as one of options to satisfy the community…” (Agency Staff 129).

Innovative, integrated or small-scale sewage management systems, which had the potential to make the system more sustainable (through conserving water use, reducing the propensity for sewage transfers) were dismissed up front. It was clear, as it had been in Picton, that neither the community representatives, nor regulators or the agency held much regard for their collective ability to manage them. When asked about this type of option, community representatives recalled how on-site management “…wasn't discussed, but it was pretty well negated early on… by consensus, really - not by any individuals,” (Community Representative 140). The problem was as one participant frankly described it, “…all of us would be responsible, but which of us are motivated?” (Council Staff 118). Sydney Water noted that, “enhanced on-site wastewater treatment does not appear to be viable as an area-wide solution and is not favoured…” and concluded that “Jamberoo should be provided with a reticulated sewerage system.” (SWC 2002b, p.4-11).

Effluent reuse (for irrigation) was supported in theory because of the unpopularity of disposal. But this required further investigation into its feasibility and potential health and environmental impacts. Mainly this was because a more complicated management system would need to be set up if the effluent was to be used on local farms. The complications involved the local STP option (and thus local effluent reuse). As with Picton, there was a need to provide for effluent overflows into sensitive local waterways in the event of wet weather overflows or a system breakdown. But contrary to Picton, none of the regulators supported a situation that may

- 280 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

allow effluent discharges into the Minnamurra River219 and it was concluded because of this, that a local STP was out of the question (SWC 2002b, p.2-7). Based on this interpretation the workshop participants decided on the option that transferred the effluent to an existing STP at Bombo for tertiary treatment. The possibility of effluent reuse was left open since support for this was high among community representatives. Despite the strict requirement of the regulators, investigations commenced into how much effluent could be reused for agricultural purposes in the area (SWC 2002b, p.4-11).

Box 6.7 Multi-Criteria Analysis Workshops, August 1999 and March 2002

These options were revisited at two Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) workshops in August 1999 and March 2002 where a formal assessment took place. Though it is not clear who was present at the workshops, Figure 4-2 in the EIS seems to suggest that participants were ‘internal stakeholders’ from Sydney Water (SWC 2002b, p.4-10).

The value management study had raised the question of what should be done with the sewage. Consideration was given to effluent reuse – its feasibility and possible impacts – at various scales. Several studies undertaken to evaluate on-site effluent reuse, local reuse and regional effluent reuse, had found one of the major problems would be the potential impact on receiving waters of operating percolation fields in the area220 and the need to store water during the wet-season (SWC 2002b, p.4-19, 4-15).

In light of these problems, the (internal) stakeholders decided to put limits on the reuse plans that had been discussed in the value management workshops. The decision was that 25% of the effluent from Bombo STP would be irrigated on several dairy farms in the Jamberoo district via a return pipe (SWC 2002b, p.4-22, 4-12). This represented a compromise between the high value placed on reuse by the Jamberoo community and the regulator’s concerns about potential impacts of effluent irrigation activities on the heath of the Minnamurra River. The approach formed the basis of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jamberoo sewerage scheme.

219 This was an outcome at a Planning Focus Meeting in January 1999 consisting of SWC, PlanningNSW, EPA, DLWC, Department of Health and the Illawarra Catchment Management Committee (SWC 2002b, p.2-7). 220 E.g. the potential contamination of groundwater & surface water concerned the NSW EPA.

- 281 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Cryptosporidium incident and financial pressures

Sydney Water’s operating environment changed dramatically during the preparation of the EIS for Jamberoo. In late 1998, Sydney experienced the Cryptosporidium contamination incidents and the inquiry into these incidents led by McClellan QC meant that Sydney Water’s activities came under increased ministerial scrutiny221. In addition, the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) was set up to take over management of Sydney’s water supply catchments and bulk water supply operations. Costs related to these administrative changes had offset any efficiency gains that Sydney Water had made in recent years. Its operating profit suffered in 1998-99 creating significant financial pressure on the organisation (Jane and Dollery 2005, p.27, IPART 2000, p.17, SWC 1999b, p.27). Steps were taken to reduce operating costs, including a voluntary exit program for staff resulting in the loss of 800 employees (Jane and Dollery 2005, p.28, SWC 2000b, p.3).

In the midst of these major changes, Sydney Water was spending a great deal of money fulfilling the objectives of the Clean Waterways Program (Waterplan 21), much of which was dedicated to sewerage infrastructure222. Sewerage programs were largely driven by the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s stringent environmental standards, particularly for dry weather effluent discharges. In fact, 60% of Sydney Water’s projected capital expenditure as at 2000 was directed to achieving its obligations in relation to environmental standards (IPART 2000, p.25). At the mid term pricing review in October 2000, IPART granted Sydney Water only part of the sewerage service charge increase it had requested for financing its sewerage capital expenditure (IPART 2000, p.40). Nonetheless, the Minister still expected rapid progress on sewering backlog areas and regular reports about progress223 (SKM 2000, p.33).

221 This was achieved through a redesign of its corporate governance structure: it was made into a statutory state-owned corporation (see Section 6.3.1). 222 Three-quarters of Sydney Water’s capital expenditure for 2000-03 was earmarked for sewerage infrastructure in order to meet new environmental standards (IPART 2000, p.25). Sewerage expansion had been the most expensive single item on the Clean Waterways list to date (since its inception in the early 1990s until 1999, it accounted for more than 30% of cumulative expenditure on the program) (SWC 1999a, p.20). 223 The McClellan Inquiry had recommended an acceleration of the backlog sewerage program for unsewered urban areas in or around Sydney’s water supply catchments. No doubt politicians were very supportive of any activities that would improve the drinking water system (SKM 2000, p.33).

- 282 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

These regulatory and financial incentives were “driving Sydney Water to be different,” commented some senior staff (Agency Staff 113a & 113b). They pragmatically pointed out that the corporation really only responded to these two things: “regulation and money…” Because of this, “…we cannot afford to put conventional treatment systems in PSP areas. When we have less money to play with, it starts you thinking about things differently.” (Agency Staff 113a) By ‘differently’ they meant the unprecedented and sudden shift in the emphasis in the organisation from expensive gravity sewerage infrastructure and instead, adopting ‘cheaper’ pressure pipe technology. While this represented a change in the ‘hardware’, the principles of service delivery remained ‘conventional’ in that the basic design was the centralised collection and transfer of sewage to an existing sewage treatment plant224.

Although such technology had been in use in other countries for many years, it was less common in the Australian context (SWC 2005). As to why sewerage pressure systems were not selected in the first place in the difficult terrain of the Illawarra towns, Sydney Water suggests that ‘a number of innovative sewerage collection and treatment technologies became acceptable in the Australian wastewater industry’ (SWC 2002b, p.4-22, my italics). This suggests that financial and regulatory institutional pressures had worked to over-turn cultural-organisational resistance that might have prevented such changes in the past. When asked why this sudden departure from ‘gravity’ systems, non-Sydney Water participants reflected on the organisational culture of Sydney Water and the difficulty in changing standards and internal practices (Community Representative 111)(Council Staff 118)225.

At any rate, there were significant implications for Priority Sewerage Program planning negotiations in the in the Illawarra region, including the negotiations for the township of Jamberoo, which had to be re-opened. Sydney Water staff said in 1999 that a ‘draft EIS had been prepared’ but they were now interested in whether these other options would provide a better alternative for servicing Jamberoo (SWC 2002b, p.4-22).

224 Low-pressure systems did imply changes to the behaviour of users. For example, when the warning lights on the side of the house flashed, there was an electricity outage and the maceration tanks may begin to overflow if the householder continues to use internal water systems like toilet flushing. Negotiating and agreeing to these changes took up much time and put the provider and local community on a different footing in Jamberoo. 225 “Bureaucracies stick with what they know. They have developed internal standards, such as contract documents and construction methods so it requires lot of work to go to a new system.” (Council Staff 118).

- 283 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Outcomes of second MCA option evaluation process 2002

Sydney Water, ‘…in response to innovations in technology for local treatment’ also revisited opportunities for effluent reuse (SWC 2002b, p.4-17). Community representatives in Jamberoo expressed some frustration at having to recommence negotiation processes. However, they remained supportive in the hope of receiving a reticulated sewerage system (Community Representatives 138a & 141)226. Their continued support suggests the Jamberoo community was firmly committed to supporting Sydney Water in whatever its endeavours were, in order to obtain a reticulated sewerage system.

Box 6.8 Second Multi-Criteria Analysis, Mar 2002

A second MCA workshop was convened among Sydney Water personnel in March 2002 (facilitated by Molino Stewart, a private consultant) to re-visit options in light of ‘developments’ in sewerage technology. The preferred option that had emerged from the first MCA process (that of transferring Jamberoo’s effluent via gravity sewerage pipes to Bombo STP and reusing up to 25% for irrigation) was compared with several new options incorporating the low pressure sewerage technology (SWC 2002b, p.4-22).

Community representatives did not appear to be present at the second MCA meeting. Nonetheless, the options were circulated and discussed by the community and by the Jamberoo Community Liaison Group around the same time.

A critical development was that reuse feasibility investigations had been completed and found there were opportunities for irrigation reuse on dairy farms in Jamberoo Valley.

Regional scale reuse (i.e. return from Bombo STP) seemed to offer the greatest potential in terms of suitable irrigation areas, but the drawbacks included soil types, land availability and the requirements for a wet weather storage (SWC 2002b,p.4-16, Hird 2001, p.18-19). Reuse also depended on the level of interest expressed by the district’s dairy farmers and their ability/willingness to pay for irrigation equipment.

226 The group was ‘… getting a bit impatient. So we thought, we don't care, let's just get on with the system. The majority felt ‘let's just get it’ (Community Representative 138a) “About every four or five months, they would come up with the new system. "’How about this one?', ‘What about this one?’… and we'd say ‘Look, that's all right, but how about you just get on with it’. Towards the end… I guess most people just got very cynical about it. Those who would have benefits would give anything just to get the sewerage,” (Community Representative 141).

- 284 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Local reuse227 was seen as feasible at dairy farms near Jamberoo, but a new STP would have been needed somewhere for this option to go ahead and this was less popular (AWT ES&T 2000 in SWC 2002b, p.4-15, Hird 2001, p.17).

Ultimately, Sydney Water’s financial analyses found that none of the sewerage schemes were commercially viable (for Sydney Water) (SWC 2002a, p.43). In fact, the high cost of connection to households228 and slower future rate of connection involved with conventional gravity sewers meant that gravity sewers were the least commercial (SWC 2002a, p.30). Ironically, this had come up as the preferred option on the previous occasion (Section 6.5.3.5 ‘Stakeholder negotiations in Jamberoo: Outcomes of initial option evaluation processes, 1998’). Sydney Water found that improving the on-site systems would have been cheaper than the conventional gravity sewer system, but as previously, this option was eliminated because it apparently entailed ‘prohibitive’ on-going management costs that they were not prepared to take on.

However, the options involving centralised low-pressure pipe technology were examined and generally found to be advantageous over these other approaches. The appeal of low-pressure sewerage systems was the low cost and ease of construction compared with gravity sewer systems, especially in the difficult soils and rocky terrain of the Illawarra backlog towns. The technology used small diameter pipes, trenchless pipe-laying technology and electrically powered ‘maceration’ units on each property to aid breakdown of the sewage. One of the major environmental advantages, apart from cost savings, was the sealed pipes prevent stormwater ingress into the sewer system thereby avoiding system overflows, bypasses and thus receiving water pollution (a significant problem with gravity systems).

Reuse options were regarded as uncertain due to the apparent inability/unwillingness of dairy farmers to pay for their irrigation equipment and the potential environmental impacts of percolation fields (for disposal of excess effluent) on groundwater or surface waters. It was suggested that deregulation in the dairy industry in recent years had made the farms less financially viable and farmers less likely to make a commitment to reuse water. Further detailed investigations into the feasibility of regional reuse were recommended.

227 There were similar uncertainties regarding soil sodicity, potentially high saline water tables, potential salt water logging and soil texture. 228 Largely due to the need for installing the connection at the lowest point on the property.

- 285 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The need for further detailed investigations into reuse options risked over-runs of the scheme’s delivery time frame, which was set at commissioning in early 2005 (SWC 2002b, p.4- 19). In the circumstances, agency personnel decided that a low-pressure collection system to pipe the effluent to Bombo STP for treatment would be the best course of action and then 100% disposal into the ocean. This became Sydney Water’s preferred option. Sydney Water had thus overturned its previous preferred option and abandoned the plan for at least 25% effluent reuse.

The (conventional) sewerage scheme would cost Sydney Water around $6.63 million and entail a modest price increase over the entire Sydney Water customer base of around 30 cents per customer per annum. Even the more expensive options (reuse was not the most expensive) would only have meant a total of 50 extra cents per customer per year (SWC 2002b, p.4-19).

Although the Minister for Planning had said that the emphasis of the Clean Waterways Program would be on ‘configuring the system to promote recycling’ and to ‘prevent sewage pollution of beaches’; effluent recycling now appeared more of an after thought to the main game.

There were several weaknesses in the MCA process, based on the account that appears in the EIS. The most significant was the lack of clarity on costs of some of the configurations: only 8 out of the 16 options had financial estimates available (see SWC 2002a). This made it difficult to understand the important trade-offs that had been made between cost and benefit.

The process of elimination (i.e. option selection logic) involves an elaborate argument that is difficult to follow (there being little specific information on some options). The selection reflects values for current technology e.g. disposing effluent via Bombo STP is ‘better in terms of proven technology, reliability and lower risk of human contact with pathogens’ than local treatment and spray irrigation. Uncertainties involving reuse from the Bombo STP were emphasised (high cost; lack of viability of dairy industry; need for further environmental investigation). However, disadvantages of disposal via Bombo were minimised (e.g. ‘Bombo plant surpassing its water quality requirements’; ‘very low pathogen contact risk’ with ocean discharge). There was little information that would have made the assumptions supporting the MCA option rankings any clearer.

- 286 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Water cycle approaches dropped from scheme

Sydney Water staff indicated that the pivotal constraint influencing their decision to go for ocean disposal were the environmental controls preventing effluent discharges into the Minnamurra River. The EPA had discretion over the licence conditions for any discharges related to a local sewage treatment plant and/or a reuse scheme for irrigation (under the PEO Act 1997) and had requested that “no direct discharges of effluent to the Minnamurra River would occur” (SWC 2002b, p.4-17). Direct discharges, according to Sydney Water staff, were unavoidable229. “When it came down to it, there was a local EPA issue – they said to us if any effluent got into the Minnamurra River, it would become a big issue for the EPA and they would probably hit us under the Act.” (Agency Staff 129), especially in light of the recent oyster contamination scare. They considered it too “difficult to achieve the requirements to discharge: What do you do with discharge in wet weather?” (Agency Staff 129). It was difficult to see any negotiations going on between regulator and water supplier that could facilitate an agreement on how effluent recycling could be managed. Sydney Water staff decided farm reuse involved too many potential costs and uncertainties – at the very least it would require further environmental investigation. But any further delay would have ‘affected Sydney Water’s committed delivery time frames’ (SWC 2002b, p. 4-26 & 4-27).

There was a lot of support for a reuse scheme from the Jamberoo community and from farming representatives. “Without exception, there was no one who didn't advocate some sort of recycling. They all thought it was a positive move. For environmental and economic reasons, as well, and particularly in the farming community.” (Community Representative 141) With local reuse opportunities said to be too difficult because of the complexities of managing the effluent, Sydney Water staff concluded the only way of achieving the requirements of the EPA was with “…the transfer option back to Bombo…” (Agency Staff 129). However, according to Sydney Water staff, “if you do transfer, it rules out recycling - because it’s too expensive to bring it back” (Agency Staff 129).

229 Sub-surface percolation fields were considered as a way of ‘disposing’ of excess effluent when farmers didn’t need the water. However, the high water tables in some areas meant the risk of effluent migrating to freshwater courses. Another possibility may have been effluent treatment using irrigation lagoons, but there was the risk of these overflowing when it rained.

- 287 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

In any case, reuse was not Sydney Water’s ‘preferred option’ despite CLG members from Jamberoo pushing to have the return pipe from Bombo included (Community Representative 138b). If members of the community liaison group supported the preferred option and made too much fuss about recycling, the scheme would be cancelled altogether. Thus the decision to go with the ‘100% disposal via Bombo STP’ was accepted by the Jamberoo community liaison members and circulated through community via a newsletter in April 2002 (SWC 2002c, Appendix D) (and later published in the EIS in June 2002).

Community conflict over ocean disposal

A number of people in the Bombo and Kiama districts (who had not been involved in this decision) became concerned about the abandonment of recycling plans and the use of Bombo STP to discharge Jamberoo’s effluent. This escalated into a public protest led by Ian Cohen, an MP from The Greens, intended to embarrass Sydney Water into maintaining its commitment to recycling, by erecting a large foam sculpture, dubbed the “Big Poo”, on the highway leading into Kiama (Anon. 2002, Hornery 2002). This conflict occurred because the two communities held divergent understandings of the problem.

The coastal group saw a major contradiction between Sydney Water’s behaviour (the reversal of the decision on effluent recycling) and the governments’ stated policy goals in relation to phasing out ocean outfalls. The objectives of the Clean Waterways program had, according to Minister for Planning, been designed to ‘decrease reliance on ocean discharge’ and ‘reconfigure the whole Sydney Water system to promote effluent recycling for commercial users‘ (refer Section 6.5.3.5 ‘Context of stakeholder talks: Water cycle ’). This group therefore accused Sydney Water of ‘distracting and misleading the South Coast community and Jamberoo farmers’ and retreating to ‘past standard operative procedure by dumping the effluent in the ocean’ (Hornery 2002). Indeed, many in the coastal communities of Bombo and Kiama were concerned about the environmental effects of the additional effluent transfers230 on their beaches (values for ‘environment’/local amenity).

230 Sydney Water commissioned a telephone survey on 22 April 2002 to find out how widespread these concerns were. The survey reported that around half the residents in the Bombo-Kiama area were concerned about the environmental effects of the transfers. The main reason was because there would be ‘more sewage being in the ocean and on the beaches’ (IRIS Research 2002, p.21). A recommendation from the Bombo Community Liaison Group had been that “the sewering of Jamberoo should not result in any net increase in dry weather discharge from Bombo STP,” (SWC 2002b, p.2-5).

- 288 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The Jamberoo community liaison group members, who had been involved in the negotiations with regulators and organisational stakeholders for a long period and already made important value trade-offs, saw the problem primarily as one of delay231. Because of this, they interpreted Bombo protests as an effort to gain an upgrade of the STP. During one of the meetings in Jamberoo, the;

“…Bombo people turned up uninvited to lobby Sydney water. The emphasis being on dramatically improving Bombo's sewerage system and outlet. Sydney water got totally engrossed and it sort of took the focus off what the meeting was about, which was Jamberoo’s sewerage… we had to pull the meeting back into order. [We said] we're not here to discuss this, we’re here to get sewerage for Jamberoo…” (Community Representative 141)232.

Though they were also dissatisfied with the disposal outcome, the Jamberoo CLG on behalf of their community, had decided to sacrifice the recycling scheme in order to get the sewerage scheme, which corresponded with what they saw as their basic interests and values. Their view of the problem coincided closely with that of the sponsoring organisation (shared norms and values for ‘reticulation’ and ‘government responsibility’ in the ‘traditional’ institutional model)233. They were not confident that they would win if they fought Sydney Water on this point and were frustrated with the long delays that this new turn of events foretold. It is therefore not surprising that the group defended Sydney Water’s preferred option despite their personal reservations about disposal. Jamberoo community representatives stepped up their defence of the scheme. They made “…a conscious decision not to aggravate [Agency

231 The issue was “…going on so long that they [the Jamberoo Community Liaison Group] would basically accept anything,” (Community Representative 142). Most of “…the group were getting a bit impatient. So we thought, ‘we don't care, let's just get on with the system’. The majority felt ‘let's just get it’". (Community Representative 138a) They said to Sydney Water “…we don't want any delays... We said we will not bring it up again, we just want the sewerage. They said okay we'll get going on it. The money was put aside and allocated.” (Community Representative 138a). 232 Another expressed a similar view; they were “…using it as a platform… which is fine - you can always improve the present system. But it was at the expense of Jamberoo still being in a situation where there are health issues… there has to be somewhere that [the sewage] can escape to, sadly enough… they pushed on that, and virtually held the Jamberoo sewerage system up for ransom,” (Community Representative 140). 233 As expressed in comments such as: “They didn't really need to have all this consultation. They should have just made a decision and put it in! …The whole EIS is overkill,” (Community Representative 111) “They had to work out something like that to tell us and to tell the public, and everybody else. …We just accepted what they said. We said ‘oh yes, you said this was going to happen 10 years ago’, that was the main thing.” (Community Representative 138a).

- 289 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Staff] ...agreed not to talk to the press and conferred with Sydney water every time.” (Community Representative 141) Several were aware that their support for Sydney Water made their role appear very limited - as though they were a ‘rubber stamp’234.

A joint community meeting was convened by Sydney Water in Kiama (May 2002) to try to resolve these issues; ”…We had hundreds and hundreds of people at the hall down there,” (Community Representative 138a). Members of the Jamberoo CLG wanted to emphasise the beneficial aspects of the scheme235. While Jamberoo CLG members had been involved in the process with Sydney Water from the beginning, the coastal community had not and did not share these values or norms. Therefore, while the Jamberoo CLG had made difficult trade-offs (such as traditional over environmental values, transfer over reuse), the coastal residents had not had a chance to negotiate these trade-offs.

Even though they were not happy with this outcome, the coastal groups eventually acquiesced (or at least no longer openly protested)236. What probably made a difference was that Sydney Water advised coastal residents that it would upgrade Bombo STP to ensure that the capacity of the plant was sufficient to cope with the extra sewage from Jamberoo (in fact, the EPA had obliged them to do this earlier on237). The plan was to amplify the plant and sludge management facility through a separate environmental assessment process (SWC 2002b, p.5- 15). From “…that point, there was a decision made to that effect that Jamberoo sewage was going ahead regardless,” (Community Representative 140).

234 “I suppose you can be cynical and say well, this is just a rubberstamp… Sometimes, you feel that, but I think they were genuinely trying to put something into place down the track… if there is criticism or whatever, they can say well there was our avenue for communication,” (Community Representative 140). 235 The contents of approx. 40% of sewage from pumpouts was already trucked to Bombo STP in a concentrated form (Community Representatives 139 & 140), while Jamberoo sewage represented a relatively small increase in additional sewage to the plant (Community Representatives 139, 140 & 141). 236 One Jamberoo CLG member commented how “… a few people from Jamberoo that were part of the representative group, [went to the meeting] to make the point to them that… we're talking about two different issues. One about sewering Jamberoo and …another of reuse from the [Bombo] treatment plant, which includes sewerage from Kiama, Jamberoo, Bombo and everywhere else. They are two separate issues and they shouldn't have any bearing on whether Jamberoo gets sewered or not. And that was taken up by the Water Board and gradually agreed to by Bombo.” (Community Representative 140) 237 Sydney Water had been warned by regulators in 2000 to ensure the capacity of the Bombo plant was adequate to maintain high environmental standards upon accepting extra sewage (EPA 2000, Appendix E).

- 290 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Mixed organisational commitment to water cycle approaches

In its Annual Report 2000, it said “Sydney Water is committed to total water cycle management, by reducing the demand for water from existing water storages, reducing treated wastewater released to the ocean and rivers, and managing recycled water as a resource instead of a waste,” (SWC 2000b, p.12). At times, however, mixed messages came through the organisation expressing commitment to these outcomes; “…one of the Sydney water executives – at a public meeting over in Kiama Downs - made a public statement that ‘cost was not a problem’… local advocates of reuse grabbed that and whenever Sydney Water mentioned it was going to cost too much, they would remind everyone of what he said – 'cost is not a problem'.” (Community Representative 141). However, senior Sydney Water staffers were more circumspect and played down any commitments to reuse: “There's no perfect answer and no unlimited dollars. There's always someone who won't like what you're doing… We just talk to them and try to explain why can't give them what they want. It’s about controlling the standard of expectations. You must have good argument: sometimes it's the technology, the terrain or dollars that dictate,” (Agency Staff 113a). These comments suggest there were various degrees of commitment to water cycle and/or water recycling approaches in the organisation. Top management and the Minister promoted an official line of endorsement, but other senior management balanced this ‘policy’ against financial constraints, opting for more limited role in social service provision. When asked if they thought Sydney Water was keen on pursuing the recycled water option, one CLG member replied – “Oh yes, they showed that they were keen on pursuing it - they did a lot of surveys [i.e. reuse studies].” (Community Representative 142)

Minister intervenes: Independent study concludes reuse is feasible

The fractious nature of negotiations came to the attention of the Minister responsible for Sydney Water, Kim Yeadon. Recognising that the Kiama and Jamberoo communities strongly supported effluent reuse, the Minister stepped forward and announced that Sydney Water would allocate a further $50,000 to fund an independent study of reuse potential in Kiama and Jamberoo (Kim Yeadon in Judge 2002, 2 May). To enhance the independence and legitimacy of the process, Bombo community members were asked to nominate ‘experts’ who would undertake the study. The Minister was optimistic and said that reuse would be a great outcome but projects need to be found that ‘meet regulatory standards for the use of recycled water.’ (in Judge 2002, 2 May). “I hope this new study will satisfy the community that all possible reuse

- 291 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

opportunities are being fully explored.” (Minister responsible for Sydney Water, Kim Yeadon, in Judge 2002, 2 May).

The independent reuse capability study (‘the study’) (completed February 2003) concluded that the social (i.e. public health and community) and environmental impacts of the various reuse schemes ‘ranged from low to moderate’ and that ‘all options are feasible if mitigative measures are implemented’. If careful scheduling and monitoring conditions were met, the independent consultants expected that DLWC and EPA would grant approval. Thus the choice of options would be ‘influenced primarily by economics’ (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.9). The options investigated ranged from use on golf courses, at quarries or dairy farms, however those that were most economic involved dairy farm irrigation.

The study found that suitable land was available and that farmer interest was high238. Several of them ‘were keen’ (Community Representative 142). However, this existed alongside “…some negative sentiment since the reuse scheme was excluded from the Jamberoo EIS” (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.31). One participant of this study suggested that “…if there had been a line there, there would have been more likelihood of people trying to use it. But now, when the line is not there, it's harder.” (Community Representative 142).

The study found that any limitations of soils and ground water (at several farms) could have been mitigated ‘using careful scheduling and monitoring’ (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.22). This confidence that the reuse project could go ahead contrasts with the opinion put forward initially in the EIS that “it is neither economically or environmentally viable to proceed with any effluent reuse scheme for irrigation of dairy farms in the Jamberoo Valley” (SWC 2002b, p.4).

Difficulties in financing the reuse scheme

The main problem seemed to lie in financing the reuse scheme (both on the part of Sydney Water and the farmers). However, there were conflicting figures on what a reuse scheme involving a return pipe from Bombo STP would cost. Despite its importance, the overall cost of the ‘return pipe’ option from Bombo STP was not explicitly addressed in the EIS (SWC 2002b)

238 The study reported that “the interest of farmers in establishing an effluent reuse scheme for the Bombo STP is high, with some farmers maintaining enthusiasm since the beginning of the project.” (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.31) A previous study also “suggested an optimistic outlook for dairy industry in the Jamberoo Valley” (Agsol Pty Ltd 2001, p.31).

- 292 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

nor in Sydney Water’s Economic and Financial Evaluation in the Appendix (Evans & Peck in SWC 2002a). In the EIS, Sydney Water reasoned that 100% disposal via Bombo STP would be cheaper than a reuse return pipe, because it would ‘not discharge nutrients underground’ and had the ‘lowest potential for indirect human contact with pathogens’ and on this basis selected it as their preferred option (SWC 2002b, p.4-26). They indicated that a return pipe would add around $2.3 million to the cost of the preferred (disposal) option (SWC 2002b, p.4-26), but did not address this in any great detail.

The independent reuse capability study however gave a much higher figure for the capital cost of a reuse scheme at between $5 and $6.5 million (an equivalent rate of between $0.95/kL to $1.42/kL for reuse water239) (Patterson Britton 2003 in L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, App.8, p.4). At a minimum, the simplest and cheapest scheme would have supplied 4 farms along the main pipeline with 2.7 ML/d of irrigation reuse water.

One of the reasons for such a high estimate was that the EPA (1995) draft guidelines for reclaimed water use for pastures and fodder specify secondary treatment with pathogen reduction (EPA 1995). Although Bombo STP already had a disinfection process, this was not expected to be enough to meet the guidelines for irrigation (SWC 2002b, p.6-10). Nonetheless, there are several means of achieving pathogen reduction, and the independent study suggested the more expensive means: an additional local membrane bioreactor (tertiary effluent treatment). Lagoons or sand filters would also have been possible, but less expensive.

In any case, the membrane bioreactor (which was around $1.87 million in capital cost alone) pushed up the total capital cost of the reuse scheme to between $6.7 and $8.42 million (Patterson Britton 2003 in L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, App.8, p.4). If operating costs were included as net present value paid back over 30 years, this came to between $10 million and $12.5 million ($1.66/kL and $2.70/kL240). Of course, this was much higher than the $0.92/kL price being charged by Sydney Water for potable water (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.57). This being the case, membrane filtration had accounted for 40% of the total cost of the reuse scheme but could have been undertaken through cheaper means that were not investigated (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.59).

239 Net Present Value estimates over 30 years at 7% interest, including capital and ongoing costs, but not including additional membrane filtration.

- 293 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The most important issue for Sydney Water was obtaining the assurance of a long-term reliable market for recycled water (assuming it was to go ahead). Indeed, Sydney Water had gone to great lengths in several other reuse schemes (i.e. Picton and Gerringong-Gerroa) to secure a long-term market for the recycled water by purchasing irrigation land. In the case of Jamberoo, they were relying on existing farming businesses in the area to accept the water. On the farmer’s side, the analyses of income seemed to suggest that irrigation would make little difference to their average farm income in most years (dairy pastures are rain fed in the Jamberoo Valley). This was mainly due to the considerable capital cost to the farmers of bringing the water from the property boundary to the pastures and installing irrigation equipment (Sydney Water agreed to provide effluent at no cost to the ‘farm gate’). “They were still negotiating putting in a holding dam. The farmer, from that point, had to put in his pumps, electricity and the infrastructure to irrigate. These options for irrigation… are very expensive - in the order of $40,000 to $120,000” per farm (Community Representative 142).

According to the independent study, irrigation could have helped farmers make a profit in dry years, which was estimated at approximately 1 in 5 years (AWM 2002 in L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, App. 10). In most other years, it would have been difficult to make enough to pay back the principle interest on the capital cost of connection unless the stocking rates increased or the price of milk changed (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.60). Indeed, the return on investment was heavily dependent on the price of milk (with a 1¢ decrease per litre decreasing the average yearly farm income by about $10,000). There was discussion of financial assistance for farmers.

Sydney Water was concerned that a fluctuation in the price of milk would adversely affect the farmer’s ability to pay back loans. This view contrasted with the apparent sustained interest shown by farmers, seven of whom were keen throughout the negotiations (Community Representative 142). This was commented in previous studies, which advised the “interest of farmers in establishing an effluent reuse scheme for the Bombo STP is high, with some farmers maintaining enthusiasm since the beginning of the project.” (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.31).

240 Net Present Value estimates over 30 years at 7% interest, including capital and ongoing costs and additional membrane filtration.

- 294 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Jamberoo CLG representatives received the independent findings reflecting; “…they came back with basically the same conclusion as Sydney Water …it was going to cost a lot of money. So it wasn't a simple thing - you could say, reuse - but the cost. Don't quote me, but it was something like $8 or $10 million extra - in that order anyway - to turn the pipes back and this way and get to the relevant pipe work to the farms. …There were a lot of complications” (Community Representative 140).

On the other end of the spectrum, several thought the amount asked from farmers to connect was a “higher than reasonable” estimate and that Sydney Water was making it too difficult to achieve good social and environmental outcomes. In this vein, some stakeholders expected Sydney Water to provide a similar ‘gold-plated’ reuse scheme as was commissioned nearby in Gerringong-Gerroa in August 2002. Or similar favourable conditions for farmers as in the Shoalhaven reclaimed water scheme, commissioned in January 2002, which would supply farmers with recycled water for free for the first 15 years241 (SCC 2002, Tomkinson 2002). “Sure, it costs money to set up infrastructure and maybe the community cost structure isn't adequate to support reuse on parks, golf courses or farms. But it's a lot for 10 farmers to have to make up $7-8 million as was requested them by SWC” (Council Staff 118). Others commented that cost was “a critical issue for Sydney water” but would have been less so if the NSW government had stepped in as it had in the Shoalhaven and helped with the finance (Community Representative 141). “The biggest problem is getting commitment from State government to paying for infrastructure. They say 'user pays', but what if long term environmental outcomes are taken into account? Surely they should be able to meet part of their objective of reducing outfalls…” (Council Staff 118).

6.5.3.6 Minister’s decision on reuse scheme (2003)

While these discussions were going on, NSW was gearing up for an election. On 22 March 2003, the Carr government won a record third term of office. There were plans for a significant shake up of the Ministries (Totaro 2003). At the beginning of April 2003, Frank Sartor (previously Lord Mayor of Sydney) was appointed as Minister for Energy and Utilities,

241 This $35 million project (Stage 1) was financed by the Department of Land and Water Conservation and Shoalhaven City Council (through a small increase in rates per customer in the Shoalhaven). It will ultimately supply 14 dairy farmers, golf courses and fields with 5.6 ML/d from six STPs (SCC 2002, Tomkinson 2002).

- 295 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

one of the new ‘super ministries’ created by the Carr government, which now included Sydney Water. Apart from the usual election issues, there was a considerable depth of concern for environmental issues in the state, including planning and infrastructure. Suggesting this concern, the Greens secured their place as the third political force in state politics doubling their support across the state to 8% (O'Malley 2003). Among the infrastructure issues facing the Government was dwindling domestic water supplies in Sydney (combined storage was heading below 59% in March 2003) and several other regional centres e.g. Goulburn.

A Jamberoo Valley irrigation reuse scheme, which would not offer any relief from potable water draw-down (since the farms are rain fed), was less likely to be supported by the government as attention swung to drinking water scarcity problems. “Effluent recycling should be able to stop draw down on potable water supplies. Sydney Water has been pushing for that. Jamberoo was about irrigation which doesn't reduce potable water demand” (Agency Staff 113a).

Nonetheless, in an effort to persuade the new Minister that irrigation reuse was still a desirable option for Bombo, Kiama and Jamberoo Valley and all the relevant stakeholders supported this plan. Community members, farmers and local politicians, including the Local MPs and the Kiama Mayor arranged a meeting with him in May 2003, to try to make him understand their strong belief that the reuse scheme should go ahead. “He did listen to what we had to say - he wanted more information before he made the decision and he came down to have an inspection of the area.” (Community Representative 142)

Despite these efforts, the new Minister decided that the reuse scheme should not go ahead at this stage (but left the possibility open for the future). The south coast community stakeholders gleaned that the Government’s concerns about the reuse scheme had shifted from farm financing difficulties to state economic priorities at their meeting with the Minister and the Managing Director of Sydney Water242. According to one participant (Council Staff 118), the answer lay in over-stretched infrastructure spending as was suggested by several election

242 “The new Energy and Utilities Minister …made a decision against reuse on dairy farms at Jamberoo (despite us and our farmers lobbying) ostensibly on the basis of cost.” (Council Staff 118) “We were fairly let down. We were fairly confident that he might continue with it. It really just came down to the dollars as far as we could gather. They had spent a lot of money in the Gerroa scheme, which is down south. Maybe they overspent there.” (Community Representative 142) “…the general explanation was it is too expensive.” (Community Representative 138a) “I think he thought that the area wasn't really big enough to send a line back. I guess being a small Valley, you have to justify spending the money.” (Community Representative 142)

- 296 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

commentators. However, some reports during the election campaign suggested the State Government had earned a reputation for not investing in infrastructure, in order to maintain a zero-debt policy (C. Sheil quoted in Anon. 2003). Low investment in infrastructure, according to these commentators, would lead to the deterioration of the infrastructure faster than it was being replaced. Perhaps the Jamberoo Valley reuse scheme was a casualty of this approach.243

Many observers had anticipated a fully funded reuse scheme (perhaps a joint State-Local government joint venture as had happened nearby in the Shoalhaven and Gerringong-Gerroa). “What they should have done is offered it to the farmers for nothing. … I thought they should just give it to them.” (Community Representative 139). However, the Minister’s view (and this perhaps reflects his style) that it “wasn’t his business to support farmers in their commercial activities” (Council Staff 118)(Community Representative 142). Thereby emphasising the ‘private’ benefits from reuse but diminishing the ‘public’ benefits (e.g. beneficial reuse and diminishing reliance on ocean outfalls). This would suggest a fairly narrow framework of financial accounting that valued costs but neglected benefits, especially the potential societal or environmental benefits of diminishing reliance on ocean discharge. The Minister’s decision therefore seemed to represent a narrow judgement on what ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ were relevant in such a scheme (reflecting the importance of assumptions in cost estimates outlined above).

To CLG members, the cost framework had seemed non-negotiable. Their comments suggested little detailed information was shared with them by Sydney Water staff regarding cost-benefit tradeoffs244,245. And perhaps the reputation for the high cost of water reuse had been somewhat publicly inflated. It was reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, for example, that the “scheme to pump tertiary treated sewage inland to Jamberoo was vetoed by the Government because it would cost $8 a kilolitre.” (Davies and Peatling 2003, 24th September). While the

243 Indeed, an ‘infrastructure report card’ by the Institute of Engineers gave wastewater infrastructure in Australia a C- rating (i.e. major changes required) and commented on the danger that dividends paid to Government by water utilities were not being re-invested in the water industry (IEA 2001, p.50). 244 One member described how, “…they look at the system, and then they say ‘that's very good, but no no, it will cost too much money’. But there's never a figure given… the general explanation was it is too expensive… they made the final decision regarding the cost. There was never any negotiation about that.” (Community Representative 138a) 245 “…they made the final decision regarding the cost. There was never any negotiation about that.” (Community Representative 138a) “I think, at the end of the day the water board was going to do what it wanted anyway…You wonder why you are not being listened to. They have their own agenda and that was what was going to be pushed along the way. I suppose I can't be too critical. I just had the opinion, maybe no one else did. …There were decisions being made from higher up and about what was going to happen.”(Community Representative 140)

- 297 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

statement may represent the Government’s reasoning, the extraordinary figure of $8/kL contradicts estimates of between $1.66/kL and $2.70/kL246 that were independently given by L.V. Rawlinson & Associates – the study on which the outcome of the reuse scheme supposedly depended247.

