Metropolitan Water Plan Review
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Round Two Report
Executive Summary
Community perspectives
As a fundamental part of the review of the Metropolitan
Water Plan (Plan), the Metropolitan Water Directorate
(MWD) is consulting widely with the community and key
stakeholders.
Community workshops were held in seven key locations
across the greater Sydney metropolitan region including the
Blue Mountains, Southern Highlands, and the Illawarra.
Following a first round of workshops in June and July 2013,
MWD completed a second round in August and September
2013. These were designed to gain community and
stakeholder insight into attitudes towards water recycling,
integrated water cycle management (IWCM) and the role of
water in liveable communities.
Round Two consultations involved:
»» Twenty four stakeholders from state government, local
government and private sector organisations attending a
workshop in the Sydney CBD.
»» A total of 203 community members attending seven
deliberative community workshops held across the
greater Sydney region.
Workshop participants from Round One workshops were
invited back to attend the Round Two consultations. On
average over 70 percent of attendees participated in
both rounds of workshops. In addition a number of new
participants were recruited, with a focus on resolving any
previous age or gender imbalances identified in the first
round of workshops.
Each community workshop was three hours long, structured
around three presentations and five activities. Activities
comprised a mix of group and individual exercises designed
to capture both quantitative and qualitative responses to
water recycling attitudes, IWCM, and the role of water in
liveable communities.
200
180
160
161
172
140
Column 1 – Initial recycling attitude
Column 2 – Final recycling attitude
120
Response no. 100
80
60
39
40
20
0
15
Positive
Neutral/mixed
Recycling attitude
1
12
Negative
Figure 1 Initial and final recycling attitudes – greater Sydney
Key community findings
Attitudes towards water recycling, including stormwater
harvesting, were recorded at the beginning and end of each
workshop to determine a baseline sentiment, and whether
community attitudes had shifted at the conclusion of the
workshop.
A significant majority of community participants (80 percent)
had a strongly positive attitude to water recycling as an
important part of greater Sydney’s water supply measures.
Participant’s maintained this attitude following the workshop,
despite increased awareness of the costs and complexity of
implementing water recycling projects.
Key reasons for supporting water recycling were to:
»»
»»
»»
»»
ensure Sydney’s future water security
improve water-use efficiency
increase liveability of urban environments
protect waterway health.
The minority of participants who held a neutral, mixed, or
negative view on water recycling were mostly concerned
with the cost or potential public health concerns of using
recycled water. After the workshop, participants expressed
significantly less neutral or mixed responses.
A preference for household-level schemes was based
on a desire to increase awareness through individual
responsibility and action. It was also seen as giving the most
flexibility and direct benefit. A level of support for household
water recycling was predicated on government providing
financial assistance.
Participants who preferred neighbourhood-level schemes
appreciated the direct and visible benefits to the community
in maintaining and improving public spaces. Neighbourhood
schemes were also seen as effective in striking a balance
between local ownership and project accountability. Support
for regional water recycling schemes was primarily based on
its cost effectiveness as a result of achieving economies of
scale.
A few participants across each of the workshops did
not want to state a preference for a particular scale of
water recycling and instead gave an equal rating to all.
This reflected a view that water recycling is a shared
responsibility, with contributions required from household to
regional level projects.
Very few participants (less than one per workshop) indicated
they did not wish to pay any additional costs to support water
recycling. These participants said either the additional cost
or perceived cost-ineffectiveness reduced their support.
In discussing their attitudes to water recycling, participants
commonly referred to household-scale domestic and
greywater harvesting as well as community scale recycling
projects supporting the upkeep of public and private green
spaces. Participants had limited knowledge of industrial or
regional scale recycling schemes.
Following an in-depth presentation by MWD, participants
reflected on the costs and benefits of water recycling.
Transport, storage and ongoing maintenance were
highlighted as factors that reduced the cost-efficiency of
water recycling and potentially limited its viability. Some
participants suggested that improving strategic coordination
and providing a financial incentive from government would
help boost water recycling uptake.
Additionally, participants recognised both the importance
and difficulty of valuing the environmental and social
benefits of recycling. Early planning was viewed as crucial
in maximising benefits while reducing costs. A number
of participants commented that, in the long term, the
overall benefits of water recycling would outweigh initial
implementation costs.
Participants across greater Sydney gave nearly identical
weighting to household, neighbourhood and regional scale
schemes when asked to prioritise limited funding.
2 | Review of the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan
Community participants were familiarised with greater
Sydney’s natural and urban water cycle through a physical
model provided by Sydney Water. The model illustrated the
movement of water within the greater Sydney landscape
as well as different water treatment and recycling options.
