Phase 1: Understand community values and decision - making criteria August 2023 - April 2024

Before presenting and discussing specific initiatives, we asked participants questions to test their existing understanding of future water security issues and get a sense of what they perceived as the key challenges the ACT is facing when it comes to water security.  

At the beginning of this engagement, we knew that ACT residents considered water security an important area of focus for Icon Water, particularly as population growth and climate change continues. Previous research (from 2019 to now) had told us that they are open to exploring alternative water sources and other ways to preserve water as a finite resource. ACT residents have a good baseline understanding of water security issues and are interested in building on this. 

Our Phase 1 activities confirmed these previous findings; that people have a sound understanding of water security and the issues associated with Icon Water‘s forward planning. When asked about specific rules for Permanent Water Conservation Measures or Temporary Water Restrictions however, we found lower levels of customer and community understanding. 

Participants were presented with up to seven categories of infrastructure options to improve the ACT’s long-term water supply. We asked them to tell us how acceptable each option was to them and to explain their reasoning. Categories presented included:

• Building a desalination plant near the ocean
• Installing additional purified recycled water treatment technology
• Building a new dam 
• Installing new pipes/pumping stations to extract more water out of ACT rivers
• Increasing the storage of one of Icon Water’s existing dams
• Installing bores and a pipeline to extract groundwater
• Collecting and storing stormwater

The most acceptable water supply augmentation options by participants across activities were consistently found to be increasing the storage of one of Icon Water’s existing dams, installing purified recycled water treatment technology at the existing wastewater treatment plant, or building a new dam. Participants were less supportive of the other options presented due to their perceived negative environmental impacts (as in the case of extracting more from rivers) or perceived impracticality (as in the case of desalination). 

Overall, participants supported investment in water source infrastructure in principle, recognising its role in securing future supply, but they wanted to understand the specifications around the options on the table including:

• Cost impact to customers. 
• Environmental impacts or benefits. 
• Where the infrastructure is currently used in Australia and overseas. 
• Timeframes to deliver. 
• Contribution to long-term water supply and security
• Nature of the treatment technologies needed to understand the infrastructure and processes involved (particularly for purified recycled water).

Some participants – primarily larger water users (including key account customers) – felt that Icon Water, with the ACT Government, should explore opportunities to encourage behavioural change within the ACT before needing to consider such large infrastructure investments. 

Participants said increasing capacity of Icon Water’s existing dams, installing purified recycled water treatment technology at the existing wastewater treatment plant or building new dams were the most acceptable water supply augmentation options.

Customer and community awareness of and support for Permanent Water Conservation Measures were tested. These measures are rules around when and how you use drinking water in Canberra and Queanbeyan and apply to businesses and residents at all times other than when Temporary Water Restrictions are in force. More detail on the rules can be found here.

Across engagement activities, we found low levels of understanding and awareness of the Permanent Water Conservation Measures. Many adopt corresponding behaviours out of their own desire to reduce water use (for both cost and environmental perspectives) rather than out of obedience with the rules or fear of penalties. Participants felt that more communications or information campaigns about the scheme would increase the community’s awareness and likelihood to follow the rules.

When asked, participants largely felt these rules were acceptable and common-sense, and that following them was part of being a community. The managers of sports grounds felt very impacted by these measures, as they limit the times grass can be watered during the day. However, they still viewed the rules as being fair and manageable. Larger water users (including key account customers) tend to adopt these rules as common practice and good business, as reduced water use reduces expenses. 

When asked to review the rules, most were seen as fair and easy to follow. Rules that have too much specificity (e.g. top up your pool and spa with a capacity of 3,000 litres or more before 9am or after 6pm and if your pool or spa is fitted with a cover) were sometimes seen as over-complicated and unrelatable (for example, many noted not knowing how big a 3,000 litre pool is). 

Activities sought to understand how acceptable or unacceptable each stage of Temporary Water Restrictions is perceived to be and why. These restrictions are implemented in four stages and are put in place when the ACT needs to conserve more water. Stages are triggered when dam storage levels are low, combined with other factors such as poor weather outlook and the time of year. More detail on the rules can be found here.

Participants were presented with information on the rules at all four stages of Temporary Water Restrictions. Most felt that all stages of Temporary Water Restrictions are acceptable and manageable. 

Citizens’ Panel participants and some key account customers thought that the Stage 1 water restriction trigger should be earlier than it currently is.

The concept of adding new restrictions related to indoor water use was debated by Citizens’ Panel participants. They questioned how these new rules would be developed and enforced for different household types and sizes. Some participants felt that more could be done to encourage water saving behaviour outside of the water restriction periods, to further reduce the likelihood of having to go into water restrictions. They encouraged Icon Water to invest in advertising, incentives for good behaviours, educational material on Icon Water’s website or customer bills, and merchandise to distribute key messages such as a fridge magnet of ‘easy steps to save water’. 

Water dependent businesses interviewed were found to be less likely to support higher restrictions stages as these rules could significantly impact business operations and therefore profitability. For this reason, this user group was supportive of potential future measures such as implementing Stage 1 water restrictions sooner to prevent harsher later stages or for there to be different rules between business and residential customers.  

There was more debate about these stages among key account customers. As large water users and businesses within the community, many felt harsher restrictions should apply to them and all other high-water users. Restricting this small group of customers first would have a large impact, whereas it was seen as more detrimental to people’s wellbeing to restrict households and community organisations, for not that much gain (comparatively) to water supply. 

Most key account customers agreed that plenty of forewarning and information was felt to be necessary to limit the shock and impact of a restriction period. Some mentioned that communications by the ACT Government and Icon Water during the last drought worked well to educate businesses and residential customers. 

The ACT Government defines water security through a water planning target that sets the goal for how often Icon Water can impose Temporary Water Restrictions on the ACT. ​The current target states that the supply system should meet unrestricted demand for the ACT and Queanbeyan 95% of the time until 2030. This is interpreted to mean that the ACT is subject to Temporary Water Restrictions for no more than 5% of the time on average.

The ACT Government is currently reviewing the ACT Water Strategy, and this gives Icon Water with the opportunity to provide recommendations or feedback. However, we did not want to do this until we understood what our customers thought. So, we asked participants for their views of the current target and whether we should propose a change to the target with consideration for the implications for how Icon Water balances the need for new infrastructures/services with restriction consumption.

Participants were largely supportive of changing the service level target related to water security and the time allowed in restrictions. Water-dependent businesses were less supportive (e.g. managers of sporting grounds and public pools). They were concerned at the idea of more frequent restrictions as a result of this change and were therefore not supportive of any new measures that would increase risk to business continuity. 

Key account customers were largely supportive of this change; impact was seen as minimal to them and beneficial to community water conservation behaviour overall. 

Citizens’ Panel participants were also in favour of changing the measure to make it only applicable to Stages 2 water restrictions and higher. Most felt that Stage 1 rules are easy to follow and not onerous, so changing the measure would not have a huge impact.