Pathways to One Water

Nawi Cove in Barangaroo district of Sydney - Australia

'Liveability' is the new urban-planning catchphrase often used to describe places where residents enjoy an urban landscape featuring green open spaces, trees to keep the concrete jungle cool, and a water system that is resilient to drought and disruptions.

For the water industry this means a shift in the way we view service delivery, from focusing on avoiding negative impacts, to thinking about where the services we provide can add more value. This means viewing all forms of water in the urban landscape as potential resources, and not problems to eradicate.

A 'One Water' approach, as it is known in America, comes at urban-sensitive water design from a 'whole-of-water-cycle' perspective that attempts to integrate planning and management of water supply, wastewater and stormwater systems in a way that minimises the impact on the environment and maximises the contribution to social and economic vitality.

ISF researchers examined the 'One Water' approach, finding that institutional efforts to progress the concept in all aspects of the urban water cycle have been limited. Most case studies we analysed reveal that institutions are primarily engaged with the delivery of discrete water, sanitation or stormwater services. Some have moved towards waterways protection, but very few incorporate whole-of-water-cycle approach.

Additionally, the research found that institutional challenges to One Water planning limited the ability for organisations to collaborate with each other both vertically and horizontally, to integrate activities within their own organisations, and to move forward with new systems that optimise green-grey infrastructure and resource recovery. This lack of a unifying culture has ensured reliance on existing institutional silos and inertia in the water industry.

How to transition to a One Water Approach

Twenty-seven case studies drawn from the Australia and the USA, detailing innovative methods of overcoming institutional challenges, were documented. The case study work produced some common themes for transitioning to a One Water approach:

Strong leadership and vision from politicians and senior positions is key to drive the One Water vision and to make public funds available to incentivise the transition. And secondly, to drive implementation of One Water strategies and address institutional capacity requirements.

Improved institutional co-ordination for building partnerships and long-term, mutually-beneficial relationships with a broad range of agencies, including the private sector, will create the collaboration and data sharing needed for development projects to be aligned with the strategy and implemented in a coordinated fashion. This should be driven at both the state and city levels.

Change the current organisational culture to one that sees urban liveability as the starting point. In addition, improve the knowledge and capacity of staff to include alternative approaches and a recognition of urban needs and the potential to use previously thought of problems as potential resources that could add value. It may be necessary to set up a dedicated team to implement the strategy and manage related projects, while the One Water approach is gradually mainstreamed into everyday practices and thinking.

Transparent engagement with the community and both private and public stakeholders is key for confirming the vision and to support the implementation of the strategy. Use of clear branding and vocabulary can help reflect a positive message of the benefits provided by utilities, such as shifting from 'treated wastewater' to 'reclaimed water'. This allows for a different conversation with customers, stakeholders and policy makers. Some case examples showed that early consultation with the community and customers avoided confusion and helped in acceptance of required rate increases, fees or costs.

The development and application of a common economic evaluation framework has been shown to be a major hurdle for justifying the broader benefits of integrated water cycle management approaches in water and urban planning decision-making. Economic assessments need to go beyond traditional cost-benefits analysis to include the recognition of non-monetised social and environmental costs and benefits. New pathways for cost effective revenue generation should be explored that provide multiple benefits to the customers and that could cross-subsidise the creation of liveability benefits.

Enabling regulations that encourage integrated water management are rare. A key action in many of the case studies involved local government showing leadership through the enactment of regulations or guidelines to encourage or require One Water approaches. By streamlining the permitting process (for areas like non-potable recycling) through close collaboration between agencies, the compliance processes for design, construction and operation of schemes can be made more attractive for operators and owners.

The guide draws on the technical report prepared by ISF in collaboration with ForEvaSolutions (USA), Centre for Neighbourhood Technology (USA).