Policy Analysis Report

Prepared for: 2221ENV

Prepared by: Faezeh Samadani (S2799295) & Saba Salim (S2761353)

DUE DATE: FRIDAY 3TH MAY 2013 4PM

Recycled Water In Toowoomba Queensland Drinking

Supply

Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...................................... 3
1.1 Background to Yuk-Factor..................................................3
1.2 Policy Background & Emergence.........................................3

SECTION 2: POLICY MAPPING ANALYSIS....................4

2.1 Subject of the issue and debate..........................................4
2.2 The reasoning behind the issue..........................................5
2.3 The main key stakeholders directly involved and their
positions....................................................................................5
2.4 Primary Stakeholders..........................................................6
2.5 Secondary Stakeholders......................................................6
2.6 How the issue was framed and policy processes................6

SECTION 3: POLICY LEARNING: SUSTAINABILITY

EVALUATION............................................................ 7
3.1 Policy Evaluation.................................................................7
3.2 Policy Evaluation through academics perception.............10

4. Reference List:.................................................. 12
Appendix A........................................................... 14
Table 1: Evaluation of Seqwaters Strategic Plan as a Sustainable
Policy.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
A major issue confronting the Australian Government is sustainable water security.
Population growth, aging infrastructure and industry demands are all placing immense
2

pressure on the water supply (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation [CSIRO], 2011; Dimitriadis, 2005). This demonstrates a need for a
dynamic and varied response to water scarcity and supply issues beyond traditional
water sequestration methods. By outlining these, the story would be told through
studying the stakeholder opinions and concerns about the present and future and the
success of the IPR (Indirect Portable Reuse) proposal.

1.1 Background to Yuk-Factor

This report will primarily focus on the Queensland Governments plan for IPR to
supplement the dry conditions of Toowoomba City Council. In addition, the principle
focus of this report is to identify the major aspects of Yuk-Factor proposal, the dispute
over the plan for IPR, and conclusively the assessment of the policy implications
within Toowoomba. The policy analysis will investigate water-recycling policy in
Toowoomba and how misinformation and a lack of clear direction about Yuk-Factor
(IPR) proposal caused the plan to be amended from a sustainability supplement to an
emergency addition only when dam levels decrease to 40 precent. The report aim is
to identify how both key policy actors and government framed the recycled water
arrangement. Dovers (2005) Sustainability Guiding Principles will be related to the
policy and analysed for their strengths and weaknesses and finally, the report will
present recommendations for future IPR proposals.

1.2 Policy Background & Emergence

In 2005, the population of SEQ was growing at an unprecedented rate. Many people
were relocating from interstate and internationally and growth was expected to
continue (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2010). Toowoomba was also
experiencing the worst drought in QLDs recorded history, with rainfall from the
previous six years well below average (Water Secure, 2007). With an average use of
over one million litres of fresh water per Australian every year (Dimitriadis, 2005) and
a regional population projected to reach 4.2 million (Spiller, 2008) it was clear that this
excess consumption could not continue unabated.
When the combined dam levels fell below 40 per cent, the city of Toowoomba was
dominated by the proposal of recycled water and 62 per cent of residents voted
against the introduction of recycled treated sewage in 2006. The dispute over the plan
for IPR in Toowoomba was announced by Peter Beattie in late January 2007 that due to
3

water shortage, all the water supplies would be supplemented by IPR as the crisis
left the public with no choice (Hurlimann, 2010). The opponents of this proposal were
concerned that that the decision making process had been unfair. Which influenced
the amount of confidence they had in the experts. However, the supporters of this
debate felt that alternative water supply options were unfair to other water users in
SEQ. I.e the distribution of water would be inequitable.
Consequently, the issue began in 2006 when Toowoomba residents rejected a plan to
drink treated effluent, even as the town faced a dire of water shortage. Blair
Nancarrow, director of the Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, explained
that the yuk-factor was unmoved by communication and better education. It hangs
so much on irrational and emotive feelings, she said. Information and knowledge
doesnt seem to affect behaviour. Then issue came about by a failure in
communication: first on the safety and reliability of water recycling as a policy option,
and second on the urgency of Australias water crisis- future generations will want
more of an explanation than simply the yuck factor.