While it is difficult to obtain figures on the actual cost of recycled water, a quick comparison between several existing reclaimed water schemes with the Jamberoo recycled water scheme (refer Table 6.5) suggests that Jamberoo was as ‘feasible’ as other existing reuse schemes in Sydney. For example, the Gerringong-Gerroa sewerage scheme, just 20km south of Kiama, supplies just 2.2ML/d of recycled water at an overall scheme cost of $50 million. Indeed, the $65 million Shoalhaven reclaimed water scheme is intended to supply 5.5 ML/d to 14 farmers for free for the first 15 years .

This suggests that public reports about cost were somewhat misleading and that political judgement of feasibility was related to political or financial considerations at the time. (The extraordinary figure given in the Sydney Morning Herald can only be put down to misinformation, error or a simple misprint as it does not agree with available planning documents.) In any case, the ‘lack of feasibility’ of the Jamberoo water reuse scheme was open to question.

The judgement in favor of the $6.63 million transfer ocean disposal scheme248 for Jamberoo was likely to have been based on several specific issues, in addition to general incentives that did not favor water reuse. Firstly, the existing infrastructure at Bombo STP was already scheduled for an upgrade as part of the Clean Waterways program and transferring Jamberoo’s sewage over there ensured good use of existing infrastructure.

246 Net Present Value pay back estimate over 30 years at 7% interest, including capital and ongoing costs and additional membrane filtration. 247 Based on the draft L.V. Rawlinson report, since the final was not available for this thesis. 248 Net present value pay back estimate for the sewerage scheme over 30 years at 7% interest, including capital and ongoing costs (SWC 2002b, p.4-21).

- 298 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Proposed Jamberoo Gerringong-Gerroa Shoalhaven sewerage (and reuse) sewerage (and reuse) Reclaimed water scheme scheme scheme Collection system reticulated / pressure reticulated / gravity reticulated Secondary Tertiary Treatment level - (existing Bombo STP) * (new STP at Gerroa) Reuse capacity ML/d (ultimate) 2.7 2.2 5.5 Cost to farmer per kL recycled water $1.66/kL - $2.70/kL - Free for 15 years Total cost ($ million) 16.63 ** 50 65

Table 6.5 Comparison of Jamberoo, Gerringong-Gerroa and Shoalhaven sewerage scheme costs

* Cost estimates include membrane treatment required for the reuse scheme. Bombo STP currently provides secondary biological treatment with additional nitrogen removal and disinfection (SWC 2002b, p.6-10). **Estimated Net Present Value of sewerage and reuse schemes over 30 years at 7% interest. Sub-total of capital and ongoing costs for the sewerage scheme ($6.63m) as well as the reuse scheme (~$10m) (includes membrane filtration and supply of 2.7 ML/d to 4 farms) (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, SWC 2002a, p.52).

Secondly, the licensing process for ocean disposal options was less onerous than it would for an irrigation scheme, for which they would need ‘careful handling and risk management’. Thirdly, there was a fair amount of inflexibility in the configurations for reuse that were investigated and this led to an emphasis on transfer and the duplication of infrastructure; ‘double handling’ (Community Representative 139). This inflexibility contributed to the additional costs that were in the range of $10 to $12 million249. Integrated approaches such as domestic grey water reuse, rainwater collection or stormwater retention had either been ruled out or simply avoided in the design configurations of the sewerage system, suggesting that organisational, regulatory and financial incentives pointed largely towards conventional water management practices.

Fourthly, the Minister said that this money was needed to sewer other unsewered towns in the rest of the Sydney region as part of the Clean Waterways program. ‘Sydney Water's argument was they wanted to spend it on sewerage in places like The Oaks - in Sydney water's catchment area - which were not sewered.’ (Community Representative 141) The Minister’s

- 299 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

“attitude was that they could connect more backlog areas to sewers – get more income – with the money saved.” (Council Staff 118) This argument found some sympathy in the Jamberoo community who related to others ‘suffering’ with on-site sewage systems and the frustration of waiting for reticulation. It may have been that sewering other backlog towns could help avoid any problems with septic sewage pollution in the drinking water catchment area.

A consortium of Sydney Water and private contractors completed the Jamberoo sewerage scheme in 2005. It began operation in March 2005 and provides around 900 people with a reticulated sewerage service. The final destination for the treated effluent from the village is the ocean via the Bombo STP. Although there is still interest in the possibility of a reuse scheme among local stakeholders, no current plans are in progress to pursue this option.

6.5.4 Initial case findings

The major issue in Jamberoo was that although an agreement was reached among immediate stakeholders on agricultural water recycling, the scheme was highly vulnerable to external veto (i.e. by Bombo residents and the Minister). The broad thrust of the approach was largely pre-determined by the sponsoring agency (i.e. conventional, reticulated sewerage schemes) although, as in Picton, the design was modified. Agreement between the agency and the community on the design of the scheme required less effort to reach because of a shared understanding (in line with traditional values and norms of practice) that on-site systems were a problem and that reticulated sewerage was necessary and inevitable.

Cognitive and normative characteristics of institutions supporting/detracting from ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Convergence of aspects of agency ‘reformers’, environment and community groups’ problem frames. As with Picton, there was general agreement about the purpose of the sewerage scheme between elected representatives, agency staff and the beneficiaries of sewerage systems. It was about reducing the potential for human health and environmental risks.

249 Net present value pay back estimate over 30 years at 7% interest, including capital and ongoing costs for bringing the treated effluent back to the farms (with membrane filtration) (L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. 2003, p.10).

- 300 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

– Shaping and selection of options / scope of study. Similar to Picton, the ‘idea’ of local effluent recycling arose from discussions between technical experts, environmental groups and community groups: and the community representatives ran with it. This may have been because centralised recycling of effluent for non potable purposes is a tangible solution and does not pose a huge challenge to the existing institutional framework since the scheme remains under the control of one organisation (which, again, has implications for controlling risk).

– Conditional and changing nature of public support. Two community groups were vocal supporters/detractors of the scheme, i.e. the Jamberoo and Bombo ‘publics’. Agency staff seriously underestimated the likelihood that Bombo residents would protest at the disposal of sewage effluent off the coast. Nonetheless, the protests against sewage outfalls were taken into account and an uneasy compromise was reached between the groups and the sponsoring agency through public meetings and forums suggesting opportunities for community engagement were important in reaching agreements. The agreement to recycle effluent rather than dispose it to sea also dampened the outcries from Bombo because it reflected ‘environment’ values in the community. The Jamberoo community liaison representatives were strategic in diffusing this conflict and in the ability to gain an agreed strategy (or at least preventing disagreement) for the agency’s preferred solution.

The community in Jamberoo tended to be more insecure than in Picton about whether the sewerage scheme would go ahead, possibly because their town and hence influence, was smaller250. This higher insecurity and shared dislike of septic systems may explain why they agreed with Sydney Water on most of the agency’s proposals (‘rubber stamp’ effect). This may have been a result of shared understanding and values - the community liaison group and farming groups supported agricultural recycling in the area because they saw potential benefits for the environment, but also because there were benefits to farming. Thus an ‘environment’ perspective was evident, but there was less willingness to push this ‘problem frame’ forward in light of their overall greater feeling of insecurity.

250 Their populations suggested a different level of influence: Picton 7,000 and Jamberoo 900.

- 301 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

– Consideration of risk and sustainability. Health and environmental risks were the popular logic driving this scheme even more so than in Picton, since the oyster contamination scare in 1997 had made people aware of the impacts of human activity on the water cycle and many saw the backlog sewerage program as about reducing these contaminant risks to human health. While the driver was clearly understood by most involved, complex upstream/downstream interactions were not explicitly conceptualised or addressed in the sewerage schemes themselves: the risk problems were largely assumed solved through implementing reticulated sewerage.

– Shared ‘problem framing’. The general framing of the problem as one of malfunctioning septic systems causing health risks reflected traditional norms and values for centralised sewerage systems and this made it easier for the stakeholders to agree on courses of action. On one hand, the community was gaining a sewerage system, which they valued, but on the other, felt they were also helping clean up local waterways and making the area safer. The sponsoring agency tended to value conventional approaches and was seeking to fulfil its statutory obligations as conceived in the Priority Sewerage Program policy, to deliver reticulated sewerage services to those without them. Indeed, the initial thrust of the policy was largely shaped by Government beforehand. So by the time community consultation happened, there was little scope to change the way the project was undertaken to reflect a water cycle approach. Even though this meant there was little opportunity for early problem framing, the logic of the scheme was largely agreed (sewerage expansion symbolising civic ‘progress’) and this meant less effort was needed to align competing problem frames. The only real problem was the push by community members (Bombo/Jamberoo) and farmers to include a recycling scheme in order to prevent discharge to ocean. This action was largely vetoed by the central government – the minister – who had not been personally involved in the negotiations and brought an entirely different problem frame (i.e. ‘economic rational’) to the question late in the process.

Regulative characteristics of institutions supporting/detracting from ability to take water cycle approaches included:

– Co-ordinating authority for water cycle across government. The complexity of the organisational framework governing water was highly apparent in this case, as in the

- 302 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

others, and the sheer complexity of many organisations having influence worked to make water cycle outcomes difficult to achieve. Much depended on reaching an agreement between government stakeholders across organisational boundaries. Agreement between the agency and community groups to recycle the effluent for local agriculture (difficult though it was) was reached despite the organisational structuring, which reinforced compartmentalised expertise and predisposed non-integrated solutions. The recycling aspect introduced more complexity and required greater integration (e.g. managing water table interactions and on-farm effluent use) on the part of regulators and experts, which was challenging for all concerned. The associated costs involved with arranging land-based effluent reuse significantly increased vulnerability to Ministerial veto. The minister’s lack of support caused much frustration among local and state agency staff, community members and farmers who had worked hard to reach agreement on the strategy. As in the other cases, this showed that when strategic groups are not integrated into the process, water cycle approaches requiring changes in behaviour and management practices are less likely to occur.

– Operating environment: There were also two key factors in the operating environment of the sponsoring agency that seemed to influence the level of willingness to take up water recycling innovations: 1) EPA standards controlling sewage discharges and 2) financial pressure associated with the Cryptosporidium crisis and the corporate restructure. However, design options for the recycling scheme were narrowed by agency interpretations of appropriate practice (in a context of economic rewards for and cultural tendencies towards large-scale water recycling approaches). These institutional conditions made it difficult to innovate with on-site or decentralised strategies, which could have brought water cycle benefits (e.g. upstream mains water savings; less impact from effluent pollution downstream; farm benefits of recycling on land). Indeed, the low-pressure sewer system emerging from the governing process should be seen as a compromise between strict regulations, conservative organisational cultures and narrowed conceptions of what is possible. On the whole, this kind of agreement was easier than recycling would have been since this configuration did not imply major challenges to practice (minor behavioural changes for users; retaining centralised piped collection, centrally managed control of risk, and

- 303 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

cheap installation). However, many of the potential benefits of water cycle strategies for the community were again missed.

6.6 Conclusion

The case studies highlight the way governance frameworks in the water sector structure the opportunities, choices and interaction of stakeholder groups in relation to water (sewage) planning and policy. The interpretive approach allowed exploration of the nature of participants’ interpretations and how interpretations and values are closely aligned to their actions in this structured context. The method showed that it is not simply a case of gaining acceptance from the public on recycling schemes, but that regulative, cognitive and normative dimensions of institutions are central factors in moving towards more sustainable water outcomes. These experiences illustrate the importance of opportunities for understanding different perspectives and values of stakeholders for the ability to agree on water cycle problems and appropriate responses. The following chapter contains a broader discussion of how certain aspects of the institutional context affected the ability to achieve more sustainable outcomes.

- 304 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

7 Analysis of water recycling case studies: Stability and change in water governance

7.1 Introduction

The previous chapter used an institutional/governance approach to structure the empirical information. Central to the approach was a focus on interpretation; the ways participants made sense of policy problems251. The purpose was to identify different interpretive groups and highlight how and why their discourses on problems contributed to the structuring of practice. A key feature was to explore the idea of sustainable water management as handled in policy processes, and specifically, why it is that water-recycling initiatives have been less successful than expected in some circumstances. This chapter focuses the discussion on how the organisational dimension of practice affected opportunities for water cycle approaches. The discussion is illustrated using examples from the three case studies described in Chapter 6.

7.2 Research proposition and evaluation of key findings

The starting point for this research was a sense of implementation ‘blockage’ with widespread emphasis on changing public attitudes to gain acceptance of urban water recycling schemes. While noting this interpretation of the problem, this thesis puts forward a proposition that reaching sustainability will not simply be a matter of defining and implementing solutions, but concerns the organisational dimension of practice i.e. the dynamics of water governance. The empirical work illustrates how we can learn more about this problem by examining the ‘water system’ as a system of governance. Institutional theory proposes that the persistence in patterns of action or opportunities for change in this system of governance depend on three interrelated aspects - cognitive (interpretation), normative (values) and regulative (organisation)252 – at the organisational field, societal and world levels (Scott and Meyer 1983,

251 Shared sense-making processes relates mainly to the cognitive dimension of Scott’s (1995) institutional framework. The present analysis draws in links with normative and regulative aspects more explicitly, since interdependency between the three spheres are seen as necessary in an analysis of institutional change. 252 Scott suggested these aspects of institutions could be analysed at different levels including inter- organisational and societal contexts (Scott and Meyer 1983, Scott 1995).

- 305 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Scott 1995). Potential for moving towards sustainable urban water management through urban water recycling would depend on changes to these inter-related elements of the system.

Some of the research findings support this proposition. This is of interest because it explains how problems in urban water recycling in Australia could be better understood and handled. The main finding was that people’s interpretations of water cycle problems were important to the way practice was structured and to an extent, depended on how they were involved in the decision-making processes. Interpretations tended to reflect organisational structuring, such that what the participants knew and how they interpreted a situation reflected where they were in the ‘game’.

The case study experiences suggest that opportunities for stakeholders to develop shared values and understandings of problems from the outset are important for encouraging sustainable water outcomes. This supports the findings of some of the existing research and literature that social interactions are important for developing institutional capacity for sustainable water uses (Bressers and Kuks 2002, Brown 2003, Imperial 2005, Blomquist 2004). The following discussion elaborates conditions in the system of governance in the case studies that contributed to persistence in current water practice, or conversely, underpinned the ability to adopt water cycle strategies253.

The relationship between the system of governance and what changes occurred in the case of water recycling was quite complex. There were various actors with intersecting concerns that did not necessarily relate to ‘sustainability’ or even ‘water cycle management’ but which had a bearing on what happened in the urban water recycling cases. Nonetheless, certain kinds of interpretations of water cycle problems and institutional actions were more likely to arise in the current system of water governance. This first section summarises how several important interpretive communities framed the problem, drawing attention to how their interpretations were supported or shaped within the organisational structuring of practice. This responds to the first research question as set out in Section 5.3 which asked: how do people interpret or frame urban water recycling problems in their social context?

253 A water cycle approach implies the ability to manage the urban water resource so that the best use of all water sources/uses is made while reflecting the needs of all water users and maintaining natural water system integrity (see Chapter 4). Water recycling in its various forms is seen as a potential contributor to water cycle management, but it is not the institutional norm and needs institutional ‘change’ to support the practice.

- 306 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Recognising that institutions have a dual role of both enabling and constraining change, the second part of the discussion in this chapter considers the interaction between the regulative, normative and cognitive elements of the governance system that influenced the ability to adopt urban water cycle approaches. It focuses on several conditions of the governing system that appeared important inhibitors or enablers of change. The first part considers the kinds of institutional conditions254 that led to a persistence of conventional approaches and strategies. The second part considers aspects, particularly interpretations in the cognitive dimension – supported by normative and regulative conditions - that seemed to encourage change, i.e. make water cycle approaches more likely to be adopted. This responds to the second research question set out in Section 5.3 which asked: how does the institutional base support or constrain opportunities for urban water recycling? The discussion considers some broad issues the case studies raise about current institutions of water management and specifically to the practice of recycling water. However, the conclusions are seen as broadly relevant to situations in which alternate or sustainable water use is being considered.

7.3 Participants and problem frames

7.3.1 What the analysis of ‘problem frames’ suggested

Contending interpretations of water cycle issues by participants in these cases were important for the way problems were framed and addressed. The analysis suggested that participants and groups tended to have different maps of what the problem was and why it was a problem (i.e. divergent cognitive and normative categories or multiple ‘frames’) (Tables 6.1 & 6.2). It was difficult in many instances for participants to agree on what should be done about water use because of the different ‘frames’ they held.

Interpretations of water cycle problems were closely linked with the organisation of water management practice according to which there was little scope or compulsion for them to find common ground. The three inter-related elements of institutions, including participant interpretations of problems, values for different aspects and social positions came into play to form a powerful institutional context creating conditions, which to a large extent inhibited

254 Institutional conditions are ‘factors’ that influenced wastewater (recycling) planning outcomes, beyond the public’s acceptance of the product water.

- 307 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

adoption of water cycle strategies. The case studies illustrate how the institutional forces operated to separate participants from each other through the relatively few opportunities available for building shared interpretations of water cycle problems early on. This multiplicity of voices operated as a conservative institutional force, making it more difficult for sustainable water use practices or innovations to be adopted.

7.3.2 The significance of competing ‘problem frames’ for managing recycled water

The ‘frames’ approach provides a better explanation of collective action problems in urban water recycling cases than the conventional wisdom juxtaposing (‘incorrect’) attitudes of the public alongside scientifically ‘correct’ interpretations of experts (elaborated in Stenekes et al. 2006). For the purposes of the analysis, typical ‘problem frames’ drawn on by participants as encountered in the three Australian case studies addressing proposals to recycle urban water were:

Traditional, Environment, and Reformer, Community. Economic rational,

These ‘frames’ (Tables 6.1 & 6.2) were developed based on an analysis of social discourses in the three case studies drawing out and extending on institutional themes in the sustainable urban water management literature255. They were useful constructs for explaining the way shared meaning or interpretation tended to develop or was contested in social interaction. In the context of the policy process, frames guided people’s attention by directing them to particular aspects of a policy problem, but away from others (Yanow 1998, p.11). The regulative institutional pillar supporting each frame, included in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, illustrate inter-dependencies between the cognitive (i.e. knowledge, discourses, interpretations), normative (values, expectations) and regulative (organising) dimensions of practice. This analysis suggests a correlation between what ‘frame’ a participant was likely to draw on in an uncertain situation and where they were situated in the organisational field i.e. their social role. Thus community representatives tended to draw on a local action (‘community’) model of the

255 For example, Brown (2003) conceptualised ‘traditional’ and ‘sustainable’ patterns of urban water management (as discussed in Chapters 3 & 4). The analysis of urban water recycling case studies in the current study adapted these and drew out other institutionalisations, i.e. ‘environment’, ‘reformer’, ‘economic rational’ and ‘community’ that reflected multiple competing institutionalisations evident in these particular case studies.

- 308 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

problem, while agency staff were more likely to draw on either ‘traditional’ or ‘reformer’ problem frames in conditions of uncertainty. Interpretations of problems tended to embody different knowledge, values and expectations as suggested by these frames.

The interpretive frames are neither precise nor seen as predictive, because conceptual approaches are limited in the extent to which they can represent social complexity. Rather, they need to be viewed as heuristic devices for the purposes of analysis. The frames are important because they suggest language, interpretations, knowledge bases, sets of values and expectations likely to be drawn on to make sense of ambiguous choice processes and which reflect institutional partitioning of the groups in the governance system (competing institutionalisations of practice). Inconsistency and contradiction is a normal part of political practice (March & Olsen 1989), and some participants seemed to draw on these frames to different extents or express various combinations of them when interpreting problems.

To an extent, competing problem frames of different participants developed through interaction and contact with other social actors and policy issues occurred (e.g. residents becoming experts; technical experts becoming environmental activists) (as in Throgmorton 1991).

While the particular concern of this researcher was to analyse underlying institutional currents relating to ‘urban water sustainability’, in practice few people (apart from some professionals and environment groups) articulated ‘sustainability’ to characterise their problems. Participants (especially non-technical experts) tended to talk about specific environmental problems, e.g. impacts of river pollution, and their involvement in the planning process, etc. This suggested that the discourse of sustainability was somewhat marginal and competed with more established discourses. Because this collection of concerns was united by a principal desire to protect the local environment, the more specific term ‘environment’ was adopted to encompass the strategies and values within this frame rather than ‘sustainability’ (although both are seen as a cluster of concerns about maintaining the integrity of water environments).

These frames represent the interweaving of cognitive, normative and regulative elements in practice that create a powerful institutional framework. The ‘traditional’ frame could be described as a prevalent basis for interpreting problems in water recycling, which is not surprising since the organisational field of water management is historically based in a ‘traditional’ paradigm (refer Chapter 3). The economic frame stems from a more recent ideology and practice in the water sector, and was strong in upper management of government

- 309 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

organisations. Other frames were more marginal and tended to be held by those in particular social networks, organisations and groups. For example the ‘environment’ frame could be found mainly in environment NGOs, among some in government, and some community members (more notionally held among this group). Some participants from government organisations also held a ‘community’ frame256. However, it was particularly strongly held by community activists and groups outside the more established organisational networks and boundaries.

There were arguably several types of ‘community’ frames. As discussed in Section 6.3.4.4, two sub-types were mentioned in relation to cases of water recycling: the ‘conspiracy’ model, which was described as involving significantly less trust of experts and government institutions and a ‘local action’ model that involved positive assumptions about interaction between officials and communities. There may be others found in other situations or cases. While the different levels of trust characterising the two are acknowledged, they are both seen as largely about the realisation of community goals through empowerment in the context of official-community relationships.

7.4 Conditions affecting the ability to adopt water cycle and/or water recycling approaches

In analysing the systems of governance in these case studies, the understandings of the social actors257 were important in the way water cycle problems were conceptualised (i.e. ‘framed’), and this impacted on whether innovations such as water recycling were adopted. In order to identify what scope there was for participants to make changes, this discussion elaborates on what broad linkages existed between social actors’ i) understandings or interpretations of problems (cognitive), ii) value-based judgements (normative), and iii) social organisation (regulative), and how this may have affected their willingness to pursue and ability to adopt more sustainable water cycle strategies. The discussion therefore considers what elements of the system of governance encouraged people to support conventional approaches, and conversely what compelled them to change to water cycle approaches, and in particular, the scope for innovations involving urban water recycling. For analytic purposes, the three institutional dimensions are seen as overlapping aspects of governance systems that may

256 (i.e. community consultation as an organisational value) 257 Social actors could be individuals or organisations.

- 310 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

considered at different levels, e.g. at the group/organisational, organisational field, societal or global level (as depicted in Figure 2.1, Chapter 2). Interactions among the factors involve a high degree of complexity and the conditions identified here are not exhaustive.

The analysis of institutional stability in the case studies suggested conditions promoting persistence of conventional approaches (summarised in Table 7.1) were mainly concerned with:

Dominant problem frame: culture of ‘progress’ (initial conditions)

Organisational structuring (regime for governing the water cycle)

Competition within and between organisations (linkages)

Central government priorities and ‘political will’

Incentive structures (e.g. subsidies, rewards and pricing)

Regulatory and legal controls (e.g. direct impediments)

Organisations can be conservative and actively resist change, according to institutional theorists (Hall 1987, p.29, Weick 1979), and there was some evidence to suggest this. The persistence of normal institutional forms tended to be carried in social structures (networks of social relationships) and routines (everyday practices e.g. product or delivery oriented management). They were also carried in organisational cultures (codified patterns of meanings and rule systems) (Scott 1995, p.52, March and Olsen 1989, Hoffman 1999). These kinds of institutional factors worked to keep current institutional arrangements in place and perpetuate normal practice.

Conditions supporting change (summarised in Table 7.2) were more problematic to identify. However, drawing on institutional change mechanisms identified in the literature, the following conditions and drivers appear to have influenced opportunities for water cycle strategies in the case studies:

Opportunities for shared understanding and problem framing (building relationships, social and organisational linkages),

Informal interaction and ‘unofficial’ communication

Leadership and commitment (i.e. ‘institutional entrepreneurs’)

Evolving change e.g. ‘turnover’ of staff

- 311 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Regulatory arrangements supporting water cycle strategies

These conditions are not seen as separate, but as interconnected in the system of water governance, and as linking cognitive, normative and regulative dimensions of institutions. The conditions were identified using a qualitative approach based on the researcher’s in-depth understanding of the case material258 drawing on the case analyses and initial conclusions presented in the previous chapter.

Tables 7.1 and 7.2 contain comparative information as to the relative importance of these institutional conditions in each case and how they affected the ability to choose water cycle approaches. The tables summarise significant elements of the discussion from this whole chapter. Major similarities and differences between cases are contrasted where possible. Of particular note is the way that some drivers or conditions seemed to act more as conservative forces, while encouraging change in other instances259. This suggests that local context, i.e. case study locality and circumstances, is very important for understanding people’s responses and the outcomes of stakeholder participation in water cycle negotiations. As noted by Leach & Pelkey in their review of empirical literature on watershed partnerships, the importance of local circumstances mean that it may be difficult to identify hard and fast formulas for success (Leach and Pelkey 2001). Keeping this in mind, the discussion presented in this chapter suggests several institutional themes or areas of interest that seemed relevant for understanding stakeholder negotiations in the current cases. To appreciate the complexity of institutional change processes, the qualitative information presented in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 should be read in conjunction with the broader discussion and analysis in this chapter.

258 Through a process of evaluating the mechanisms of change discussed in the institutional literature, considering the study participants' own accounts, detailed analysis of the case study documentation (e.g. detailed chronologies/timelines of events) and the outcomes of the case reports in Chapter 6. 259 Negative drivers are denoted by “–ive” (i.e. towards conventional approaches) / positive drivers are denoted by “+ive” (i.e. towards water cycle thinking, strategies or approaches). A mixed “+/-ive” sign indicates that it was unclear whether the driver/condition contributed to persistence of conventional water strategies or the ability to adopt changes, or both.

- 312 - Table 7.1 Case comparison: Institutional conditions encouraging stability, i.e. conventional approaches

(-ive = contributed to persistence of conventional practice, +ive = contributed to change) Institutional condition Caloundra-Maroochy (QLD) Picton (NSW) Jamberoo (NSW) Condition discussed in (encouraging Case 1 Case 2 (a) Case 2 (b) sections: stability)260

Degree to which -ive Low level of agreement on nature of +ive Higher level of agreement on nature of +ive Higher level of agreement on nature of 7.3 and traditional belief and problem than in other cases. Competing problem than Case 1 (septic overflows) and that problem than Case 1 (septic overflows) and that 7.3.1.1 values systems were interpretations: was it about wastewater disposal, change was needed. change needed. (see shared (dominant problem health risk, environment, or empowerment? Interpretive frame) frames: Similar to 2(a): increasing divergences between Tables 6.1 Significant divergences between officials and Fewer divergences between officials-community those holding ‘reformer’ versus ‘economic and 6.2) Frame divergences? community groups. Various frames evident. (See frames than Case 1, but more between rational’ interpretations in govt. Various frames Table 6.1). government organisational groups. Various frames evident. See Table 6.2. evident. See Table 6.2.

Organisational structuring 7.3.1.2 Levels (vertical) Local government (dominant water provider) State utility (dominant water provider – State utility (dominant water provider); local requiring State approval. reticulated services) / local council with residual council with residual functions. -ive Not well integrated across these levels (i.e. water functions. -ive Not well-integrated. tensions between provider levels). -ive Not well-integrated.

-ive Occupational groups influential, e.g. Specific occupational groups influential. Specific occupational groups influential. Occupational engineers (‘reformers’), tending to mean Engineers (‘Traditional’ and ‘reformers’). Engineers (‘Traditional’ and ‘reformers’); but cultures technical solutions proposed. increasingly planners and communicators.

Conventional gravity sewers (urban) with on-site Reticulated water supply predominant (urban). Reticulated water supply (urban). Private owner- Physical systems predominant in hinterland areas Private owner-managed on-site wastewater managed on-site wastewater systems (‘backlog’ infrastructure (assumptions relating to ‘path dependence’). systems (‘backlog’ peri-urban areas). peri-urban areas).

260 Institutional conditions contributing to ‘stability’ are defined as those that tended to promote the persistence of conventional approaches to water use and management, i.e. the status quo or tendency to treat different parts of the water cycle separately.

- 313 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Competition/ -ive Minimal interaction between council -ive Sporadic communication between Utility, +ive More regular communication between 7.3.1.3 communication between departments and between council staff and Council and external contractors (limited to Utility and Environment Dept. and Council groups (horizontal community groups. formal EIS process). (formal EIS process) than Case 2(a). linkages) -ive Key groups not incorporated into planning -ive More evidence of competing objectives -ive Evidence of competing objectives and process (e.g. CADS); community-council and interests within and between key agencies interests within and between key agencies. networks largely separate. than Case 1 or Case 2(b). Central government -ive State- government concerned about -ive Priorities shifted according to party in -ive State-level concerns for costs. Approval 7.3.1.4 priorities (related to loosing public/political support. Approval government. (and resources) withheld by Minister (at the state administrative levels) withheld by Minister (at the state level) level). Incentive structures -ive Subsidies directed towards conventional / -ive Difficult for alternatives to compete (e.g. -ive Difficult for alternatives to compete (e.g. 7.3.1.5 (Subsidies, rewards and “hard” engineering water/wastewater planning. artificially low mains water prices). artificially low mains water prices). pricing systems) Difficult for alternatives to compete (e.g. artificially low mains water prices).

Regulatory and legal -ive No widely accepted recycled water -ive Few accepted guidelines/practices for -ive Guidelines/practices available for 7.3.1.6 (formal) coherence guidelines for alternative strategies. High alternative approaches generating uncertainty alternative approaches But local conditions (e.g. uncertainty about risk apportionment. about the practice (e.g. market for recycled groundwater table, recycled water management, water, risk apportionment). long-term market for recycled water) and -ive Regulatory instruments were direct barriers unclear risk apportionment presented challenges to alternatives (legislation compelling for alternative water use practices. connection to water and sewer in urban areas).

- 314 - Table 7.2 Case comparison: Institutional conditions contributing to change (-ive = contributed to persistence of conventional practice, +ive = contributed to change) Institutional condition Caloundra-Maroochy (QLD) Picton (NSW) Jamberoo (NSW) Section (encouraging change)261 Case 1 Case 2 (a) Case 2 (b) referring to this: Opportunities for shared +ive Some inter-governmental co-ordination +ive Sporadic co-operation between Utility +ive More regular communication between 7.3 & problem framing (between regional Councils). and council. Utility and Environment Dept. and Council 7.3.2.1 Organisational co- (formal EIS process). -ive Little opportunity for interaction between +ive Ad hoc consultation with local operation officials and community. Public consultation community (over 10 year period); several EIS +ive Some routine community consultation Community short (<1 year); persuasive approach taken. cycles; more deliberation / sense of ownership. (over a 10 year period); involving several EIS consultation processes cycles; more deliberation / sense of ownership. Informal interaction and +/-ive Groups developed ‘unofficial’ +ive Community representatives ‘went Community representatives were reluctant to 7.3.2.2 ‘unofficial’ communication channels after narrow political’ (approached local media/politicians) approach media; too much stake in outcomes. communication opportunities for problem framing. Use of when agency promises not kept. +ive Interaction between community and Internet/media by opposition. Re-framed as an +ive Interaction between community and environmentalists; idea of recycling emerged. opportunity for community empowerment. environmentalists; idea of recycling emerged. Leadership and +ive Few ‘institutional champions’ for inclusive +ive Several ‘institutional champions’ in +ive Some evidence of ‘institutional 7.3.2.3 commitment decision-making processes, but some for water influential positions championing community champions’ creating opportunities for water cycle (‘institutional cycle approaches. inclusion / water cycle approaches. approaches, but more routine inclusion of local entrepreneurs’) community and farmer interests. Evolving change -ive Less evidence could be found for change +ive More evidence of shift in professional +ive More evidence of shift in skills. 7.3.2.4 through staff turn-over. skills in leading organisation. Increasing Considerable commitment to more efficient water commitment to more efficient water use and use and public involvement. public involvement. Regulatory arrangements +/-ive Efforts to remove legal impediments -ive Less evidence of regulatory supporting +ive Introduction of integrated planning 7.3.2.5 supporting water cycle were occurring at the state level. water cycle approaches; lack of coherence approaches e.g. BASIX, encouraging water and strategies (corporate governance changes). energy conservation in new housing. +ive Creation of national water recycling. guidelines and national support for efficient water use and management e.g. NWI.

261 Institutional conditions contributing to ‘change’ are defined as those that appeared to contribute to the ability of the actors to frame and adopt more sustainable water cycle strategies in these case studies.

- 315 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

7.4.1 Institutional conditions encouraging persistence of established practices

7.4.1.1 Dominant problem frame: Culture of “progress” (initial institutional conditions)

Planned changes in each of the three case studies had wastewater management as their focus. Change was more or less initiated by government and key groups within leading organisations as a way of managing increasing volumes of sewage and/or addressing community concerns about urban water pollution. However, the broad direction of the projects in these cases largely reflected traditional values for industrial style progress.

The dominant imagery around progress reflected traditional wastewater institutional arrangements. This was supported by a tendency to envisage large-scale reticulation for the purposes of water supply and wastewater disposal as reflected in cultures and knowledge of influential engineering professional groups. Following several institutional theorists, culture is viewed here as ‘the sense of what reality is’ (Pettigrew 1979) and thus the system of collectively accepted meanings of a group (Pettigrew 1979, March and Olsen 1989, p.45, Scott 1995, p.48). The culture and objectives of sponsoring organisations in the three cases tended to be structured around a technical norm – i.e. the reticulation of services. This was mirrored by the response of many in the community in each of the cases many of whom initially came to this question with expectations of a conventional response. The assumption of a conventional approach as the default strategy manifested itself differently in the three cases (see Table 6.6). Whereas in NSW, the lead agency initially proposed strategies that were conventional (i.e. gravity sewers), the proponents in Case 1 in Caloundra-Maroochy (engineers / environmentalists / councillors) were seen as proposing ‘radical’ solutions (i.e. potable water recycling). The main difference was that there was much less of a shared understanding that a problem existed in Case 1, whereas in the NSW cases there was a widely held understanding that the existing situation (diffuse pollution) could not continue, and this generated much more initial acceptance of agency plans. This seems to suggest broadly that the more unfamiliar people were with the proposed strategy and the less agreement there is on the need for change, the more difficult it is to generate support. Following Bressers & Kuks (2003, p.76), the initial dominant institutional conditions are very important predictors of change since it takes more energy to deviate from the status quo than to follow established routines.

- 316 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Sewer programs were appealing to the sponsoring organisations because they involved centralised management and control (e.g. of health risks) as emphasised in traditional water management practice. In NSW, for example, State governments were satisfied that by advancing the progress of sewerage programs, they addressed (and were seen to be addressing) significant social and health risk problems. Indeed, local governments (in NSW) were happy to relinquish responsibility for on-site system inspection programs for which some felt under- resourced through replacement with reticulated sewers. For the residential communities concerned, implementing public sewerage offered the promise of resolution of the significant inconvenience of privately managing their own sewage services. As a result of this ‘traditional’ institutional framing, the default perspective of many key participants (government and users alike) was of a deficit in conventional service (i.e. ‘backlog’). This was part of the established symbolic order that invoked a particular technological response: that of reticulated gravity sewerage.

What the dominant discourse often rendered indistinct was the mismanagement of on-site wastewater systems and the contribution to performance failures. This was a less explicit problem frame for the most part in each of the case study discourses than the one identifying ‘progress’ (or reticulation) as the main goal (supported by values for technological solutions in the background). This alternative problem frame drawing on water cycle concepts recognised upstream and downstream water use interactions262 and the high level of inter-dependency of suppliers and users in the water network (Chappells and Shove 2003). This view emphasised the appropriate use of septic systems, which were designed to work under conditions of limited water use e.g. households on rainwater tanks263. Such a view would also have regarded the fee structure for emptying pumpout-type systems in NSW as problematic because volumetric fees tempted householders to dump sewage into stormwater drains illegally in order to avoid paying fees. There were some reports from interviewees of the NSW case studies that sewage dumping

262 One of the main interactions was the introduction of reticulated water supplies into areas with septic tanks and the corresponding hydraulic overload of septic tanks. 263 (Note how participants in NSW reported ‘fewer overflow problems before washing machines and dishwashers arrived’).

- 317 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling was commonplace264 (refer Sections 6.4.2.4 / 6.5.2.4). This resonates with the notion that utilities and service providers play significant roles in specifying technologies and systems of provision, and in doing so, play a key role in ‘constructing demand’ for services (Chappells and Shove 2003, Spaargaren 2003). In the cases investigated here, especially in NSW, the specification of reticulated water supply systems and consumer culture prioritising washing machines and dishwashers had led to greater intensity of water use in people’s daily lives without co-ordinated attention to the potential for hydraulic overload of septic tanks. This interpretation of the problem was more marginal and less evident among participants of wastewater initiatives investigated in these case studies. While there were concerns about the efficacy of local government inspections of septic devices and of owner-maintenance and some policy actions adopted to alleviate the situation (in NSW), policy co-ordination addressing water cycle interactions was less evident both in Queensland and NSW. Problems with the existing on-site wastewater management systems in backlog areas of Sydney and in hinterland areas of the Sunshine Coast were therefore more than problems of technological failure: they suggested an institutional failure to recognise and manage the water cycle.

Marginal problem frames drawing on water cycle perspectives did not tend to generate as much action and support as did problem frames emphasising industrial ‘progress’ as they implied more complex changes in water user’s behaviour and would have required a greater degree of co-ordinated institutional action.

7.4.1.2 Organisational Structuring

Organisational structuring concerned issues such as i) responsibility for different facets of the water cycle spanning across levels of government, departments and/or organisations, ii) the effect of occupational structures (technical knowledge and expertise) on problem shaping (selection of options, criteria, and strategies) and iii) the physical infrastructure itself. Weick (1979) proposed that organisations exist to narrow the possible interpretations of problems: as

264 In one instance, it was officially estimated that the town of Nabiac, NSW (near to where the oyster contamination incident took place) recorded only half the expected pumpout sewage volume suggesting that sewage dumping could have contributed to oyster contamination (see Section 6.5.3.2 ‘Reactions to the NSW oyster contamination crisis of 1997’).

