ian b law - urban water security research · pdf fileian b law. ibl solutions & awrce....
TRANSCRIPT
Setting the Scene
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling have been in place since May 2008. Includes Potable Reuse;
WSAA July 2010. Report states that all waters must be considered in securing future supplies;
NWC November 2010. Report states that risks of recycling to drinking water supplies can be managed;
Water Sensitive Cities – all waters must be considered – concept also supported by National Water
Commission;
Recent legislation passed in October 2010 in California
requires regulations for IPR to be drawn up AND for DPR to be evaluated.
ALL waters should be considered
Conclusions about Water Reuse (Davis 2010)
Cost ‐
serious hurdle to viability
Regulations need to be harmonised
Dual reticulation (‘purple pipe’
systems) is (are) too expensive/risky
Direct potable reuse should be considered on its merit
Champions/advocates needed
First consumers need to buy in voluntarily
Why not Direct Potable Reuse ? (Davis 2010)
Simpler system to set up and manage
No problems with distance – hook into existing
mains
No on‐going audit or cross‐connection issues
Affordable ‐
Sydney and Brisbane could now implement very easily since AWTPs are already in
place
National Water Commission ‐
‘Using Recycled Water for Drinking’
(June 2007)
Highlights the cost impost of transport in any IPR scheme;
Presents a Hypothetical Case Study comparing IPR and seawater desal, concluding that both have
similar costs if transport is included (100km for IPR and 20km for Desal)…but what happens if we
expand this to include DPR ?
Cost of Water vs Pumping Distance (data from NWC Report, June 2007)
Supply Supply OptionOption
Transport Transport Distance Distance
(km)(km)
Cost of Cost of Water Water
(AUD$/ML)(AUD$/ML)
Energy Energy Usage Usage
(kWh/kL)(kWh/kL)
IPRIPRSeawater Seawater DesalinationDesalination
1001002020
1,3001,3001,4001,400
1.91.94.34.3
Direct Direct Potable Potable ReuseReuse
2020 800800 1.51.5
(G Leslie 2008)
So …. what are the Barriers ?
I suggest that there are three main barriers:
Political WillPublic perceptionsPrice structures and policies
Lack of Political Will stems mainly from politicians taking advice based on sensationalised media
reports and/or perceptions of community concerns
The Western Corridor decision in 2008 is a classic example of this !
Public Perceptions
There is a clear need to focus on community
outreach and education programs – a ‘bottom‐up’ approach to increase Political Will;
It was Mahatma Ghandi who said “If the people lead, the leaders follow”
Goal 3 –
Reclaimed water is viewed as an acceptable ‘alternative water’
for augmenting
drinking water supplies.
DELIVERABLE : The development of a National Demonstration, Education & Engagement Program (NDEEP)
International Links
Research Team
MediaMedia
ConsultantsConsultants
UtilitiesUtilities
School KidsSchool Kids
Moms and DadsMoms and DadsTeachersTeachers
MedicsMedics
RegulatorsRegulators
AdvisorsAdvisors
ProfessorsProfessors
Social MediaSocial MediaNDEEP
PoliticiansPoliticians
StudentsStudents
NDEEP
What could the NDEEP include – building on contemporary research ?
• Interpretative Centre(s)• Multi-media experiences• Links to operational AWTPs
and Experts• Curriculum resources• Apps and e-learning
Have we learnt anything over the last few years ??
Explaining the water cycle does makes a difference
and generates more acceptance of potable
reuse – as well as showing an acceptance of
DPR
A slideshow presentation by the creator of Thirst explained the concept that pure, untouched water is a marketing myth, that all water is recycled and how technology plays a role in the
water cycle
Many downstream
users
The Toowoomba experience could be viewed as a milestone in
the debate over PR in Australia.
‘Unplanned’
potable reuse was never openly discussed until the
mid 2000s – article in Sydney’s Sun Herald of 2 July 2006 refers.
We then saw articles on Adelaide drinking wastes form Canberra,
downstream rural towns drinking the wastes from upstream towns.
SMH, 8 May 2012: “Yuck factor of recycled sewage may not be such a big obstacle”
Which water would you most prefer
to drink?
Sydney, Australia
Loudoun County, VirginiaLas Vegas,
Nevada
Hillsboro, Oregon
Quotes from the Focus Groups indicate the influence of terminology
Mr. M said:
“My decision [for safest water] was number four and it’s solely based on the terminology, you saying that water from a purification plant produces water that meets or
exceeds drinking water standards. So based on that, I said that scenario four because you have potentially water going
into the city that exceeds drinking water standards. […] And probably the least is […] is number one because there is no purification plant. But I did say in other issues that if the purification plant did not exceed the standards then
it’d probably be completely all different answers.”
Quotes from the Focus Groups indicate the influence of terminology
Mr. M said:
“My decision [for safest water] was number four and it’s solely based on the terminology, you saying that water from a purification plant produces water that meets or
exceeds drinking water standards. So based on that, I said that scenario four because you have potentially water going
into the city that exceeds drinking water standards. […] And probably the least is […] is number one because there is no purification plant. But I did say in other issues that if the purification plant did not exceed the standards then
it’d probably be completely all different answers.”
Pricing Structures & Policies
Preliminary findings on pricing arrangements are
that current arrangements have the potential to impede investment in potable recycling.
Prices do not reflect a commercial return on (existing)
sunk assets;
Tariffs are inefficient;
Case studies will be carried out to further develop an understanding of how to ‘level the playing field’
for all
water supply alternatives, with results being an input to NDEEP.
OurOur Other Other Challenge Challenge –– The The HydroHydro‐‐illogical Cycle illogical Cycle
TheHydro‐illogical
Cycle