SECTION 2: POLICY MAPPING ANALYSIS

This section outlines the central issue and debate of the Yuk-factor. In addition, the
reasons of why and how the issues were emerged are summaries and how it was
brought to the attention of the Toowoomba community and the general public. The
key policy actors and their positions within this case study is also stated as well as the
media press releases. Furthermore, the aspects of how the government framed the
issue are also reviewed to outline the policy positions and the public consultation that
was involved within the community of Toowoomba.

2.1 Subject of the issue and debate

The main issue regarding water management within Toowoomba revolved around the
water scarcity during the 2006 droughts. For this reason, the introduction of recycled
treated water were introduced for the town of 95 000 people. Consequently, leading
to many debates and the involvement of the media. This lead to the creation of the
The Yuk-factor and the involvement of stakeholders, residents and Governments.
The disputes between stakeholders, Local and State Government contributed to the
4

debate as well as high media coverage. For this reason, the matters of advising the
government on environmental sustainability policy are also a topic of examination.

2.2 The reasoning behind the issue

The issue of water management emerged in 2006 due to high water scarcity and in
response to level 5 water restrictions. The communities across Australia were looking
at innovative ways to try and preserve water. Within Toowoomba many water
restrictions such as no outdoor water use and tank water installations were
implemented. However, these restrictions were not effective and strict environmental
sustainability policy was needed for future purposes.

For this reason, the idea of

recycling sewerage water was proposed by the Toowoomba City Council, which was
then consulted with the Toowoomba community. In addition, in 2006 Toowoomba City
Council had lodged a submission to the National Water Commission for funding of IPR
(Hurlimann, 2010) (Appendix A). This lodgement led to the involvement of State
Government due to the fact that funds were needed to proceed with the proposal.
Consequently, State Government with jurisdiction over local government meant it was
not long until State Government took control of the situation by fastening the decision
making process and overpowering Toowoombas Local Government. Subsequently,
political aspects between local and state government, arose between stakeholders
and lobbies, which then led to many disputes and issues that were augmented by the
media.
With Local Government threatened by State government, the issue was framed more
in the favour of the IPR proposal due to Peter Beatties decision making (Appendix A).
Consequently, if the public were to oppose, there was no other option than to put in
place IPR. However, only 28% of stakeholder respondents agreed with the statement
the government should supply recycle water without asking the public (Hurlimann,
2010). Consequently, leaving the rest of the respondents such as CADS and other
community members opposing the water-recycling proposal (Appendix A).

2.3 The main key stakeholders directly involved and their positions
Many stakeholders both public and private have been identified, some more influential
than others, due to the stakeholders that have been divided into two sections; primary
5

and secondary. The government has also been recognised as an important

stakeholder, conjunction to its large scale and stance will be discussed separately.

2.4 Primary Stakeholders

The implementation of the Yuk-Factor proposal was mainly led by the State
Government of Queensland and will be analysed. There are primary and secondary
stakeholders that are for and against the proposal. The primary stakeholders for the
proposal were essentially academics and the educated sector of the community.
Interestingly more recent research by Miller and Buys (2008) through which household
questionnaires conducted in South East Queensland found that the majority of
respondents believed that the general community did not have adequate knowledge
to vote on IPR. In addition, the secondary stakeholders for the proposal were state
government due to the fact that they are affected by planning for the betterment
future drought generation (Atiken, 2006).
A campaign by Citizens Against Drinking Sewerage (CADS) was successful in getting
10,000 signatures on a petition against the use of IPR in their drinking supply and to
close the Toowoomba IPR proposal, which was then discarded due to State
Government overruling the lobbies and stakeholders involved (Reynolds, 2006). CADs
was the prominent source for the opposed stakeholders and had monopolised the
movement with a length and emotive website. The website received vast attention
and gained financial support by wealthy stakeholders, and other concerned individuals
(CADS, 2006; Hurlimann & Dolinicar, 2009).