- 318 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling filters to reduce ambiguity (Weick 1979) by enacting 'limitations' on problems in order to avoid certain experiences or issues. The tendency for traditional responses in these cases was reflected in dominant community and professional cultures (as above) and in the organisational routines of leading groups, expressed as the dominant logic of supply and disposal. How and why were these important constraints on the ability of participants and groups to conceptualise and select approaches that incorporated water cycle complexities?

i) Complexity of regime governing the water cycle. Wastewater problems were historically the responsibility of ‘engineering’ organisations/technical departments in local and state governments (QLD/NSW)265. Even though the broad directions of the wastewater initiatives were initially decided by sponsoring agencies in each case, responsibility for various facets of the water cycle were spread among different organisations, levels of government, departments and internal organisational groups, some of whom had little interest in the outcomes for the overall water cycle or catchment (Sections 6.2.3 & 6.3.3 ‘Organisational structuring of policy action’). There was evidence from the case studies that organisational complexity worked to limit the response strategies and the adoption of alternative, water recycling and/or water cycle strategies because it required significantly more co-ordinated action than was occurring. Evidence recounting processes of option development and selection in all the case studies suggest that this administrative complexity had implications for the ability to frame the problem: wastewater problems were largely seen as separate from water cycle considerations. Bressers & Kuks highlight the importance of different levels in the water regime, commenting that problems look different from the perspective of different administrative levels of government (2003, p.79-80). Policy strategies tend to be devised that reflect the values, interpretations and responsibilities of each level. This was apparent in the tensions between state and local governments over responsibility for different parts of the water cycle, especially the disjunct between reticulated / on-site and supply / disposal systems266. This was evident in NSW where responsibility was confusingly split between local and state government. However, it was

265 In Sydney, there was the evidently increasing involvement of planners, environmental scientists and communicators, who later became part of more integrated project teams (see Section 6.5.2.1 ‘Managers, planners and engineers’, Jamberoo).

- 319 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling also apparent in Queensland where there was almost no vertical integration between local and state government over water management and little evidence of internal co-ordination within council structures. As a consequence, wastewater problems were addressed in isolation from water supply and stormwater issues in planning processes although physical interactions between the two were likely to have significant implications for managing wastewater.

ii) Occupational structures (technical knowledge and expertise). Interpretations of wastewater problems were shaped in the broader context of dominant professional cultures in the leading organisations. Evidence from all the case studies supports a link between understanding and values of these influential groups and the ability to frame and adopt water cycle approaches in the decision-making processes. The effect was more subtle than explicit but as illustrated by the accounts of option shaping processes in Sections 6.2.6.4 (Caloundra), 6.4.3.5 (Picton) and 6.5.3.5 (Jamberoo), traditional discourses among these occupational groups were strong (though changing with the emergence of ‘environment’ and ’reformer’ perspectives). This influenced the way the problems were initially defined, the knowledge and evidence was brought to bear on the problem, and the identification and selection of options, which to a large extent meant that large scale conventional or technological options were the dominant solutions arising out of these governing processes. This tendency was also found by Brown (2003, p.159) to be important in organisational structuring in the context of local government. (The emergence of contending discourses challenging these traditions from inside and outside the organisations is discussed further below in Section 7.4.2 ‘Institutional conditions encouraging water cycle and/or water recycling approaches’. This section is concerned with the effect of organisational structuring for the way problems were defined.)

In the three case studies, the activities of water supply, wastewater and stormwater tended to be functionally divided even within leading organisations, to the extent that different specialist engineers (water supply / wastewater) were in different departments or ‘silos’ – i.e.

266 For example, responsibility for inspecting septic tank systems were devolved to local government by the NSW state government (the dominant level of governance), with complaints from local councils that these added responsibilities did not come with enough funding.

- 320 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling organisationally separate. This was particularly evident in the local councils267 of NSW and QLD and in Sydney Water prior to its restructure around 2000 (refer Section 6.3.3.1). One participant of the present study suggested this meant the way expertise was divided up organisationally (‘bureaucratised, specialised and credentialised’), reduced the ‘ability to see the overall picture’ and inhibited the ability to conceive of integrated water cycle strategies (ex- Water Utility Director, interview 115). This and similar comments from other case study participants suggests the organisational structuring, particularly the organisational separation of staff and knowledge bases, contributed an emphasis on ‘technical’ options and solutions as reflected in the culture and influence of lead groups in problem framing. This builds on findings of other studies that organisational structuring was linked with the ability to undertake innovations in the human dimension of practice (Brown 2003, p.148, Imperial and Yandle 2005a, p.296).

As a result of both organisational structuring and organisational cultures, Sydney Water’s ‘backlog’ sewerage projects had an almost exclusive focus on wastewater disposal, and neglect of interactions of different parts of the urban water cycle. Thus, in NSW, the ability to address polluted urban and farm runoff that interacted with sewage (important problems identified in the Clean Waterways program) was greatly diminished (see Section 6.4.3.2 ‘Contending frames: Economic rationalism versus environmental performance’). There were no catchment based pollution reduction targets, which would have forced consideration of the upstream and downstream water uses and users (Agency Staff 129). There was a similar focus on reducing wastewater volumes in Case 1 (Caloundra-Maroochy) and little strategic consideration of water cycle interactions in framing wastewater problems in the planning processes, particularly in terms of the inter-related facets of the supply chain including production, distribution, consumption and disposal of water. Policy strategies tended to be end-of-pipe oriented due to this focus on the lower end of this ‘problem chain’ (Kuks & Bressers 2003, p.112).

The implications of these institutional characteristics for problem shaping were considerable. The dominance of organisational technical cultures had subtle but distinct effects

267 Almost all the respondents of the online pilot survey of local councils (QLD) were career local government employees with a professional background in civil engineering (most were above 45 years of age; and all were male) (Livingston et al. 2004).

- 321 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling on option identification and selection processes, which were central components of decision- making processes in all three case studies. The extensive involvement of technical experts from inside and outside government laid emphasis on wastewater problems as technical management issues. To some extent, this was mirrored by traditional community values for industrial ‘progress’ and the connection of this idea with delivering conventional sewer systems (arising in ‘community’-type discourses). In developing solutions for sustainable water management problems technical disciplinary biases and values contributed to the emphasis on large-scale wastewater management options and this was carried through in the option canvassing with community groups (e.g. Caloundra-Maroochy268, Section 6.2.6.4). All the proposals during the initial 1990 Picton Environmental Impact Statement process were narrowly focussed on conventional wastewater collection and disposal methods because engineers ‘in those days, only looked at conventional options’ (Section 6.4.3.1) to the exclusion of water supply and surface water interactions. Non-technical interventions (e.g. integrating stormwater wetlands into the scheme (Picton), or on-site sewage management approaches (Jamberoo)) were looked upon sceptically by other agencies.

Though it was possible to identify competing interpretations within professional groups of how the projects should be undertaken (i.e. ‘traditional’ mixed with ‘reformer’ and ‘environment’ sensitivities), deviations from conventional thinking tended to be hindered by organisational cultures – i.e. shared meaning that emphasised these problems as technical ones. This was reinforced by organisational protocols, standards (e.g. contract agreements) and procedures (e.g. construction methods), which defined how work was done and which would have required some effort to modify (e.g. comments by Council staff 118). The difficulties are demonstrated in the significant effort required to adopt non-gravity based sewer technology269 in NSW priority sewerage program schemes after 2000 (including Jamberoo). The natural organisational tendency, as many organisational studies predict, was to resist change. Significant financial pressures and regulatory inducements were necessary before senior

268 There was a subtle emphasis on ‘universal’ technical solutions in public presentations to the community. 269 Gravity sewer pipe technology has been the normal procedure for over 100 years. From this perspective, the use of pressure pipe technology (in Jamberoo, NSW, 2002) is a radical change (refer Section 6.5.3.5.3).

- 322 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling management would consider changing to pressure pipe approaches (Sydney Water, NSW context).

As suggested by Weick, organisational structuring (who solved the problem, where they were located, what their training was) were important elements in organisational sense-making in this study, and this subtle but systematic influence narrowed the possible interpretations of problems (Weick 1979). Although there were small changes to thinking and practices, the organisational structuring tended to contribute institutional stability – or a pattern of traditional responses to wastewater type problems.

iii) Physical infrastructure. As this last point itself suggests, stability was perpetuated by the path-dependence inherent in the physical systems themselves (supported by routines and resources needed to manage them). Agencies are highly averse to digging up existing infrastructure (expensive and difficult). The Queensland councils sought technical solutions for managing the wastewater of ‘brownfields’ urban areas, which would avoid major financial strain due to any fundamental infrastructure changes (‘closing the loop’ with a single recycling pipe back to the reservoir had more appeal than duplicating piped infrastructure). Path- dependence is a less significant factor in the NSW cases, because the plan was to embark on major infrastructure change270. Physical infrastructure constraints were therefore less of a disincentive to change in the NSW cases and inhibitors to innovation can therefore be attributed more so to institutional inertia.

7.4.1.3 Competition and communication

Competition for resources or advantages between different organisations reduced the potential for organisational co-operation that could otherwise have enabled the adoption of alternative water cycle strategies. This is a common theme arising in studies of organisational and institutional capacity for change (Imperial and Yandle 2005b, p.297, Brown 2003, p.152, Bardach 1996) and is suggested in several instances from the present case studies. Competition

270 Picton and Jamberoo were both urban fringe areas with significant potential for sustainable water and wastewater management systems because there were large areas of agricultural land available for recycling the water.

- 323 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling could characterise relationships between i) internal departments as well as ii) between different organisations and levels of government.

i) Competition and communication inside key organisations. Different groups inside the sponsoring agencies did not always appear to have the same perspective on problems, or be communicating or co-operating well. While this is unremarkable, there was some evidence that internal groups were not able to pull together to form a consistent perspective on water cycle problems and that this meant less collective ability to formulate and pursue integrated water cycle approaches and incorporating water recycling. This was illustrated in the present case studies in several ways:

Local government (QLD). Differing perspectives characterised different parts of local governments which led the wastewater initiative in Caloundra and Maroochy, Queensland. The on-line pilot study271, which was conducted to gain a better understanding of organisational dynamics inside south-east Queensland councils, revealed limited inter- departmental co-operation on water recycling planning and management affecting their potential to undertake integrated/alternative solutions to water management problems (Livingston et al. 2004). This supports findings by Brown (2003, p.150) in a NSW metropolitan context, on whose work the pilot survey instrument was based, where internal co-ordination/linkages affected the capacity of councils to recognise and adopt integrated approaches to managing urban stormwater problems. In the present study, separate internal accounting for water supply and sewerage works in the councils did not help much with advancing recycled water plans (which concerned several parts of the urban water ‘cycle’). In one instance, these organisational linkages and co-ordination issues were recognised in a Queensland council and improved through the creation of ‘water recycling engineers’ whose task it was to liaise with various groups to progress such approaches.

Local Government (NSW). A similar problem could be observed in relation to the Picton case study in NSW. In this instance, participants reported how local council staff exhibited poor internal communication (between staff in different departments) in relation to

271 This was a collaborative effort with another research student, D. Livingston, drawing on the survey instrument designed by Brown (2003).

- 324 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

wastewater planning (refer Section 6.4.2.2). This stemmed from the way council representatives did not seem to regard themselves as major players in a scheme being undertaken by a different organisation - state utility - and as a result of the emphasis on conventional reticulation strategies by Sydney Water there was little reason to justify interaction. (This was extended to the capability and will to co-ordinate actions with external groups, such as the private contractors and the community as well.) In contrast, evidence from Jamberoo illustrated how the local council staff and councillors took an active role in the advancement of community goals in relation to sewerage management and water recycling (Section 6.5.2.2). This suggests a fair amount of variation in communication and co-ordination across local governments, but that this is a characteristic that may affect the potential for taking water recycling and/or integrated approaches.

Sydney Water (NSW): Community participants and a former Managing Director of Sydney Water identified internal communication flows as inconsistent and problematic. Confusion arising from this situation was particularly detrimental to developing trust with community liaison group members272 (refer Section 6.4.3.7 ‘CWP members “go political” to hold the Water Board to its promises’). This is partly explained by the confusion arising from corporate restructure and the ongoing transition of the organisation from ‘resource manager’ to ‘corporatised water and sewerage provider’ and also, several changes of government leadership. Nevertheless, the confusion did not help the ability to communicate and co-ordinate actions on the ground with external groups.

There were efforts by Sydney Water to address internal co-ordination issues using integrated Project Delivery Teams273 consisting of a Project Manager, Communications Manager, Technical Manager and Environmental Manager (after 2000), in order to overcome some of the internal organisational and disciplinary divisions and to smooth the delivery process. This improved communication and co-ordination within the organisation, with external

272 Picton Community Representatives observed: ‘I'm sure they passed our thoughts up the line... [but] by the time they got to the higher echelons [of SWC], their significance was watered down a fair bit’, (Community Representative 127). 273 Membership of the ‘Teams’ spanned the internal divisions.

- 325 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling agencies and with the local community in Jamberoo (and many subsequent Priority Sewerage Projects274).

ii) Competition and communication between organisations and levels of government. The potential for water cycle approaches tended to diminish when different organisations or levels of government were not co-operating, because avenues for change and/or innovation required more leadership, trust-building and general networking effort among stakeholders than staying with existing practices. Several instances illustrated how competition issues between state and local governments lowered the potential for integrated and/or water cycle strategies.

The disjunction in urban water management in the Sydney metropolitan region is a good illustration of the effect of administrative levels on problem framing. The functional split of administrative responsibility between different levels of government had a tendency to polarise strategies for managing wastewater (towards either on-site wastewater systems or centralised reticulated sewerage systems) though there were different systems and scales available. This effect was reflected in the either/or (centralised reticulated/on-site) nature of options put forward in decision-making processes in the current case studies275. Because of this task split, the ability to achieve integrated water cycle approaches was reduced in key instances. Similar observations were made in other water governance research that highlights multi-level governance as a key factor influencing problem framing, policy strategies and the allocation of resources (Bressers & Kuks (2003, p.6)276.

Co-ordination was made more complicated by out-sourcing key tasks to private contractors in the present study in both Queensland and NSW cases. The effects were most evident in the Picton case in the context of corporatisation of the Water Board. Community representatives indicated that whole water cycle management, including reuse, in the town were

274 It is not clear whether it improved the adoption of alternative wastewater management strategies, or improved the agency’s chances of achieving its own goals (there is no assumption that these goals were the same). 275 The tendency for either/or extremes to be promoted in Sydney was previously observed by West (2003) (West 2003, p.7, 2001). 276 In a comparative case study of water governance in Florida and the Netherlands, Kuks & Bressers (2003) show how the administrative level at which ‘ownership’ of the problem was held had significant consequences for framing and strategies (e.g. whether the problem invites active intervention from the

- 326 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling not followed up due to inadequate linkages between Sydney Water, a contractor, and the local council (Sections 6.4.3.7 ‘CWP members “go political” to hold the Water Board to its promises’ & 6.4.3.8 ‘Agreement’). This suggests that when people in the key organisations were looking out for their own divergent self-interests and concerns (e.g. funding problems and delivery schedules) they were less likely to be able to work towards water cycle management in a co- ordinated manner.

In addition, the sponsoring agencies depended on external approvals. With any schemes subject to ‘veto’ by other agencies, the co-operation of these agencies was critically important to the ability to introduce innovations and/or develop sustainable water strategies. This was a particular problem for the local governments in Queensland who depended on the state government for health and regulatory approvals, guidelines and funding. But, a similar situation existed in Sydney, with Sydney Water dependent on other government departments for project approvals, funding and scheme licensing (e.g. from pricing, health, environment and/or natural resources agencies), and ultimately the Minister, each of which imposed requirements. Three examples can be cited where a lack of co-operation from other agencies presented some of the most significant obstacles to water recycling approaches.

withdrawal of approval from the Queensland Department of Environment for the release of treated effluent into Ewan Maddock Dam, which was necessary for indirect potable recycling to go ahead in the Caloundra-Maroochy case (Section 6.2.6.6),

anticipation by Sydney Water staff that the NSW EPA would have been likely to ‘hit them under the Act’ if they released recycled effluent for irrigation purposes and it found its way into local waterways in the Jamberoo valley (Section 6.5.3.5)

inability of Sydney Water to obtain the necessary funding and approval from then Minister of Environment Mr. Sartor for the irrigation recycling scheme in the Jamberoo valley (Section 6.5.3.6).

Key organisational players who were not integrated into the decision-making process could therefore severely curtail the ability of leading organisations to plan and manage the water

central government or not; or whether ‘curative’ or ‘preventative’ strategies tend to be devised at the policy level to address the problem) (p.129-130).

- 327 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling cycle. The examples above suggest that the presence of co-operation and/or competition between organisations and administrative levels of government had an important bearing on whether opportunities for integrated solutions addressing the whole water cycle were developed.

Organisational self preservation and interests

Organisations have operational requirements – ‘a common curse’ – and as such, resources must be devoted to maintain the organisation, its personnel, as well as toward goal attainment (Scott 1998, p.10). The goals and interests of key organisations in many instances appeared to run counter to each other; e.g. councils’ development interests, health departments’ public health goals, environment departments’ efforts to control impacts, water authorities concerns for supplying water or disposing wastewater, private contractors for making a profit and getting the job done and Treasury for controlling the State’s expenditure. The complexity of the organisational environment and divergent interests had a tendency to hinder co-operation needed for integrated water planning.

A general problem participants highlighted was the way traditionally ‘engineering’ oriented organisations had an interest in embedding themselves in engineering-type activity e.g. large-scale infrastructure intensive approaches (Private Consultant, Interview 120)(ex-Director Water Utility, Interview, 115). The issue of organisations attempting to protect “turf” is raised by Bardach (Bardach 1998) and is a common theme for explaining self-interested behavior in institutional performance studies. Protecting turf can be understood as strategic behavior aimed at enhancing long-term survival (Bardach 1998, p.177). Several of the strategic behaviors identified by Bardach277 in previous studies governing behavior of organisations or key groups could be identified in the present study, such as:

protecting market share (monopoly) in water services (e.g. Sydney Water wanting to ‘protect its patch’ (Private Consultant, Interview 120),

277 Bardach suggests “turf” threats may derive from: threats to job security/career enhancement; challenges to professional expertise (from laymen or rival experts in other agencies); loss of policy direction (participants likely to fight over policy if concerned about value & costs as this can influence "turf"); undermining of traditional priorities (collaboration could enhance turf, or be viewed as unwelcome competitors for existing resources or more highly valued priorities); anxiety over accountability (demands for accountability from each other which may impinge upon turf, or concerns about outcomes over which they don't have control) (Bardach 1996, p.178-9).

- 328 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

temptation to sell more water and services, not less (to maintain revenue base and dividends),

protecting a hegemony of generational employment (e.g. ‘good for continuity, bad in times of change’ (ex-Director Water Utility, Interview 115).

Generally, turf conflicts are seen as more likely to occur if there is a change of policies, programs, or if different organisational relationships are needed or anticipated (Imperial 1999). These strategic behaviors had implications for the ability to co-ordinate water planning. In these case studies, what was good from the organisation’s point of view was not necessarily good for the sustainability of water environments.

Several community participants reported that the local council’s interest in local development ran contrary to values of their communities and for some, this meant they were not the ‘true defenders of the total community’ (Community Representative 133)(Picton, CLG meeting minutes 16/5/2000). This suggests that Councils had a tendency to support reticulated sewerage because it facilitated development and increased their rating base. Local residents on the other hand were concerned about retaining the amenity and character of the town. These differences in perceived interests made it more difficult to work together towards common goals such as sustainable water uses.

7.4.1.4 Central government priorities

In all the cases, the initiatives were highly vulnerable to derailment by politicians or broader political influences. Key participants in these planning processes were seeking ways of managing the uncertainties of shifting central government priorities as well as of election cycles. Resources, funding and support followed politically defined priorities and, of course, state governments had ultimate power to give or withdraw approvals for any plans. Approvals for recycling were withheld in two out of the three cases (i.e. Caloundra-Maroochy and Jamberoo) in this study for political reasons by Ministers. Thus the political processes framing the policies, of which sewerage programs were part, could short-circuit the ability to adopt water cycle approaches.

- 329 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Elected representatives tended to act on concerns for broader public opinion. Particularly local government elected officials who were very vulnerable to shifts in support (e.g. noisy minorities), but also some state level elected representatives who were reluctant to take political risks. This lack of support for environmental works and water recycling schemes was critical in the disillusionment felt by community representatives in Picton and Jamberoo.

Ideologies and values of particular governments and/or Ministers influenced how wastewater schemes were conceived and supported. The best illustration of this influence was on subsidy structures for the sewerage programs in NSW (Picton and Jamberoo cases). A new government and Water Board (during corporatisation in the 1990s) had decided to put backlog sewerage programs onto a commercial footing thus scaling back sewerage subsidies, which had until then been accepted as part of the ‘welfare state’. Yet several years later, a change in government re-affirmed sewerage subsidies in line with party ideology for ‘protecting families and pensioners’. The political context closely affected the funding basis and project outcomes in the case studies.

The NSW case studies illustrated a general power shift towards central government control in relation to urban water management decision-making in recent years (Colebatch 1998). This was characterised by:

a tendency for increasing politicisation and scrutiny of Sydney Water’s activities by politicians (exceptional for a corporation) (see for e.g. McClellan 1998a). Cryptosporidium ‘events’ contributed to the tendency of politicians to want to ‘micro-manage’,

decreasing autonomy of senior management in statutory water organisations (executive loyalty to Ministers/central governments secured through contract-based salaries),

tighter control of funding by central government (e.g. Treasury / Finance departments) and the emphasis on short-term planning cycles.

Some of these trends were observed in the current case studies. For example, the propensity for ‘micro management’ of Sydney Water by its Minister culminated in the ‘derailment’ of the negotiated water-recycling scheme in Jamberoo in 2003. The particular political circumstances did not favor a recycling outcome at the time. Leadership on recycling was scarce: a new Minister was eager to assert his authority, little support was forthcoming from

- 330 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling entrenched segmented agencies and funding for infrastructure was much tighter. This reflected central government priorities, which seemed at odds with the agreement that had been painstakingly reached among the key stakeholders (i.e. local values for environment and social benefits of farm reuse). ‘Private’ benefits of farmers however were seen as having low priority (i.e. ‘we are not in the business of supporting farmer’s commercial activities’). Potential ‘public’ benefits were played down, such as reduced sewage disposal to the ocean that would have resulted had recycling been adopted (refer Section 6.5.3.6).

The Queensland State government tended to step back and set the boundaries for their support of council plans (i.e. through approvals, guidelines and funding) and a propensity for ‘micro-management’ of local government was less evident. This suggests that local governments in Queensland had slightly more autonomy in water cycle decisions than their counterparts in NSW. That being the case, Ministerial withdrawal of support could cripple any plans if they felt important constituent support bases were being eroded or alienated, as occurred in Caloundra-Maroochy where the Minister for Environment declined to issue a full license for the controversial indirect potable recycling strategy. Thus in both NSW and Queensland contexts, Government Ministers were responsible for the ‘veto’ of water recycling plans, not the public. Ministers did not hesitate to intervene in regional or local water planning matters if there appeared to be a conflict with their perceived priorities (which usually concerned threats to funding or constituent support bases).

7.4.1.5 Incentive structures (subsidies, rewards and pricing)

Incentives (e.g. subsidies, rewards or pricing) provide motivations for particular actions or responses. The structure of incentives of water management had a significant bearing on whether water cycle approaches were attractive or not to participants. As Bourdieu argues, institutional rules tell players what are the smart things to do in a situation. They 'tell the actor which investments are needed to play a specific game in a fashion that is both profitable and legitimate' (Bourdieu 1993 in Trommel and van der Veen 1997, p.50). While agency self- interest is expected to some extent as discussed above, incentive structures describe the overall system of rewards that structures these responses.

- 331 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

It is argued, based on document reviews and the case study evidence, that incentive structures in the NSW and Queensland water management contexts were oriented towards infrastructure intensive approaches rather than environment or sustainability outcomes, and this favoured conventional wastewater strategies. The current system of incentives discouraged water cycle management (e.g. water recycling schemes) in several significant ways:

Prices for mains water tended to be artificially low making it difficult for recycled water schemes to compete on their own merits (a particular problem in the Jamberoo case, see Section 6.5.3.6 ‘Minister’s decision on reuse scheme (2003)’),

Subsidies and payments tended to go with conventional management rather than water cycle strategies, for example;

– Queensland local government subsidies were mainly directed at upgrading or constructing conventional water/wastewater (“hard”) infrastructure, e.g. new dams or sewage treatment plants, rather than integrated water cycle approaches or the kinds of social or organisational (“soft”) changes that may have facilitated sustainability-type goals,

– the (pay per volume) fee system for disposing from on-site wastewater systems tempted many users to illegally pump out their sewage into the stormwater system. Federal Court proceedings over oyster contamination in the NSW coast illustrated the water cycle implications of these policies.

‘Perverse incentives’ motivate water agencies to sell more water (and sewerage connections) thereby increasing profits and discouraging interest in conservation and recycling (CoA 2002, p.294-5, Pigram 1986, p.116). Structuring of these incentives was evident in the present study;

– most of the revenue of the Queensland councils derives from rates and utility charges including water and sewerage (see Section 6.2.3.1 ‘Local Government institutions’); Sydney Water’s revenue was generated by selling more water (and sewerage connections),

- 332 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

– dividends from utilities are attractive sources of revenue for state Treasuries, which have a vested interest in maintaining this revenue stream (derived from selling more water and sewerage services rather than less).

These institutional structures makes it is less profitable to conserve water or introduce alternative water sources.

7.4.1.6 Regulatory/legal constraints

Regulations, rules, and their enforcement through sanctions lie in the formal regulative dimension of the institutional order but are integrally connected to prevailing organisational cultures, broader social norms and values. The case studies in NSW suggested broad trends towards an increasingly complex and constraining regulatory environment for urban water planning and management (i.e. deriving from IPART, EPA, NSW Health requirements and operating licence conditions). As illustrated in the present study, there were several major regulatory conditions affecting decisions about water-recycling:

increasingly stringent requirements controlling sewage discharges (reflecting broader public discontent with sewage outfalls, sewage overflows and concerns about pollution and contamination),

requirements to increase environmental flows from water storages (e.g. Hawkesbury- Nepean, Sydney) reflecting greater understanding of the impact of climate change on supplies (Note that water restrictions were imposed in most capital cities in Australia from 2002).

One would expect these conditions to encourage consideration of alternate water sources and/or water-recycling options (ahead of sewage disposal options). However, the relationship between institutional context and outcomes in the case studies as reflected in the discussions above, is more complex. Evidence from the case studies suggested that when these regulatory controls were weighed alongside costs (as mediated within the current context of organisational cultures, vested interests and incentives that encourage large-scale conventional approaches) recycling options often appeared more expensive.

- 333 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Increasingly stringent regulations urged consideration of alternatives, but tended to drive up the transaction costs (i.e. costs of swapping information, negotiating and monitoring agreement among the parties) (Blomquist et al. 2004) because of the need to re-negotiate the terms of each innovation. This was clear in the cases of Picton and Jamberoo where transaction costs were much higher in relation to the water recycling strategies than for well-worn conventional solutions, since participants were unfamiliar with the procedures and practices. This stemmed partly from the higher burden of proof of safety coupled with greater expense of handling water differently by a number of stakeholders, which tended to incur higher costs than conventional disposal (but of course the true environmental costs of disposal are seldom taken into account). The particular tendency of the regulatory controls combined with the economic framework for valuing water and its management was to discourage large-scale, local-scale and on-site water recycling options.

Several examples from the case studies illustrate how regulations, and their interpretation by leading organisations and regulators, could work against water recycling options:

water agency staff involved in the Picton scheme reported that the SPCC (predecessor of the NSW Environment Protection Authority) threatened to penalise the Water Board if they incorporated non-standard approaches in the sewerage system design, such as ‘non-pipes and pumps’ approaches (e.g. wetlands for stormwater remediation and/or improved on-site wastewater collection and treatment) (Section 6.4.3.4 ‘Accusations: Breaches of existing effluent discharge regulations’, para. 3).

agency staff involved in the Jamberoo scheme reflected that Sydney Water’s existing license to discharge sewage at the Bombo coastal STP made transportation to the coast the more attractive option278. For regional or local agricultural water reuse to proceed, further risk studies, ‘double handling’ and higher treatment standards would have been necessary and this drove up costs associated with the project (Section 6.5.3.5 ‘Water cycle approaches dropped from scheme’).

278 Discharge standards are much lower for ocean outfalls, than effluent discharges to inland (fresh) waters (see NSW Clean Waters Regulations).

- 334 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

grey- and black-water recycling in sewered urban areas of Queensland are still prohibited279, which limited the kinds of recycled water applications and scales considered in the Caloundra-Maroochy strategic wastewater management study (Section 6.2.6.4); this encouraged participants to favor large-scale forms of water recycling.

It should also be pointed out that some groups modified the rules. Indeed, powerful organisations can shape their regulatory environments to suit their own needs (March and Olsen 1989, 47). This was borne out in the NSW case studies where the Water Board lobbied to change the NSW Clean Waters Act discharge requirements for Class P “Protected Waters” in 1994 (refer Section 6.4.3.3 ‘Community and environment groups’ concerns’). The implications for wastewater management in the two NSW case studies were significant as this enabled conventional sewerage disposal methods to proceed.

We can conclude that regulatory regimes and their interpretation/modification by powerful agents, as illustrated from experiences in these case studies, tended to encourage the selection of conventional systems rather than alternative approaches. Powerful organisations could shape their own institutional environments, thus to some extent to support their own interests, values or goals.

7.4.2 Institutional conditions encouraging water cycle and/or water recycling

approaches

In this section, the means by which the system of governance supported people in developing shared understandings and collective responses to human impacts on the water cycle is identified. This section is not tackled with a great deal of “precision” because, as briefly touched on in Section 2.4.5 ‘New institutional theory’, the institutional literature is scarce on the nature of institutional mechanisms of change. March & Olsen (1989) for example cite several different ‘models’ for understanding institutional change, including selection, problem-solving,

279 Queensland Water Act 2000, Section 842 (5). These restrictions are currently under review.

- 335 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling learning, conflict and turnover (p.58-9)280. The following discussion draws on several of these “models”. While intentional change agents could be seen in some of these instances to be operating, the institutional environment was complex and it was difficult to say precisely who or to what extent change was being driven, or to what purpose. March & Olsen (1989) suggest that institutional changes are not so much dependent on actors having relatively clear preferences or making rational choices, as on constructing shared understandings of the problem (March and Olsen 1989, p.49 & 51). Indeed, the institutional approach points to the inter-relationship between knowledge, values and organisation, and that therefore, there is no unequivocal starting point.

Evidence from this study to some extent reflected this view: that the ability to adopt water cycle approaches seemed to depend on the capacity of the participants to develop shared interpretations of the problem at hand (cognitive), shared values placed on the collaborative process (normative) and an organisational location where collaboration was possible (regulative). While this was difficult in many cases, since participants often tended to be separated along organisational boundaries, there were some instances where these conditions materialised and helped support the construction of mutual goals among diverse participants281. This section reflects on likely conditions and drivers of change in these cases with this perspective in mind.

7.4.2.1 Opportunities for shared understanding and ‘problem framing'

Opportunities for co-operation and negotiation were an important means by which interpretations of water cycle problems were developed (but also contested by) the participants in all cases. Although organisational structuring and the dominant role of professional expertise left limited scope for community involvement in defining problems and solutions, especially early on in the negotiations, stakeholder involvement was attempted. Opening the decision

280 van de Ven & Poole (1995) offer several groupings of mechanisms by which organisational change is said to occur: life cycle (organically), evolution (competitive survival), dialectic (conflict) and teleological (co-operation) (van de Ven and Poole 1995). 281 This is not saying that these conditions and processes brought about actual improvements to water environments, but that they provided opportunities to realise such outcomes.

- 336 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling making process to a wider group of stakeholders, particularly the public, is a relatively recent phenomena in wastewater management282 practice and the tendency was to initially assume predefined technical solutions. Thus, flexibility was mainly around the design of the schemes (i.e. modification or selection from a range of expert-proposed solutions), rather than embarking on a process of engaging community on substantive policy/planning issues from the start. Nonetheless, various routines were initiated by the sponsoring agencies to consult community groups, e.g. workshops, liaison groups and public meetings. In some instances, improved consultation routines (e.g. such as those learned by Sydney Water after the experiences in Picton and applied in Jamberoo and other towns) supported the re-framing of problems by providing new situations, mixes of participants, different knowledge frameworks and the necessary resources from which accepted ideas or strategies emerged. The outcomes of these institutional ‘experiments’ however were sometimes quite unanticipated by sponsoring agencies (March and Olsen 1989, p.58). The major finding in relation to social linkages is that the more a partnership approach was taken with stakeholders from the initial stages of planning, the more likely an agreement on the nature of the problem at hand could be reached. The significance of social linkages for framing and institutional change potential is discussed here in terms of i) routine organisational linkages and ii) community consultation processes. (It should be noted that broader institutional conditions as discussed above and below, which emerged richly in the individual case study reports, are noted here only where they are seen as relevant to the discussion of sustainable water uses).

Routine inter-organisational co-operation and resources

Findings from the case studies suggested that avenues for inter-agency co-operation and agreement including routine communications, interaction and consultation on a project basis were important institutional conditions for adopting change in these cases. Collaboration is learned practice and the likelihood of future collaboration reflects the experience of previous collaboration. Although, as discussed above, competition and agency self-interest were issues,

282 We saw, for example, that the Picton consultation process as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (1991) was the first Sydney Water ever undertook for sewerage planning (apart from the deep ocean outfalls EIS) (Section 6.4.3.2). The Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (and public consultation as part of this study) was reportedly the first of its kind undertaken by the councils in question (refer Section 6.2.3.1).

- 337 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling opportunities for interaction between organisational participants did lead to more co-operation and co-ordination of management strategies in some instances. For example, strategies for wastewater reuse in the NSW and QLD cases were facilitated by:

workshops, meetings and correspondence between Sydney Water and other government departments, agencies (e.g. Environment, Health, Local Government etc) and private consultants as channels for shared problem framing and co-ordinated responses to wastewater problems,

interaction and co-operation between different groups in Caloundra and Maroochy councils (QLD) as attempts to address wastewater issues spanning the two local government jurisdictions283.

(In Picton, government agency/departmental/consultant interactions were not yet as routine or co-ordinated as in Jamberoo and the actions of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ seemed more important in bringing about change as discussed further on).

The strategies (above) did provide important potential for overcoming inherent lack of coherence in the institutional regime governing the water cycle, discussed above in relation to persistence of conventional water management284. These constitute opportunities for change and should not be seen mechanistically as leading to specific outcomes, but rather as conditions that potentially supported change through shared perspectives on problems between key groups at different levels across different organisations.

Studies of the organisational dynamic in relation to sustainable water management suggest these links are important contributors of capacity to change. For example, Bressers et al (2002) identified that clarity of roles, presence of process oriented actors and strongly organised representatives (creating ‘institutional interfaces’) and the extent to which shared knowledge and perspectives are held on problems, as the more important elements enabling change in water

283 In this last instance in Queensland, however, these opportunities were not enough to overcome the subsequent ‘veto’ – withdrawal of support – from central government participants - who had limited participation in local negotiations about wastewater management and recycling 284 i.e. responsibility for different aspects of the water cycle being dispersed across different organisations, departments, levels of government and jurisdictions and contradictory interests, policies and regulations affecting wastewater planning and management as discussed in Section 7.4.1 (‘Institutional conditions encouraging persistence of established practices ’). - 338 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling management regimes (Bressers and Kuks 2002, p.36). Other empirical work such as that reported in Brown (2003) identified strong internal and inter-agency linkages as important factors in enabling capacity of local government organisations to manage urban stormwater problems (Brown 2003, p.150 & 155). Some of the evidence from the present case studies supported these findings.

It should be noted that the present study findings suggested co-operation often helped in the realisation of agency goals, but not necessarily those of sustainability. In any case, routine interactive capacity of agency personnel at different levels in the organisations for sharing information and problem framing are seen as partly facilitating interpretive change in these complex organisational environments. However, contemporary events and issues (e.g. beach protests; drought awareness) and their timing (e.g. near elections) are also seen as significant for how problems were framed – and not separate from interactions. Efforts to frame problems around water cycle management were also conditioned by broader shifts going on among expert groups toward ecosystem/water cycle approaches (e.g. ‘reformers’), and by regulative frameworks, which could detract or support these efforts (e.g. existing standards, guidelines or procedures or practices).

Community consultation processes

There was some scope for other non-government and community groups to be involved in framing water cycle problems although professional and expert groups dominated policy and planning processes around these schemes. Nonetheless, community consultation processes were important in realising changes towards a water cycle orientation, both i) as forums for articulating and generating shared interpretations of problems (contested though these sometimes were) and ii) for developing shared goals and strategies for action. Indeed, in two of the three cases in this study, the strategy to recycle water derived from the community representatives in conjunction with other actors, rather than as a ‘top down’ strategy initiated by government groups (i.e. in relation to Picton and Jamberoo). This is because implications of human impacts on the water cycle did emerge as issues in consultation forums and on occasion led to changes to the way water cycle problems were understood or handled. These official forums for negotiation and interaction with community representatives enabled some people to

- 339 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling identify shared knowledge, values and goals, where they would otherwise have remained organisationally separate. Therefore, they are considered critical to change.

Institutional theorists point out that legitimacy is a very important quality of decision- making because it is required for the popular acceptance of any changes285. Several mechanisms are offered in the literature by which legitimacy is typically enhanced: consult the relevant people, consider the alternatives, gather information, act decisively, but prudently (Scott 1995, p.45-7, March and Olsen 1989, p.49, Adger et al. 2003, Meyer and Rowan 1977, Coenen et al. 1998, p.9). These steps appeared to have much relevance in these case studies where stakeholder involvement mechanisms had important symbolic value and primarily served as legitimacy building exercises. Whether the consultation process itself was appropriate, adequate, fair, open, etc, seemed to be an important measure of the way community participants talked of their experiences of consultation.

The efforts to consult more widely is therefore seen as deriving from both instrumental and practical reasoning on the part of agency proponents (drawing on Fiorino 1990). Instrumental in the sense that they sought to influence the institutional environment by managing a range of different expectations and uncertainties, and practical in the sense that communities were unlikely to accept any changes imposed on them without their consent. A disposition towards inclusion by agencies was reflected in broad concerns for diminishing trust in expert authority (expressed as a discourse of empowerment within the ‘community’ problem frame) and declining trust in the institutions of government (March and Olsen 1989), particularly over things considered “technical issues” (normative shifts in practice). Because of these broader shifts in the normative dimensions of practice, there were concerns about ‘delivering’ projects within certain timeframes and to certain budgets (c.f. NSW cases).

