1    

The full range of water source augmentation options needs to be considered, including IPR, which has reliability, water quality and cost benefits but different risk factors from other source options.

 2

Properly developed proposals to introduce IPR should be given ‘fair consideration’ by the community, based on risks and benefits.  Options for supplementing water sources need to be compared on the basis of least cost planning, which means identifying and comparing the cost effectiveness of alternatives.  Care is needed to ensure that options are not underwritten or subsidised just because they seem to be innovative.

 3

The primary means of gaining community support for planned IPR proposal should be to first gain the community’s trust in the water utility to manage complex systems from catchment to customer, consistent with the Framework for Managing Drinking Water quality.

 4

Adopting a program to ‘educate’ the community on the details of the advanced water treatment processes is important, but only as a supporting strategy.  This is most useful for people with particular concerns and those interested in pursuing scientific details.

 5

Community education can become a one-way communication and this must be avoided.  Consultation, as a two-way process, is essential in gaining community support for IPR.

 6

Most individuals who oppose IPR have logical and genuine concerns.  It is essential that these people be engaged in a dialogue and that they be given a fair hearing.

 7

The public needs to be reassured that the water utility has the proper governance, policies, capacity, capability and transparency to manage risks in ensuring the safety of water consumed.  Detailed questions of science arise mainly where there is an absence of trust.

 8

In Australia, the need for more water is clear to most people, which increases their willingness to accept IPR.  More and more people will have the attitude "Let’s get on with it and solve the problem", but this should not be viewed as an end to the dialogue and should not be taken as a mandate to implement IPR without evaluating all options and establishing an approach designed to obtain and maintain public support.  Ploughing forward without building this confidence puts water utilities’ brand at risk.

 9

The best approach for managing the perceived and real risks of IPR is enhanced treatment and increased monitoring of the catchment and water supplies.  This means that IPR truly becomes a path to better water quality reliability, and not a last resort.  This proactive approach reduces future public perception of risks, as well as real risks, and helps maintain a positive brand image for water and the utility.

 10

Typically, it takes several years for a water utility to develop a desirable level of trust.  It can achieve this through: ongoing performance at levels of service greater than those set by guidelines or regulations; being open and transparent about its performance; subjecting its performance to periodic independent review; and being ahead of emerging issues and managing them competently and openly.  Not treating IPR as business as usual goes a long way toward demonstrating these common-sense ethics and building the necessary trust.

 11

The water quality produced by an Advanced Water Treatment Plant (typically micro-filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation, UV disinfection) will be better than the quality of water flowing down rivers and catchments where there is upstream development.  It is probably also better than the water quality from pristine catchments. Hence, it is generally an inappropriate message to talk about setting a maximum mix (say, 10% or 15%) of the recycled water with the river water.

 12

Setting a maximum percentage of IPR can be an operational and public perception trap. It suggests that the water quality is sub-standard and needs blending.  This practice can increase public perception risks because the technical basis for setting the percentage will likely be weak.  Finally, it limits the use of IPR when it’s needed most – when the reservoirs are low.  However, it would be an acceptable approach to limit the initial mix if it is clearly positioned as a way to incrementally build public confidence.

 13

The water supply system, after blending with IPR water, must be fully evaluated and managed consistent with the multi-barrier approach of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.  The principles of proper regulation and management are universally important for water quality, not just for recycled water, including the legal framework, regulations, guidelines and certification of operators.

 14

Notwithstanding that the advanced treated water will be of good quality, AWA agrees with the position that the purified recycled water should be delivered to a river, dam or aquifer to provide an additional natural buffer which includes the effects of time, settling, predation, UV irradiation etc.