2.5 Secondary Stakeholders

The media played a strong role in reporting on the lengthy debate. They appeared to
be largely bipartisan on the issue and didnt adopt a strong sway for either a yes or
no bias. Misleading news titles could be considered biased with headings such as
Flush, then drink then drink in Toowoomba city and also portrayed the recycled
sewerage water as akin to eating cockroach-chip ice-cream- unthinkable, even shown
to be safe (Roberts, 2008b), however the facts were presented in an impartial manner
due to no specific sense of direction. The people were concerned about the image of
Toowoomba since it is known as Garden City and the proposal of IPR would change
6

the citys image to the Shit City or Poowoomba (Reynolds, 2006). The Toowoomba
residents were concerned that their city would be less attractive to businesses,
industry, families, retirees and travellers both as a tourism destination and a place to
live (Hurlimann, 2010).

2.6 How the issue was framed and policy processes

A policy document was conducted, not a public communication document. This lead to
more disputes between stakeholders and the government due to the fact the
document was private and it excluded community members. Toowoomba Council was
planning to undertake a three year community engagement program, however, this
decision was undermined due to the fact State Government overpowered the decision
making process. When the Water Futures Initiative was introduced the CADs
Toowoomba group formed in July 2005 and half the year later (February 2006) 10 000
people came about that had signed the CADs petition against the portable recycled
water initiative. This public movement against the IPR water use politicised the
project.
The local government attempted to frame the issue by inviting the Toowoomba
residents to referendum vote concerning whether or not IPR scheme should be
constructed to supply additional water for the community. This was done for the
purpose of the public consultation involvement. At the stage the Dam level of
Toowoomba were at approximately of 26% capacity (Hurlimann, 2010). Toowoomba
residents, after intense campaigning on both sides of the referendum debate, voted
against the proposal. Consequently, in 2008 dam levels dropped down to 11%
(Appendix 1). After the referendum the state government realised that the water
scarcity was becoming so severe that resulted the State Government to discard the
Local Government community engagement processes to fast track the decisionmaking procedure. Consequently, in 2007, Peter Beattie publicly announced that the
IPR project should go ahead with construction (Appendix A).

SECTION 3: POLICY LEARNING: SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION

3.1 Policy Evaluation

The effectiveness of the Yuck Factor and coinciding Seqwaters strategic plan will be
evaluated through a selection of sustainability principles that appear most relevant to
discuss in relation to the issue (see Dovers (2005: see Appendix A for the full list of
principles consulted)) The principles selected are used to and evaluate the policy
responses in relation to the issue for government review according to the
contemporary need for sound sustainability policy. The table below demonstrate the
guiding principles relevant to the Yuck Factor issue, followed by a discussion of what
has hindered the consideration of such principles in the passage of this debate.

SEQs of
Strategic
Direction
(Queensland
Table 1: Evaluation
Seqwaters
Strategic
Plan as a Hindrances
Sustainable Policy.
Bulk Water Supply Authority 2007)
Long
term Seqwater s (Queensland Bulk Water The long-term vision was
policy

Supply Authority 2007:6) focus was on cancelled as the Federal

developing a culture to address the Government decided that
long

term

requirement

sustainability.

The

principles

of recycled water would only

of be implemented at a last

sustainability had been described as resort (when dam capacity

essential

element

to

developing fell below 40%).

Policy

culture and management systems.

Although the main reason for adding There was minimal public

integration

recycled water to Toowoombas water concern

(positive)

supply was to ensure water for the ecological

growing

Citys

needs,

it

also

over

the

impacts

but

has rather the idea of drinking

positive follow on effects. Stabilising municipal

waste.

This

the dams water level thus allowing suggests a lack of public

the connected waterways to flow more education
consistently

would

preserve

the positive

regarding
and

the

negative

ecosystems biodiversity (Queensland impacts of recycled water

Bulk Water Supply Authority 2007).

(Harding

et

al.

2009,

Hurlimann & McKay, 2004

Information

Russell et al. 2009)

Although Seqwater proposed strategic There was a lack

focus

directions, not enough information was information

(negative)

passed onto stakeholders (Queensland society,

Bulk Water Supply Authority 2007).

of

passed

onto

lack

of

understanding of scientific
information,

public

ignorance, the science was

not explained correctly or
thoroughly

and

stakeholders promoting a
negative perspective were
supplying information that
the

public

understand

and

dominated
(Harding
Precaution

could

the
et

thus
debate

al.

2009,

Hurlimann et al. 2008).