The conditions that led to the initiation of community consultation varied in each case but, were related to the rise of these contemporary discourses. The concerns related above were, for example, apparent in beach pollution protests (late 1980s in Sydney) and sewage outfall protests (mid 1990s in Caloundra). More specifically, there had been several instances of community ‘veto’ and delays due to community actions prior to or during these cases. For example, the

- 340 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling initial ‘inappropriate’ environmental impact statement (announcing agency plans for conventional sewerage) in the Picton case (NSW) had led to resounding public criticism and the need for ‘supplementary’ statements. Indeed, a senior planner involved reflected that ‘conventional’ solutions would have been uncontroversial before 1988 when the environment protests began (refer Section 6.3.4.3). Rejections of previous recycling strategies in Caboolture (1996) and Noosa (1993) in southeast Queensland were likely to have made community consultation appear essential for the proponents in Caloundra-Maroochy (1996). In the case of water recycling, the defining trigger286 causing “discontinuity” in this organisational field could therefore be explained as these and other rejections of expert proposals to recycle water by public groups (this is reflected in the increasing interest in the dynamics of public involvement in the water recycling management literature from the 1990s). Consultative processes were therefore seen as a means of generating popular commitment to official strategies, i.e. enlisting help from relevant others to achieve their goals (Stone 1997, p.243). They also gave increasingly formal legitimacy to involvement by ‘users’ (i.e. ‘the public’) who historically had played a more deferential role in Australian water management.

Despite such efforts, the legitimacy of any such process is open to dispute. In these cases, legitimacy of decisions tended to diminish, for example, if there was not enough opportunity for involvement in the initial framing of problems by diverse groups. Disputes about claims (e.g. knowledge, risk and expertise) were linked with the diminished legitimacy of processes particularly among people who were alienated from decision-making. Caloundra-Maroochy was a case in point, where opportunities for involvement of diverse ‘voices’ were rather limited especially in initial framing of the problem, over which there was much disagreement. This episode ended in a highly conservative outcome because a multiplicity of voices expressing disagreement about the nature of the problem prevented any changes being made. As Bartlett (1990) points out, community consultation can be a “worm in the brain” of any government

285 Legitimacy-building processes argue March & Olsen (1989) can help establish a legal and moral basis for decisions (March and Olsen 1989, p.49). 286 Institutional theorists talk of events triggering change in terms of “shocks” (Fligstein 1991), “jolts” (Meyer 1982), “initiating events” (Hoffman 1999), “discontinuities” (Lorange et al 1986), “legal/administrative happenings” (Hannigan1995, p.64) (in Hoffman 1999) that fundamentally challenge the assumptions in the cognitive or normative systems of actors in the organisational field.

- 341 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling because of the possibility of contestation (Bartlett 1990, p.82). However, these tensions are seen as an important part of the struggle by different groups to frame ‘the problem’ in these cases.

In the latter case, the councils were seen to be imposing ‘radical change’ (potentially, potable water recycling) without adequate consultation. Not only did this proposal start from more disparate customary and value bases than those in NSW (indirect potable reuse was not the norm), but the process of consultation was seen by opposition groups as flawed. A number of activists (e.g. CADS and some elected representatives) questioned the validity of the outcomes based on a lack of legitimacy of consultation processes. The main inadequacies cited were how it was carried out (e.g. ‘leading’ questions in the telephone survey). Several comments suggested that opposition groups thought the alternatives to the proposal had not been duly considered, risks not adequately explored and that community input was distorted (and in fact part of a ‘conspiracy to unleash a secret government program of hormone experimentation on the public’, at its most extreme). Perceived legitimacy of consultation processes was one of the main reasons why conflict arose in Caloundra-Maroochy (compared with the other case studies).

While these are the reasons inferred from opposition community activists’ comments, there was a tendency for the broader community to expect conventional approaches (not being aware of existing unplanned recycling or many of the alternatives287). The legitimacy of the Caloundra-Maroochy consultation process was seen by opposition groups to fall down on several points: not seen to be consulting all the relevant people (i.e. potentially sceptical groups), not seriously considering the alternatives (‘potable options should be a last resort’) and failing to dispel concerns about institutional capacity to manage any potential risks (we don’t trust them). A lack of trust in institutions (scientific and government) was a key issue highlighted in other recent studies of water recycling schemes288 (Marks 2003).

287 The effect of socio-cultural norms should not be underestimated when discussing change (refer to Section 7.4.1.1‘Dominant problem frame: Culture of “progress” (initial institutional conditions)’). The plan to recycle water, possibly for indirect potable use, contravened what people were familiar with, i.e. conventional approaches to water supply/disposal. 288 Marks points out the sociological dimensions of interaction that contribute to developing and maintaining trust between residents and utilities in water recycling schemes, including aligning norms and values (e.g. Marks 2004b). However, residential recycled water use in existing communities where people were able to exercise their choice by buying property in the suburb (i.e. ‘greenfields’ sites) may represent - 342 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The problem of trust in cases of water recycling reflects Irwin & Wynne’s (1996) comment in relation to risk controversies in other industrial sectors, that much of the questioning by the public “is an expression of zero trust in institutions which claim to be able to manage large-scale risks throughout society” (p.218). The experiences reported from the present case studies illustrate how issues of trust between groups are highly contextual and need to be understood as an outcome of historical interactions and the context of events.

A great deal of concern about ‘empowerment’ (not being pushed around by anyone) was also evident, particularly on the part of anti-recycling campaigners: not surprising in the context of distrust and conservatism led by One Nation. Council members, engineers/water managers and environmentalists saw quite a different problem: averting a water crisis and addressing wastewater disposal capacity problems in one hit. This view however was not shared by opposition groups. There was little indication of widespread agreement at the time that a problem with water even existed. Proponents were not able to ‘create and sustain belief in the wisdom of the chosen action’ (March and Olsen 1989, p.40). In the climate of broader political instability, this contributed to the erosion of public support (and central government support) for plans to recycle water.

In Cases 2 (a) and 2 (b), Jamberoo and Picton, community representatives tended to fall in line with the agency on most design issues, particularly because they shared the same view that problem with septic tank system overflows needed resolution (shared problem frame). However, though they agreed on the substantive need for change, there were occasions in Picton and Jamberoo when participants aired their criticisms of the process outside the official channels of consultation. Examples include the Picton community liaison group ‘going political’ and Bombo residents protesting publicly – on both occasions because agency staff had ignored a previous agreement or changed plans without input from key groups. This suggests that actions seeking to re-frame the discourse arise either because key groups were left out of the initial problem framing stages, agreements were broken or the concerns or values of key stakeholders were not reflected in decisions made.

a less arduous step along the road to developing institutional trust than is involved with a change-over of service provision in existing residential areas (i.e. ‘brownfields’ sites).

- 343 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Official channels of consultation were also ‘safe’ areas where agency plans could be shaped and re-defined by community representatives interacting with agency staff. Examples of how these facilitated water cycle changes include:

Picton: the Community Liaison Group pushed an agenda with officials ‘in house’ to recycle instead of wastewater disposal to the river. Environmental impact studies were important in generating a concern with riverine disposal in the context of deliberative consultation meetings.

Jamberoo: again water recycling was not part of the original agenda of the agency, but important changes to shared problem frames arose here – options for recycling were pushed by community representatives to avoid ocean disposal and were facilitated by efforts of community and agency staff to find a reuse outcome for farm agriculture.

These seemingly small changes suggest it is essential to remember that creating new ‘institutions’ of co-operation have the potential to facilitate change in the approach to water cycle management. It is important to note that these discussions were on much stronger ground in Picton and Jamberoo than in Caloundra-Maroochy because there was widespread agreement that the current mode of wastewater management could not persist; hence they were ‘reading from the same page’.

In general, the arenas for state-society interaction as seen in these cases provided local communities somewhat limited scope for influencing change because the scope and rules of engagement, defined by the organisations, were limited. In the case of Caloundra-Maroochy, the tendency to frame the problem too narrowly (i.e. the limited opportunity for generating shared understanding of the nature of the problem early on) meant that community input tended to come out as a ‘veto’ at the end. In all the cases, community representatives were advised that their roles were to provide ‘advice’ to the agency. A steep power and ‘knowledge gradient’ between agency staff and community representatives was recognised as an issue in some instances289. These experiences suggest if the ‘official’ forums of consultation are not adequate

289 Comments from community representatives (NSW) suggested that information coming down to them was selective and discussions were highly technical and financial, making it difficult to challenge the - 344 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling or the interpretation of problems too disparate, there were other arenas in which groups could contest and re-frame the agenda: ‘unofficial’ channels (e.g. through the Internet, media and social networks). These alternative social channels were very important in processes of re- framing the boundaries and definition of ‘problems’ and for stimulating alternative interpretations (whether towards water cycle perspectives or not).

7.4.2.2 Informal interaction and ‘unofficial’ communication channels

One of the most important findings from this study is that the less inclusive the opportunities for forming shared understandings of the problem, the more likely that groups sought channels of influence outside ‘official’ consultation channels and/or to block the process altogether. Although there is only a small evidential base provided here and many contextual factors influencing these experiences, it suggests that governing water can be understood as a process of ongoing negotiation between multiple stakeholders at different levels in the system who have different but nonetheless intersecting concerns and different resources at their disposal. Whether conflict occurred seemed to depend on the perceived legitimacy of the decision-making processes and, particularly, the opportunities for involvement in initial phases of the process. This was also suggested in research by Alterman et al (1984) who stated that the effectiveness of public involvement partly reflected the late stage in plan preparation in which participation was usually undertaken (in Barlow 1995, p.1). The present cases therefore show that contextual conditions for change not only included the kinds of questions being asked of communities but how they were being asked.

Attention is often called to the importance of informal interaction or networks for the social capacity to effect change (Woolcock 1998, p.164, Hillier 2000). Informal interaction seemed to be a significant factor in the current cases, reflecting findings from previous

agency’s propositions. Organisational structuring (Section 7.4.1.2) contributed to the exertion of authority by the water agency through the influence of engineering knowledge and culture, the tendency to shape the solutions in ‘hard engineering’ terms, and the ability to withhold money etc. These factors meant a significant differential in problem framing opportunity.

- 345 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling watershed studies290. Among the opportunities for formal social interaction in the current cases, various informal relationships based on personalised social links (rather than non-personalised roles and positions) shaped the discourse in both official and unofficial channels of communication. For example, personal social linkages became important during meetings between Bombo residents and the Jamberoo community liaison group members for diffusing tensions and re-framing the abandoned water recycling option (refer Section 6.5.3.5). This suggests that rather than going in there with deep-seated notions, people’s views developed in the context of the action291. In another example, informal social linkages in Picton were important for shaping community attitudes on the design of the sewerage scheme. In the course of interaction with green activists and key agency personnel, however, Community Working Party members attributed meaning and value, e.g. to river health and protection, as they considered the issues and made contact with other groups. In the context of wider public attention in Sydney on pollution from effluent outfalls, the Working Party subsequently developed a preference for a recycled water scheme based on the balancing of a range of values. The choice was highly structured according to agency concerns (e.g. Jamberoo was structured in terms of a recycling scheme of the agency’s choosing or none at all). But these strategies gained value in the course of interaction, and were not goals the parties came in the door with. Mention should also be made of the significance of the Internet as a mode of informal communication for those both involved and outside of official consultation activities and its role as a structuring force in the debate over recycled water292. Organisational structuring, policy arguments, symbolic elements all came into play. This suggests that institutionalisation depends not just on

290 In their review of watershed partnerships, Leach & Pelkey (2001) found that interpersonal assets, such as participants who are co-operative and committed to the process, were key themes underpinning successful watershed partnerships (Leach and Pelkey 2001). 291 The idea that the approval for the water-recycling scheme should be uncoupled from that of the sewerage scheme arose in the process of negotiation between the community representatives as mentioned here (Section 6.5.3.5 ‘Community conflict over ocean disposal’). 292 There were a number of “blogs” (i.e. web logs) running during recent water recycling controversies (e.g. Caloundra-Maroochy, www.rag.org.au [Accessed 2001]; Toowoomba, waterfutures.blogspot.com and lyles-blog.blogspot.com [Accessed 2006]; Goulburn, groups.google.com.au/group/Goulburn-Water [Accessed 2006]) with commentaries both for and against the proposals and lively debates about issues of risks, public consultation, institutions, politics, and alternatives. The significance of this ‘organic’ form of communication in shaping opinion holds much interest for those seeking to understand the sociological dimensions of water recycling.

- 346 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling formal roles and arrangements, but on understanding the dynamic nature of participant interaction and the significance for interpretation.

Stakeholder interaction, particularly in the context of community engagement, needs to be seen as a potential vehicle for change; as a problematic process where interpretations of problems and solutions are contested, highly contextual and dynamic, shaped by the institutional context in which it takes place. These institutional linkages (fostered in formal and informal interaction) are regarded as potential mechanisms for developing the shared social meaning that could support choices for more sustainable urban water strategies. This suggests a model of continuous institutional change derived from small changes like adjusting routines, conceptualising and addressing problems differently and bringing in new actors or interpretive frameworks. From this angle, change can be understood as a result of ‘mutual adjustment’ between different elements within the system of governance (Bressers & Kuks 2003, p.76). However, in water recycling cases explored in this study, these processes were substantially shaped in an institutional context dominated by technical and financial knowledge that held few incentives to adopt urban water cycle approaches.

7.4.2.3 Leadership and commitment

Leadership and commitment of key figures (‘institutional entrepreneurs’ or ‘champions’) are a much-discussed contributor of change in institutional literature. Pettigrew (1979) defines ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ as those who take responsibility for mobilising people and resources to initiate, give purpose to, or manage change (Pettigrew 1979), which is adopted in this discussion. In these cases, this description reflected characteristics of some government and non-government/community actors. While the notion of entrepreneurs is not separate from the issues discussed above, the activities of ‘leaders’ in encouraging normative commitment of a group or groups to change seemed a very important for the institutionalisation of water cycle perspectives in the case studies. There were of course leaders active in relation to various causes, and some were less concerned with water issues than with empowerment and entitlement issues (e.g. lead activists who set up Citizens Against Drinking Sewage (CADS) in Caloundra). The roles of those who played a part in moving forward sustainability concepts and norms are considered here. Several kinds of leaders stood out: those whose ideas inspired others

- 347 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling to think differently about a problem; those committed to a particular (more sustainable) goal, those committed to community involvement in the process and those who did all these things. This is contrasted with a tendency for apparent lack of ‘leadership’ for water cycle approaches from politicians and elected figures particularly in relation to potential water recycling opportunities (not always, but generally) in these cases (refer Section 7.4.1.4).

Leaders were important in shaping values, aligning goals and maintaining commitment of actors in uncertain situations. The Managing Director of the Sydney Water Board (1987-1993) (Picton case, NSW) could be credited with both inspiring people to think differently about human impacts on the water cycle and pulling together diverse groups to make agreements. He seemed to have facilitated the Rouse Hill recycling project in 1987 and exerted significant influence over the formative stages of the Picton backlog sewerage scheme (1990-92), which set new standards (social norms) for community involvement in backlog sewerage projects. Commitment to the idea of ‘water cycle’ approaches began in the sub-culture of the sponsoring organisation (among some engineers and environmental scientists – ‘reformers’). Support for community consultation in Picton was important in pushing cultural change in the organisation as well as it raised the profile of integrated water cycle thinking among some people of considerable authority (see Section 6.4.3.1). Wilson’s advocacy was important in demonstrating to Picton community representatives that their concerns about river protection mattered and that effluent recycling was an appropriate mitigating measure. This calls attention to the ‘institutional entrepreneur’ in their social context as change agents.

Important leaders were present at middle levels of organisations as well and among community representatives. In Picton, a dedicated staff member from the agency encouraged (and kept) agreements with the community liaison representatives during a long period of uncertainty (i.e. major corporate governance changes the sponsoring organisation was undergoing) during which members had reportedly suffered ‘burnout’ from over-commitment in the consultation process. This person - referred to as ‘the stayer’ by a community representative - tended to act as a link between the community liaison members and senior management in the sponsoring organisation. The process of community engagement in Jamberoo was more streamlined, making communication more consistent inside the organisation and with external groups, through the use of professional stakeholder managers.

- 348 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Local government managers/engineers who ventured to involve stakeholders for the first time in wastewater decisions in Queensland were also ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ in a sense, though failed to effectively incorporate diverse community values into their initiative. Important also, were the opinion leaders of the various communities (in the NSW cases) who were able to unify people by lending meaning and articulating goals to the broader community in relation to environmental outcomes (e.g. Community Representatives 127 & 133). The importance of effective leaders for building relationships and encouraging better water use in these cases is supported by findings from previous empirical studies on what makes effective watershed partnerships (Leach and Pelkey 2001).

7.4.2.4 Evolving change: ‘Turnover’ of staff

Changes in the types of professional groups staffing the agencies was part of broader ongoing social change and worth mentioning as it facilitated water cycle thinking in the sponsoring organisations, e.g. new personnel (normative changes supported with regulative changes to practice). ‘Turnover’ as a contributor could be seen as an additional element facilitating change in these complex institutional environments and not separate from the other mechanisms discussed (March and Olsen 1989, p.59). This phenomenon was identified in the accounts of some of the retired Directors and Managers of water authorities who participated in this study. This change mechanism is seen as a broad change process occurring in much of the Australian water sector. Less specific evidence was available to explain how this mechanism was occurring in Queensland’s local government water authorities than for the other cases (not because it was not happening, but because there was not enough evidence gathered). Recruitment of new personnel with different professional training into the organisations brought a new mix of participants with different attitudes and contributed to shifts in the conceptualisation of problems. Probably the best example was the increasing emphasis on multi-disciplinarity in the Sydney Water Board with increasing numbers of environmental scientists, planners and communicators recruited from the late 1980s. Managing Directors of ‘engineering’ organisations no longer had to be professionally trained engineers rising through the ranks. The example of the ‘non-engineer’ managing director of the Water Board and his ‘reformer’ groups suggested this diversity contributed, for example, to efforts to incorporate

- 349 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling stormwater management controls into the Picton sewerage scheme design. This influenced organisational culture and discourse and thus routines and roles though there is not enough information in this study to say whether and to what extent this was an intentional plan by someone or as a result of stable processes or unanticipated by-products of other actions. Nonetheless, several participants of the NSW cases reported ‘changing of the guard’ as facilitative of the capacity to conceptualise the water cycle as a whole and a willingness to put in place routines to engage communities.

7.4.2.5 Regulatory arrangements supporting water cycle strategies

In Section 7.4.1.6 ‘Regulatory/legal constraints’ evidence was presented with respect to how institutional structuring penalised people and groups for choosing options that reflected sustainability outcomes in several instances in the planning processes featured in the study, thus perpetuating conventional unsustainable water management. Significant structural and cultural resistance to change were characterised as – vested interests and incentive structures, generational employment, agency competition, central government priorities and regulatory constraints.

The following are broad policy and structural changes arising in the current analysis that appeared to encourage more sustainable urban water management strategies, particularly water recycling:

incorporating environmental ‘externalities’293 (i.e. of water extraction and wastewater disposal) into the price of water services (in line with the objectives of the CoAG water reforms)294. This notion seemed increasingly to encourage people to think about pricing issues and if fully implemented is likely to enable alternative sources to compete on their own merits.

293 Costs of environmental damage unaccounted for in the price of the service. 294 Presently, only the cost of treatment works are included in the price of water, not the value of the actual water resource itself.

- 350 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

the removal of inconsistencies in regulations governing urban water recycling practice, such as the legal impediments banning black- and greywater recycling in sewered urban areas in some state jurisdictions295,

the introduction of integrated planning controls so that water conservation, domestic reuse and efficiency were incorporated into new building design approval processes, e.g. the Building and Sustainability Index (BASIX)296.

the creation of national guidelines for domestic greywater and/or blackwater reuse systems (currently these are the responsibility of individual local councils),

National agreements and funding towards better and more efficient urban water management, including through increased use of water recycling and stormwater (such as the Water Smart Australia bids as part of the National Water Initiative introduced in 2004).

7.5 Conclusion

The significance of aspects of the institutional context for the ability to adopt water cycle approaches have been discussed drawing out key themes from the case study reports of water recycling initiatives presented in the previous chapter. Institutional and governance theories for explaining stability and change in water governance systems were explored and similarities and differences between the case studies were highlighted. In general, the analysis showed that multiple competing discourses emerged in these processes of governing water. Social actors tended to construct policy issues as they participated by drawing on different interpretive frameworks that embodied different underlying values and norms. When these understandings were more divergent, disagreement and conflict was more likely. However, the more a partnership approach was taken with organisational and community stakeholders from the initial stages, the more likely an agreement on the nature of the problem could be reached. This suggests opportunities for attaining a sense of shared meaning was a very important enabling

295 At the time of writing, Queensland’s Department of Health was revising this restriction and it is expected that alternatives to sewer water disposal may soon be allowed in certain circumstances. 296 BASIX was introduced in 2004 in Adelaide and Sydney and is seen as a step in the right direction likely to encourage water efficiency and recycling practices. However, new properties only represent 5% of housing stock in Sydney and this would ideally be extended to upgrades/extensions of existing houses.

- 351 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling condition for institutional change. However, the existing institutional base for managing water tended to support the established order of vested interests, cultures and conventional practices that detracted from making choices that were more sustainable. Integrated water cycle approaches were often overlooked due to the fragmented organisational structuring, in which agencies pursued separate agendas. Divergent interpretations of problems held by participants were reflected in this organisational structuring. Therefore, despite some evidence of institutional capacity for change and the importance of institutional entrepreneurs in this, the organisational base for managing water held few incentives for water cycle approaches as advocated in sustainability discourses. There were many factors identified (spanning regulative, normative and cognitive dimensions of practice) that influenced whether these approaches were adopted.

- 352 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

- 353 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

8 Implications and conclusions

8.1 Introduction

This final chapter provides a summary and discussion of the outcomes of this study. In the previous chapter, insights were drawn out as to how institutions and systems of water governance support (or constrain) sustainable water management options in the analysis of three recycled water case studies. The analysis established that governing water is a complex process involving continuing negotiation and interaction among a range of stakeholders and groups. The social construction of problems by participants in the institutional framework was found to be an important part of institutional change. Implications and conclusions flowing from this analysis are discussed in this chapter. The first section recapitulates the research aims, background and key outcomes of the study. Contributions made by this research to understanding social problems in water recycling are then elaborated. The last section looks to the future with a discussion of how the study findings could benefit urban water recycling practice in the context of sustainable water use.

8.2 Study outcomes

In this study, a more fine-grained analysis than is currently available in water recycling of the way that various stakeholder groups interact and construct urban water problems in the institutional context of Australian water management was developed. The case of urban water recycling was used to examine this empirically.

In the introduction, the problem of ‘public acceptance’ of water recycling was identified as an issue for the water industry. The discussion of previous social research relating to this problem in Chapter 2 suggested that little empirical and analytical work had been done to evaluate stakeholder interaction in relation to water recycling planning processes. Rather, the tendency was for questions of sustainability and water use to be addressed as a particular problem with ‘the public’ – or public attitudes - rather than a manifestation of a broader problem of water governance. An evaluation of social science/interdisciplinary approaches for

- 354 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling understanding problems of social co-operation was then undertaken in Chapter 2. Avenues were explored for viewing water use and management as part of a broader social system in which various stakeholders and groups have competing but overlapping interests. Theoretical governance and institutional organisational concepts were therefore incorporated into a framework for analysis of the empirical work. This framework highlights knowledge, understanding and interpretation (cognitive) as key elements in the stabilisation of social practice which are closely linked to values (normative) and organisation (regulative) (Scott 1983, 1995, March and Olsen 1989).

Given that the historical context is important in institutional theory, these concepts were applied in Chapter 3 to describe the historical trajectory of water management in Australia. How the institutional context of Australia’s water management had its historical roots in bureaucratic forms of governance but evolved into more managerial and corporate forms in recent years was explored in this chapter. The marginal role of the community in traditional water management was highlighted as well as the considerable degree of professional autonomy and discretionary judgement exercised by engineers in carrying out water functions.

Recent interest in managing the water cycle was elaborated in Chapter 4 with a discussion of the implications of sustainable water management discourses for practice and research. The increased importance given to recycling water – described as ‘closing the loop’ - in a sustainability context was emphasized and reflects changing values and understandings about human impacts on the water cycle. It was explained in this discussion how there was increasing ambiguity in the role of ‘the community’ and concerns among practitioners for the participation of other groups in water conservation tasks. Although there was less appreciation for the social and institutional challenges that this would entail, there was significant interest in technological innovation. This raised key questions for water management practice in Australia. How does this institutional context mediate the ability to pursue sustainable water use, particularly in the case of urban water recycling? An overview of a small range of recent empirical work underscored the importance of examining this question from a governance perspective. However, these perspectives are just beginning to be appreciated in the urban water recycling field. Therefore, the need for additional empirical work on the practicalities of user involvement in sustainable water management was highlighted as an area of need and one to which this thesis could contribute. - 355 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

This gave rise to the research problem for this thesis – how do institutional mechanisms contribute to the ability to adopt water cycle approaches with particular reference to the issue of recycled water – as articulated in Chapter 5. Several research questions were framed around this goal: How do people frame problems in water recycling? How does the institutional base support or constrain opportunities for urban water recycling? (A summary of research aims and outcomes is provided in Table 8.1). Given the likelihood of different perspectives on problems in water recycling, it was argued that an interpretive analytic approach was justified in order to explore these questions further in relation to three in-depth case studies. An exploratory approach (using open ended research questions) was necessary because of the small amount of research of this type available to guide the study. The analysis of water recycling cases drew on institutional theory and interpretive methods, which sees interpretation as one element (the cognitive element) in the stabilisation of social practice and closely linked to values (the normative element) and organisation (the regulative element).

Using this approach, empirical investigations of experiences of water recycling in three case studies were presented in Chapter 6. This illuminated in detail the ways in which water use problems were constructed and negotiated by participants in the institutional context. Particular attention was given to the way water recycling was framed by different stakeholders and groups in the system of governance and the significance of the multiplicity of interpretive frameworks in use for the institutionalisation of this practice.

Broad themes characterising the influence of institutions on the ability to adopt water cycle strategies were drawn out as they emerged from the empirical data reflecting themes discussed in institutional literature. This analysis illustrated how competing interpretive frameworks may be brought to bear on questions of water use and highlighted the fact that having opportunities to frame or contest the nature of the problems is a normal and necessary part of the governing process. Evidence from the case studies showed that there were many different perspectives on water use problems. In these case studies, at least five different policy narratives could be identified as relevant to the issue of recycled water (categorised as ‘traditional’, ‘reformer’, ‘economic’, environment’ or ‘community’ models) (Tables 6.1 & 6.2). Characteristics of these frames and how particular groups drew on them in order to construct problems were found to be case specific. Conflicts tended to follow divergences in

- 356 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling interpretations and values for water held by different groups reinforced by the separation of the groups.

The case study of Picton in Chapter 6 showed that the community representatives developed a sense of shared purpose out of which an irrigation recycling strategy for maintaining river health emerged, balanced against the convenience afforded by centralised sewage collection and requirements of the Clean Waters Regulations. Interaction with environment group representatives and those in the agency holding ‘reformer’ views was critical to the development of a shared interpretation of the problem that supported the approach, as was the use of a multi-criteria analysis for articulating and trading off competing values (Section 6.4.3.8). Similarly, the case study of Jamberoo showed the importance of providing opportunities for stakeholders and the community to articulate their values and for these values to be recognised in the planning process (Section 6.5.3.5). Together, these groups saw that their goals could be achieved through recycling water for irrigation, but this was not a goal that they came “in the door” with. This suggests that interpretations are not ‘given’ but are a practical and continuing issue – constructed in the process of interaction. If interpretations are part of a dynamic social process of constructing meaning and of structuring practice, possibilities are presented for social change through improved interaction or ‘policy learning’ (Rein and Schon 1994). Social construction of problems by participants in this institutional framework was therefore found to be of critical importance for institutional change.

The aim of this work was to assess the extent to which institutional mechanisms contributed to the ability to adopt water cycle approaches, with a particular focus on what could be learned from the case of water recycling. The argument made in this thesis is that the collective action problems, as illustrated in the case studies, arise as a result of normal water management practice, meaning that key processes and assumptions underlying dominant modes of practice in the water industry may be part of the problem. In particular, they arise from a tendency not to conceive of the water cycle as a whole, and to see the different elements as separate functions vested in different agencies, while users are seen simply as consumers who are not involved in the governing process. This suggests that institutionalising sustainability into water management is likely to depend on significant changes at different levels in the organisational framework, taking note of normative and cognitive dimensions of practice.

- 357 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

The focus on influencing public acceptance of water recycling reflects this existing institutionalisation of water management practice in which water use is often seen in terms of separate technical aspects of supply and disposal. This is reflected in the three dimensions of contemporary institutions governing practice:

the dominance of supply/disposal technical knowledge with recycling/reuse knowledge not as established (cognitive),

community and professional expectations which tend to assume government responses to this problem in the traditional supply side manner rather than shared responsibility and conservation (normative), and

the main organisations supporting practice being professional expert-based monopolies with a history of water supply/disposal goals underpinned by legal systems, incentive structures and fragmented organisational management of the water cycle (regulative).

Applying institutional theory to improve analysis of how and why collective action problems occur in relation to water recycling in this study constitutes a positive contribution to the field of urban water recycling and management because institutional analysis can give a better account of the case studies than alternative theories. The ‘public acceptance’ theory assumes public attitudes can be addressed by providing better information about water recycling technology and the associated scientific risks297. The findings of this study, in contrast, illustrate how it is important to see ‘water management’ problems as continuing, dynamic processes of social interaction and interpretation in which framing and stances are not ‘givens’ but develop and change in the process of interaction. Analysing governing processes to understand problems of public opposition to recycling schemes means recognising and incorporating the ‘system of water governance’ into the analysis and seeing interactions in this system as dynamic processes of governing human interaction with the water cycle. An analysis of the governing ‘process’ led to better understanding of why water-recycling initiatives are difficult to move forward. This suggests therefore that change towards more sustainable water use depends on understanding interactivities between the three dimensions of social practice: stakeholder understandings and

297 An analysis of the assumptions and implications engendering this view are elaborated in Stenekes et al. (2006), reprinted in Appendix (7).

- 358 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling shared meaning (cognitive), social norms and values (normative) and organisational context (regulative). The analysis of participant ‘frames’ in the development of motivations, values and the relationship with social interaction around water recycling initiatives illustrates that we should view these as dynamic social problems. This approach provides a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the way that institutional contexts constrain and/or facilitate change than exists in the current practice of water recycling.

The conventional wisdom that sees this as a relatively well-defined problem of changing public attitudes is therefore less well supported by the empirical evidence. Given that institutional change is unlikely to depend on a decision by one group or agency, this implies that change would require constructive engagement of different people and groups in the governing process. This suggests an emphasis purely on conveying information (cognitive), as is found in much literature on public acceptance (whereby information is given to the public to change ‘misconceptions’ about risk), will be insufficient to generate social change. The transition towards more sustainable water use is likely to require change in all the dimensions of practice, i.e. cognitive, normative and regulative – including appropriate incentives and spaces to develop shared understanding (regulative) between stakeholders and the public.

The case studies suggested that conflict between stakeholder groups was related to interpretive divergences and alienation from the decision-making processes as a result of their tendency to be organisationally separated. The case studies in Chapter 6 showed that opportunities for more explicit articulation and negotiation of participant’s interpretation and values relating to water recycling – and importantly, the value trade-offs involved with various options – was a key ingredient supporting the ability to realise changes. This conclusion supports findings in other empirical studies that the development of shared goals between stakeholders and the presence of effective organisational linkages are conditions favouring the ability to realise changes for sustainability (refer Section 4.5.5).

We can conclude therefore, that it is helpful to understand these problems, characterised in terms of risk perception, building trust, legitimacy and knowledge, as being ‘socially constructed’ by different stakeholder groups involved in the action and that people’s responses are highly dependent on the situation. Participants’ preferences are thus not ‘givens’ but are a continuing and contested issue. This suggests that involvement in sustainable water use

- 359 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling initiatives such as water recycling is a learning process and that interaction and deliberation is critical for social change. The study therefore illustrates the importance of providing opportunities for inter-linkages between different institutional actors for social change to happen. It suggests early problem framing and more comprehensive engagement to build relationships and trust may help overcome these tendencies for separation and social conflict.

Rather that treating these conflicts as aberrations, this analysis linked problems in water recycling to the historical and institutional base for water management in Australia. This leads to quite different set of recommendations for policy and practice than changing ‘attitudes’. The implications of this analysis of problems in water recycling are that moving towards more sustainable or alternate practices is likely to be part of a continuous feedback loop between interpretation by actors and re-structuring in the context of action – a dynamic learning process so to speak. This draws on the notion that both people can influence structures, but that institutions are also socialising people (Giddens 1984). This contrasts with the more dominant perspectives in water recycling that tend to see this problem as one of influencing attitudes of specific groups and a tendency to assume that preferences are pre-existing.

- 360 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Table 8.1 Summary of major study aims and outcomes

Central research problem: How could the system of water governance in Australia be changed to encourage sustainable water use through water recycling? The aim of the study was to assess the way institutional mechanisms contributed to the ability to adopt water cycle approaches, with a particular focus on what could be learned from the case of water recycling. Research questions Key outcomes 1. How did people The first outcome of the empirical work in relation to the first research question was interpret or frame that governing water is a contested and continuing process of interaction involving urban water a range of different actors (i.e. individuals and organisations) at different levels in the recycling problems system engaged negotiating their competing objectives, values and interpretations. in their social The case studies illustrated that a range of different ‘publics’ have the potential to context? become involved in water recycling in any particular case. Different interpretive groups were characterised in Tables 6.1 & 6.2 and were found to be highly contextual. Another finding in relation to research question 1 was that interpretations of participants were continually re-negotiated in the action. Interpretations of water cycle problems, as in the case of water recycling, developed as participants became involved and exposed to different knowledge bases, value systems and accepted practices (i.e. norms). 2. How does the The analysis in Chapter 6 and 7 illustrated that there were few mechanisms in these institutional base systems of water governance to compel participants to build agreements and develop support or mutual trust. Participants of these case studies tended to be separated along constrain organisational lines, making it more difficult for them to reach an understanding and opportunities for to agree on appropriate courses of action. urban water Institutional structures tended to discourage water cycle thinking and management recycling? strategies by narrowing the opportunities for negotiation and the alternative options available to participants. Elements of the systems of water governance that tended to diminish opportunities for water cycle strategies included: o disjunctions in the regime for governing water, o organisational cultures characterised by instrumental supply and disposal knowledge/values, o incentive structures discouraging innovation (subsidies, rewards and pricing), o generational employment patterns and vested interests. There was also evidence that competition between agencies, a lack of political will / central government priorities and direct regulatory impediments hindered the adoption of water cycle approaches (Section 7.4.1, Table 7.1). However, there was evidence of trends in water management towards ‘thinking’ in terms of sustainability. Conditions in the institutional context encouraging change were harder to identify, but tended to relate to providing opportunities for interaction and understanding between diverse participants in the process (Section 7.4.2, Table 7.2). Other drivers that appear to have encouraged opportunities for water cycle strategies in the recycling case studies included: o recognising the importance of informal interaction, o the use of communication channels (e.g. media/Internet), o evolving changes such as staff turnover, o the actions of institutional champions and streamlining guidelines, and o making regulation for water recycling consistent.

- 361 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

8.3 Contributions

As indicated in the above sections, several contributions arise from this research; i) improved synthesis/analysis of particular social problems in water recycling that is not widely recognised, ii) the use of an institutional theoretical approach to understand conditions of broad social change relevant to this problem, and iii) use of a relatively innovative investigative methodology to examine a problem for engineering practitioners.

i) Synthesis/analysis of problem: The study provided a more fine-grained analysis of episodic problems in urban water recycling than conventional perspectives that see acceptance by the public as the main obstacle preventing the uptake of alternative or sustainable water use practices. The major contribution is the recognition, and inclusion in the analysis, of the presence of multiple stakeholders in negotiating water issues. The approach taken in this study was to explore the ways in which various stakeholder groups construct urban water problems and interact with each other in the institutional context of water management. This was important for the analysis of the dynamics of interpretation, and the links with values and organisational structuring. This analysis contributed a better understanding of the potential for recycled water schemes to facilitate sustainable water use by focussing on barriers but also enablers of water recycling. Collection and synthesis of documentation on the three stand-alone case studies of water recycling initiatives is another contribution. The structure of the case reports enriches the knowledge base in this emerging field of enquiry. Social information provided in the case reports may provide useful primary material for academics, researchers, managers or policy-makers grappling with sustainable water use problems. This enriches the debate about the potential role of water recycling, adding to the growing number of case study investigations (e.g. DWR 2002).

ii) Application of theory in relatively new area: Drawing on institutional dimensions of practice as identified by Scott (1995) (i.e. cognitive, normative and regulative) lends a relatively new understanding of the way social institutions influence change in the field of sustainable water management and water recycling practice in particular. The aim of the study was to assess the way institutional mechanisms contributed to the ability to adopt water cycle approaches, with a particular focus on what could be learned from the

- 362 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

case of water recycling. Institutional analysis contributed a better understanding of the conflicts in water recycling than ‘public attitudes’ implied. It enabled greater understanding of how interaction between these dimensions contributes to or detracts from the ability of social actors to take water cycle strategies.

iii) Interpretive methods: Interpretive analytic methods for exploring this problem empirically is a relatively innovative social research approach in urban water recycling where the tendency is to focus on ‘scientific’ as distinct from ‘public’ perceptions without much analysis of what generates these perceptions. A more sophisticated set of tools for investigating state-community interaction (or conflict) has been developed in this study. The contribution made by the interpretive analytic approach is twofold. Firstly, it enabled greater recognition of the presence of multiple policy narratives people use to make sense of water use problems in three case studies, and the significance for practice. It revealed many narratives, not just one or two in each case, revealing the ‘public’ is more accurately represented as different groups. Secondly, it helped to clarify the claims and counter claims made by different groups through the organisational framework as they made sense of issues. Thus it contributed greater clarity and understanding of how interpretive groups construct reality. Plausible categories were developed of the way different stakeholder groups constructed problems of water use and the idea of water recycling, and this showed up the divergences (i.e. the potential for conflict). Interpretive analytic methods were also strengthened through more explicit combination with institutional theory, as standardised in Scott’s (1995) approach. Interpretations (articulated through discourses298) were regarded as one of the three pillars of institutions – equivalent to the cognitive dimension - which Scott defined as the shared constructs, categories and typologies people use to understand problems. Seeing interpretation as important to the way practice is structured contributes a relatively new approach to investigating problems in this area.