This exercise was mainly educational and provided an
opportunity for participants to inquire about various features
of the water cycle.
During this session participants were also asked whether
water recycling would form a significant factor in deciding
where to live. For most participants, the availability of
household water recycling was viewed more as a secondary
benefit rather than a primary factor in considering where to
live.
In addition to attitudes to recycling, MWD was interested in
gaining a better sense of the importance of water in people’s
every day environment and activities. A range of photos was
used to elicit participants’ primary associations with water
within the urban landscape and to explore the values that
underpin these associations.
Common and recurring themes that emerged were the
importance of water in supporting quality of life – liveability
and connections with family, friends and the community
through recreation, relaxation and green spaces.
Environmental health was also seen as important to the
community. Participants celebrated the return of wildlife
as an indicator of environmental health, were concerned
about the increasing pressures of urban development
on waterways and natural systems, and emphasised the
importance of sustainable water management.
Another major theme was water’s role in providing basic
human needs and the confidence people felt in greater
Sydney’s treated water quality.
The final exercise of the workshop asked participants to
identify the water management innovations needed to
sustain greater Sydney’s quality of life into the future. The
most commonly expressed ideas were to:
»» mandate recycling targets and/or technologies for all
new residential and commercial buildings, housing
developments and industry
»» encourage the installation and retrofitting of recycling
technologies in households and for industry through
incentives and rebates
»» increase the use of recycled water for local open
spaces and public facilities through stormwater storage,
treatment and re-use
»» provide community education and information to raise
awareness of water recycling projects and to highlight the
importance of water recycling and efficiency measures.
Review of the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan | 3
Key stakeholder perspectives
The purpose of the stakeholder workshop was to determine
stakeholder views on the future of recycling and IWCM in
greater Sydney.
Stakeholders expressed a similar desire to the community
for recycling to be retained as a significant element of
greater Sydney’s water supply measures. However,
participants also identified major barriers to its continued
uptake. The need for ongoing government capacity and
financial support for water recycling was a central premise
running through the workshop feedback.
The first discussion centred on the key drivers for
stakeholders to support and/or invest in recycling schemes.
Common themes emerging from the discussion included:
demonstrating industry environmental best practice, levels
of community support and interest, gaining a non-rainfall
dependent water source for valuable assets, and achieving
cost efficiencies.
In identifying how recycling projects and innovation can
be sustained in the face of reduced government funding,
stakeholder representatives stressed the need to retain
some funding to address the high initial capital costs of
water recycling. It was acknowledged that stakeholders may
need to be creative in finding alternative sources of finance
to support new projects.
Stakeholders felt that in a reduced funding environment,
innovative and early adoption of technology projects would
be less likely to go ahead in favour of measures that had
proven results and cost effectiveness.
Other measures seen by stakeholders as important to
sustain investment in recycling were greater national policy
and regulatory consistency, and improved coordination and
capacity building support by MWD.
Stakeholders were asked to review successful and
unsuccessful recycling projects at both the neighbourhood
and precinct/regional scales.
Successful local water recycling and efficiency tended to
be projects that delivered both financial and community
benefits, provided a rainwater independent water supply, and
had minimal ongoing costs.
4 | Review of the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan
Successful precinct schemes were driven by sustainability
innovation that achieved multiple benefits and/or projects
that minimised ongoing costs.
The two main drivers identified by stakeholders for regional
scale schemes were decentralised water systems for Urban
Activation Precincts, and water use security during drought
for high water user sectors. The major barriers to recycling
schemes were costs – either the high upfront capital outlay
or ongoing maintenance costs. Lack of organisational
capacity and strategic planning were also seen as an
impediment to implementing schemes.
Stakeholders were asked to identify opportunities for how
the draft Sydney Metropolitan Strategy water planning
objectives of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and
decentralised water systems could be achieved at two
scales: neighbourhood (local) and precinct (sub-regional).
At the neighbourhood level, opportunities for decentralisation
and WSUD included reducing potable water use in existing
and new or retro-fitted multi-unit developments, improving
strategic planning, and supporting the use of non-potable
water for open space and industry needs. At the regional/
sub-regional level, improvements around the certainty of
policy on recycled water and contestability for water services
were raised as key issues.
Stakeholders identified the enhanced use of green
infrastructure in public and private spaces, improved
strategic planning, and increased flexibility of funding as
facilitating opportunities for WSUD at the neighbourhood
level. At the regional/subregional level, the key opportunity
for WSUD was viewed as strategic catchment management
with consistent objectives and standards to link projects
across multiple council areas.