Although Seqwater had proposed a The
conveyance
strategic plan they had failed to fully information
disclose

the

risks,

concerning

the adequate

was
enough

of
not
to

The table highlights three prominent policy issues associated with the implementation
of Dovers sustainability guiding principles in regards to Seqwaters strategic plan. The
first issue is the lack of public participation that led to mistrust of authorities (Harding
et al, 2009). This was most notably demonstrated when the government overpowered
the local council from its initial plan. This provided a catalyst for the outburst of
incorrect perceptions of the risk of poor water quality and associated health impacts.
Risk perception was also a result of lack of information and knowledge, which brings
about the second of insufficient information (Harding et al, 2009; Hurlimann, 2007).
Residents had health concerns, in regards to the science of water recycling and how
safe the water actually was (Leong, 2010) which the strategy plan failed to resolve
provision of additional information. Furthermore, citizens were concerned that there
were no official guidelines for the quality of recycled drinking water at the time of the
proposal (Hurlimann, 2009) which again the strategic plan failed to highlight. Although
sound treatment processes have been established the information was not conveyed
in the right manner. The were also issues that the risks perceived by scientists were
different to those perceived by the public, regardless of the soundness of the science
(Dolnicar & Hurlimann, 2009; Hurilmann et al, 2008). It has been suggested that this
difference is based on different values, norms and beliefs (Harding et al, 2009;
Hurlimann, 2007).

3.2 Policy Evaluation through academics perception

Community support for a project such as the Yuck Factor is crucial, however education
is first and foremost important, as several similar IPR projects in Australian and
worldwide have failed due to a lack of public support (Harding et al, 2009; Hurlimann
& McKay, 2004; Russell et al, 2009). Contributing components to the demise of these
schemes have often been a general lack of trust in the establishments delivering the
projects (Russell et al, 2009). The QLD government, by removing the publics choice
could be seen as a critical error in public perception. Ensuring timely communication
with stakeholders and transparency at all points during the process is central to a
successful venture (Hurlimann & McKay, 2004; Russell et al, 2009) and the
Toowoomba public may have felt cheated out of a democratic say.
When formulating the Strategic Plan, Seqwater did follow many of Dovers guiding
principles for sustainability policy and chose a proposal that encompassed many good
qualities with their intention to introduce IPR in Toowoomba water system.
Furthermore, SEQ Regional Plan 2005-2009 has also developed guidelines for the use

of recycled water and was prepared for any severe conditions. This plan also did follow
similar guiding principles as Dovers as this plan coordinated the States involvement
in water management (SEQ Regional Plan, 2005). The proposal was about securing
long-term sustainability for the Toowoomba water supply was a viable option for this,
however due to above mentioned inadequacies within the policy the project was
dismissed.

4. Reference List:
Dolnicar. S & Hurlimann. A (2009) Drinking water from alternative water sources: Differences
in beliefs, social norms and factors of perceived behavioural control across eight Australian
locations. Water Science and Technology 60 (6) pp.1433-44.
Dovers, S. (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy. Federation Press: Annandale.
Hurlimann, A (2007) Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian communitys
perspective. The Environmentalist. 27 (1) pp. 83-94.
Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2009) When public opposition defeats alternative water projects
the case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research 44 (1): 287-297.
Hurlimann, A. & McKay, J. (2004) Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 2. Trust.
Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31(5), 40-45.
Leong, C. 2010. Eliminating yuck: a simple exposition of media and social change in water
reuse
policies.
Water
Resources
Development
26
(1):
111-124.
Russell, S., Lux, C. and Hampton, G. 2009. Beyond information: integrating consultation and
education for water recycling initiatives. Society & Natural Resources 22 (1): 56-65.