- 363 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Effectiveness of the approach

The institutional-governance approach coupled with interpretive methods was a useful combination providing a relatively new means of analysing problems in this field. The study sought to identify multiple contending interpretations of water recycling problems and how these related to the structuring of practice. This approach allowed these links to be made. One possible challenge for researchers applying the institutional approach lies in the conceptual separation of the analysis into three dimensions (i.e. ‘pillars’). While this is recommended by Scott (1995) for analytic purposes and serves to assist the thinking process and strengthen the theoretical foundation, there is much complexity in the interaction between them at the empirical level. Managing this complexity to develop integrated findings across the pillars may present a challenge for the applied practitioner. The approach illustrated in this study, has been useful for understanding the importance of the governance system and the interdependencies between the institutional elements of practice: meaning (cognitive), values (normative) and organisation (regulative). It elicited institutional conditions that seemed to constrain or enable water cycle approaches, particularly mediating the potential contribution of water recycling to sustainability. This is an improvement on analyses often found in literature on public involvement in water recycling that tend to give statistical breakdowns of perceptions or likely acceptance of plans by the public on the basis of age, gender, income etc, but neglect the organisational dimension of practice. Therefore, this study complements available social studies.

Transferability of study findings

Findings were not intended to provide statistical inference but to identify the way water institutions and systems of governance support sustainable water management options. Thus the research was aimed at addressing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions relating to water recycling practice, which have been neglected in this field of study. As Yin (2003) points out, a valid mode of generalisation under these circumstances is ‘analytic generalisation’ in which previously developed theory is used to compare empirical results from case studies (Yin 2003,

298 Recall that discourses were described as the systems of ideas, power or knowledge underlying practices, drawing on Foucault (1986). Scott (1995) & others regarded the cognitive pillar as

- 364 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

p.32-3). These findings offer generalisations and transfers of lessons in a way that respects the specifics and context of the issue at hand, but allows comparisons with other cases.

8.4 Towards better practice

The study findings have implications for the way that practitioners approach change in a water management context. This study suggests that a shift to more sustainable patterns of urban water use would mean recognising users as significant participants in the process of governing water, and ensuring that the system of governance reflects this. The case studies illustrate, however, that both users and officials may not be ready for greater involvement in decision- making in relation to alternative water systems, such as recycling. The problem of advancing sustainable water uses is thus not a matter of simply inventing technical solutions and marketing them in the right way, but requires substantial institutional change over a period of time.

Key areas of effort suggested from the analysis would include:

Improving interaction between diverse stakeholders to facilitate shared understanding of water problems, for example, earlier more deliberative public involvement in decision- making, and

Organisational, policy and regulatory changes to support stakeholder inclusion and the co- ordination of water cycle functions, so that opportunities for realising the alternatives are not missed.

In this thesis, it is argued that enabling sustainable water management concerns the organisational dimension of practice, i.e. the dynamics of water governance. If difficulties arising in water recycling initiatives are viewed as a product of the organizational context of practice as the outcomes of this thesis suggest, this would have more extensive consequences for practitioners than simply obtaining acceptance or rejection of their water recycling plans (Russell 2006). Both of these changes suggest very different water institutions will be needed than we currently have.

The case studies clearly show that external groups have considerable ‘veto’ power over proposals for change and therefore that considerably more attention needs to be given to the negotiative and interactive element of governing, i.e. the institutional context. In practice, this

- 365 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling may mean that the role for government groups and professionals becomes one of facilitating change, paying more attention to co-ordination and the development of understanding of problems by diverse stakeholder groups, rather than seeking acceptance of plans from particular groups. This means taking seriously the proposition that users are significant participants in decision-making processes. It suggests more inclusive governance models will be needed in order to build opportunities for constructive public engagement on water sustainability issues. This has implications for the way that professionals relate to the public and how they carry out their duties.

Potential for more interactive relationships between agents of utility sectors and users (i.e. domestic consumers) has been conceptualised in recent work on ‘co-management’. This term encapsulates the ‘joint management of the commons’, where responsibility for managing resources is shared between the State and a community (Carlsson and Berkes 2005). As we saw in the case of water recycling, there are multiple diverse groups involved in negotiating in the system of water governance at different levels drawing on different interpretations, strategies and resources. Therefore, it is useful to point out that the principle underpinning the institution is to facilitate continuous joint problem-solving, which emphasises the function of the institution rather than specifying a particular structure of organising. This idea may provide a guiding principle for practitioners interested in developing conditions that enable water cycle approaches.

This contrasts with the traditional role of users in water management, and other utility services, as passive consumers. This is partly a result of the institutional context of (normal) water management in which water services were organised and delivered by professionally- based state run water providers with, traditionally, few links to the public and significant discretion in decision-making. However, as suggested by the analysis of this problem in this study, such sharing of responsibility may be necessary in order to encourage more sustainable water uses. In water recycling there is considerable potential for involving users more effectively in both the planning and operation stages of projects. For example, Marks (2006) proposes institutionalizing residents’ or home owners’ associations to assist in the management of existing recycled water systems (i.e. giving information, monitoring and feedback) for the safe use of water and improving the system (Marks 2006). Institutionalising the participation of users or potential users into planning or operations need not entail huge changes, such as re- - 366 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling drawing the whole system of governance, but may involve less ‘heroic’ transitions over a period of time (March and Olsen 1989, p.58).

For practitioners, harnessing these opportunities for involvement/interaction may mean adopting a more self-critical stance by regularly and profoundly challenging taken-for-granted assumptions of practice. There is a need to look, for example, at mechanisms by which practitioners and other stakeholders can challenge and learn from each other in the context of decision-making. This could draw on Habermas’ model of ‘communicative action’299 in which open forums for free speech are seen as a basis for learning and challenging norms and assumptions (Habermas 1987), thereby providing scope for change.

8.5 Directions for future research

This research raises particular topics/propositions of interest for further research. The study findings suggest complex interactions between discourses (national mood, political rhetoric, movements), communication channels (e.g. Internet/media) and local events. Further examination of how broader societal discourses influence actors’ interpretations of water issues and contribute to the structuring of practice is suggested as a research focus. This could extend, for example, to globalisation discourses and links with local institutionalisational processes.

A second area of interest for research may be the potential for long-term user involvement in managing sustainable water use systems. In this study, the question was whether governance systems provided potential to adapt or adopt alternative water use or reuse practices. However, user participation in on-going management of alternative schemes after they are adopted is a social change issue not widely evaluated in the urban water field, but likely to become increasingly important. Thus a relevant research proposition might look at the potential for long- term ‘co-management’ of alternative systems by diverse groups, i.e. what would be necessary for various models of governance to work. Co-management is a situation where management responsibility for a resource is shared between the State and one or more resource user groups (Carlsson and Berkes 2005, World Bank 1998, p.11) and amounts to an acknowledgement of

299 Such principles and collaborative mechanisms are increasingly being discussed in the planning literature (e.g. Webler and Tuler 2000) (Phelps and Tewdwr-Jones 2000).

- 367 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling the reality of multiple local interests and government agencies involved in governing resources. This research would necessarily depend on the availability of such a situation for study, i.e. where effective ‘power-sharing’ governance arrangements were in place in relation to a water resource.

Interpretive methods elaborated and applied in this study offer new and rich grounds for further research into social change processes not widely utilised in the urban water recycling social research field. An advantage of the approach is that no single position is privileged in the analysis of how diverse groups construct problems. Aspects of the interpretive research method could be adapted for exploring how discourses are constructed and how they influence social change processes in other contexts and localities thereby contributing a richer, broader understanding of institutional change in urban water management. Interpretive analytic methods offer valuable approaches and insights for policy-makers and practitioners about how institutional interventions could be best directed to encourage social change for sustainable water uses. These methods are also likely to become more important as researchers come to terms with the implications for practice of the highly contextual elements of institutional change.

- 368 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

9 References

(2002) Graham Barclay v Ryan. ALR. High Court of Australia. ABS (2000) Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices (Cat. no. 4602.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ [Accessed Jul 2004] ABS (2001) Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ [Accessed 2001] ABS (2003) Queensland in Review, Population Characteristics, Population size and distribution, 1859 to 2001, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ [Accessed Jul 2004] ABS (2004) Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices (Cat. No. 4602.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ [Accessed Jan 2006] Adger, WN, K Brown, J Fairbrass, A Jordan, J Paavola, S Rosendo & G Seyfang (2003) Governance for sustainability: towards a `thick' analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 35: 1095-110. AEC (2004) A Brief History of the Beattie Labor Government, Australian Electoral Commission. [Accessed May 2004 2004] Agsol Pty Ltd (2001) Jamberoo Priority Sewerage Program Development of Reuse Scheme Options. In: L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. (Ed.) Bombo STP Effluent Reuse Capability Assessment for Sydney Water, 2003. Sydney. Aird, WV (1961) Ed. The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, Sydney: Halstead Press. Amy, DJ (1990) Decision Techniques for Environmental Policy: A Critique. In: Paehlke, R & D Torgerson (Eds.) Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State London: Broadview Press Anon (1996) Time for silent to speak. Sunshine Coast Daily. 17 April, Caloundra. Anon. (1996a) Coast drinks its recycled water. Sunshine Coast Daily. 11 July, Maroochydore. Anon. (1996b) News Release: Caloundra-Maroochy Wastewater Management Study calls for community participation. (10 April). Anon. (1996c) Opinion divided on recycled water. Sunshine Coast Daily (unclear). 24 July, Caloundra. Anon. (1998a) Seat by seat: Caloundra. Sunshine Coast Daily. 12 June, Caloundra. Anon. (1998b) Seat by seat: Mooloolah. Sunshine Coast Daily. 9 June, Caloundra. Anon. (1998c) Water & Sewerage Go Commercial. Glasshouse Country News. 9 July, Beerwah. Anon. (2002) Green MP unveils five-metre-tall Big Poo, Ananova. Available: http://www.ananova.com/ [Accessed Apr 2002] Anon. (2003) Infrastructure needs a stronger foundation. Sydney Morning Herald. 21 March. Anon. (2004a) Qld gives grey water use the green light. ABC News Online http://www.abc.net.au/. Friday, June 4.

- 369 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Anon. (2004b) Sunshine Coasters vote green. (8 April 2004). ABC Sunshine & Cooloola Coasts Qld. Arnstein, S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Institute of American Planners, 35(4): 216- 24. Atkinson, MM & WD Coleman (1992) Policy networks, policy communities and the problems of governance. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 5(2): 154-80. ATSE (2004) Water Recycling in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. AWT-EST (1999) Jamberoo PSP Water Quality Study. In: SWC (Ed.) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo Vol.1. Sydney: Sydney Water Coporation. AWT (1999) Assessment of Local Impact of On-site Sewage Disposal Systems in the Illawarra Northern Towns and Jamberoo. In: SWC (Ed.) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo Vol.1. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. AWT EnSight (1998) Jamberoo water quality study pre-completion synopsis 14/10/98. In: SWC (Ed.) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo Vol.1. Sydney: Sydney Water Coporation. Ayre, G & R Callway (Eds.) (2005) Governance for Sustainable Development: A Foundation for the Future, London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Balkema, AJ, HA Preisig, R Otterpohl & FJD Lambert (2002) Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water, 4(2): 153-61. Bardach, E (1996) Turf barriers to interagency collaboration. In: Kettl, DF & H Brinton Milward (Eds.) The State of Public Management. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Bardach, E (1998) Ed. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Barlow, J (1995) Ed. Public participation in urban development: The European experience, London: Policy Studies Institute. Barnes, D, PJ Bliss, BW Gould & HR Vallentine (1981) Ed. Water and Wastewater Engineering Systems, London: Pitman. Bartlett, RV (1990) Ecological reason in administration: Environmental Impact Assessment and Administrative Theory. In: Paehlke, R & D Torgerson (Eds.) Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Bates, GM (1992) 3 Ed. Environmental Law in Australia, Sydney; Canberra: Butterworths Pty Ltd. Baumann, DD (1983) Social acceptance of water reuse. Applied Geography, 3(1): 79-84. Beal, C, E Gardner & N Menzies (2005) Septic absorption trenches: Are they sustainable? Water: Journal of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, 32(1): 22-6. Beder, S (1989) From pipe dreams to tunnel vision: Engineering decision-making and Sydney's sewerage system. Science and Technology Studies. Sydney, UNSW. Beder, S (1998) Ed. The New Engineer: Management and professional responsibility in a changing world, Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

- 370 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Beierle, TC (1998) Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals. Washington: Resources for the future. Beierle, TC & DM Konisky (2000) Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4): 587-602. Berger, PL & T Luckmann (1966) 1 Ed. The Social Construction of Reality, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Berkes, F (2004) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 18(3): 612-30. Bissett, K (1997) Bills for water up by $6.50. Daily Telegrah. July 31, Sydney. Bitton, G (1994) Ed. Wastewater Microbiology, NY: Wiley-Liss. Blomquist, A (2004) How can stakeholder participation improve European watershed management: the Water Framework Directive, watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea eutrophication. Water Policy, 6: 39-52. Blomquist, W, E Schlager & T Heikkila (2004) Common Waters, Diverging Streams: Linking Institutions and Water Management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Boake, MJ (2006) Recycled water case study: Gerringong Gerroa. Desalination, 188(1-3): 89- 96. Bouwer, H (2000) Integrated water management: emerging issues and challenges. Agricultural Water Management, 45(3): 217-28. Bressers, H & S Kuks (2002) Integrated Water Management Regimes and more Sustainable Water Resources in Europe: A Case Study Comparison. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente - CSTM. Bressers, HTA & SMM Kuks (2003) What does "governance" mean? From conception to elaboration. In: Bressers, HTA & WA Rosenbaum (Eds.) Achieving Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger. Brewster, MR & OK Buros (1985) The use of non-conventional water resource alternatives in water short areas. Desalination, 56: 89-108. Brown, M & M Tailby (1998) $1 Million clean up of Wallis Lake and Port Stephens, Senator the Hon Robert Hill. Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/98/mr8jul98.html [Accessed Nov 2004 1998] Brown, R (2003) Institutionalisation of integrated urban stormwater management: Multiple- case analysis of local management reform across metropolitan Sydney (Thesis). Civil and Environmental Engineering. Sydney, University of New South Wales. Brown, R, R Ryan & J Ball (1999) Catchment-Based Stormwater Management in Australia Citizen Participation in Policy - What can be achieved? In: International Conference on Participatory Processes in Water Management, June 1999. Budapest, Hungary. Brown, R, R Ryan & J Ball (2000) A Participative Planning Methodology: Urban Stormwater Management at the Watershed. In: Watershed Management and Operations Management 2000, June 21-23. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, American Society of Civil Engineers. Brussard, PF, JM Reed & CR Tracey (1998) Ecosystem management: What is it really? Landscape and Urban Planning, 40: 9-20.

- 371 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Bruvold, WH (1972) Public attitudes toward reuse of reclaimed water. Los Angeles, California: University of California Water Resources Center. Bruvold, WH (1981) Community evaluation of adopted uses of reclaimed water. Water Resources Research, 17: 487. Bruvold, WH (1984a) Obtaining public support for innovative reuse projects. In: Future of Water Reuse, Vol I, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III, 26-31 August, 1984. San Diego, California. Bruvold, WH (1984b) Public evaluation of salient water reuse options. In: Implementing Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium IV, 2-7 August, 1987. San Diego, California, AWA Research Foundation. Bruvold, WH (1984c) Research in the Societal and Institutional Issues of Water Reuse. In: Future of Water Reuse, Vol. 3, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III, 26-31 August 1984. San Diego, California. Bruvold, WH (1992) Public evaluation of municipal water reuse alternatives. Water Science and Technology, 26(7-8): 1537-43. Bryson, L & M Mowbray (1981) 'Community': The spray-on solution. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 16(4): 255-67. Bunting, M (1996) God's media image. Available: http://www.thetablet.co.uk [Accessed 2006]. Burkhard, R, A Deletic & A Craig (2000) Techniques for water and wastewater management: a review of techniques and their integration in planning. Urban Water, 2: 197-221. Butler, D & C Maksimovic (2002) Interactions with the environment. In: Maksimovic, C & JA Tejada-Guibert (Eds.) Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Urban water as a part of Integrated Catchment Management. London: IWA Publishing. Butlin, NG, H Barnard. & JJ Pincus (1982) Ed. Government and Capitalism: Public and Private Choice in Twentieth-Century Australia, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin. Carlsson, L & F Berkes (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1): 65-76. Carson, L (1996) How do decision-makers in local government respond to public participation? Education. Lismore, Southern Cross University. CCC (1996) Minutes of Council Meetings. General Meeting. Caloundra City Council. CCC (1997) Minutes of Council Meetings. General Meeting. Caloundra City Council. CCC (2001a) Annual Report 2003/04. Caloundra, Queensland: Caloundra City Council. CCC (2001b) State of the Environment Report, Caloundra City Council 2001. Caloundra City Council. CCC (2006) History of Caloundra City Council. Available: http://www.caloundra.qld.gov.au/website/cityCouncil/CityCouncil/soaffairs.asp [Accessed Mar 2006] Champion, A (2002) How Dumb are we? - Sewage Outfalls, dams and sustainability. In: Coast to Coast 2002. Tweed Heads, NSW, Coastal Council of New South Wales & Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

- 372 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Chappells, H, M Klintman, AL Linden, E Shove, G Spaargaren & B van Vliet (2000) Domestic Consumption, Utility Services and the Environment, Final Report of the DOMUS Project. funded by the European Commission DG XII. Chappells, H & E Shove (2003) The Environment and the Home. In: What is the Environment? Perceptual differences and their policy implications, ESRC Environment and Human Behaviour programme. Policy Studies Institute, London Chocat, B, P Krebs, J Marsalek, W Rauch & W Schilling (2001) Urban Drainage Redefined: From Stormwater Removal to Integrated Management. Water Science & Technology, 43(5): 61-8. Cicin-Sain, B (1993) Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21(1-3): 11-43. Clark (1978) Worse than physic: Sydney's water supply 1788-1888. In: Kelly, M (Ed.) Nineteenth Century Sydney: Essays in Urban History. Cleaver, A (c.1982) Ed. Beating the Sewage Backlog, Sydney: NSW Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. CoA (2001) The People's Voice: Australian Community History Online (Jamberoo), Commonwealth of Australia, ScreenSound Australia. Available: http://www.peoplesvoice.gov.au/stories/nsw/jamberoo/jamberoo_c.htm [Accessed Mar 2005] CoA (2002) The Value of Water: Inquiry into Australia’s management of urban water. Canberra: Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. CoA (2005) Inquiry into Sustainable Cities. Canberra: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Coenen, F, D Huitama & L O'Toole (1998) Participation and the Environment. In: Coenen, F, D Huitama & L O'Toole (Eds.) Participation and the quality of environmental decison making. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Colebatch, H (1998) Theorizing Public Organisation: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behaviour, 1(3): 279-320. Colebatch, H & P Larmour (1993) 1st Ed. Market, Bureaucracy and Community: A Student's Guide to Organisation, London: Pluto Press. Colebatch, H & P Larmour (2002) 2nd Ed. Market, Bureaucracy and Community: A Student's Guide to Organisation, Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press. Colebatch, HK (1997) Policy Making and Change. In: Prasser, S & G Starr (Eds.) Policy and Change: The Howard Mandate Marrickville, Sydney: Hale & Iremonger. Colebatch, HK (2002) 2nd (1st edition 1998) Ed. Policy, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Colebatch, HK (2005) Governing the use of water: The institutional context. In: Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling. Wollongong. Cook, TD (1985) Postpositivist critical multiplism. In: Shotland, RL & MM Mark (Eds.) Social Science and Social Policy. Newbury Park Cal.: Sage.

- 373 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Coser, LA (1977) 2nd Ed. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context (2nd Ed.), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cotgrove, S (1982) Ed. Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the Future: John Wiley & Sons. Coward, DH (1988) Ed. Out of Sight: Sydney's Environmental History 1851 - 1981, Canberra, A.C.T.: Department of Economic History, Australian National University. Creighton, JL (2005) Ed. The Public Participation Handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement Jossey-Bass. Crespi, F (1989) Ed. Social Action & Power, Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell. Creswell, JW (1994) Ed. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Crook, J (1999) Indirect Potable Reuse. Water, Environment and Technology, 11(5): 71-5. CSIRO (2002) National bid to save water. CSIRO Land and Water Link, (September): 1-2. Czemiel Berndtsson, J & I Hyvonen (2002) Are there sustainable alternatives to water-based sanitation system? Practical illustrations and policy issues. Water Policy, 4(6): 515-30. Daly, HE & JJ Cobb (1989) Ed. For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, Boston: Beacon Press. Dames & Moore (1990) Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Sewerage Scheme, Picton Region. Sydney: Dames & Moore for the Water Board. Davies, A & S Peatling (2003) Guzzlers will pay in drive to save water. Sydney Morning Herald. Sept 25, Sydney. Davis, G, J Wanna, J Warhurst & P Weller (1988) Ed. Public policy in Australia., Sydney: Allen & Unwin. DeLeon, P (1997) Ed. Democracy and the Policy Sciences, Albany, New York: State University of New York. Dernbach, JC (2003) Achieving Sustainable Development: The centrality and multiple facets of integrated decisionmaking. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10: 247-85. Devine, M (2005) Carr's trick: turn water into whine. Sydney Morning Herald. 14 July, Sydney. DHA (2003) Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Environmental Health Planning and Assessment, Volume 2 – Case Studies. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing and enHealth Council, Commonwealth of Australia. Dillon, P (2000) Water Reuse in Australia: Current, Future and Research. In: Proc. Water Recycling Australia 2000. Adelaide. DiMaggio, P (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263–87. Dimitriadis, S (2005) Issues encountered in advancing Australia’s water recycling schemes RESEARCH BRIEF. Canberra: Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services. DIPNR (2004a) Annual Report 2003–04. Sydney: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. DIPNR (2004b) The Metropolitan Water Plan. Sydney: NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

- 374 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

DLG (2002) 'Septic Safe Program'. Sydney: Department of Local Government. DLGP (c2004) Local Governing Bodies' Capital Works Subsidy Scheme, Categories of Capital Works and Subsidy Rates. Department of Local Government and Planning, Queensland. DLWC (2003) Hawkesbury Lower Nepean Catchment Blueprint: A plan for sustainable management of our natural resources. Sydney: NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Douglas, I (1983) Ed. The urban environment, London: Arnold. Dowsett, B, G Mather, C Mercer, B Pearson & D Vincent (1995) A New Course for Sydney Water: The Final Report of the Sydney Water Project. Sydney: Friends Of The Earth (Sydney) Inc. Dryzek, J (1997) Ed. Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Cambridge, New York: Oxford University Press. DWR (2002) White Paper of the Regulations and Permitting Workgroup 2002 Recycled Water Taskforce. California: Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Health Services. Ebsworth & Ebsworth (2000) Wallis Lake Oysters Contamination Claim: Powers and Obligations of Government (Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Limited & Ors v Grant Ryan & Ors). E&E Insurance Review. Editorial (2004) City's call on water waste. Sydney Morning Herald. May 1. EPA (1995) The Utilisation of Treated Effluent by Irrigation, Draft Environmental Guidelines for Industry. Bankstown: NSW Environment Protection Authority. EPA (1997) Public inquiry into the management of sewage and sewage by-products in the NSW coastal zone. Sydney: NSW Environment Protection Authority (Headed by commissioner, Mike Codd). EPA (2000) Issues to be considered in the Jamberoo sewerage scheme Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (published letter from Regional Manager South Coast (EPA) to SMEC Australia (on behalf of SWC)). In: Sydney Water (Ed.) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo, Priority Sewerage Program, Vol. II. Sydney. ERM Mitchell McCotter (1996) Environmental Impact Statement, Picton Regional Sewerage Scheme. Sydney. Esrey, S (2002) Philosophical, ecological and technical challenges for expanding ecological sanitation into urban areas. Water Science and Technology, 45(8): 225-8. Esterberg, KG (2002) Ed. Qualitative Research Methods in Social Research, Boston: McGraw Hill. European Commission (2001) European Governance: A White Paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Fiorino, D (1990) Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2): 226-43. Fischer, F (1999) Technological deliberation in a democratic society: the case for participatory inquiry. Science and Public Policy, 26(5): 294–302. Fischer, F (2000) Ed. Citizens, Experts and the Environment: the Politics of Local Knowledge, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

- 375 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Fischer, F (2003) Ed. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices: Oxford University Press. Fischer, F & J Forester (Eds.) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London: UCL. Flinn, MW (Ed.) (1965) Report on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain by Edwin Chadwick, 1842, Edinburgh: University Press. Forester, J (1989) Ed. Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley: University of California. Foster, CD & FJ Plowden (c1995) 'New Public Management' examined. The State Under Stress: Can the hollow state be good government? Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Foucault, M (1986) Ed. The Foucault Reader, Harmondsworth, Middx.: Peregrine. Fowlie, K (1999) Lessons From The Lake, Seafood Services Australia. Available: http://www.seafoodservices.com.au/files/SD99-20.pdf [Accessed Nov 2004] Foxton, C (2001) Chronological History of the Maroochy Shire, Maroochy Libraries. Available: http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/history.cfm [Accessed July 2004] Furedi, F (2005) Welcome to this New Age of Deference. The Times, London (25 October). Furler, M (1996a) Drinking effluent draws yes and no. Sunshine Coast Daily. 19 July, Maroochydore. Furler, M (1996b) Residents opt for treated water re-use. Sunshine Coast Daily. 2 November, Caloundra. Furler, M (1996c) Wastewater to cost millions. Sunshine Coast Daily. 11 April, Caloundra. Gardener, H (1987) Ed. The Parliament of the Suburbs: The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Canberra: Canberra College of Advanced Education. Gardner, A (1999) The administrative framework of land and water management in Australia. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 16(3): 212-57. GCN (1998) Public meeting on wastewater. Glasshouse Country News. 30 July, Beerwah. Geary, PM (2003) On-site Treatment System Failure and Shellfish Contamination in Port Stephens, NSW. Report Prepared for NSW Department of Local Government. Gibson, HE & N Apostolidis (2001) Demonstration, the solution to successful community acceptance of water recycling. Water Science and Technology, 43(10): 259-66. Giddens, A (1984) Ed. The constitution of society, Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gleick, P (2000) The Changing Water Paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water International, 25(127-138). Glover, IA & MP Kelly (1987) Ed. Engineers in Britain: A Sociological Study of the Engineering Dimension, UK: Allen & Unwin. Goodin, RE (1996) Institutions and their design. In: Goodin, RE (Ed.) The theory of institutional design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Goot, M (Ed.) (1998) Hanson's Heartland: Who's for One Nation and Why?: Bookman Press. Grattan, M (Ed.) (1998) Pauline Hanson's Hijack of John Howard: Bookman Press.

- 376 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Gregory, A (2001) Water recycling in Sydney: The options. Water, 28(3): 30-6. Grumbine, RE (1994) What Is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8(1): 27-38. GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management. Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership, TEC BAckground Paper no. 4, 2000. GWP (2003a) Dialogue on Effective Water Governance: Learning from the Dialogues. In: 3rd World Water Forum. Kyoto, Japan. GWP (2003b) Effective Water Governance Opening Plenary. In: 3rd World Water Forum. Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka, Japan. Haas, P (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy co-ordination. International Organisation, 46(1): 1-35. Habermas, J (1987) Ed. The Theory of Communicative Action (translated by T. McCarthy), Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Hackney, PA (c.2000) A review of the Picton sewerage scheme and its implementation. (Review presented to community and Sydney Water, post implementation). Hajer, M (1995) Ed. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, NY: Oxford University Press. Hajer, MA (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice. In: Fischer, F & J Forester (Eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Haley, B (1978) Ed. The Healthy Body and Victorian Culture, Cambridge (Masachusetts); London: Harvard University Press. Hall, AW (2005) Water: Water and Governance. In: Ayre, G & R Callway (Eds.) Governance for Sustainable Development: A Foundation for the Future. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Hall, RH (1987) 4th Ed. Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hamlin, C (1997) Ed. Public Health and Social Justice in the Age of Chadwick: Britain, 1800- 1854, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hamlyn-Harris, D (2003) Integrated urban water management and water recycling in SE Queensland - Recent developments. In: Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEAQ) State Conference. Mackay, Queensland, IPWEA Queensland Division Inc. Hancock, WK (1961 (1930)) Ed. Australia, Brisbane: Jacaranda Press. Handmer, JW, AHJ Dorcey & DI Smith (1991a) Ed. Negotiating Water: Conflict Resolution in Australian Water Management, ACT: ANU. Handmer, JW, DI Smith & AHJ Dorcey (1991b) The Australian context for mediation in water management. In: Handmer, JW, AHJ Dorcey & DI Smith (Eds.) Negotiating Water: Conflict Resolution in Australian Water Management. ACT: ANU. Hansard (1993, 13 May) Joint select committee on the Sydney Water Board, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19930513027 [Accessed Dec 2004]

- 377 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Hansard (1993, 13 October) Gerringong, Gerroa and Jamberoo Sewerage Scheme, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl2a87/11/doc/#hit1 [Accessed Mar 2005] Hansard (1993, 16 Sep) Water Board Former Managing Director, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19930916012 [Accessed Dec 2004] Hansard (1993, 20 May) Govenor's speech: Address in reply, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl6c9b/17/doc/#hit1 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1994, 17 Nov) Regulation Review Committee, Report: Clean Waters Act, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19941117017 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1994, 19 Mar) Govenor's speech: Address in reply, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl6c9b/11/doc [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1994, 20 Apr) Clean Waterways Program, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19940420004 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1995, 7 June) Jamberoo Sewerage Services, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19950607030 [Accessed Mar 2005] Hansard (1996, 25 Sep) Picton Sewerage Scheme, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl6c9b/10/doc/#hit1 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1997, 7 May) Sydney Waterways Package, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19970507018 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1997, 8 April) Wallis Lake Oyster Contamination, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19970408027 [Accessed Nov 2004] Hansard (1997, 27 May) Sydney Waterways Package, NSW Legislative Assembly. Available: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl6c9b/31/doc/#hit1 [Accessed Nov 2004] Harding, R (1998) Ed. Environmental Decision-Making: The Roles of Scientists, Engineers and the Public, Sydney: The Federation Press. Harley, J (2005) Carr makes surprise desalination announcement. 7:30 Report, (12 July). Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

- 378 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Healey, P (1997) Ed. Collaborative Planning, Shaping places in fragmented societies, London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Healthy Waterways (2001) State of South-east Queensland Waterways Report. Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership & CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management. Healthy Waterways (2002) Report Card, Caboolture River Catchment. Brisbane: Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchment Partnership. Heclo, H & A Wildavsky (1974) Ed. The private government of public money: Community and policy inside British politics, London: Macmillan Press. Hector, D & B Christensen (2004) Sydney’s Water Supply: how should engineers take the leadership role in solving complex, technological problems? In: Engineering Leadership 2004 Conference, 23-24 September, 2004. Sydney. Henry, FJJ (1939) Ed. The water supply and sewerage of Sydney, Sydney: Halstead Press. Hermanowicz, SW & T Asano (1999) Abel Wolman's "The Metabolism of Cities" Revisited: A Case for Water Recycling and Reuse. Water Science and Technology, 40(4-5): 29-36. Hill, M & PL Hupe (2002) Ed. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Hillier, J (2000) Going round the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environment and Planning A, 32(1): 33-54. Hilmer, FG, MR Rayner & GQ Taperell (1993) National Competition Policy. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.: Independent Committee of Inquiry into Competition Policy in Australia. Hird, C (2001) Jamberoo Priority Sewerage Program Development of Reuse Scheme Options, Final Report. Agsol Pty Ltd. Hirsch, PM (1997) Sociology without social structure: Neoinstitutional theory meets brave new world. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1702-23. Ho, G, S Dallas, M Anda & K Mathew (2001) On-site wastewater technologies in Australia. Water Science & Technology, 44(6): 81–8. Hoffman, AJ (1999) The institutional framing of policy debates. Americal Behavioural Scientist, 42(8): 1368-92. Hornery, A (2002) The Back Road Into Town is Clear. Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April 2002, Sydney. Howlett, M & M Ramesh (2003) 2nd Ed. Studying Public Policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. HRC (1998) Independent Inquiry into the Hawkesbury Nepean River System Final Report. Healthy Rivers Commission of New South Wales. IEA (2001) 2001 Australian Infrastructure Report Card. The Institution of Engineers, Australia and Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd. Imperial, MT (1999) Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management, 24(4): 449–65.

- 379 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Imperial, MT (2005) Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3): 281-320. Imperial, MT & D Kauneckis (2003) Moving from Conflict to Collaboration: Watershed Governance in Lake Tahoe. Natural Resources Journal, 43(4): 1009-55. Imperial, MT & T Yandle (2005a) Taking institutions seriously: Using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Society and Natural Resources, 18: 493-509. Imperial, MT & T Yandle (2005b) Taking Institutions Seriously: Using the IAD Framework to Analyze Fisheries Policy. Society & Natural Resources, 18(6): 493-509. IPART (1997) Pricing of Backlog Sewerage: An Issues Paper. Sydney: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales. IPART (2000) Sydney Water Corporation - Prices of Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Services. Medium-term price path from 1 October 2000. Sydney: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. IPART (2002) Review of Metropolitan Water Agency Prices - Issues Paper. Sydney: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. IRIS Research (2002) Community surveys of Jamberoo and Kiama 2002 (Final Report). Kiama: Illawarra Regional Information Service. IWLRI (2004) International Specialty Conference: Good Water Governance for People & Nature: What roles for Law, Institutions & Finance? Dundee, Scotland: International Water Law Research Institute (now the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science). Jaensch, D (1997) 2nd Ed. The politics of Australia, Melbourne: Macmillan. James, D (1997) Environmental Incentives: Australian Experience with Economic Instruments for Environmental Management (Sydney Water Board Special Environmental Levy). Canberra: Ecoservices Pty Ltd, commissioned for Environment Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Environment and Heritage). Jane, A & B Dollery (2005) Public Sector Reform in Australia: An evaluation of the Corporatisation of Sydney Water, 1995 to 2002. Australian Journal of Public Administration (submitted 2004). Jeffrey, P & B Jefferson (2002) Public Receptivity Regarding ‘In-House’ Water Recycling: Results from a UK Survey. In: International Water Association World Water Congress. Melbourne. Jelsma, J (2001) Frame-reflective policy analysis in practice: Co-evolution of a policy regime and an intractable contoversy in biotechnology. In: Hisschemoller, M, R Hoppe, WN Dunn & JR Ravetz (Eds.) Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. U.K./U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. Jessop, B (2001) Institutional re(turns) and the strategic-relational approach. Environment and Planning A, 33: 1213-35. Johnson, M & S Rix (1993) Ed. Water in Australia: Managing Economic, Environmental and Community Reform, Sydney: Pluto Press Australia Ltd. Jones, L (1999) "Indirect potable reuse in Caloundra-Maroochy: An account". Available: http://www.rag.org.au/sewage/waste.htm [Accessed Sep 2001]

- 380 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Judge, C (2002, 2 May) Reuse Study to Go Ahead for Jamberoo, Sydney Water. Available: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/ [Accessed Jun 2004] Kane, J & P Bishop (2002) Consultation and Contest: The Danger of Mixing Modes. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1): 87-94. Kärrman, E (2001) Strategies towards sustainable wastewater management. Urban Water, 3(1- 2). Katz, SM & P Tennyson (1997) Public education is the key to water repurification's success. In: WEF Beneficial Reuse of Water and Biosolids Specialty Conference. Malaga, Spain. Kay, RC & J Adler (1999) Ed. Coastal planning and management, New York: Spon Press. Kelly, P (Ed.) (1998) Hanson - Sympton of a deeper problem: Bookman Press. Keman, H (1997) Approaches to the analysis of institutions. In: Steunenberg, B & F van Vught (Eds.) Political Institutions and Public Policy: Perspectives on European Decision Making. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Kenway, S & R Irvine (2001) Sewage Pollution Risk Assessment for Environmental Health. In: Environmental Health Conference. Bathurst. Kickert, WJM (1997) Public Governance in The Netherlands, an alternative to Anglo-American 'managerialism'. Public Administration Review, 75(4): 731-52. Kickert, WJM, EH Klijn & JFM Koppenjan (1997) Ed. Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector, London: Sage. Kitka Design (2002-5) Gerringong's Origins date back to 1810, Kitka Design. Available: http://www.gerringong-gerroa.com/history-l.htm [Accessed Mar 2005] KMC (2001) Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2001. Kiama: Kiama Municipal Council. KMC (2004) Annual Report 2003/2004. Kiama: Kiama Municipal Council. KMC (c1999) Management Plan 1999-2002. Sydney - Illawarra region: Council of the Municipality of Kiama. Kooiman, J (Ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions: Sage Publications. Korbitz, WE (1981) Ed. Modern Management of Water and Wastewater Utilities, NY: Garland STPM Press. Krasner, SD (1988) Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1): 66-94. L.V.Rawlinson & Assoc. (2003) Bombo STP Effluent Reuse Capability Assessment for Sydney Water (Draft). Sydney. Lamb, A (2002) History of main negotiations for sewerage in Jamberoo. Kiama City, NSW: Residents and Ratepayers Association, Jamberoo. Lamble, S (1998) Men's Worst Fear on Tap. The Sunday Mail. January 18, 1998, Caloundra. Lasswell, HD ((1950 (1936))) Ed. Politics, who gets what, when, how, New York: Peter Smith. Lawrence, AI, JB Ellis, J Marsalek, B Urbonas & BC Phillips (1999) Total Urban Water Cycle Based Management. In: Proceedings 8th International Storm Urban Drainage Conference, Aug 30 - Sept. 3. Sydney, Australia, Inst Eng Aust.

