Australian Water Management Review Vol 1 2010 | Page 39

39

3. it helps to think of resource
management as a problem of
designing a management system to
meet a set of ongoing challenges;
4. complexity, uncertainty and conflict
are inherent attributes of many water
management systems;
5. water management, notwithstanding
its technical aspects, is largely a
problem of governance; and,
6. successful resource management
depends on integrating the human
sciences.
These lessons underpin the
transformation to sustainable integrated
water resources planning that is taking
place in Southern California.
The drought period of the late 1980s
required Southern California water
agencies to mandate water conservation.
Since this time, integrated resource
planning, which has driven legislative,
policy and planning changes to see
water recycling, stormwater harvesting,
groundwater management and low
impact development (water sensitive
urban design) increasingly considered
as viable alternatives, with a role to
play in water supply planning. These
changes have been made in the context
of federal initiatives to control pollution
of waterways and to share water with
other economic and environmental users
of water.
Alongside its significant history of
importing water, today, the City of Los
Angeles is aggressively diversifying
water supply opportunities. In May
2008, the city adopted ‘Securing L.A.’s
Water Supply’ – a long-term, sustainable
plan water supply plan, which has
identified expanding recycled water;
increasing water conservation, enhancing
stormwater capture, accelerating cleanup
of the groundwater basin, and expanding
groundwater storage as key elements of
the city’s future.

Conclusion

In both Australia and Southern California,
there has been a shift from acceptance
of supply augmentation — through
ever-increasing water imports and the
cleaning up, but ultimately discharging
as pollution, of sewage and stormwater
effluents — to a water resource-based
mind-set (which advocates a variety

of water products that are fit for their
intended use, locally produced, and less
climate dependent). Also, economic
regulators in both jurisdictions have
questioned whether all the alternatives
for supply are given fair consideration,
whilst scientists in both places adopt
systems-based, risk-management
approaches rather than prescriptive
technological ones.
These options and supporting
management approaches for
diversification must be further explored.
However, perhaps even more
interestingly, the experience of both
places has highlighted a very real tension
in water planning: under the pressure
of critical (drought) circumstances,
innovation thrives, yet, with diminishing
time remaining for action, not every
option remains a genuine option. Whilst
criticality brings the political will to create
great change, by the time a crisis point
is reached several response options are
already lost. The challenge for the future
therefore becomes: How do we create a
resonant impetus for change before crisis
is upon us to maintain the integrity of the
planning process? One possible means
of creating part of this impetus that
stands out in the Australian context is the
continued development of national policy,
regulatory and legislative frameworks.
This is an abridged version of a paper
delivered by Emma Pryor at OzWater ’10,
the annual conference of the Australian
Water Association.