SEQ Regional Plan. (2005, June). Water Management. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from Dsdip:
http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/seq/08_Part_F-11_SEQRP.pdf
7.30 Report. (2006, March). Toowoomba readies for referendum on sewage water recycling.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from Toowoomba readies for referendum on sewage water recycling:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1697935.htm
Atiken, S. B. (2006, June). The Socio-technology of Indirect Potable Water Reuse. Retrieved
April 26, 2013 from Conduit: http://search.conduit.com/results.aspx?
q=academic+stakeholders+IPR+Toowoomba&Suggest=&stype=Results&FollowOn=True&Self
Search=1&SearchType=SearchWeb&SearchSource=3&ctid=CT2504091&octid=CT2504091
Ching, L. (2013, June). Eliminating Yuck: A Simple Exposition of Media and Social Change in
Water Reuse Policies. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from Tandfonline:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07900620903392174#.UX9xb5Up8fM).
Dolnicar, H. a. (2013, October). When Public Opposition Defeats Alternative Water Projects:
the Case of Toowoomba. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from UOW:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1752&context=commpapers&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q
%3Dyuck%2520factor%2520toowoomba%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved
%3D0CEoQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fro.uow.edu.au%252Fcgi
%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1752%2526context%253Dcommpapers%26ei
%3DqICAUYi0NKL1iQe5mYGQBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEQZz25_jbmLhuFZ4t1dQutj5tC5Q
%26bvm%3Dbv.45921128%2Cd.dGI#search=%22yuck%20factor%20toowoomba%22
Ogilive & Company. (2010, October). Stakeholder/ Public attitude towards reuse of treated
wastewater. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from Lscra:
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/reports/water_reuse_stakeholders.pdf
SEQ Regional Plan. (2005, June). Water Management. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from Dsdip:
http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/seq/08_Part_F-11_SEQRP.pdf

Dolnicar. S & Hurlimann. A (2009) Drinking water from alternative water sources: Differences
in beliefs, social norms and factors of perceived behavioural control across eight Australian
locations. Water Science and Technology 60 (6) pp.1433-44.
Dovers, S. (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy. Federation Press: Annandale.
Hurlimann, A (2007) Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian communitys
perspective. The Environmentalist. 27 (1) pp. 83-94.
Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2009) When public opposition defeats alternative water projects
the case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research 44 (1): 287-297.
Hurlimann, A. & McKay, J. (2004) Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 2. Trust.
Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31(5), 40-45.
Leong, C. 2010. Eliminating yuck: a simple exposition of media and social change in water
reuse policies. Water Resources Development 26 (1): 111-124.
Russell, S., Lux, C. and Hampton, G. 2009. Beyond information: integrating consultation and
education for water recycling initiatives. Society & Natural Resources 22 (1): 56-65.
ABC News Online. (2008) Bligh rejects recycled water pipeline a waste of money Australian
Broadcasting Commission. Brisbane, 1 December. Available from:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433775.htm Accessed 20 April 2013.
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (2010) Water for the Future: Policy and Programs. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/water-smart/projects/qld08.html
Accessed 20 April 2013.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009-2010.
Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~200910~Main+Features~Queensland?Open Document Accessed 10 April 2013.
Citizens Against Drinking Sewage [CADS] (2007) Think Before You Agree to Drink. Available
From: http://www.valscan.com.au/tbyatdBris.pdf Accessed 20 April 2013.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] (2011) Urban water:
infrastructure technologies. Available from: http://www.csiro.au/science/InfrastructureTechnologies.html [Accessed 20 April 2013].
Dimitriadis, S. (2005) Issues encountered in advancing Australias water recycling schemes.
Research Brief No.2, Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia, Canberra.
Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2005-06/06rb02.htm Accessed 25 April
2013.
Keller, J 2010, 'The role of water recycling in Australia's future water supply', AQ - Australian
Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 2, p. 8(4).

Appendix A

Timeline of Report
Year

Event

2005

Toowoomba Council
lodged a submission to

2006
2006
2007

2007

2008
2008
2008
2009

2010

National Water
Commission for funding.
Stage 5 water restrictions
no outdoor water uses,
water tanks etc
10 000 people signed
Citizens Against Drinking
Sewerage (CADS)
Peter Beattie publicly
announced not to proceed
with a large-scale recycled
water project within
Brisbane, however,
Toowoomba would be
require to undertake IPR.
CADS opposed Peter
Beatties announcement
which then enhanced their
position in the media
Dam levels dropped to
11%
Project began construction
Western Corridors Recycle
Water Project 2008
Brisbane dams were at
74% capacity. Therefore,
recycle water will not be
into the dam at present.
Dam levels at Toowoomba
were at approximately
20% of capacity.