- 381 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Lawrence, I & P Cullen (2002) Ed. Australia’s Urban Water Management: Integrating the Water Cycle, Canberra: Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Lawrence, I & C Reynolds (1995) Integrated urban water planning. Integrated management of urban environments: 2nd International Symposium on Urban Stormwater Management. Leach, WD & NW Pelkey (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(6). Lens, P, G Zeeman & G Lettinga (2001) Ed. Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, systems and implementation, Cornwall, UK: IWA Publishing. Lipsky, M (1980) Ed. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Livingston, DJ, NA Stenekes, HK Colebatch, NJ Ashbolt & TD Waite (2004) Water management planning in local government: organisational factors impacting effective policy for sustainability. In: Sewage Management: Risk Assessment and Triple Bottom Line. Cairns, Queensland, Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Loucks, DP (2000) Sustainable water resources management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, March/April: 44-7. Lundqvist, J (2000) Rules and Roles in Water Policy and Management Need for Clarification of Rights and Obligations. Water International, 25: 194-201. Lundqvist, J, S Narain & A Turton (2001) Social, institutional and regulatory issues. In: Maksimovic, C & JA Tejada-Guibert (Eds.) Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Urban water as a part of Integrated Catchment Management. London: IWA Publishing. Majone, G (1989) Ed. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press. Mara, DD (1996) Working with what we have. Journal / American Water Works Association, 88(11): 45. March, JG & JP Olsen (1989) Ed. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press. Margerum, RD (1999) Integrated Environmental Management: The Foundations for Successful Practice. Environmental Management, 24(2): 151–66. Marinetto, M (2003) Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School. Political Studies, 51(3): 592. Marks, J (2003) The sociology of "disgust" towards the use of reclaimed water. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference. Brisbane, Australian Water Association. Marks, J (2004a) Back to the Future: Reviewing the findings on acceptance of reclaimed water. In: Enviro 04. Sydney, Australia. Marks, J (2004b) A sociological analysis of the sustainable management of decentralised, residential reuse. In: IWA 6th Specialist Conference on Small Water & Wastewater Systems. Fremantle, WA, International Water Association & Australian Water Association. Marks, J, N Cromar, H Fallowfield, D Oemcke & M Zadoroznyj (2002) Community Experience And Perceptions Of Water Reuse. In: International Water Association World Water Congress. Melbourne.

- 382 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Marks, JS (2005) Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non-potable reuse. In: Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling. Wollongong, Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Australia. Marks, JS (2006) Taking the public seriously: the case of potable and non-potable reuse. Desalination, 187: 137-47. Marselek, R, Q Rochfort & D Savic (2002) Urban water as a part of Integrated Catchment Management. In: Maksimovic, C & JA Tejada-Guibert (Eds.) Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Urban water as a part of Integrated Catchment Management. London: IWA Publishing. Marsh, D & RAW Rhodes (1992) Ed. Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford: Clarendon. Marsh, D & MJ Smith (2000) Understanding policy networks: A dialectical approach. Political Studies, 48: 4-21. Marsh, D & MJ Smith (2001) There is more than one way to do Political Science: on different ways to study policy networks. Political Studies, 49: 528-41. Mason, RO & II Mitroff (1981) Ed. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: theory, cases, and techniques, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Matondo, JI (2002) A comparison between conventional and integrated water resources planning and management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 27(11-22): 831-8. McClellan, P (1998a) Sydney Water Inquiry: Fifth Report. Sydney: New South Wales Premier’s Department, Sydney Water Inquiry Secretariat. McClellan, P (1998b) Sydney Water Inquiry: Third Report, Assessment of the contamination events and future directions for the management of the catchment. Sydney: New South Wales Premier’s Department, Sydney Water Inquiry Secretariat. McMahon, TA, KC Gan & BL Finlayson (1990) Anthropogenic changes to the hydrologic cycle in Australia. Australia's renewable resources: sustainability and global change: International Geosphere Biosphere Programme Australia Planning Workshop, 14th. McMillan, J (2003) Bad Oysters – A Government Responsibility? The Canberra Times - Public Sector Informant. February, Canberra. Melosi, MV (2000) Pure and plentiful: the development of modern waterworks in the United States, 1801-2000. Water Policy, 2(4-5): 243-65. Metcalf, L & HP Eddy (1915) 1st Ed. American Sewerage Practice, NY: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, JW & B Rowan (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-63. Meyer, JW & WR Scott (Eds.) (1983) Organizational Environments, Ritual and Rationality, Beverly Hills, London, New Delhi: Sage. Miles, MB & AM Huberman (1994) Ed. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mitroff, II & RO Mason (1981) Ed. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, Theory, Cases, and Techniques, New York: John Wiley.

- 383 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Moore, T, B Wilson & D Harley (1993) Ed. 'Doing the vision thing..': Submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Sydney Water Board, Sydney: The Authors, Greenwich, NSW. Morrill, C & J Owen-Smith (2002) The Rise of Environmental Conflict Resolution: Subversive Stories, Institution Building, and the Construction of Fields. In: Hoffman, A & M Ventresca (Eds.) Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Mouritz, M (1993) Towards sustainable solutions. Urban wastewater: a lost resource or an opportunity? Australian Institute of Urban Studies Conference, 17(10): 163-75. Mouritz, M (1996) Sustainable Urban Water Systems: Policy and Professional Praxis (Thesis). ISTP. Perth, Western Australia, Murdoch University. MSC (1995-2003) Maroochy Shire Council Meeting Minutes, Maroochy Shire Council. Available: http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/council/list_minutes.cfm [Accessed April 2004] MSC (2003) Annual Report 2002/03. Maroochydore: Maroochy Shire Council. MSC (2004a) 2003/2004 Annual Report. Maroochydore, Queensland: Maroochy Shire Council. MSC (2004b) Maroochy Shire History, Maroochy Libraries. Available: www.maroochylibraries.qld.gov.au/shorthist.htm [Accessed July 2004] MSC (2004c) Wastewater Charging Structure: About the new charging structure, Maroochy Shire Council. Available: http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/wastewater_policy.cfm [Accessed August 2004] Munro-Clark, M (1994) Introduction: Citizen Participation - An Overview. In: Munro-Clark, M (Ed.) Citizen Participation in Government Sydney: Hale & Iremonger. Munro, CH (1974) Ed. Australian water resources and their development, Sydney: Angus & Robertson. MWS (2002) Maroochy Water Services Annual Report 2001-02. Maroochydore: Marrochy Water Services. Nason, D (1997) Minister deals blow to recovery of oyster industry / Hepatitis A outbreak a mystery. The Australian. February 27. NCC (2004) Submission from the Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc. To the National Competition Council on an Application under Part IIIA Trade Practices Act 1974. Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc. Neill, R (2002) As wasters there isn't a bigger bunch of drips: The selfish country - world champs at conspicuous consumption. The Australian. November 1. Nelson, AL & LK Alexander (2004) John Snow, Broad Street Pump Outbreak (Case Study), University of North Carolina, School of Public Health. Available: http://www.sph.unc.edu/courses/john_snow/episode_4/link1.htm [Accessed Nov 2005] Newman, G (2001) Current Issues Brief 2 1998-99 - 1998 Queensland Election, Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library. Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1998-99/99cib02.htm [Accessed August 2004] Newman, P (2003) On Climbing Trees: An Australian Perspective on Sustainability and Political Risk, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Government of Western Australia. Available: http://www.sustainability.dpc.wa.gov.au/pdfs/Papers/Newman- On%20Climbing%20Trees.pdf [Accessed Dec 2005]

- 384 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Newman, P & J Kenworthy (1999) Ed. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence, Washington, D.C: Island Press. Newman, P & M Mouritz (1996) Principles and planning opportunities for community scale systems of water and waste management. Desalination, 106(1-3): 339-54. Newton, PW (2001) Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report). Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment and Heritage. Niemczynowicz, J (1999) Urban hydrology and water management - present and future challenges. Urban Water, 1(1): 1-14. Nowotny, H (2006) The Potential of Transdisciplinarity, C.N.R.S., France. Available: http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5 [Accessed Jan 2006] NRM (2002) Mary River Draft Resource Plan. Brisbane: Water Planning Group, Natural Resources and Mines. NSW EPA (2003) Who Cares about the Environment in 2003? A survey of NSW people's environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Sydney: NSW Environment Protection Agency. NSW Legislative Assembly (2002) Interim Report on Urban Water Infrastructure. Sydney: NSW Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Public Works. NSW Parliament (1972) Clean Waters Regulations. Available: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+010+1972+first+0+N [Accessed NSW Parliament (1989) State Owned Corporations Act 1989, NSW Parliament. Available: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soca1989288/ [Accessed Dec 2004] NSW Parliament (1994a) Joint Select Committee on the Sydney Water Board. Sydney. NSW Parliament (1994b) Sydney Water Act 1994, NSW Parliament. Available: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/scanact/inforce/NONE/0 [Accessed Dec 2004] NSWBGATF (1992) Blue-green algae : final report of the New South Wales Blue-Green Algae Task Force. Parramatta, N.S.W.: Dept. of Water Resources for the Blue-Green Algae Task Force (N.S.W.). O'Malley, N (2003) Greens 'have arrived' with surge of support. Sydney Morning Herald. 24 March. O'Riordan, T (1991) The new environmentalism and sustainable development. Science of the Total Environment, 108(1/2): 5-15. Ohlsson, L & J Lundqvist (2000) The Turn of the Screw. New Dimensions in Water Security: Water, society and ecosystem services in the 21st century. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Olson, BH (1979) Educational and social factors affecting public acceptance of reclaimed water. In: Proceedings Water Reuse Symposium. Denver, Colorado, AWWARF. Olson, MJ ([1965] 1971) Ed. The Logic of Collective Action: Public goods and the theory of groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ostrom, E (1990) Ed. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collec-tive Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.

- 385 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Ostrom, E, T Dietz, N Dolsak, PC Stern, S Stonich & EU Weber (2002) Ed. The drama of the commons, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ostrom, V (1980) Artisanship and artifact. Public Administration Review, 40(4): 309-17. Otterpohl, R, A Albold & M Oldenburg (1999) Source control in urban sanitation and waste management: ten systems with reuse of resources. Water Sci Technol, 39(5): 153-. Painter, M (1989) Local government. In: Smith, R & L Watson (Eds.) Politics in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Parsons, W (1995) Ed. Public Policy: An Introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Patton, MQ (1990) Ed. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods 2nd Ed., Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Pearce, D (1993) Ed. Economic Values and the Natural World: Earthscan. Pearce, D & J Warford (1993) Ed. World without End, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Peatling, S (2004) Permanent limits urged as water use drops. Sydney Morning Herald. September 24, Sydney. Peatling, S (2005) NSW is the biggest dumper of raw sewage. Sydney Morning Herald. 23 May, Sydney. Peelle, E, M Schweitzer, J Munro, S Carnes & A Wolfe (1996) Factors favorable to public participation success. In: National Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Meeting, June 2-5. Houston, Texas, USA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Peltenburg, M, J De Wit & F Davidson (2000) Capacity building for urban management: Learning from recent experiences. Habitat International, 24: 363-73. Peters, BG & J Pierre (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research, 8(2): 227-48. Pettigrew, AM (1979) On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570-81. Phelps, NA & M Tewdwr-Jones (2000) Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance: identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building. Environment and Planning A, 32: 111-30. PIEOW (2003) Better Public Involvement in the Recycled Water Decision Process (Draft). California: Public Information, Education, and Outreach Workgroup for the Department of Water Resources State Water Resources Control Board Department of Health Services. Pigram, J & B Hooper (1994) Water resource management in an environment of change. Australian journal of soil and water conservation, 7(1): 4-8. Pigram, JJJ (1986) Ed. Issues in the Management of Australia's Water Resources, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. PMSEIC (2003) Recycling Water for our Cities. Canberra: Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council.

- 386 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Po, M, J Kaercher & BE Nancarrow (2004) Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse. Perth: CSIRO Land and Water for the Australian Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program (AWCRRP). Ponting, C (1991) Ed. A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilisations, London, UK: Penguin Books. Porter, D (1999) Ed. Health, Civilization and the State: A History of Public Health from ancient to Modern Times, London; New York: Routledge. Powell, WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336. Pressman, JL & A Wildavsky (1973) Ed. Implementation, Berkeley: University of California Press. Procter, JD (1998) Environmental Values and Popular Conflict over Environmental Management: A Comparative Analysis of Public Comments on the Clinton Forest Plan. Environmental Management, 22(3): 347–58. Productivity Commission (1992) Water Resources and Waste Water Disposal. Report no 26, 17 July 1992. Public Works (1994) Proposed Sewerage Scheme for Picton Region, Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement. Sydney: Publics Works for the Water Board. Queensland Legislative Assembly (2002) Question on Notice, No. 124, Asked on 6 March 2002. QWRS (2001) Queensland Water Recycling Strategy. Brisbane: Department of Natural Resources, Queensland State Government. Radcliffe, J (2003) An overview of water recycling in Australia – Results from the recent ATSE study. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference, 1-3 September 2003. Brisbane, Australian Water Association. Radcliffe, J (2004) Water recycling in Australia. Canberra: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

RAG (1999) Rivermouth Action Group (website). Available: http://www.rag.org.au/sewage/waste.htm [Accessed Sep 2001] Randerson, HY (1951) 5th Ed. Australian Sanitary Engineering Practice, Sydney, London: Angus and Robertson. Reddel, T (2002) Beyond Participation, Hierarchies, Management and Markets: 'New' Governance and Place Policies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1): 50- 63. Rein, M & D Schon (1994) Ed. Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, New York: Basic Books. Renn, O, T Webler & PM Wiedemann (Eds.) (1995) Fairness & competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, Boston: Kluwer. Rhodes, RAW (1996) The new Governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44: 652-67. Richardson, JJ & AG Jordan (1979) Ed. Governing under pressure: the policy process in a post- parliamentary democracy, Oxford: Robertson.

- 387 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Ricœr, P (1986, Eng. tr. 1991) Ed. From Text to Action, London: Athlone Press. Roe, E (1994) Ed. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory & Practice, Durham and London: Duke University Press. Rogers, EM (2003) Ed. Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press Rogers, P & AW Hall (2003) Effective Water Governance. Stockholm, Sweden: Technical Committee (TEC), Global Water Partnership. Roseth, N (2003) Community views on alternative water supply. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference. Brisbane, Australian Water Association. Roughly, A & D Salt (2005) Introduction of Social Sciences in Australian Natural Resource Management Agencies. Journal of Research Practice, 1(2). Rowland (1996a) Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (Phase 1). Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils: Rowland Rogers. Rowland (1996b) Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (Phase 2). Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils: Rowland Rogers. Rowland (1996c) Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (Phase 3). Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils: Rowland Rogers. Ruiz-Avila, J (1996) Well done on wastewater. Sunshine Coast Daily. 19 April, Caloundra. Russell, S (2004) Beyond unplumbing the blockages: a wider role for social analysis in water reuse. Water Intelligence Online, IWA Publishing. Sabatier, PA (1986) Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1): 21-48. Sabatier, PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy- oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21: 129-68. Sabatier, PA & H Jenkins-Smith (Eds.) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder Col.: Westview Press. Sadler, B (1994) The development of public involvement in the Australian water industry. In: International and National Trends in Public Involvement: Where to Next for the Australian Water Industry? Sydney, Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Division of Water Resources. Sarkissian, W, A Cook & K Walsh (1997) Ed. Community Participation in Practice: A practical guide, Perth: Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University. Saxton, A (2003, March) Oyster case decision tastes sweet to State and Local Government. Ebswroth & Ebsworth, (March). SCC (2002) Water recycling & reuse - 2000, Shoalhaven City Council. Available: http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/ [Accessed Mar 2005] SCEC (2004) Sunshine Coast Environment Council About us, Sunshine Coast Environment Council. Available: www.scec.org.au/ [Accessed June 2004] Schellong, A (2005) CRM in the Public Sector – Towards a conceptual research framework, National Science Foundation's Digital Government Research Program, University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute.

- 388 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Available: http://diggov.org/library/library/dgo2005/students/schellong_crm.pdf [Accessed Jan 2006] Scott, WR (Ed.) (1983) The organization of environments: Network, cultural, and historical elements, Beverly Hills, London, New Delhi: Sage. Scott, WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511. Scott, WR (1995) Ed. Institutions and Organizations, California, London, New Delhi: Sage. Scott, WR (1998) 4th Ed. Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Scott, WR & JW Meyer (Eds.) (1983) The organization of societal actors, Beverly Hills, London, New Delhi: Sage. Searle, JR (1995) Ed. The Construction of Social Reality, London, New York: Penguin. Selznick, P (1957) Ed. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation, New York: Harper & Row. Sendt, RJ (2005) Auditor-General’s Report Performance Audit, Planning for Sydney’s Water Needs. Sydney: NSW Audit Office. Shove, E (2003) Users, Technologies and Expectations of Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, (2): 193- 206. SKM (2000) Sydney Water Corporation Audit 1999. Sydney: Sinclair Knight Mertz. SKM/CDCE (1997a) Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (Stage 3, Vol. 1 Implementation Report). Cardno & Davis Consulting Engineers and Sinclair Knight Mertz for Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils. SKM/CDCE (1997b) Caloundra-Maroochy Strategic Wastewater Management Study (Stage 3, Vol. 2 Background Studies). Cardno & Davis Consulting Engineers and Sinclair Knight Mertz for Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire Councils. Slocombe, DS (1998) Defining Goals and Criteria for Ecosystem-Based Management. Environmental Management, 22(4): 483 - 93. Smith, DI (1998) Ed. Water in Australia: Resources and Management, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Southerton, D, A Warde & M Hand (Eds.) (2004) The Limited Autonomy of the Consumer: challenging conceptualizations of sustainable consumption, Manchester: Edward Elgar. Spaargaren, G (2003) Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16(8): 687-701. Stanbridge, HH (1976) Introduction of the Water-Carriage System. History of Sewage Treatment in Britain. Maidstone, Kent: The Institution of Water Pollution Control. Stenekes, N, DJ Livingston, HK Colebatch, TD Waite & NJ Ashbolt (2004) Sustainable water management in Australia: An institutional analysis. In: International Specialty Conference: Good Water Governance for People & Nature: What Roles for Law, Institutions & Finance? Dundee, Scotland, IWA/AWWA.

- 389 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Stenekes, NA, HK Colebatch, TD Waite & NJ Ashbolt (2006) Risk and governance in water recycling: 'public acceptance' revisited. Science Technology and Human Values, Accepted for publication Feb 2005. Stokey, E & R Zeckhauser (1978) Ed. A Primer for Policy Analysis, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc. Stone, D (1989) Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104: 281-300. Stone, D (1997) Ed. Policy Paradox: The art of political decision-making, New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co. Sturgess, GL (c.1996) An institutional analysis of catchment management in the Hawkesbury- Nepean River system. Sydney: Sturgess Australia for the Healthy RIvers Commission of New South Wales, Occasional Paper. Summers, J, D Woodward & A Parkin (Eds.) (2002) Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. SWC (1996) Community Views on Water Reuse, Research Report. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (1999a) Annual Public Health and Environment Report 1999. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (1999b) Annual Report 1999. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (1999c) Community Views on Water Reuse, Research Report. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (1999d) Water Recycling Strategy. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (2000a) Annual Public Health and Environment Report 2000. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (2000b) Annual Report 2000. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (2002a) Economic and financial evaluations of options for the Jamberoo Prioriy Sewerage Program Area. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (2002b) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo, Priority Sewerage Program, Vol. I. Sydney: Sydney Water. SWC (2002c) Environmental Impact Statement for Jamberoo, Priority Sewerage Program, Vol. II. Sydney: Sydney Water. SWC (2002d) Sydney Water Annual Report 2002, Sydney Water Corporation. Available: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/ [Accessed Jan 2005] SWC (2002e) Waterplan 21. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. SWC (2003) Productive wastewater reuse at Picton STP, Sydney Water. Available: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/ [Accessed Oct 2003] SWC (2005) Low Pressure Sewerage Systems, Sydney Water Corporation. Available: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/ProjectsandTendering/MajorProjects/BelimblaPark/Lo wPressure.cfm [Accessed Mar 2005] Swinton, B (2004) Education: The key to sustainable water management. Australian Water Association Journal, Water, (March): 86-91.

- 390 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Tarlock, AD (2001a) Ideas Without Institutions: The Paradox of Sustainable Development. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 35(9): 35-49. Tarlock, AD (2001b) Water policy adrift. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 16(1). Taylor, M (1976) Ed. Anarchy and cooperation, London; New York: Wiley. Thomas, J-S & B Durham (2003) Integrated Water Resource Management: looking at the whole picture. Desalination, 156(1-3): 21-8. Throgmorton, JA (1991) The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24: 153-79. Tomkinson, B (2002) Shoalhaven Reclaimed Water Management Scheme (REMS). In: IPWEA NSW Division Annual Conference 2002. Coffs Harbour, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia. Torgerson, D & R Paehlke (1990) Environmental Administration: Revising the Agenda of Inquiry and Practice. In: Paehlke, R & D Torgerson (Eds.) Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State. London: Broadview Press. Totaro, P (1994) Profit Before Sewers, Board Rules. Sydney Morning Herald. 21 April, Sydney. Totaro, P (1997a) $30 million plan puts outer suburbs on sewer connection. Sydney Morning Herald. May 7, Sydney. Totaro, P (1997b) Fringe-dwellers face long wait for sewer link. Sydney Morning Herald. July 31, Sydney. Totaro, P (1997c) Minister attacks outer city sewerage price hike. Sydney Morning Herald. February 19, Sydney. Totaro, P (2003) Premier pledges big shake-up. Sydney Morning Herald. 24 March. Trommel, W & R van der Veen (1997) Sociological perspectives on institutions and neo- institutionalism: Perspectives on European Decision-Making. In: Steunenberg, B & F van Vught (Eds.) Political Instiutions and Public Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers. U.S. EPA (1992) Guidelines for Water Reuse. United States Environment Protection Authority & United States Agency for International Development. Uhlmann, V & L Luxford (1999) Education Needs Background Study. Brisbane: prepared on behalf of the Queensland Water Recycling Strategy by Nexus Australia. UNDP (2005) Effective governance: the key to sustainable water management and poverty eradication, United Nations Development Programme. Available: http://www.undp.org/water/watergovernance.html [Accessed Sep 2005] United Nations (1992) Agenda 21, United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. Available: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm [Accessed 2002] Universiteit Twente (2005) Water Governance and Institutional Change, Universiteit Twente. Available: http://www.utwente.nl/cstm/research/summary/water-change.doc/ [Accessed Apr 2005] US EPA (2005) Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits, United States Environment Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/ [Accessed Dec 2005] van de Ven, AH & MS Poole (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, (3): 510-40.

- 391 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling van Riper, C & J Geselbracht (1997) Water reclamation and reuse (Literature Review). Water Environment Research, 69(54): 554-62. van Riper, C & J Geselbracht (1998) Water reclamation and reuse (Literature Review). Water Environment Research, 70(4): 586-9. van Riper, C & J Geselbracht (1999) Water reclamation and reuse (Literature Review). Water Environment Research, 71(5): 720-8. Van Vliet, BJM, H Chappells & E Shove (2005) Ed. Infrastructures of Consumption. Environmental Restructuring of the Utility Industries, London: Earthscan. Vlachos, VE & B Braga (2001) The challenge of urban water management. In: Maksimovic, C & JA Tejada-Guibert (Eds.) Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Urban water as a part of Integrated Catchment Management. London: IWA Publishing. Waites, T (1998) Letter to the Editor. Mary Valley Voice. 27 August, Kenilworth. Waldrop, MM (1993) Ed. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos, New York: Simon & Schuster. Walters, LC, J Aydelotte & J Miller (2000) Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4): 349-59. Water Board (1991) Determining Authority's Report, Proposed Picton Sewerage Scheme, Picton Region. Sydney: Water Board. WCED (1987) 1990 Ed. Our Common Future, Geneva: Oxford University Press. Webb, M (1998) Less talk, more action solution to eco crisis. Sunshine Coast Daily. Maroochydore. Weber, M (1968/1921) Ed. Economy and Society. Translated and edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, New York: Bedminster Press. Webler, T (1999) The Craft and Theory Dialectic of Public Participation. Journal of Risk Research . 2(1): 55-71. Webler, T & S Tuler (1999) Integrating technical analysis with deliberation in regional watershed management planning: Applying the National Research Council Approach. Policy Studies Journal, 27(3): 530-43. Webler, T & S Tuler (2000) Fairness & competence in citizen decision-making: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32(5): 566-95. Wegner-Gwidt, J (1998) Public Support and Education for Water Reuse. In: Asano, T (Ed.) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company. Weick, KE (1979) Ed. The Social Psychology of Organizing, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley. West, S (2001) Centralised management: The key to successful on-site sewerage service. In: On-site 2001 Conference, September 25-28. Armidale, NSW, Australia. West, S (2003) Innovative On-site and Decentralised Sewage Treatment (Report of a study tour - February to November 2000). Sydney, Australia. Wettenhall, RL (1986) Ed. Organising Government: The Uses of Ministries and Departments, Sydney: Croom Helm. White, RR (1994) Ed. Urban Environmental Management: Environmental Change and Urban Design, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. - 392 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

White, S & A Turner (2003) The role of effluent reuse in sustainable urban water systems: Untapped opportunities. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference. Brisbane, Australian Water Association. Whitehead, JH, PM Geary & M Saunders (2001) Towards a better understanding of sustainable lot density - Evidence from five Australian case studies. In: On-site '01, September 25- 28. Armidale, NSW. Whitlam, G (1985) Ed. The Whitlam Government 1972-1975: Viking Penguin Books, Australia. Wilenski, P (1986) Ed. Public Power and Public Administration: Hale & Iremonger. Wolman, A (1965) The metabolism of cities. Scientific American, September(213): 179-88. Woods, W (1988) Proper Sewerage. Sydney Morning Herald. 27 July, Sydney. Woolcock, M (1998) Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27: 151-208. World Bank (1998) The International Workshop on Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Washington D.C., United States: World Bank. WRC (1984) Ed. The Role of Water in the Development of New South Wales, Sydney: Water Resources Commission. Wynne, B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin, A & B Wynne (Eds.) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press. Yanow, D (1998) Ed. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Yin, RK (2003) 3 Ed. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

- 393 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (1) CONTRAST BETWEEN ‘TECHNOCENTRIC’ AND ‘ECOCENTRIC’ VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

‘Technocentric’ ‘Ecocentric’

(dominant paradigm) (alternative environmental paradigm)

Knowledge Confidence in science and technology Limits to science

Rationality of means Rationality of ends

Separation of facts/values Integration of facts/values

Values Material (economic growth) Non-material (self-actualisation)

Natural environment valued as a Natural environment intrinsically resource valued

Domination over nature Harmony with nature

Organisation Authoritative structures (expert Participative structures (citizen influence) involvement)

Hierarchical Non-hierarchical

Law and order Liberation/Empowerment

Table A.2 Dominant and selected environmental modes for human interaction with the environment (after Cotgrove 1982, p.27, 92, Pearce 1993, p.18)

- 394 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (2) CODE NUMBERS OF PARTICIPANTS IN CASE STUDY REPORTS Case study 1 Scoping Case study 2 Case study 3 Sub- Participant category (Caloundra- Interviews (Picton) (Jamberoo) total Maroochy) Local government staff 210a, 210b 204, 205, 207 300 121, 122, 136 118 9 State government staff 301 130, 144 211, 212a, 212b 5

Environment 215 119 2

Health 216 114a, 114b 3 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 113a Water Utility N/A 124, 129 113b 14 105, 106, 110, 115 132 Quasi-government302 126, 145 214a, 214b 4 Non-government 303 201, 208 2 Private consultants 120, 203 209 3 Elected representatives304 137, 143 2 111, 138a, Community 127, 133, 134, 202 138b, 139, 140, 12 representatives305 135 141, 142 Media 206 1 Total 16 15 11 [6] 306 9 57

Table A.3: Categories and codes for study participants interviewed (primary sources)

300 These primary sources were supported by a pilot survey of 11 council Water Managers in the SE Queensland region (reported in Livingston et al. 2004). 301 Departments other than EPA, Health and Water Utilities e.g. Q Dept. Natural Resources, Q Dept. Local Government 302 Quasi-government organisations are partly or wholly funded by government, but are non-departmental e.g. catchment management organisations, scientific organisations, local government or industry associations etc 303 Non-government organisations are independent and raise most funding through donations, e.g. environmental organisations, community advocacy groups 304 Information on elected representatives’ views was obtained from published sources e.g. media releases, newspaper articles, Hansards etc 305 Project / issue based community groups or representatives (i.e. non-professionals) 306 Six participants common to both cases were interviewed in relation to case studies 2 & 3 and are counted only once in the total

- 395 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (3) CASE STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS/TOPICS a) A list of questions were used to guide the semi-structured interviews with community members:

[Introductions; overview of study]

1. What is your background? (education, training, professional life)

2. How and why did you become involved in the ______scheme? (why did you think it important to be involved?)

3. What were the reasons the scheme was initiated?

4. What did you do in the planning process?

5. Were risks an issue for you? If so, what were they, when did you become concerned and why?

6. When and how did water recycling become an option or issue? Who was involved in that approach and what did they do?

7. What is your impression of the type/nature/quality of relations between the lead agency/local council/local residents during the planning of the scheme? How might this have affected outcomes?

8. [NSW cases only] How did the community advisory group work, what was its role?

9. What influence do you think the community group (and you yourself) had on the planning of the scheme and its outcomes?

10. Do you think it is an environmentally sustainable water scheme? Why? What does this mean for you? What would make it more sustainable?

11. In what ways could the planning process have been improved?

12. What were the lasting effects on the community/agency/local council due to the planning/outcomes of the scheme?

- 396 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling b) A list of generic topics/questions were used to guide semi-structured interviews with government or other organisational representatives:

[Introductions; overview of study]

1. Could you outline your background for us briefly?

2. What are your present position/activities?

3. What do you see as “sustainable urban water management”?

4. What do you see as the main organisational/institutional constraints for reaching this vision?

5. What would need to be done for sustainable urban water management to be enabled from an organizational/institutional/political perspective?

6. What did you do in relation to the [name of scheme]?

7. What was the structure of the planning process for the scheme? (how were options generated, weighed up and selected in the decision-making process)

8. What were the internal workings of [the sponsoring agency] and its departments in relation to the scheme? [i.e. roles and responsibilities, internal processes and relationships, political context etc, relevant to how the scheme was progressed]

9. What was the quality/nature of relationships you and/or your organisation had with external stakeholders in the process?

10. What were the outcomes of the planning process?

- 397 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (4) SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW DATA CODING USING ETHNOGRAPH SOFTWARE

The coded summary below is an example of how the data analysis contributed evidence of an interviewee’s values and interpretation of the problem (i.e. evidence of their ‘problem frame’). For example, some text is tagged with a code “SUBJ-VALUE” (subject value) or “INTERPRET” (interpretation) as shown below.

Sample

SEARCH RESULTS 3/15/05 9:20:08 AM Page 3 #1 of 7 INTERVIEW CODE 456# +[Interview at informant’s place of business], SEARCH TERMS: %-SUBJ-VALUE %-SUBJ-NORM %-INTERPRET

Note: this is an actual transcript with personal information removed.

- 398 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (5) DATA ANALYSIS TO DEVELOP STUDY CONCLUSIONS Categorising and labelling case study information enabled increasingly higher levels of abstraction and thus generalisation. For example, particular statements by participants307 relating to a common theme were coded and grouped:

‘Plenty of people have illegal connections’ ‘Inappropriately pumping out’ ‘A lot of septics flow into rivers’ ‘Polluting gutters’ ‘Septic tanks… the majority had problems’ ‘They run it down in the night’ ‘Bubbles going down the gutter at night’

Each statement reveals a concern about septic tank related pollution in the local area. Therefore they were ‘clustered’, using the approach described by Miles & Huberman (1994, pp.248-250), into the ‘local knowledge’ category. This went towards the development of the cognitive dimension of the ‘community’ institutionalisation of the problem (Chapter 6, Table 6.2). Other themes were generated using this technique, which helped develop conclusions in the study, including building up policy narratives, characterising the discourses and values emerging in the case studies (Tables 6.1 and 6.2) and generalising about institutional change mechanisms (as described in Chapters 6 & 7).

307 community representatives in this example.

- 399 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (6) OYSTER CONTAMINATION INCIDENT:LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

A class action was initiated on behalf of the people injured in the Hepatitus A outbreak against the defendants: NSW Government, the Great Lakes Shire Council and the largest oyster producer in Wallis Lakes, Graham Barclays (McMillan 2003, DHA 2003, Yanow 1998, p.11). Proceedings occurred as follows:

The Federal Court under Justice Wilcox initially found in favor of the plaintiff (Mr. Ryan on behalf of the injured parties) and awarded him $30,000 against all three defendants in 1999.

Upon appeal in 2000, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld the judgements against the NSW government and Graham Barclays, but exonerated the Shire Council (by a 2:1 majority) (McMillan 2003, DHA 2003).

The decision was then appealed by the defendants in the High Court of Australia and in August 2000, the full bench of 7 judges of the High Court found that the NSW Government and the Great Lakes Council were not negligent. The grower was also exonerated of any negligence (4:3 in favour) (McMillan 2003, DHA 2003, Ebsworth & Ebsworth 2000, Saxton 2003, March).

Although all negligence claims were dismissed, Graham Barclays was found to have breached the Trade Practices Act (section 74B and 74D) because oysters sold by the company had not been fit to eat.

A major consideration in all three judgements had been the unprecedented, exceptional nature of the health hazard, as this was the first viral outbreak of its kind in NSW (McMillan 2003, Ebsworth & Ebsworth 2000, Saxton 2003, March). The outcome signaled a trend away from imposing liability for such health hazards too readily. Even if a statute confers specific powers on government bodies (e.g. for managing sewage) it suggested that public authorities need not ‘owe a duty to an individual, or a class of persons, in relation to the exercise of the power’ (Graham Barclay v Ryan 2002, p.342, McMillan 2003).

- 400 - Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case of urban water recycling

Appendix (7) PUBLICATIONS Some of the issues and themes relating to this research are discussed in the following publications. Those with an asterisk are reprinted overleaf.

*Stenekes, N. A., Colebatch, H. K., Waite, T. D. and Ashbolt, N. J. (2006) Risk and Governance in Water Recycling: Public Acceptance Revisited, Science Technology and Human Values, 31 (2) 107-134 *Stenekes, N., Livingston, D. J., Colebatch, H. K., Waite, T. D. and Ashbolt, N. J. (2004) Sustainable water management in Australia: An institutional analysis. In: International Specialty Conference: Good Water Governance for People & Nature: What Roles for Law, Institutions & Finance?, IWA/AWWA, 29 Aug - 1 Sep 2004, Dundee, Scotland (platform) Stenekes, N., Colebatch, H. K. and Waite, T. D. (2003) Water recycling and policy-making. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference, Australian Water Association, 1-3 September, Brisbane (platform) Stenekes, N., Colebatch, H., Schäfer, A. and Waite, D. (2002) How does sustainability discourse challenge the structuring of water use? In: International Water Association World Water Congress, 7-12 April 2002, Melbourne (poster) Stenekes, N., Schäfer, A. and Ashbolt, N. (2001) Water Recycling - Perceived and Scientific Risks. In: Environmental Engineering Research Event, 20-23 November, Noosa, Australia (platform) Stenekes, N. A. (2004) Sustainability and Participation in the Governing of Water Use: The case for water recycling. In: Fourth Postgraduate Student Conference, 14-16 April, CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, Noosa Lakes, Queensland Stenekes, N. A. (2002) Risk and Governance in Water Recycling: Can improved stakeholder participation lead to sustainable water use? In: Third Postgraduate Student Conference, 16- 19 October, CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, South Australia (platform) Stenekes, N. (2001) Community Involvement in Water Recycling - Issues and Needs. In: Recent Advances in Water Recycling Technologies Workshop, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, 26 November, University of Queensland

Livingston, D. J., Stenekes, N. A., Colebatch, H. K., Ashbolt, N. J. and Waite, T. D. (2004) Water Recycling and Decentralised Management: The Policy and Organisational Challenges for Innovative Approaches. In: International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design, Cities as Catchments (WSUD 2004), 21-25 November, Adelaide, Australia.

- 401 - SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Nyree Stenekes*, Daniel Livingston*, Hal K. Colebatch**, T. David Waite*, Nicholas J. Ashbolt**

ABSTRACT: The sustainable water management debate has tended to focus on desirable outcomes, such as ‘closed loop’ approaches to water use, and the potential means of achieving them. Less regard has been shown for the dynamics of water management institutions through which water use is governed. What interest there is tends to be in institutions as obstacles to the implementation of particular plans, which reflects the traditional dominance of the debate by technical professions. This interdisciplinary research takes an institutional perspective in assessing the outcomes of sustainability initiatives and the scope for strengthening the institutional basis for sustainability. Our approach is being facilitated through the collection and analysis of empirical data from Australian projects related to water reuse. Preliminary research indicates that, despite moves toward integration and stakeholder inclusion, water management is still assumed to be a matter for technical experts.

KEY TERMS: recycled water, institutional analysis, sustainable water management, stakeholder interaction, problem framing

INTRODUCTION

Many of Australia’s major cities will run out of water within 20 years based on current use trends (Dillon and Ellis 2004). New reservoirs are politically and environmentally unacceptable, hence our current urban water systems are unsustainable in the relatively short term (CoA 2002). Concerns about water scarcity and the impact of current urban water use patterns on the environment has seen a shift in thinking among water professionals toward the consideration of sewage as a resource, catchment scale management, conservation, source control and prevention, and ‘closed loop approaches’ such as water recycling. ‘Water recycling’ traditionally encompasses the reuse of ‘treated municipal effluent’ and, more recently, an additional group of activities including the beneficial reuse of stormwater, greywater, and industrial wastewaters (Burkhard et al. 2000).

Despite clear opportunities for offsetting the use of drinking water beyond that available through demand management, there has been a limited uptake of water recycling as a sustainable urban water strategy in the current water management framework in Australia. In this research, we more closely examine the institutions involved in water management in Australia context in order to gain insight into why sustainable water

** CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia, Email: [email protected] ** Department of Public Policy and Administration, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei Darussalam and School of Social Science and Policy, University of New South Wales NSW 2052, Australia initiatives, particularly water recycling, have not been readily pursued despite the critical need to conserve urban water. An institutional approach recognises that water management is not simply about determining and pursuing authoritative preferences, but depends on the interaction/negotiation of multiple participants (i.e. governing water use) and the way their collective knowledge, values, purpose and expectations are organised in practice. Using this as a basis for analysis, we suggest ways that institutions could be strengthened to enhance the capacity to pursue sustainability.

