South Australia is often referred to as the driest State in the driest continent and this rubric of scarcity has had a profound impact on legal, organisational and policy development. These have aligned through a variety of mechanisms the key one being bureaucratic entrepreneurs. Legal and policy issues in relation to recycled water have been addressed, with South Australia (since 2000) having a favourable regulatory and policy regime for waste water reuse. Government policy to phase out all sewage discharges to the marine environment (where economically sustainable) has been essential (Cullen 2004). The State Water Plan 2000 also has a commitment to waste water reuse projects. Above all, the State has several aligned regulations such a reclaimed water use guidelines, the approval of Public and Environmental Health, and the EPA.
Currently, at 18% SA tops all Australian States in the percentage of water directly reused (Radcliffe 2004). The recycled water is used for toilet flushing (Mawson Lakes, the Adelaide Airport, new commercial buildings and private developments), as well as garden watering and for the growing of crops in Virginia and McLaren Vale.
In all places, the recycled water is treated to high standards (but is not potable) and is clearly labelled. (See photo).
The social contract with Australian society in 2006 does not extend to drinking recycled water. This has been clearly established by Marks 2006, Po 2004 et al, Hurlimann and McKay 2006 and by the recent opposition to recycled water for consumption in Toowoomba, Queensland. Other places, including Namibia and Singapore, have different attitudes derived from even greater scarcity of water and a different set of cultural values. In those places direct potable reuse is practiced. Good communication, trust, mutual support and community cohesiveness (Goodland 2002) are central to social sustainability.
The social contract for urban recycled water use extends to outside private gardens and public open space use, toilet flushing, delivered through a separately metered set of lilac pipes. There is signage describing where the recycled water is used and to date there have been few complaints in the 18 months or so since the lilac pipes have been delivering the water. One positive aspect for the Mawson Lakes residents is that they have less stringent garden watering rules than the rest of Adelaide, who use potable water on gardens. The cost of recycled water is lower per Megalitre than the potable supply, although fixed charges make the average cost for most households identical. Only a quarter of respondents felt this pricing policy was fair.
However, the social contract seems to be broader than the law allows, with 60% of respondents at Mawson Lakes content to use recycled water in their washing machine. This use is presently illegal in South Australia but not so in NSW. Other places such is in the Netherlands outlawed similar uses of recycled water after a cross connection allegedly caused some heath impacts.
The use and potential use of recycled water by Mawson Lakes residents was predicated on a huge level of trust in the organisation delivering the recycled water. SA Water enjoys the trust of over 70% of residents of Mawson lakes, hence any change to that would have serious implications for this delicate social contract.
Clearly trust, feeling well informed and feeling that they have been treated fairly by government's organisations is crucial, with over 70% reporting this view in Mawson Lakes. Respondents were keen to continue to delegate responsibility to government to ensure health risks are monitored and all wanted heavy handed formal regulation to be maintained. A future problem with water quality, or of community perceptions that the water monitoring is waning, could easily tip over this attitude and be problematic for the Mawson Lakes recycled water system.
In relation to the horticultural use of recycled water, there are two innovative schemes in South Australia (Keremane and McKay 2007) which also resulted from bureaucratic entrepreneurs and innovative schemes of a public/private contractual nature. Initiation of these schemes, including their structure and operational development, depended heavily on trust of government organisations. The exact location was related to public choice decisions about treatments plants. The first one uses water from the main treatment plant at Bolivar and supplies 14 to 18 GL to the Virginia triangle in order to supplement to declining groundwater supplies. (Kracman et al. 2001) with about 200 growers in an area of 200 km2 using this water.
The proposal for developing the Virginia Pipeline Scheme was visualised when SA Water, as part of an environmental improvement plan, constructed a $30 million filtration/disinfection plant (DAFF) to treat effluent from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant. This produced Class A reclaimed water that could be used for irrigation. The organisational structure is that Water Reticulation Services Virginia (WRSV), a private company, gained a contract to access the treatment plant output, signed up clients for supply of the water and built the water distribution system. The Virginia Irrigation Association (VIA) represents market gardeners and other irrigators. The irrigators are heterogeneous in ethnicity with about one third Italian and Greek (the first groundwater irrigators), one third Vietnamese and one third Cambodian. Despite their different ethnicity and cultural backgrounds, the irrigators have demonstrated a high degree of networking.
There are many different agencies involved, but the success of the scheme may be due to the high level of trust. When respondents were asked about their level of trust in the agencies (government, EPA, health services, water company), around 74% of the irrigators had either complete trust or some level of trust in agencies. In relation to the water company, 80% had complete or some trust. The analysis of the results suggested that those irrigators' with English speaking background and in the young and middle age groups had significantly more trust.
Cullen, P. (2004) Water challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century. Adelaide Thinker in Residence, Department of the Premier and cabinet, South Australia. 11 pp.
Goodland, R. (2002) Sustainability: Human, Social, Economic and Environmental. In Timmerman, P. (Ed). Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Encyclopaedia of Global Environmental Change. Vol. 4. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, New York.
Hurlimann AC and JM McKay What attributes of recycled water make it fit for residential purposes? The Mawson Lakes experience Desalination Elsevier VOL 187, 167-177.
Keremane G and JM McKay 2006 The role of community participation and partnerships - The Virginia pipeline system 2006 Water vol 29 34
Kracman, B., Martin, R. and Sztajnbok, P. (2001) The Virginia Pipeline: Australia's Largest Water Recycling Project. Water. Science and Technology, 43 (1), 35-42.
Marks, J.S. (2006) Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non potable reuse, Desalination, 187, Issue 1-35, 5 February, pp. 137-147.
Radcliffe, J.C. (2004) Water Recycling in Australia. Review Report. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Victoria, Australia.
Murni, Po. Juliane, K. and Nancarrow, B.E. (2004) Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse. Australian Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program. Q7 CSIRO.
