Making the implicit, explicit: time for renegotiating the urban water supply hydrosocial contract?

Abstract

Today's modern cities' ‘big-pipes in, big-pipes out’ potable water supply approach does not offer society the resilience for adaptation to future climate challenges. One approach towards building resilience would involve cities adopting diverse, alternative water supplies; such as recycled wastewater, greywater and stormwater, within a fit-for-purpose philosophy, incorporating a mix of centralised and decentralised technologies. Globally, modern cities have limited on-ground experience with such complex approaches, despite ad-hoc policy rhetoric to the contrary and multiple technological options. Through considering the implicit and technocratic hydrosocial contract underpinning the current ‘big pipes’ approach, it appears the judgement and advice of ‘water experts’ is a significant determinant regarding opportunities for realising more resilient water supplies. Contrasting primary and secondary survey data from water experts and communities across Australian cities in relation to their receptivity to alternative water supplies; it is evident that community members are far more receptive than water experts expect. Thus, this difference in perception is potentially a significant barrier to realising a resilient approach. Path-dependant decision-making and practice is pervasive throughout the urban water field, and while the physical artefact of the traditional water supply system remains largely invisible and disconnected from communities, it is the implicit hydrosocial contract that keeps water experts disconnected from communities. Based on evidence presented in this paper, shifting the current hydrosocial contract to a more resilient approach is vulnerable to business as usual. Recommendations are offered for fundamentally reshaping this contract through deliberative processes that work towards enabling co-governance, co-design and co-management of this alternative and complex water supply approach into the future.

Keywords::

• alternative water supplies
• co-management
• community receptivity
• hydrosocial contract
• practitioner perceptions
• resilience

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the industry partners of Monash Water for Liveability, the Australian Research Council (LP0669145), and the Victorian Government's Smart Water Fund for contributing financial support for this research. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Notes

^1. The expansion and efficiency agenda is primarily influenced by the market-based governance approach pushed by many governments since the 1990s (see, e.g. Bakker 2005).

^2. Water from a rain event that is captured on roofs and in tanks before it touches the ground.

^3. Water from a rain event that flows over the ground and is then captured.

^4. Indirect potable reuse requires the addition of treated wastewater to conventional water storage systems to supplement supplies, whereas direct potable reuse involves treating wastewater to a potable standard and supplying this directly to the public, without addition to an existing water storage body.