AUSTRALIAN WATER MANAGEMENT CONTEXT

In the traditional water management paradigm in Australia, State and local governments focused primarily on the need for the supply of potable water and disposal of waste, and later, on preventing the spread of waterborne disease. Engineering was historically the leading profession initiating solutions to water supply and wastewater disposal problems through the development and design of technical models within this management context (Brown et al. 1999) (Figure 1). Rainfall Rainfall Miiniimall Storm water Minimal storm iimported water runoff Imported runoff water Urban water Urban Waterways Catchment Catchment Waterways Inflow Miiniimall Infllow Sewage Inflow sewage diischarges diischarges Infiilltratiion Infiilltratiion ONCE THROUGH

Figure 1: Traditional Urban Water System Figure 2: Sustainable Urban Water System (Mouritz 1997 adapted in Brown 2003, p.60) (Mouritz 1997 adapted in Brown 2003, p.62)

The main means of accomplishing these aims was to invest heavily in infrastructure requires for the collection and delivery of water and wastes (typically underground piped conveyance (‘once through’) systems). Water tended to be managed by government monopolies, dominated by professionals, with little interaction. Reflecting the traditional primacy of technical experts in the water management debate, there has been a tendency to focus on technical change to achieve ‘closed loop’ approaches, such as water recycling (Figure 2). Despite the promotion of water recycling as a contribution to sustainable water use, there has been a distinct lack of progress in implementing such approaches and a tendency to see public involvement - and ‘lay’ ignorance about risk - as the main ‘obstacle’ to progress, which if fixed, will allow promulgation of new technical practices.

However, with increasing societal regard for environmental well-being, and expert concerns about urban water sustainability, the deficiencies of this model are becoming apparent. Increased environmental awareness in the community has seen the rise of environmental activism and in Australia, communities are now more vocal - critical, informed and questioning - of government actions and expert advice where they had been more deferential in the past. Several initiatives to recycle water – some for indirect potable reuse – have generated considerable controversy with the community – or those seeking to represent ‘the community’ - lobbying to block the proposals (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999), or conversely promoting them. While these events have led to concern about the factors affecting ‘public acceptance’ of recycled water (Dillon 2000), there has been less regard for the institutions responsible for water management in order to assess whether some of the ‘fault’ for lack of progress can be attributed to the institutional arrangements in place. In this study, particular attention is given to the dynamics of institutions involved in governing sustainable water planning and management outcomes.

WATER GOVERNANCE: TOWARDS AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

An institutional analysis of the difficulties in promoting sustainable water uses, such as water recycling, recognises that governing is not just about determining and pursuing preferences, but involves the interaction of what is known, what is valued, and how collective activity is organised (Scott 1995, Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.108-116) (see Table 1). This is because ‘governance’ implies a practical and theoretical shift away from authoritative ‘government’ based decision-making towards the recognition that various groups and organisations (actors) are involved in governing water use e.g. businesses (corporatisation / contracts), non- government organisations, other government agencies and community groups. An institutional analysis draws on the three interdependent pillars of institutions – cognitive, normative and regulative – to help explain complex social behaviour (Scott 1995) (see Table 1).

Table 1: Descriptions of an institutional framework for understanding participant knowledge and values; and the structuring of these in practice (adapted from Brown 2003, p.31-35 drawing on Scott 1995, Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.108-116).

Dimensions of Description Explanatory Power Institutions Shared meaning / purpose Expressed through technologies, planning processes, Cognitive Knowledge frameworks considered legitimate to organisational structures, policies, laws etc (knowledge) shape problem definition/solutions Shared values and expectations Explains how values and expectations structure Normative choices/organised actions (values) Social actions (norms) considered appropriate for pursuing objectives Regulative Organisational administration of practice How practice is organised according to what are (rules & considered appropriate actions to pursue shared values sanctions) e.g. rules, sanctions

Drawing on the description given by Brown (2003), the cognitive dimension accounts for the dominant shared meaning and purpose of the practice and the knowledge frameworks, which are considered legitimate to shape the problem definition and actions to address it. The normative dimension refers to the dominant values of the practice e.g. social norms that are considered appropriate processes or modes of action for pursuing the shared values. The regulative dimension refers to the organisational administration of the practice – rules and sanctions – and explains how the implementation of the practice is organised around what are considered appropriate means (norms) of pursuing the shared values (cognitive) (Brown 2003, p.31-35, drawing on Scott 1995). Participants draw on these dimensions differently in relation to the policy problem (problem frames) and their actions are constrained but also enabled by the existing social structures (Giddens 1984). Frames direct attention to some elements of a policy issue while simultaneously diverting attention from others (Yanow 1998, p.11). Through the interaction of various groups involved in the particular issue at hand, social practice is subject to contest and change. Considering the competing institutionalisations is thus critical in any analysis of sustainability outcomes.

Institutional theory has been increasingly used to evaluate sustainable development experiences (see for example Fudge and Rowe 2001, Wakely 1997). This work builds on such attempts and, specifically, addresses the lack of empirically based evaluations available of how existing water institutions are coping with the challenge of sustainability. The main aim of this research is to examine the practical experiences of water recycling initiatives (proposed in the name of sustainability) focussing on key participants’ experiences (meanings, beliefs, values etc) and interactions to asses the implications for policy outcomes.

METHODOLOGY

A review of Australian and overseas cases was conducted, including a review of planning documents and papers relating to water recycling schemes. To verify and support the general findings of this initial review, in-depth qualitative research of several Australian cases located in New South Wales and Queensland was carried out. The in-depth research consisted of semi-structured interviews with around 40 key participants who had been involved in planning proposals to recycle water for both non-potable and potable uses. A key principle of this approach is to learn about social behaviour by examining ‘discourse’ – the way people talk - as this give insights into their values and meanings (Dryzek 1997). Information was collected on their experiences of the planning process, particularly in relation to the way risk was considered and expertise used.

The target interviewees were generally representative of wider interpretive groups, including agency staff (engineers / technical managers / planners / health officials) at the local and metropolitan government level, environmental groups and community representatives. The findings may not necessarily be transferable to other situations, however, an attempt has been made to articulate the more general conclusions.

APPLICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: WATER RECYCLING INITIATIVES

Participants and Competing Institutionalisations of Practice (cognitive and normative elements)

Based on participant accounts of their involvement in the urban water recycling initiatives, a number of competing approaches to the institutionalisation of water governance were evident across the urban water recycling initiatives investigated. These arrangements are obviously indicative and also shifted and overlapped as interactions and contact with the policy issue occurred (e.g. residents becoming experts; technical experts becoming environmental activists) (Throgmorton 1991).

Consumers or the ‘silent majority’ Comments from participants suggested that the 'vast majority of consumers tend not to want to be bothered with sewage issues preferring water authorities to handle the problem’. Many consumers seemed to be interested in getting the things that others already have (‘…we are entitled to the same as everyone else’/’we don’t want second rate solutions’ – e.g. alternative / decentralised sewage systems) while paying the least amount possible (normative expectations in the traditional water management model).

Community activists / ‘environmental’ groups ‘Environmental’ groups tended to see existing water systems as unsustainable and/or were against development not considered 'responsible' (e.g. no new ocean outfalls, sewage treatment plants or dams). Community interest activists were concerned and motivated primarily about public health and environmental dangers related to sewage (risk) and were often viewed by others as ‘knowledge poor’ (cognitive) and consequently illegitimate participants (normative). Such groups often commented on the conservatism of government bureaucracy, particularly engineers’ reluctance to change (‘us’ and ‘them’) and adopt better water systems.

Agency staff (mainly engineers, but also planners/policy staff/consultants) In most cases, agency staff reported feeling the pressures of urban water scarcity, the unsustainability of conventional water systems and increasingly stringent sewage discharge requirements (cognitive). Two groups could be identified: ‘traditional’ and ‘reformer’ (see Table 2). Shifts towards values such as water efficiency, conservation and closed loop approaches to water management (cognitive) were widely evident among those with a ‘reformer’ perspective as were expectations that integrated management and better community involvement was key to achieving these objectives (normative). Significant faith was expressed among experts in technical know-how and innovation to address wastewater management problems e.g. large- scale centralised reuse schemes; on-site / decentralised water sensitive urban design (cognitive). However, the institutional or organisational changes necessary to accommodate sustainable water systems were less often appreciated and were often ill-defined.

Table 2: Competing institutionalisations of water management evident in water recycling initiatives (indicative) and cognitive and normative shift in thinking (but not regulative) (adapted from Brown 2003, p.69 drawing on Scott 1995, Colebatch and Larmour 1993, p.108-116).

‘Conservative’ Dimensions of ‘Reformer’ (Traditional Model) ‘Community / Green Activist’ Institutions (Towards Sustainable Model) Cognitive Supply & disposal Water cycle management Environmental & public health (knowledge) Feed demand Multiple users & goals dangers Mono-disciplinarity SHIFT Trans-disciplinarity Normative Exploit & discard Water efficiency & conservation Social construction of risk (values) Sewage as a waste/’filth’ Sewage as a resource Community empowerment - Government responsibility Shared social responsibility ‘Us’ & ‘Them’ Regulative Professionally controlled Professionally controlled State Loosely defined organisational State monopoly PARTIAL monopoly structures e.g. public forums SHIFT Functional activity Catchment based management

Attempts at Negotiating across Competing Institutionalisations

Negotiation occurred across competing institutionalisations of practice both within lead organisations and with external groups. Where local government had responsibility for urban water management, sewage/sustainability problems were often left to engineering sections to address - both a reinforcement of the primacy of experts but also driving technical innovations (Livingston et al. 2004). Out-sourcing of critical planning tasks was very common (e.g. community consultation) and non-government groups reported concerns about in-house capacity and the impact of privatisation on quality of service, accountability and sustainability. Thus through their capacity as professionals, technical experts (public/private) had considerable influence on the problem scope/definition and the kinds of solutions put forward to address water management. Often there was little interaction/co-ordination between engineers and other in-house departments, but the larger, better resourced organisations (e.g. utilities) approached the problem of internal co-ordination through planning teams across planning, engineering, communications and strategic departments possibly leading to better internal (and external) networking and success in achieving agency goals. Agency-community interaction was typically structured into a staged planning process of which community consultation was sometimes a component. There was ambivalence expressed among both those holding ‘reformer’ and ‘conservative’ perspectives about the usefulness of community consultation and the ability of “ordinary people” to contribute to solving sustainable water problems, ranging from ‘…it’s too difficult and complex. It confuses decisions and politicians….’ and ‘…the community have unrealistic beliefs not based on fact but emotion and its very difficult to change those beliefs’ to ‘…it’s up to the authority to decide and the community to be convinced’ (normative). However, those with the ‘reformer’ perspective tended to believe that stakeholder involvement was necessary for sustainability (normative shift from traditional to sustainable model). These attitudes and beliefs (normative) about external groups was reflected in planning processes.

In general, the structuring of interaction in the adopted planning processes allowed only minor opportunities for the broader community to define problems in the initial stages and it depended on group resources, degree of organisation/knowledge and linkages with government. The ‘silent majority’ of consumers had limited opportunity (or will) to shape the policy proposals, but small groups could become mobilised to act (i.e. from consumer to activist) if unacceptable risk or loss of viability of the community or local environment became apparent. Some of those claiming to represent the community were issue based lobby groups (‘activists’) who sought to block (or promote) particular water recycling projects (e.g. NIMBY or pro-potable reuse) however these groups were often seen as ‘fundamentalist’ or unable to negotiate trade-offs by agency staff and therefore not rational (normative). Despite some reports of minority interest capture, community members also functioned as important negotiators linking the institutionalisations of the broader community with that of government/consulting staff.

One of the key reasons for a divergence in institutionalisations and problems encountered in progressing recycling initiatives was the way non-technical conceptions of risk was handled. With limited ability to propose solutions in the planning process, community ‘activists’ found it easier to veto projects (mainly by approaching the media and/or elected representatives) which in some cases, led to the delay or complete abandonment of water recycling schemes (see for example Uhlmann and Luxford 1999). Reflecting beliefs about environmental or public health danger, these actions were often motivated by the feeling that unacceptable schemes or risks were being imposed or that there was a lack of due process in planning particularly in relation to indirect potable reuse schemes (but not exclusively) (see Table 2). The problem was that experts tended to see the resolution of these kinds of problems in technical terms as something that could be handled through the improvement of wastewater treatment technology and/or the provision of further information about risk (Stenekes et al. 2003). It was not appreciated that these actions would have little effect on people’s positions in relation to water recycling because risk issues were coupled closely with the quality of social networks and values, e.g. trusting technical experts and the organisations they represented and assumptions about the way people want to live (Beck 1992, p.58). This suggests that more attention to developing opportunities for interaction and negotiation is required in order that conditions necessary for improved understanding are established.

The organisational administration of water management (regulative aspect) reflects traditional values of supply and disposal pursued through professionally controlled state monopolies (Table 2). Both those with ‘reformer’ and ‘activist’ perspectives said this model worked against the development of sustainable or integrated solutions in several ways. One of the main problems was the fragmentation of the water cycle between levels of government (local/state) and departments (water/sewage) and that these structures impeded integrated approaches. There were also reports of ‘perverse’ financial incentives (‘there’s a subsidy on certain directions’) and lack of availability of policy guidelines for urban water recycling schemes.

CONCLUSION

Despite opportunities for sustainable water management (and potential for adoption of recycling water options), there has been limited progress in the achievement of such options in practice in Australia. Our research indicates that water planning and policy has increased in complexity due to stakeholders being more active, informed and mobilised than in the past. However, there has been a failure to tap into community values, to formulate a shared problem frame and gain support for sustainable water management resulting in policy stalemates on water recycling initiatives. We have taken an institutional approach to understanding these outcomes by considering the way water use is governed – through the interaction of what is known, what is valued and how these are reflected in organised activity. The analysis suggests that although knowledge and values related to the water cycle has shifted and norms have moved toward a consideration of shared social responsibility (cognitive & normative), the new policy goals are being pursued through the old organisational framework, leading to frustration among those with a ‘reformer’ perspective. This suggests that more opportunities are needed for other ‘voices’ to negotiate across competing institutionalisations of practice to foster sustainable strategies (and not just to accept or reject expert-shaped solutions). The implications for this conclusion are that opportunities for long-term stable relationships (institutions) between diverse participants need to be developed resulting in shared values and goals and ultimately sustainable water management.

REFERENCES

Beck, U (1992) Ed. Risk Society, London: Sage. Brown, R (2003) Institutionalisation of integrated urban stormwater management: Multiple-case analysis of local management reform across metropolitan Sydney (Thesis). Civil and Environmental Engineering. Sydney, University of New South Wales. Brown, R, R Ryan & J Ball (1999) Catchment-Based Stormwater Management in Australia Citizen Participation in Policy - What can be achieved? In: International Conference on Participatory Processes in Water Management, June 1999. Budapest, Hungary. Burkhard, R, A Deletic & A Craig (2000) Techniques for water and wastewater management: a review of techniques and their integration in planning. Urban Water, 2: 197-221. CoA (2002) The Value of Water: Inquiry into Australia’s management of urban water. Canberra: Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Colebatch, H & P Larmour (1993) 1st Ed. Market, Bureaucracy and Community: A Student's Guide to Organisation, London: Pluto Press. Dillon, P (2000) Water Reuse in Australia: Current, Future and Research. In: Proc. Water Recycling Australia 2000. Adelaide. Dillon, P & D Ellis (2004) Australian water conservation and reuse research program. Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31(1): 36-7. Dryzek, J (1997) Ed. Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Cambridge, New York: Oxford University Press. Fudge, C & J Rowe (2001) Ecological modernisation as a framework for sustainable development: a case study in Sweden. Environment and Planning A, 33: 1527 - 46. Giddens, A (1984) Ed. The constitution of society, Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Livingston, DJ, NA Stenekes, HK Colebatch, NJ Ashbolt & TD Waite (2004) Water management planning in local government: organisational factors impacting effective policy for sustainability. In: Sewage Management: Risk Assessment and Triple Bottom Line. Cairns, Queensland, Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Scott, WR (1995) Ed. Institutions and Organizations, California, London, New Delhi: Sage. Stenekes, N, HK Colebatch & TD Waite (2003) Water recycling and policy-making. In: Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference. Brisbane, Australian Water Association. Throgmorton, JA (1991) The rhetorics of policy analysis Journal of Policy Sciences, 24(2): 153-79. Uhlmann, V & L Luxford (1999) Education Needs Background Study. Brisbane: prepared on behalf of the Queensland Water Recycling Strategy by Nexus Australia. Wakely, P (1997) Capacity building for better cities. Journal of the Development Planning Unit, University College London. Yanow, D (1998) Ed. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 107

Science, Technology, & Human Values Volume 31 Number 2 March 2006 107-134 Risk and Governance © 2006 Sage Publications 10.1177/0162243905283636 http://sth.sagepub.com in Water Recycling hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Public Acceptance Revisited

Nyree Stenekes Hal K. Colebatch T. David Waite Nick J. Ashbolt University of New South Wales

Public acceptance is often seen as a key reason why water-recycling technology is (accepted or) rejected. A common assumption is that projects fail because the general public is unable to comprehend specialist information about risk and the belief that if the public were better informed, they would accept change more readily. This article suggests that rhetoric about acceptance is counter- productive in progressing sustainability as it does not address issues relating to institutional arrangements and reinforces a dichotomy between expert and lay groups. Instead, it is argued that institutional change is needed to build opportunities for constructive public engagement. The failure to implement sustainable water use through recycling can be understood as the result of several factors including present cost structures for water, institutional conservatism, administrative fragmentation, and inadequate involvement of communities in planning. Achieving sustainable water use through recycling may require better coordination between agencies and integrated government policies.

Keywords: water recycling; institutional approach; risk; public acceptance; community engagement

lthough availability of water from metropolitan water storages is limited,1 Athe demand is rising and is related to the increasing urbanization that is occurring in many of the larger Australian towns and cities. However, the continual expansion of water services through the construction of new storages,

Authors’ Note: The authors are grateful for funding provided by the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Environment Protection Authority, and the Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment (but any opinions expressed are those of the authors). Also, many thanks extended to participants of the study.

107 ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 108

108 Science, Technology, & Human Values

pipes, or sewerage outfalls to meet consumer demand is no longer seen as adequate mainly because of concerns about the financial and environmental impacts (Dowsett et al. 1995, 62-63; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW [IPART] 2002, 24). These pressures mean that public organizations,2 in whom the main responsibility for water and wastewater services has traditionally been vested in Australia, are being compelled to reconsider their approach to water service provision in view of sustainable development goals. Water conservation and whole water cycle management have widely been embraced as necessary elements of sustainable water management. In particular, policy makers have championed water recycling for its potential contribution to sustainable water management. However, there have been difficulties in achieving these policy goals in part because they tend to be pursued through a technically based institutional framework, which seeks acceptance from the public rather than engaging with stakeholders in addressing problems. This article discusses how the sustainable water use problem has been framed and contested within this institutional context by different stakeholders. The article begins with an outline of the main drivers for recycling water. It sketches the system of water governance in Australia and the aspirations for recycling set out in current policies compared with actual progress. An outline of the main hurdles for achieving water recycling is then given with a detailed look at the assumptions behind the current rhetoric of “public acceptance.” A case for improved public engagement is then made followed by an overview of the institutional context of water recycling to explain the lack of progress on recycling. An institutional approach is taken to ground the analysis in an understanding of the way urban water use is governed: through the interaction of what is known, what is valued, and how activity is organized. The research draws on a broad range of Australian policy documentation, including a review of local, state, and national policy documents and papers relating to water recycling. The discussion also draws on a research project carried out during 2001 to 2004 exploring the water-recycling initiatives of Caloundra and Maroochy (Queensland) and the towns of Jamberoo and Picton (Sydney, New South Wales), Australia. The research consisted of semi- structured interviews with more than fifty people related mainly to proposals to recycle water. The interviews explored key participants’views on policy and social processes in relation to the initiatives. The target interviewees were representative of key stakeholder groups, including water managers, engineers, planners, health officials, consultants, environmental groups, and community members. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 109

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 109

Water Recycling: Drivers and Opportunities

Problems are not self evident, they have to be perceived; it involves a judgement to establish what a problem is, and in identifying a problem in particular terms, limitations are straightaway placed on the nature of the decisions taken about it. —Castles, Murray, and Potter (1971, 15)

The ongoing seven-year drought in Australia and recent subsequent urban water restrictions in most of the state and territory capital cities3 served to focus public attention on the limitations of accessible urban water resources (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council [PMSEIC] 2003, 1; Neill 2002; Sydney Morning Herald 2004; Peatling 2004). Despite the extreme dryness of much of the Australian continent, per capita domestic water use (320 liters per person per day) is second highest in the world after North America (Price 2002, cited in PMSEIC 2003, 2). While urban water use in Australia makes up only 12 percent of total national water use (National Land and Water Resources Audit 2000), water importation on an urban catchment basis is widely seen as unsustainable (Commonwealth of Australia [CoA] 2002, 26-28). Most of the population is concentrated in a few large coastal cities, with about 60 percent of people living in Sydney,4 Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, or Adelaide (CoA 2002, 21). Taken together, the capital cities are growing by 1.3 percent per year, and particularly rapid growth is occurring on the southeast Queensland coast near Brisbane (about 4 percent per annum5; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002). Estimates indicate that many of the major cities will run out of water within twenty years based on current use trends (CoA 2002, 43). Such concerns were expressed by A. Walker, the former managing director of the Sydney Water Corporation (the largest water supplier in Australia), who warned, “we just cannot collect and store enough water in our dams to be confident that we can manage Sydney’s demand as the population continues to increase” (NSW Legislative Assembly 2002, 4). Climate change and provision of environmental water requirements have also served to reduce the estimated available water yields from water storages around Australia (Radcliffe 2003). In this context, urban water recycling6 has been flagged as one of several potential means of addressing such issues by enhancing urban water sustainability (PMSEIC 2003). Recycling is seen as a way of reducing the pressure on existing urban water resources and infrastructure through the substitution of lower quality water for applications that do not require drinking quality (White and Turner 2003). Since only 1 to 4 percent of residential potable water ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 110

110 Science, Technology, & Human Values

use7 is actually used for drinking and about half is used on gardens and for flushing toilets, there is ample scope for substitution at a household level (NSW Legislative Assembly 2002, 4). Despite the obvious need to conserve water in urban Australia and the opportunities available, there has been relatively little progress in harnessing the benefits of urban water recycling. A review of water-recycling strategies taken across Australia in 2002 by Radcliffe (2003) revealed that only about 10% of the total amount of municipal wastewater from sewage treatment plants is being recycled. Within urban areas, the results are very modest. In some of the largest urban centers of Australia—Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth—only about 2 to 3 percent of sewage effluent produced is being recycled (Sydney Water Corporation [SWC] 1999b, 9; Gregory 2001; Radcliffe 2003). There are many projects currently proposed; however, existing water reuse projects such as at Rouse Hill, Olympic Village/Newington,8 Luggage Point,9 and Bolivar10 are the exception rather than the rule. Nonetheless, the introduction of the Building and Sustainability Index (BASIX) requirement in 2004 for new developments in Adelaide and Sydney mandating water and energy reductions is likely to encourage water recycling and higher use efficiency. Over the past few decades, there has been particular emphasis on large water-recycling schemes aimed at reducing sewage discharges to the environment. More recently, as concern about the drought has increased, recycling has been seen as a way of reducing the draw down of potable water supplies (White and Turner 2003). Although the literature emphasizes sewage effluent reuse, there are several kinds of urban water “streams” that could potentially contribute to urban water sustainability; storm water, gray water (household laundry and bathroom), treated industrial discharges, and treated effluent11 (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2002; Burkhard, Deletic, and Craig 2000; Malmqvist et al. 2000). Figures on other kinds of reuse, for example, household gray water reuse, in Australia are sketchy (as this practice is generally not legal), but it has been estimated that it is improvised by up to 20 percent of householders in some regions (Ho et al. 2001). While there is considerable interest in integrated water- sensitive urban design that utilizes a range of water-management technologies, including rainwater tanks, storm water capture and reuse, gray and black water recycling, and composting toilets, only a handful of schemes of this nature exist in Australia (see, e.g., Coombes, Argue, and Kuczera 1999). Increasingly, studies by water research groups have pointed to the benefits of integrated approaches suggesting that decentralized, neighborhood and on-site water management can bring cost, water, and energy savings compared with average developments and thus could play an important role in addressing sustainability (White and Turner 2003; Booker et al. 2000; Gold ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 111

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 111

Coast City Council 2004). Nonetheless, such initiatives are not yet widespread. To understand why there has not been more significant appropriation of the benefits of all types of urban water recycling for sustainability, it is first necessary to look at the way water is governed in Australia.

Governing Water in Australia

Water services in Australia were traditionally the responsibility of elected local governments, but in the largest cities, water supply and sewerage services were later vested in state monopolies. Technical specialists in those agencies had significant decision-making autonomy and were distanced from representative government (Wettenhall 1986, 14), with relatively weak links with the public. During the 1990s, elements of privatization were introduced into the water industry by successive state governments in an effort to address perceived deficiencies in competition, accountability, and productivity (Productivity Commission 1992; Hilmer, Rayner, and Taperell 1993). Public opinion would not have supported full privatization, and as a result, many of the major authorities that supply the bulk of the population with water were transformed into state-owned corporations.12 These government businesses, of which SWC is the biggest, have their pricing and competition status for water and sewerage services independently regulated (since 1992 for SWC). Due to increased environmental public awareness and lobbying by environmental groups, provisions for sustainability were also included in the license conditions and, in addition, state Environmental Protection Authorities were set up to undertake environmental regulation. Metropolitan utilities are also subject to policy control through regular reviews of their operating licenses. For example, it was agreed that SWC must reduce per capita water consumption by 35 percent by November 2010 (relative to 1991 usage levels) and to ultimately eliminate all dry-weather effluent discharges (SWC 1999b, 15, 40), which has significance for water-recycling options. There are several types of (state and territory) water institutions in Australia, illustrating varied development. For example, water, sewerage, and drainage services in Queensland are still fully managed by elected local governments, although the largest city councils have local government water businesses (e.g., Brisbane Water, Gold Coast Water, etc.). In contrast, local governments in the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan regions have been left with only residual drainage functions: water supply, sewerage, and large storm water functions having been subsumed by state government– run businesses. Meanwhile, in the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, South Australia, and Western Australia, utility functions are vested ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 112

112 Science, Technology, & Human Values

in a single state government authority. Overall, the twenty-one largest metropolitan water authorities (defined as having in excess of fifty thousand customers each) provide water and wastewater services to 60 percent of the Australian population (Australian Water Association 2003).

Water Recycling Policy Context

Recent concern at both the state and federal government levels about water scarcity, water resource use, and the environment have reintensified policy discussions about what actions could be taken to meet sustainable targets for urban water use. As part of this impetus, water recycling and conservation strategies have been announced by many of the major metropolitan water authorities in part to address water sustainability concerns. Currently, the main objectives of water-recycling policies are to increase the volume of water being recycled to reduce draw down on mains potable water. For example, Melbourne Water’s target for water recycling is to recycle 20 percent of municipal effluent by 2010 as part of a sustainable development strategy (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002, 4).13 Some state governments are going further and reviewing their urban water regulations, calling for revisions of legislation, guidelines, and codes of practice relating to building, plumbing, and water quality to encourage more water recycling (Queensland Water Recycling Strategy [QWRS] 2001, 7; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002, 9-15). For example, the Queensland government is currently reviewing legislation that prohibits on-site gray water reuse in sewered areas (QWRS 2001, 8), and it is expected that some types of domestic gray water recycling will be allowed by early 2005 (ABC News Online 2004). There is considerable inconsistency in water management across local, state, and territory governments (Radcliffe 2003). A national water plan is currently being discussed to bring a more consistent approach to sustainable water management across the nation.14 While this process has been in train since 1994,15 a National Water Initiative discussion paper released in March 2004 provides a basis for a new intergovernmental agreement on water and includes urban water in its scope (although it is mostly aimed at rural water issues; Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 2004). The urban water issues signified for further action were urban water efficiency, pricing signals, and the development of national guidelines on water-sensitive urban design and integrated urban water planning and management. It also aims to ensure access to urban markets for alternative supply options such as reuse/recycling and desalination (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 2004, 22). ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 113

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 113

Constraints to Implementing Water Recycling

There are, however, major hurdles in implementing water-recycling projects to fulfill state water reuse objectives. One major hurdle is that the cost of providing recycled water is not competitive with the low price of mains water (SWC 1999b, 31), which is a significant disincentive to invest in recycling. The price allowed for mains water is low because the pricing structure does not account for externalities, that is, the impacts of water extraction and sewage disposal on the environment (CoA 2002, 271-73). Sydney Water, for example, does not have to pay for any environmental cost for dumping primary treated effluent into the nearby ocean (CoA 2002, 99) nor for its production of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, water-pricing arguments tend to be conducted in terms of the average cost of present provision, rather than the marginal cost of new provision, and do not fully incorporate the cost of expanding present provision to cover the projected increase in demand. The “low price of water is an impediment to recycling and utilising stormwater, because it does not discourage wastage nor encourage the take-up of water efficient devices and it does not reflect the vulnerability and vari- ability of supply” (CoA 2002, 278). If the true impact of supplying and then disposing of water were taken into consideration, it has been argued that the alternatives may become more feasible and urban water management could improve (CoA 2002, 272). Thus, the attractiveness of alternative approaches to water service provision depends to a large extent on the assumptions made about which benefits, costs, and risks to the community are considered in the framing of the economic analysis and how they are valued. While this article is not the place for a full economic analysis, these are important economic issues that affect the introduction of water recycling. Other important conceptual issues influence the progression toward sustainable urban water management, such as the design of water-recycling projects and the approach to implementation taken by water utilities. Urban water services can be designed according to decentralized and/or centralized principles, each embodying certain opportunities and constraints. Conventional approaches to water and sanitation are based on centralization and linear understandings of the flow of water. Decentralized water services, such as closed-loop, at-source separation and other ecological sanitation techniques, represent a philosophical divergence from conventional approaches because they rely on principles of integration and prevention rather than treatment and disposal (Esrey 2002). Studies suggest decentralized systems could be less resource intensive and more environmentally beneficial than conventional systems (Booker et al. 2000; Coombes, Argue, and Kuczera 1999; Coombes et al. 2002; NSW Legislative Assembly 2002, 20-23; Diaper 2004). ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 114

114 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Decentralized or at-source gray and black water recycling, for example, could save on mains water draw down, materials and energy use, and piped infrastructure and at the same time reduce the amount of nutrients entering waterways (White and Turner 2003). On-site rainwater/storm water capture have the potential to bring substantial reductions in storm water runoff and sewage discharge volumes, which would reduce the downstream impacts of pollution and delay the need to amplify trunk sewer mains (CoA 2002, 272). Again, these potential benefits are not well reflected in economic analyses. Partly as a result of this, urban water recycling is primarily framed by the water industry in terms of large-scale effluent treatment and transfer schemes (Fane, Ashbolt, and White 2001; Law 1999). This is reflected in recent policy initiatives, for example, the West Australian government indicated that its priority for achieving its target for the reuse of wastewater is for “large-scale, scheme based reuse options rather than reuse at the household level” (West Australian State Government 2003, 5).16 It has been suggested that some projects are being driven by central agencies with a strong imperative to “get runs on the board” (Radcliffe 2003). Certainly, many officials of water authorities, often bruised in encounters with community opposition, are skeptical of decentralized schemes calling for community involvement. Perhaps looking at California and Florida in the United States for inspiration, several water agencies in Australia have attempted to research or implement recycled water projects that featured indirect potable reuse (IPR) to service growing populations, including aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and reservoir augmentation. IPR is an attractive option, as it could dramatically increase the percentage of municipal effluent being recycled, enabling recycling targets to be reached more easily.17 For example, the West Australian Recycling Forum expressed the view that “aquifer recharge for storage and transfer to point of use represents a major possible opportunity” (Environmental Projects Office [EPO] 2002, 2). Several initiatives involving IPR, however, have been controversial with sensational news stories of the potential health risks and scare campaigns featuring what is termed the “yuck factor” (see Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, A10; SWC 1996, 1999a; for U.S. cases, see Public Information, Education, and Outreach Workgroup [PIEOW] 2003, 9-12; Crook 1999). Significant reuse is widely seen as “constrained by . . . political/community reluctance to seriously consider any form of potable reuse” (Hamlyn-Harris 2003). Many of the state recycling strategies leave long-term strategic options for IPR open for future research and consideration. However, this is qualified with the proviso that progressing IPR would depend on minimizing uncertainties about risk and on its acceptability to the community in the long term (SWC 1996, 1999a). ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 115

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 115

Water recycling of any kind can potentially provide greater opportunities for reducing potable water draw down and municipal effluent volumes than can demand management. The emphasis has until now been on demand management rather than water recycling (e.g., SWC 1999b), but much of the “low hanging fruit” has now been picked. As we have seen, despite the apparent benefits and diverse opportunities, water recycling (especially decentralized, cluster-level approaches) has not been widely put into practice by water businesses. Strong concerns have been expressed that the current measures taken by Sydney Water, for example, will not be sufficient to achieve specified demand reduction and water-recycling targets (IPART 2000, 56).18 A Senate inquiry into strategies for replacing aging urban water infrastructure called for more serious consideration of decentralized forms of service provision and for more water recycling (CoA 2002, chap. 3). As a result of the lack of progress on water recycling, utilities have been advised to “implement more aggressive water reuse targets and adopt strategies . . . including fitting all new developments (and a rolling program of retrofitting existing housing developments) with plumbing that reuses wastewater and greywater and decentralising to small-scale sewage treatment” (Allison 2003). To avoid added pressure on city water supplies, state policy discussions have since shifted toward implementing nonpotable dual reticulation schemes in “greenfields” sites, where there are no residents to consult. Several recent studies, for example, estimated costs per lot in new developments of integrated urban water systems employ- ing cluster-level gray water recycling among other innovations. The results suggest that alternative approaches can be competitive with the cost per lot of conventional water and sewerage services (see Booker et al. 2000; Cox and Hamlyn-Harris 2003). The focus on dual infrastructure in future housing developments is a positive move but leaves open the question of sustainability for existing developments, where the vast majority of the population live.

