Search

Despite the hydrological imperative and engineering capacity for change, concrete storm water infrastructure remains obdurate in the urban waterscape. This obduracy manifests both as an unwillingness to remove existing infrastructure and the continuing construction of new infrastructure in locations previously free of these systems. This paper identifies four critical socio-political values underlying the obduracy of concrete storm water infrastructure and the resultant urban stream syndrome. Following a brief critique of reactive storm water management frameworks to manage this syndrome, this paper articulates four common values of Indigenous science(s) that are well placed can contribute to improve storm water management. Supporting this argument is an example of Indigenous science(s) changing the form and function of a reach of an extant concrete storm water channel in Canberra, Australia. While these interventions will be assessed primarily from water quality perspectives, they contribute to a greater range of environmental processes than purely hydrological. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy to protect river ecosystems has changed rapidly in Australia, and the mechanisms to both establish and manage environmental water are still evolving. Policy has moved from providing a fixed environmental target (albeit varying between years) to one in which the environment can actively participate in the market, with the possibility of better fulfilling variable water requirements. However, the inherent nature of the sustainable diversion limit (SDL), established under the Water Act 2007, is that it represents a fixed allocation to the environment. This paper considers the interaction of the new SDL for the Murray-Darling Basin and potential issues arising from the interaction with the government buyback initiative. While both the SDL and buyback have been discussed extensively, the interaction between the two policies has received little debate. Pairing these two policy initiatives will have implications for the flexibility of management of the environmental water, and the ability for on-going trade between the environment and consumptive water users. Our position is that the SDL, or preferably rules-based water, should reflect an absolute minimum limit on environmental water requirements, while the buyback should provide the environmental water as tradable water rights with the flexibility to respond to shifts in the environmental water demand curve by providing environmental water over and above the SDL. If both a buyback and minimum flow rules are in place, the SDL will provide little additional benefits but increase administrative costs and reduce flexibility. This has significant implications for the way the SDL and buyback strategy are structured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conjunctive use of groundwater is a common irrigation response to limited surface water availability. In the late 1970s, under a “one resource policy”, the New South Wales (NSW) government of Australia began issuing a form of conjunctive licence to irrigators with access to both surface water and groundwater. These licences were intended to provide the licence owners with the water supply security offered by conjunctive use. Institutional separation of groundwater and surface water prevented accounting across the resources. As a result, the licences contributed towards over-allocation of groundwater. Conjunctive licences were subsequently discontinued and separated into surface water and groundwater components in the late 1990s. This paper explores the NSW experience of conjunctive licences in light of Australia’s 2004 national agreement to manage connected surface water and groundwater as one resource. The conclusion is that fl ow systems cannot be allocated as “one resource” if managed through independent groundwater and surface water planning institutions. Some implications and options for allocation across local water resources with hydraulic connectivity are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban water services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) are currently provided through conventional centralised systems, involving large-scale water distribution, wastewater collection, water and wastewater treatment. A study was conducted to assist Environment ACT in setting broad policies for future water services in Canberra. The current paper presents the outcomes of a study examining the effects of various water servicing options on water resources and the environment, for two townships in Canberra, one existing and one greenfield site. Three modelling tools were used to predict the effects of various alternative water servicing scenarios, including demand management options, rainwater tanks, greywater use, on-site detention tanks, gross pollutant traps, swales and ponds. The results show that potable water reductions are best achieved by demand management tools or a combination of greywater and rainwater use for existing suburbs, while third pipe systems are preferred for greenfield sites. For this specific climatic region and end use demands, modelling predicted increased water savings from raintanks compared to greywater systems alone, with raintanks providing the additional benefit of reduced peak stormwater flows at the allotment scale. Rainwater and stormwater reuse from stormwater ponds within the catchments was found to provide the highest reduction in nutrient discharge from the case study areas. Environment ACT amended planning controls to facilitate installation of raintanks and greywater systems, and commenced a Government funded rebate scheme for raintanks as a result of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an integrated framework for assessing water markets in terms of their institutional foundations, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability. This framework can be a tool for (a) comparing different water markets, (b) tracking performance over time, and (c) identifying ways in which water markets might be adjusted by policy makers to achieve desired goals. The framework is used to identify the strengths and limitations of five water markets: (a) Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, (b) the western United States, (c) Chile (in particular the Limarí Valley), (d) South Africa; and (v) China (in particular, the North). The framework helps identify which of these water markets are currently able to contribute to integrated water resource management, which criteria underpin these markets, and which features of these markets may require further development. The findings for each market, as well as comparisons between them, provide general insights into water markets and how water governance can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]