South East Queensland ran out of water recently, triggering a multi-billion dollar infrastructure program, but also some serious governance reform. Concerned that the current model, with 25 different providers of water and wastewater services, was not even delivering water security, the state government seized control.
The management of water and sewer was taken from the local government councils in the area, and given to a number of new regional level entities created by the state government. The engineered part of the water cycle was divided into a number of sections, and a different authority given responsibility for each section.
There are now two “Bulk Supply” entities, responsible for maintaining water sources (dams, groundwater supply etc.) and water and wastewater treatment plants in the two catchments. There is a bulk transport authority, that is responsible for maintaining and operating large regional pipelines. A water-grid manager, that contracts between the different parties and takes ownership of regional water security, does not own any assets. A water and sewer reticulation business is responsible for the reticulation for the region, and three retailers will take care of the customer end. Local government will retain responsibility for stormwater management.
This looks like an attractive model for the State government. Water resources would be managed at catchment level, specialised agencies would be more efficient in accomplishing their core task. The natural monopoly elements (bulk supply and reticulation) are seperated out and given to state authorities, making room for new market entrants in supply and retail.
My question is, is how does a more decentralised, local water and wastewater management fit within this picture. Can councils feed stormwater back into the system?