The Rhetoric of Public Acceptance

Defining the solution in terms of centralized municipal recycling means the main problem for water utilities has been to convince the public that it is the best approach. This has distracted attention from the issues surrounding decision making and from proper consideration of other options. Despite acceptance of recycling per se, some communities have shown reluctance to accept municipal recycling, especially when domestic or personal uses of the product water are involved.19 Existing schemes include Singapore’s recent NEWater project to recycle domestic and industrial wastewater into drinking water reservoirs (Straits ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 116

116 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Times 2002; Agence France-Presse 2003; Paddock 2002). California’s long-running Montebello Forebay Project in Los Angeles County, which has recharged drinking water aquifers with reclaimed water since 1962, is another example (PIEOW 2003, 6). Berlin’s drinking water aquifers have also been enriched with treated wastewater for several years (Fritz et al. 2003). While many large-scale recycling projects, which include domestic or personal uses of the water, have been successfully implemented, others have been controversial.20 In Australia, several recycling initiatives were abandoned in southeast Queensland over the past decade, including proposals for direct/indirect potable reuse via ASR or reservoir top-up for Caloundra, Maroochy, Noosa, and Caboolture shires (Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, A10; Rivermouth Action Group 1999). Other recycling options and schemes in Australia have not been pursued, such as in Sydney Water’s Backlog Sewerage Schemes (Jamberoo, Bundeena) and the potable water- recycling research and demonstration plant in Quaker’s Hill northwest of Sydney, put aside because of public misgiving over the 1998 Cryptosporidium water quality incident (McClellan 1998). Despite the evident difficulties experienced in the cases mentioned, there has been inadequate exploration of the reasons for the lack of success of water recycling by the water industry or what this means for water management institutions. The discussion will concentrate on the kinds of questions such cases raise about the institutions of water management and the practice of recycling water. However, the conclusions will be broadly relevant to situations in which alternate or sustainable water use is being considered. The present in-depth research conducted into the Caloundra-Maroochy (Queensland), Jamberoo (NSW), and Picton (NSW) water-recycling initiatives will be used to help illustrate certain points in the discussion. In a strategic sense, many in the water industry believe that IPR via aquifer storage/recovery and river or reservoir augmentation is an inevitable outcome of the need for water in Australia. This was reflected strongly in statements from those who participated in this in-depth research project. Those acquainted with water resources issues emphasize the fact that unplanned water reuse is common in Europe, the United States, and Australia, for example, wherever a sewerage outfall discharges sewage upstream from a drinking water intake. For example, one participant in this study remarked, “IPR is inevitable in Australia. It has been happening in Europe and other parts of the world for over a century” (council engineer A, Queensland, 2004). The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering group pointed out that “consideration may have to be given to introducing planned IPR, as has been carried out in California” (Academy of Technological ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 117

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 117

Sciences and Engineering 2004, 146). Officially, Sydney Water sees potable reuse research as part of its long-term plan and hopes to make a decision on this by 2010 (SWC 1999b, Appendix A). However, the dispersed nature of coastal populations in Australia may mean that urban dwellers are less acquainted with the reality of IPR than their European counterparts are. Marks (2003) also suggests that the water industry’s “measured silence” in response to revelations that people may already be drinking water partly sourced from sewage effluent may contribute to distrust in agencies. Such concerns about IPR led the Western Australian government to comment that “community perceptions of aquifer storage and recovery are not favourable and their concerns would need to be addressed.... There is a need to actively engage the community on the use of reclaimed water, in order to define critical constraints, and to provide ‘comfort’ regarding the concept over a number of years prior to implementation of more sensitive schemes” (EPO 2002, 2). Broad concern about community perception of recycled water and frus- trations in implementing projects involving personal uses of the product water has led to a focus on public acceptance among the water industry. In effect, the main questions have been posed in terms of the factors that are responsible for unfavorable public attitudes (Lash and Wynne, 1992, 4). In accordance with this focus, a national pilot survey of water industry stakeholders identified the top research priority as discovering the “factors affecting public acceptance” of water recycling and, second, further research into the technical and health risks (Dillon 2000). This survey involved representatives of each state and territory, who were generally members of the national executive of the Australian Water Association Water Recycling Forum or others with extensive experience in water reuse.21 These kinds of questions give impetus for the social research that has explored public perceptions of recycled water. The surveys have revealed several broad insights that are briefly summarized here. Most of the little available social research on water recycling focuses on municipal sewage effluent recycling. Studies of public attitudes to water recycling in the United Kingdom and Australia found that most people are generally supportive of the concept as long as safety can be assured (Jeffrey and Jefferson 2002; SWC 1996, 5). Studies carried out in Australia and the United States found there was a large measure of public support for nonper- sonal uses of recycled water. However, as the question shifts from abstract concept to actual (salient) nonpotable reuse proposals, support tends to decrease (Marks 2003). However, these surveys found a substantial number of people in any community (20-70 percent) are likely to be opposed to uses ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 118

118 Science, Technology, & Human Values

of water recycling that involve drinking, cooking, showering, washing clothes, or other close personal contact uses (SWC 1996, 1999a; various studies cited in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1992, 167). Also, the potential indirect impacts of chemicals on food are by far the most commonly mentioned reason for opposing the use of recycled water in agriculture22 (SWC 1999a). The available social research consistently suggests that people’s reluctance to support recycling increases as the degree of human contact with the recycled water increases (SWC 1999a, 9; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1992, 166). Po, Kaercher, and Nancarrow (2004) suggest that acceptability may also depend on the use history of the water and people’s perceived degree of control over the quality of the recycled water they receive (Po, Kaercher, and Nancarrow 2004, 14). Be that as it may, the lack of acceptance of certain sources or personal uses of recycled water, as revealed through surveys, is often put down to public misconceptions about the risk associated with the practice, their emotions, or their lack of knowledge of treatment efficacy (Gibson and Apostolidis 2001). This has been expressed in policy, planning, and research documents concerned with water recycling in the United States: “Given the . . . public’s lack of knowledge of advanced wastewater treatment processes, it is little wonder that potable reuse projects can be controversial” (Water Environment Federation/American Waterworks Association [WEF/AWWA] 1998, 192). Such views are imparted by experts in Australia; for example, it has been suggested that “the close association in the public’s mind . . . between water quality and health and the public’s lack of knowledge about advanced wastewater treatment processes, has resulted in many water reuse schemes being controversial” (Moore and Chapman 2003, 1). Health officials have also been critical that reuse decisions “are not being based on scientific evidence or the likelihood of public health risk . . . [but on] public misconceptions and public outrage” (NSW Health Department in Codd 1997, 105). This view of the problem has led many in the industry to assume that the public’s willingness to accept the risk of large-scale schemes can be changed through education about health risks or through demonstration of the technology (Gibson and Apostolidis 2001). Public education to encourage acceptance of technological solutions is accentuated in water management literature and policy. As expressed by a public participation consultant with experience in the Australian water sector, “there is an amazingly naive view, in my view, that the way forward is straightforward—that is if the uneducated are educated then they will see things more clearly . . . [and that] . . . if the ‘public’ is educated (whatever that may involve or mean) then they are likely to change their behaviour, and perhaps make it easier ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 119

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 119

for the experts and decision-makers . . . they are likely to then behave in a more rational way” (Hardy and Max, cited in Swinton 2004, 90-91) . Several participants in the current study suggested that public education is needed to generate acceptance of water management options. Comments reflected a lack of faith in community consultation: “Politicians are elected to know how to represent the community. So why go out and say ‘what do you think?’ There is only a place for education” (council director, New South Wales, 2004). Other participants felt that education was the way to go: “If the community perception of not wanting to have IPR could be overcome there is a potential win-win result,” and because of this, the “public [need] to be educated so that their perceptions can be changed” (council engineer A, Queensland, 2004). In relation to water recycling, another participant commented that “state government [needs] to do a lot of work in providing guidelines and educating the public” (council engineer B, Queensland, 2004). Some of these views are reflected in publications endorsed by leading water associations in the United States, suggesting that the problem is sometimes framed in terms of public opposition to an essentially satisfactory technology and that the solution is education. “[Project managers] may want to devote some effort to educating the public on the benefits and risks of potable reuse,” (WEF/AWWA 1998, 192). “Information and education are the solutions. If people understand what you understand, they will probably agree with what you are doing” (Wegner-Gwidt 1998, 1417). The evidence for links between education/understanding about risk and behavior change is tenuous. Some surveys have found that people with a higher level of (formal) education are more likely to be supportive of water recycling (SWC 1996, 5-6; Bruvold 1984). The review by Po , Kaercher, and Nancarrow (2004, 18) suggests that a complex mix of factors such as gender, age, income, demographics, prior awareness, and contextual issues may be linked with people’s willingness to support water recycling. However, the relationships between people’s level of knowledge, perceptions, and acceptance of recycled water is fairly complex, and it is unlikely that many broad conclusions on these factors can be drawn from the small amount of research available (Marks 2004, 2003). The major causes of difficulties in implementing reuse projects, particularly those including IPR, may well include insufficient public knowledge on water and wastewater issues but may also stem from contextual circumstances and fundamentally divergent problem frames among stakeholders. Frames entail different policy discourses: different language, understandings, and perceptions (Rein and Schon 1994). One participant raised this ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 120

120 Science, Technology, & Human Values

point at a recent symposium titled “Water—The Australian Dilemma”: “The name of the game is shared meaning. Unless everyone in the conversation understands what we’re talking about, and can contribute to the discourse, then you’ll never get public buy-in. You can be as erudite as you like, and society will mostly ignore you or worse, be stubbornly uncooperative” (Cribb 2003). Without discounting the potential positive role of public education in water management, the importance of two-way dialogue about deeply held values early in planning processes is often underestimated. Recent national discussion papers on water recycling issues observed that difficulties implementing water recycling often stem from decisions made to implement projects without sufficient public input (Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering 2004, 143; PIEOW 2003, 12). The interest in finding the factors that influence public acceptance and in educating the public about water recycling has not been matched by an analysis of the context of existing institutional frameworks for water infrastructure planning, which has contributed to the difficulties. A number of observers have suggested that difficulties in implementing water recycling relate to institutional factors, but it is difficult to find evidence of a thorough examination about them (Bruvold 1984).23 An examination of experiences of recycling might reveal some of the epistemological and political dimensions of this debate. The assumptions underpinning public acceptance are examined in more detail in the next section.

Deconstructing Acceptance: Beyond the Deficit Model

The dominant portrayal of the causes of controversies involving interpretations of risk is of a gap between scientific knowledge and the public understanding of science (Irwin 2001; Wynne 1996; Wynne and Mayer 1993). This has been coined the “deficit model” of public knowledge as it presup- poses that the public has not comprehended the available scientific and technical information. This has been critiqued as a feature of risk debates of modern times, such as genetically modified organisms, hazardous waste siting, and bovine spongiform encephalitis (“mad cow disease”; Levidow et al. 1997; Grove-White et al. 1997; House of Lords 2000, sec. 2.47-2.58). The suggested knowledge deficit relates to the lack of acceptance of recycling by the public despite the “facts” that show personal contact with recycled water to be safe. The solution is seen in terms of provision of high-quality information, including information about health risks. Although it is simplistic to say that all agencies’ responses to the difficulties in large-scale IPR ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 121

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 121

schemes can be characterized in this way, there is a tendency to assume that communities who do not accept certain technological solutions (or who want a wider set of options) are basing this on ignorance. Both experts and the public have knowledge, although these derive from different epistemological and ontological bases. However, the institutional forms and practices of water management tend to be based on the assumption that experts have all the knowledge and that the only issue is how much of that knowledge must be given to the ignorant public. In this framing of the problem, public involvement is seen as the acceptance or rejection of narrowly defined technological propositions and perceptions of risk. Rather than perpetuating a dichotomy between experts and the lay community, as this approach does, the issue could be reformulated in terms of how the different frames of reference about risk and sustainability can be better understood by participants. Achieving this is all the more difficult if the frames of reference, through which risk and sustainability are understood by people, are embedded within institutional rules, routines, and hardware (Jelsma 2001). Understanding this context is important since the evidence suggests that risk controversies associated with recycling water are intrinsically linked with institutional trust and credibility issues (Marks 2003; SWC 1999a, 10). Hamilton and Greenfield (cited in Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, A12), for example, cite the most common reasons given for nonacceptance of potable recycling as lack of faith in institutions, politicians, and those in charge. Issues of credibility raised in cases involving indirect potable water recycling in the United States were “compounded because of the public’s general belief that utilities were proceeding on specific projects without warning or proper public input” (PIEOW 2003, 4). During interviews with participants in water-recycling initiatives undertaken as part of the current study, values rather than facts tended to underpin participant risk frames. For example, in relation to an assumed level of acceptable risk, a community interest representative involved with the potable reuse proposal in Caloundra-Maroochy reported, “Their opinion of safe and mine are two different versions of what it means” (Stenekes, Colebatch, and Waite 2003). It was not appreciated that further factual information would have little effect on such positions in relation to water recycling because risk issues were coupled closely with personal values and the quality of social networks, for example, trusting technical experts and the organizations they represented (Stenekes, Colebatch, and Waite 2003). A lack of public faith expressed by some participants in the ability of organizations to administer water appeared to stem from a cognizance that the creation and management of risk results from the actions and decisions of ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 122

122 Science, Technology, & Human Values

modern institutions and that these are constituted by social structures. Lending weight to this notion, Marks’s (2003) study found that the development of trust in agencies proposing recycled water is related to sociocontextual issues including stability of the social order, familiarity, transparency, and accountability. With extreme divisions of labor in society, communities are increasingly dependent on such social structures for essential services, for example, clean water. Therefore, it is not surprising that the magnitude of risk is seen as a function of the quality of social relations and processes associated with public organizations involved in water services. Engendering trust in public organizations is thus a central issue in risk controversies, especially when it is felt that the institutions and actors in question are increasingly distanced and inaccessible to people (Lash and Wynne 1992, 4). Our current knowledge on risk issues and public involvement in water recycling is not extensive. Surveys of risk perceptions in water recycling, the results of which were related earlier, measure broad trends in public opinion about the concept but are unable to account for complex contextual nature of knowledge, power, and trust in actual planning and management processes. Because people’s opinions are fluid and self-reflexive, it is doubtful whether descriptive social research can explain collective decision outcomes with predictive clarity (Lash and Wynne 1992, 7) and can only partly explain the lack of progress on policies promoting water recycling. Research on public involvement in water-recycling projects needs to go beyond the factors affecting public acceptance to involve an examination of the social, institutional, and cultural contexts of specific cases in which recycling is a real possibility (rather than an abstract concept).

Toward Public Engagement

The modest progress toward sustainable urban water management in Australia and difficulties in urban water recycling projects suggests that the complexity of achieving sustainability derives from the presence of old institutional structures being challenged with new ideas. Based on the previous discussion, we argue that knowledge and values about the water cycle have shifted, but sustainability objectives have been pursued through existing technically based organizational frameworks that are predisposed to seek public acceptance for existing solutions rather than engaging stakeholders in addressing the problems and finding new solutions. This implies that more opportunities for dialogue and negotiation about water sustainability issues between various stakeholders will be needed, ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 123

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 123

underpinned by new social institutions. In light of growing concerns about water and environment sustainability, improved ways of engaging communities for urban water sustainability have been the subject of recent policy discussions (Wentworth Group 2003, 14-16; PMSEIC 2003, 143). Increasing recognition of the need for better community engagement regarding water recycling has led some water agencies to consider participatory planning, shifting attention from public acceptance of predetermined technological options toward ways that public participation might be successfully institutionalized (see, e.g., QWRS 2001, 41). Participatory institutions are increasingly recog- nized for their potential to encourage the development of shared values and goals with regard to sustainable water management. Developing new institutions is not “impossible, or even very difficult. After all, in the past hundred years we have completely re-framed our attitudes to female enfranchisement, the white Australia policy, aboriginal land rights, sexual harassment, keeping Australia beautiful and Landcare. Water care ought not to be beyond us” (Cribb 2003). Landcare in Australia provides a good example of where institutional forms have been modified to reflect conservationist thinking. Landcare is widely acclaimed as one of the most successful and innovative rural governance movements in existence, in which grassroots information networks and a large cross section of stakeholders mobilized to address land degradation problems (Wilson 2004; Curtis and Lockwood 2000). This major shift toward valuing the natural environment was accompanied by the development of new organizational forms in which farmers and activists are now active participants and not simply being consulted. Participatory institutions have been identified as a potential basis for improving negotiation and dialogue between different epistemologies and subcultures in issues relating to risk and sustainability (Lash and Wynne 1992, 5). In the technological risk literature, it has been argued that communities have local knowledge (e.g., local values, factual and moral reasoning) that could enhance the decision-making process: properly facilitated, this can complement the knowledge of technical experts, planners, and researchers. Balancing expert and lay knowledge requires a dialogue to be established and maintained between stakeholders, so that public knowledge can find a place in water service planning. Arguments for balancing expert knowledge with public knowledge through participation arise from a “conviction that public values and knowledge could enrich (or challenge) con- ventionally recognised expertise, producing results that go ‘beyond the capabilities of authoritarian or technocratic methods of policy-making’” (Owens and Cowell 2002, 59). There are many arguments for improved community involvement in water projects, but perhaps the main one from the proponent’s point of view ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 124

124 Science, Technology, & Human Values

concerns the issue of the added procedural justice and legitimacy of any decision. However, the matter of community involvement should not be approached cynically, as devolving a measure of power in the policy process brings with it new issues for agencies. The main issues are, first, that enhancing accountability through stakeholder engagement will need to be accompanied by a reexamination of the institutional limitations placed on acceptable solutions to sustainable water use problems and particularly the way water use options are defined and evaluated. Second, it is critical that agencies continue to grapple with the issue of how to adequately involve and represent the views and values of a diverse public and how to reconcile participatory institutions with the existing regulatory structure.

Institutional Context

As mentioned in the discussion so far, the institutional context of decision making is an important feature in the framing of options for development and implementation of sustainable water services. This context is a fabric of regulative, cognitive, and normative rules, which work to constrain or enable options and approaches (Scott 1995, 33). What are some of the features of this fabric that constrain the decision-making process with regard to water recycling in Australia? Integrated approaches to sustainable urban water use are sometimes discouraged because regulatory arrangements for water management can be contradictory and/or split across different agencies. In New South Wales, for example, local councils are responsible for approving and maintaining on-site wastewater treatment and reuse systems, whereas Sydney Water takes responsibility for operating and maintaining large metropolitan water and wastewater systems in the Sydney region. Integrated water use requires a high degree of coordination not only between utilities and local councils but also between state departments such as land planning, environment protection, public health agencies, and pricing regulators. Because of these disjunctions, “success stories often show the recycling agenda being driven by community organisations that are able to encourage integration between the various arms of Government” (PMSEIC 2003, 143). Water utilities are likely to view large-scale, centralized recycling systems as less complicated because of such fragmented and contradictory arrangements. In addition, legislation still prohibits some forms of water recycling. For example, as we saw earlier, it is still illegal in some parts of Australia (but not others) to recycle black or gray water on one’s own property (QWRS 2001, 8), illustrating a somewhat ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 125

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 125

subjective tolerance for risk. These inconsistencies will have to be carefully reviewed if water recycling is to develop into a viable option. Water and health authorities can be very conservative and therefore may be reluctant to consider decentralized recycling technologies that may entail new kinds of public health implications. However, new studies indicate that roof water used for flushing toilets, hot water services, and outdoor use pose very few health risks (Millis 2002). Indeed, cluster scale wastewater management may bring certain advantages over centralized systems in terms of pathogen risk to users (Fane, Ashbolt, and White 2001). Understandably, the fear of reintroducing health and environmental problems by adopting alternative technologies that are deemed “backward steps” is strong. However, new business opportunities could arise from the installation and maintenance of alternative technologies. For example, centralized management could be adapted to suit decentralized forms of recycling (as suggested in West 2001). Water utilities do not readily invest in alternative water sources because it may detract from their market share and asset base. For example, revenue is earned by selling more water, and it is therefore in the utilities’ interests to encourage greater consumption, not less (CoA 2002, 294). The more water sold, the greater are the dividend payments state-owned water utilities give to governments (Radcliffe 2003, 12). As some observers point out, “perverse incentives” govern the decisions made by monopoly water authorities (Janssens 2003), which are unlikely to encourage integrated approaches to sustainable urban water use. However, it is more the reluctance to move away from traditional paradigms of service provision that presents the major constraint in the fabric of regulative, cognitive, and normative institutional rules. Traditionally, the water cycle has been conceptualized into three distinct parts with separate functions: water supply, wastewater disposal, and storm water management. Solutions to engineering problems are traditionally formulated along these strong cognitive divisions and on the basis that the water is used once and then thrown away. Institutional forms in Australia reflect a particular historical tendency to regard the state as a vast public utility that, far from controlling our use of water, should supply us with all the water we need (Hancock [1930] 1961, 55). Nowadays, however, the problems relating to the “once-through” paradigm, such as the environmental and health impacts caused by combined sewage overflows and sewerage outfalls, have become increasingly unacceptable. “Conventional sanitation options result in the pollution of fresh and marine water bodies, often accounting for more than half the nutrients found ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 126

126 Science, Technology, & Human Values

in marine waters” (Esrey 2002, 226). An appreciation of the environmental externalities has highlighted the complex, interactive nature of the water system. While the urban water cycle is more and more seen as an integrated system, institutional approaches to sustainability problems still reflect these artificial boundaries. As observed by Castles, Murray, and Potter (1971), such traditions, values, and conceptions of problems have placed constraints on the nature of the decisions taken about them. Conceptualizing recycling in terms of large centralized schemes by single-purpose agencies relates back to these institutional frames and has inhibited integrated thinking and solutions to the challenges of urban water management (Lawrence and Cullen 2002, 6-7).

Conclusion

The problem of public acceptance of water recycling is a minefield of assumption and rhetoric and is widely used as a way to explain the lack of progress on water recycling. A common assumption is that projects fail because the general public is unable to comprehend specialist information about risk and the belief, therefore, that if the public were educated, they would accept change more readily. However, there is less recognition of the need to engage communities about deeply held risk and sustainability values. A rhetorical emphasis on public acceptance of centralized schemes somewhat reflects the efforts of proponents to implement predefined technological propositions and a lack of engagement of other voices in important sustainability issues. The failure to achieve greater water sustainability through recycling in Australia can be understood not simply as a failure to gain public acceptance in any particular case but as the result of institutional frameworks constraining the definition of both the problem and acceptable solutions. We have suggested that institutional frameworks are made up of regulative, cognitive, and normative rules, which govern practice through the interaction of what is known, what is valued, and how these are reflected in organized activity. In the case of water recycling, we argued that issues such as water pricing structures, ingrained cognitive paradigms, institutional conservatism, administrative fragmentation, and cultural expectations have worked to constrain the range of acceptable options for water management in Australia. Social impacts and environmental risks related to urban water services cut across many carefully cultivated disciplinary and administrative boundaries, making integrated approaches to sustainable water management particularly ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 127

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 127

difficult. The institutional complexity, interdependency, and uncertainty illustrated in this case suggest that planning for sustainable water use may require new institutional structures that facilitate dialogue with the community and consideration of a broader range of options. Governments have attempted to incorporate sustainable development principles in infrastructure-planning decisions and are recognizing the centrality of community engagement in such processes. Although these initiatives are scarcely likely to eliminate conflicting values and interests concerning risk and sustainability, such shifts in policy may represent the beginnings of a new culture of engagement and may go a long way toward improving accountability and transparency.

Notes

1. For example, the NSW Independent Pricing Regulator stated, “Given the currently available information about rainfall, Sydney Water [Corporation] appears to be already drawing close to the long-term safe yield of water available from existing storages under current operating rules” (IPART 2002, 24). 2. Public organization is used in the broadest possible sense as there are many different forms in which public infrastructure management takes place today, for example, utilities, corporatized government bodies (statutory bodies), and, more recently, private companies regulated by governments. 3. Restrictions were enforced in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, and southeast Queensland in the period from 2001 to 2004 (Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering 2004). 4. Sydney’s population is still growing at an average rate of forty-two thousand additional people per year (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1998). Although the per capita demand rate has significantly diminished since the early 1980s, total water demanded by Sydney Water Corporation [SWC] customers, the largest metropolitan water utility in Australia, has grown by about 10 percent between 1995 and 2001 (White 2002, 2-3). 5. Average growth rate between 1996 and 2001 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002). 6. The terms recycling and reusing water are used interchangeably in this article. Reclaimed water is sometimes also used by the water industry to denote highly treated sewage effluent. 7. Of the overall 12 percent of water used by towns and cities in Australia, the proportion of residential use (as compared with industrial and other losses) is 59 percent. Approximately half of this is used for toilet flushing and garden watering (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council 2003, Table 1, p. 2). 8. Rouse Hill (SWC) and the Olympic Village/Newington (Sydney Olympic Park Authority) dual reticulation or “third pipe” schemes are located west of Sydney. They recycle approximately 3,000 and 700 million liters per year, respectively, of treated wastewater to households for toilet flushing and garden use. 9. Brisbane City Council (Brisbane Water) operates the Luggage Point Wastewater Treatment Plant near Brisbane, which treats about 4,000 million liters per year of water for the nearby BP Refinery, where it is used for industrial cooling and boiler feed water. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 128

128 Science, Technology, & Human Values

10. The Virginia Pipeline Scheme near Adelaide in South Australia (run by South Australia Water) is the largest reuse project in Australia: 20,000 million liters per year of reclaimed effluent is delivered from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant for the irrigation of edible crops, for example, lettuce, carrots, and hydroponic tomatoes. 11. Treated effluent is typically household wastewater (or “black” water) derived from toilets, which has undergone some form of treatment. 12. Corporatization is where the state government becomes the sole shareholder and the business is run as a private enterprise. The Hunter Water Board was corporatized in 1992 and the Sydney Water Board in 1995 in New South Wales. Similarly, Melbourne Water in Victoria was corporatized in 1991. 13. Sydney Water has an overall strategy to reduce demand for water by 35 percent by 2021, of which water recycling is a component (SWC 1999b). The Water Corporation of Western Australia has followed a similar track, with a government commitment of 20 percent reuse of treated wastewater by 2012 (West Australian State Government 2003). Brisbane Water aims to recycle about 15 percent of its wastewater by 2007-8 (Brisbane Water 2003). The Australian Capital Territory government has announced a reuse objective of 20 percent by 2013 (Radcliffe 2003). 14. The federal government, whose powers are set down in the constitution, has no direct regulatory power over water. However, it can influence environmental matters on a negotiated basis with the state and territory governments. Its roles lie in national leadership, standard setting, intellectual contribution, and financial investment (Commonwealth of Australia [CoA] 2002, 213). 15. The main federal vehicle for involvement in water has been the 1994 Coalition of Australian Governments Water Reform Agreement, which confers economic rewards to states and territories for improving the efficiency of water use as well as the environmental management of the nation’s river systems (CoA 2002, 214). 16. Similarly, Sydney Water is focusing on a combination of demand management strategies and large-scale centralized domestic and industrial recycling schemes (SWC 1999b). Melbourne Water is targeting water-recycling opportunities from wastewater treatment plants operated by government-owned water businesses mainly for agricultural, industrial, and nonpotable uses in new urban developments (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002, 4, 7, 28). 17. The Pimpama-Coomera Water Futures Project (Gold Coast City Council, Queensland) estimated that indirect potable reuse could facilitate the reuse of 83 percent of urban sewage, effectively eliminating discharges to the Pimpama River estuary (Cox and Hamlyn-Harris 2003). 18. Independent reviews of Sydney Water’s performance found that “it had made poor progress towards meeting its recycled water target of 58 ML/day” (Sinclair Knight Mertz 2000). 19. Domestic or personal uses of the water include indirect and direct potable applications and any other uses in which people may come into contact with the water, for example, watering grassy areas in residential areas, showering, washing clothes, flushing toilets, and watering private gardens. 20. Notable U.S. schemes that have been controversial include the reduction in scale (by 40 percent) of recycled water to recharge the San Gabriel Valley, California, drinking water aquifer (Water Environment Federation/American Waterworks Association 1998; Wegner- Gwidt 1998; Public Information, Education, and Outreach Workgroup [PIEOW] 2003, 9); the abandonment of the city of San Diego’s water reclamation project plans in 1999 (indirect potable reuse via injection into aquifers; PIEOW 2003, 10-11); and residents of Redwood City, California, campaigning against watering common grassy areas with recycled water (Ryan 2003). 21. State and territory representatives were asked to respond on behalf of their state or territory and assign high, medium, or low priority to each of thirty-seven branches of research described by a phrase or word. The category that ranked first on the overall list was “factors ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 129

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 129

affecting public acceptance of reuse.” The results were intended to be an indicator of research needs in water recycling (see Dillon 2000). 22. The 1999 survey of Sydney residents by Sydney Water indicated that about 60 percent of people were concerned about the indirect impact of recycled water on food if used in agriculture (SWC 1999a). 23. Bruvold (1984), a well-known early social researcher on water recycling, suggested that more research needed to be done on institutional barriers that could help make sense of the existing descriptive research but that a conceptual framework was needed to guide this research.

References

ABC News Online. 2004. Qld gives grey water use the green light. June 4. http://www.abc.net.au/ (accessed January 2003). Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. 2004. Water recycling in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Agence France-Presse. 2003. Technology can quench Asia’s thirst for water. Borneo Bulletin. February 26. Allison, L. 2003. VIC wastewater plan a drop in the ocean (press release number 03/11). Australian Democrats 2003. http://www.democrats.org.au/news/. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2002. Australian demographic statistics. http://www.abs. gov.au/ (accessed July 2004). Australian Water Association. 2003. Submission to the senate enquiry into Australia’s urban water management. Canberra, Australia: Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/ water/submissions/sub041.pdf. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. London: Sage. Booker, N., S. Gray, G. Mitchell, A. Priestley, R. Shipton, A. Speers, M. Young, and G. Syme. 2000. Sustainable alternatives in the provision of urban water services—An Australian approach. Paper presented at Proceedings of Water: The World’s Most Important Resource: 10th World Water Congress, Melbourne, Australia. Brisbane Water. 2003. Sustainable partnerships, solutions, commitment: Report to stakeholders 2003. Brisbane, Australia: Brisbane Water. Bruvold, W. H. 1984. Research in the societal and institutional issues of water reuse. Paper presented at Future of Water Reuse, Vol. 3, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III, San Diego, California. Burkhard, R., A. Deletic, and A. Craig. 2000. Techniques for water and wastewater management: A review of techniques and their integration in planning. Urban Water 2:197-221. Castles, F. G., D. J. Murray, and D. C. Potter. 1971. Decisions, organisations and society. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Codd, M., 1997. Public inquiry into the management of sewage and sewage by-products in the NSW coastal zones. Sydney: NSW Environment Protection Agency. Commonwealth of Australia. 2002. Inquiry into Australia’s management of urban water. Canberra, Australia: Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/water/report/index.htm. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. 2002. National bid to save water. CSIRO Land and Water Link September:1-2. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 130

130 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Coombes, P. J., J. R. Argue, and G. Kuczera. 1999. Figtree place: A case study in water sensitive urban design. Urban Water 1 (4): 335-43. Coombes, P. J., G. Kuczera, J. D. Kalma, and J. R. Argue. 2002. An evaluation of the benefits of source control measures at the regional scale. Urban Water 4 (4): 307-20. Cox, S., and D. Hamlyn-Harris. 2003. Pimpama Coomera Water Futures: Pushing the boundaries. Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane, Australia. Cribb, J. 2003. Will the real Australian please stand up? Address to ATSE Symposium. Paper presented at the Academy Symposium: Water—The Australian Dilemma, Melbourne, Australia. Crook, J. 1999. Indirect potable reuse. Water, Environment and Technology 11 (5): 71-75. Curtis, A., and M. Lockwood. 2000. Landcare and catchment management in Australia: Lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society and Natural Resources 13:61-73. Diaper, C. 2004. Innovation in on-site domestic water management systems in Australia: A review of rainwater, greywater, stormwater and wastewater utilisation techniques—CSIRO Urban Water for the Australian Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program (AWCRRP). CSIRO MIT Technical Report 2004-073 April 2004. Victoria, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Dillon, P. 2000. Water reuse in Australia: Current, future and research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Water Recycling Australia 2000, Adelaide, Australia. Dowsett, B., G. Mather, C. Mercer, B. Pearson, and D. Vincent. 1995. A new course for Sydney Water: The final report of the Sydney Water Project. Sydney: Friends of the Earth (Sydney) Inc. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. 2002. New water for Victoria: Victoria’s water recycling action plan. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2004. National Water Initiative discussion paper. Barton, Australia: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1998. Shaping our cities: The planning strategy for the greater metropolitan region of Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the Central Coast. Sydney: Planning NSW. Environmental Projects Office. 2002. Findings of the Reclaimed Water (Water Recycling) Forum (Western Australia). Coordinated by CSIRO, Environmental Projects Office. Stakeholders: Water and Rivers Commission, Water Corporation, Department of Environmental Protection, Health Department, Murdoch University, Agriculture WA, Department of Infrastructure and Planning. http://www.ourwaterfuture.com.au/community/ symposiumpres/Don%20McFarlane_paper.pdf (accessed July 2003). Esrey, S. 2002. Philosophical, ecological and technical challenges for expanding ecological sanitation into urban areas. Water Science and Technology 45 (8): 225-28. Fane, S. A., N. J. Ashbolt, and S. B. White. 2001. Decentralised urban water reuse: The implications of system scale for cost and pathogen risk. Water Science and Technology 46 (6-7): 281-88. Fritz, B., S. Rinck-Pfeiffer, G. Nuetzmann, and B. Heinzmann. 2003. Conservation of water resources in Berlin, Germany, through different re-use of water. Paper presented at Wastewater Re-use and Groundwater Quality, Sapporo, Japan. Gibson, H. E, and N. Apostolidis. 2001. Demonstration, the solution to successful community acceptance of water recycling. Water Science and Technology 43 (10): 259-66. Gold Coast City Council. 2004. Pimpama Coomera Waterfuture master plan. Queensland, Australia: Gold Coast Water, Gold Coast City Council. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 131

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 131

Gregory, A. 2001. Water recycling in Sydney: The options. Water 28 (3): 30-36. Grove-White, R., P. McNaghten, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne. 1997. Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. Hamlyn-Harris, D. 2003. Integrated urban water management and water recycling in SE Queensland: Recent developments. Paper presented at Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia State Conference, Mackay, Queensland. Hancock, W. K. [1930] 1961. Australia. Brisbane, Australia: Jacaranda Press. Hilmer, F. G., M. R. Rayner, and G. Q. Taperell. 1993. National competition policy. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, Independent Committee of Inquiry into Competition Policy in Australia. Ho, G., S. Dallas, M. Anda, and K. Mathew. 2001. On-site wastewater technologies in Australia. Water Science and Technology 44 (6): 81-88. House of Lords. 2000. Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report. House of Lords, United Kingdom, February 23. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3804.htm. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. 2000. Sydney Water Corporation: Prices of water supply, sewerage and drainage services. Medium-term price path from 1 October 2000. Sydney: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. ———. 2002. Review of Metropolitan Water Agency prices: Issues paper. Sydney: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. Irwin, A. 2001. Institutional judgements and contested decisions: The governance of environmental problems. In Sociology and the environment. Cambridge: Polity Press. Janssens, J. G. 2003. Tariff regulation and efficiency incentives: Introductory remarks. Paper presented at the True Cost of Water, Towards Economic and Environmental Sustainability, Barcelona, Spain. Jeffrey, P., and B. Jefferson. 2002. Public receptivity regarding “in-house” water recycling: Results from a UK survey. Paper presented at the International Water Association World Water Congress, Melbourne, Australia. Jelsma, J. 2001. Frame-reflective policy analysis in practice: Co-evolution of a policy regime and an intractable controversy in biotechnology. In Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis, ed. M. Hisschemoller, R. Hoppe, W. N. Dunn, and J. R. Ravetz. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing. Lash, S., and B. Wynne. 1992. Introd. to Risk society: Towards a new modernity, by U. Beck. London: Sage. Law, I. B. 1999. Potable reuse: Technologies and trends. Paper presented at the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, 18th Federal Convention, Adelaide, Australia. Lawrence, I., and P. Cullen. 2002. Australia’s urban water management: Integrating the water cycle. Submission to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Inquiry. Canberra, Australia: Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Levidow, L., S. Carr, D. Wield, and R. von Schomberg. 1997. European biotechnology regulation: Framing the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22 (4): 472-505. Malmqvist, P.-A., N. J. Ashbolt, S. Fane, D. Hellström, U. Jeppsson, and H. Söderberg. 2000. Assessing alternative wastewater systems in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm. In Second International Conference on Decision Making in Urban and Civil Engineering, ed. J.-C. Mangin and M. Miramond, 1-13. Lyon, France: CUST Clermond-Ferrand, LIP6 Paris and Universitie de Valenciennes. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 132

132 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Marks, J. 2003. The sociology of “disgust” towards the use of reclaimed water. Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane, Australia. ———. 2004. Back to the future: Reviewing the findings on acceptance of reclaimed water. Paper presented at Enviro 04, Sydney, Australia. McClellan, P. (1998). Sydney water inquiry (final report): Introduction, recommendations and actions. Sydney: Premier’s Department, New South Wales Government. Millis, N. F. 2002. Water quality relative to end use. Paper presented at the 27th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Melbourne, Australia. Moore, M. R., and H. F Chapman. 2003. Endocrine disruptors in Western society: Are there any health risks in effluent reuse? Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane, Australia. National Land and Water Resources Audit. 2000. Water in a dry land: Issues and challenges for Australia’s key resource. Canberra, Australia: National Land and Water Resources Audit. Neill, R. 2002. As wasters there isn’t a bigger bunch of drips: The selfish country—World champs at conspicuous consumption. The Australian. November 1. NSW Legislative Assembly. 2002. Interim report on urban water infrastructure. Sydney: NSW Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Public Works. Owens, S., and R. Cowell. 2002. Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in the planning process. London: Routledge. Paddock, R. C. 2002. Singapore reclaims water, and its self-sufficiency. Los Angeles Times Headlines. August 18. Peatling, S. 2004. NSW tops the national ladder for wasting water. Sydney Morning Herald. March 30. Po, M., J. Kaercher, and B. E. Nancarrow. 2004. Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse: CSIRO land and water for the Australian Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program (AWCRRP). Perth, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Price, M. 2002. Who needs sustainability? In Sustainable groundwater development, ed. K. M. Hiscock, M. O. Rivett, and R. M. Davison, 75-81. Geological Society of London (GSL) Special Publications 193. London: GSL. (Cited in PMSEIC 2003.) Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. 2003. Recycling water for our cities. Canberra, Australia: Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. Productivity Commission. 1992. Water resources and waste water disposal. Report no. 26. July 17. Public Information, Education, and Outreach Workgroup. 2003. Better public involvement in the recycled water decision process (draft). Sacramento, CA: Public Information, Education, and Outreach Workgroup for the Department of Water Resources State Water Resources Control Board Department of Health Services. Queensland Water Recycling Strategy. 2001. Queensland water recycling strategy. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Natural Resources, Queensland State Government. Radcliffe, J. 2003. An overview of water recycling in Australia: Results from the recent ATSE study. Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane, Australia. Rein, M., and D. Schon. 1994. Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Rivermouth Action Group. 1999. Rivermouth Action Group Web site. http://www.rag.org.au/ sewage/waste.htm (accessed September 2001). ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 133

Stenekes et al. / Risk and Governance in Water Recycling 133

Ryan, K. 2003. Recycled wastewater plan scrapped Redwood City residents objected. San Francisco Chronicle. February 5. http://geocities.com/safewater94065/docs/CHRONICAL_ PLAN_SCRAPPED_FEB5.doc. Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations, foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sinclair Knight Mertz. 2000. Sydney Water Corporation audit 1999. Sydney: Sinclair Knight Mertz. Stenekes, N., H. K. Colebatch, and T. D. Waite. 2003. Water recycling and policy-making. Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, Brisbane, Australia. Straits Times. 2002. Newater to start flowing in February. September 26. Swinton, B. 2004. Education: The key to sustainable water management. Australian Water Association Journal, Water March:86-91. Sydney Morning Herald. 2004. Editorial: City’s call on water waste. May 1. Sydney Water Corporation. 1996. Community views on water reuse: Research report. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. ———. 1999a. Community views on water reuse: Research report. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. ———. 1999b. Water recycling strategy. Sydney: Sydney Water Corporation. Uhlmann, V., and L. Luxford. 1999. Education needs background study. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Water Recycling Strategy by Nexus Australia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidelines for water reuse. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Agency for International Development. Water Environment Federation/American Waterworks Association. 1998. Using reclaimed water to augment potable water supplies. Denver, CO: Water Environment Federation/ American Waterworks Association. Wegner-Gwidt, J. 1998. Public support and education for water reuse. In Wastewater reclamation and reuse, ed. T. Asano, 1417-62. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing. Wentworth Group. 2003. Blueprint for a national water plan. Sydney, Australia: Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. West Australian State Government. 2003. Securing our water future: A state water strategy for Western Australia. Summary document. http://www.watercorporation.com.au/Docs/State_ Water_Strategy.pdf (accessed July 2003). West, S. 2001. Centralised management: The key to successful on-site sewerage service. Paper presented at the 2001 On-site Sydney Water Corporation Conference, Armidale, NSW, Australia. Wettenhall, R. L. 1986. Organising government: The uses of ministries and departments. Sydney: Croom Helm. White, S. 2002. The demand for water in Sydney. Sydney, Australia: Hawkesbury-Nepean River Management Forum. White, S., and A. Turner. 2003. The role of effluent reuse in sustainable urban water systems: Untapped opportunities. Paper presented at the second national conference of Water Recycling Australia, National Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Wilson, G. A. 2004. The Australian Landcare movement: Towards “post-productivist” rural governance? Journal of Rural Studies 20 (4): 461-84. Wynne, B. 1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 19-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wynne, B., and S. Mayer. 1993. How science fails the environment. New Scientist 138 (June): 33-35. ST&HV283636.qxd 1/24/2006 7:55 PM Page 134

134 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Nyree Stenekes graduated in 1999 with a bachelor’s degree in civil and environmental engineering (first class honors) and practiced as an engineer for several years in Asia, developing and testing methodological approaches to the assessment of water supply risk. She then returned to Australia where she is currently doing doctoral research on the challenges posed by sustainability discourse to the way we understand, use, and regulate water using the case study of water recycling.

Hal K. Colebatch is an associate professor in the Department of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Brunei Darussalam and a visiting associate professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New South Wales. His research focuses on the nature of organizational structures for the exercise of public authority and the way in which technical, bureaucratic, participatory, and market frameworks are mobilized in the construction and maintenance of government.

T. David Waite of the University of New South Wales School of Civil and Environmental Engineering is director of its Centre for Water and Waste Technology. His principal research interests lie in the area of physico-chemical processes in water and wastewater treatment and in natural systems. His research team focuses specifically on processes involving particles and surfaces in nature and in treatment. Particular emphasis in recent years has been devoted to optimizing chemical addition in treatment through improved understanding of particle-particle interactions and aggregate structure and in transformation and fate of trace metal and organic species in natural and treatment systems.

Nick J. Ashbolt is head of the University of New South Wales School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He has considerable research and project coordination experience within the area of aquatic and environmental microbiology. His current major focus is on assessing environmental pathogens and the use of the interpretation of data using novel microbial risk assessment techniques for urban water systems (catchments to tap).