Clearer regulations for water sensitive cities - CRC for Water sensitive cities

Exploring a regulatory void

drought-plain_regulatoryframeworks The Kalkallo stormwater harvesting and reuse project in Melbourne’s north is a precinct-level endeavour that aims to treat stormwater to a potable standard (that is, a standard approved for drinking). The progress of this innovative project has been unimpeded by existing regulations and has defied expectations. Based on the obstacles encountered by similar pioneering projects with water sensitive design objectives, the Kalkallo project might easily have been hindered by poorly coordinated and out-dated regulation frameworks. So why was it not?

The answer to be a combination of two key factors: a ‘void’ in Victorian regulation regarding stormwater reuse, and the availability of Commonwealth funding to enable experimentation with novel means of water supply. While developments such as large-scale sewerage treatment plants are tightly regulated, Victoria currently has no formal regulatory process to govern the design and implementation of a water sensitive stormwater reuse project. However, existing law and regulatory frameworks do contain elements that enabled this project and supported its interesting new direction. Without a defined regulatory process, the planning of the Kalkallo project unfolded in a space that enabled discretion in the interpretation of the background law, and innovative implementation with water sensitivity in mind. Backed by Australian Government funding, it provided the opportunity for the project partners (Yarra Valley Water, the Victorian Department of Health, Melbourne Water, and MAB Corporation) to develop a controlled proof-of-concept case study for stormwater treatment from which new and more specific regulations could be developed in the future.

Good planning down the drain

Perhaps due to its acutely limited, aquifer-based water supply, Perth is more progressive in embracing reuse of stormwater. The principles of capturing and storing groundwater for fit-for-purpose use have been set out in a Stormwater Management Manual and are being implemented locally according to WA Planning Commission guidelines. But despite these planning instruments to support water sensitive cities, Perth also faces regulatory challenges. One concerns the refurbishment of existing urban drainage to achieve water sensitive design outcomes. At present, the regulatory obligations for drainage are confined to managing the quantity of water to prevent flooding; they do not encompass broader water sensitive city objectives such as improving water quality or local amenity. As Perth’s drains are managed by different authorities – the main drains by the Water Corporation and the smaller drains by local councils – it is unclear who should manage these broader objectives or how they should be funded. This situation highlights a point that is echoed across all three of these case studies: the need for more coordinated regulatory frameworks that support – or at least do not impede – the objectives of a water sensitive city. According to Dr Ursula Kretzer, Manager of Water Industry Governance of Western Australia’s Department of Water, “The challenge for Perth is to get all drainage managers and planners working together to the same, clear, common objectives for our drainage network, including measures to help improve water quality in our urban waterways.”

The CRCWSC report Becoming a water sensitive city: a comparative review of regulation in Australia looked at implementing new options for delivery of water sensitive service in the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, and identified where regulations supported or hindered these processes. In all three cities, the regulatory frameworks were established following conventional urban water management models, which are not designed to support innovation in water services. In Perth (as outlined above), the report found that a lack of enabling regulations made it difficult to allocate the risks of new water management practices, and recommended reconfiguring sections of the current regulatory frameworks that impede water sensitive service delivery.

The report also recognised the importance of economic incentives to create an environment for regulatory innovation. As the Kalkallo project in Melbourne demonstrated, without clear regulation for water sensitive city design it is grant funding that provides the incentive and means to interpret the existing law – and to experiment with emerging water supply options such as treated stormwater.

The regulation of urban water is intrinsically complex, and progress toward developing clearer regulations for water sensitive cities is unlikely to be quick. While they may be unclear and confusing, the existing regulations were put in place for good reasons, often to protect the public from serious health and environmental risks. But when practices speed ahead of the rules, a space for innovation opens up – unencumbered by the burden of lengthy approvals processes. Getting the balance right may be the new challenge.

Further reading:

Nicola Markus for the Mind Your Way team