Search

Up until 1998 Australian Water Authorities have generally delivered a safe drinking water such that it has not been the subject of an inquiry or represented a high priority on the political agenda. No mandatory water quality standards presently exist in Australia, and this has been foreshadowed by the lack of "crisis" events that can focus public convictions and mobilize political resolve. However the 1998 Sydney Water crisis dramatically changed political opinion and was witness to widespread public concern about water quality. The NSW government in response to the crisis established the Sydney Water Inquiry chaired by Peter McClellan, which made a number of recommendations including the strengthening of mandatory regulatory mechanisms governing water quality. Previous to this Inquiry, a 1996 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report established a number of major insufficiencies in the Australian Water Industry, including the lack of reliable and adequate data on water contaminants. This lack of dependable data severely limits the ability to define the magnitude and complete nature of hazards confronting water consumers, and alone poses a significant unknown and risk to public health. In addition, the Report confirms the inability of voluntary guidelines and the water industry to maintain a high quality water supply for all Australians and satisfactory assure the public that a safety level not unduly contributing to ill health is being implemented and achieved (Australia's Health 1996, pp. 110-113). In contrast, the US Public Health Service prior to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act 1974 undertook a study of public water systems that was fundamental in forming Congressional support. Many of these reasons such as inadequate standards, insufficient surveillance, poor compliance, and the reemergence of waterborne disease are similar or directly extrapolatable to the present Australian experience. The reasons underlying the justification for uniform legislation and mandatory regulations in the United States are stated as a comparative "goalpost" for what is considered sufficient cause or motive. In the US and generally in environmental regulation the major reason why mandatory regulations are the preferred option in assuring water quality control as opposed to voluntary guidelines is public assurance. Mandatory laws ensure that the environmental objectives and goals of the community are being addressed. Other key reasons, in addition to the past failures of a system based on voluntary guidelines are: (A) public health and safety, (B) transaction costs under represent external costs, and these external costs are borne by others in society, (C) the failure of monopoly markets, (D) reliable information dissemination critical for public knowledge and decision-making, and (E) inadequacies of common law negligence. A number of federal agencies in Australia presently initiate mandatory regulation of risks at levels similar or more stringent than that associated with water contaminants. A brief history of the recent reforms in the Australian water industry is reviewed in combination with the above reasons, to determine how the context of the restructured industry may add further to fundamental pressures. Central to this reform process has been the Hilmer Report and the corporatization of water utilities, which has among a number of initiatives endorsed the adoption of greater economic accountability. Lastly, in conjunction with this investigation the paper posits a mandatory regulatory system based on universal public health values, economic feasibility, rationale decision-making, and transparency of process for all Australians.

Large dams are generally built and managed by Governments and private dams are built by individual owners. A number of horrific failures of both types have triggered serious concerns over the safety of dams in each country. For the larger dams, the response has been to spend vast amounts on structural upgrading works. Unfortunately, only a few countries have developed mature dam safety assurance schemes for smaller private dams as identified here. Dam safety legislation is often considered too ‘extreme’ and alternative action is proposed but rarely follows. This is largely because there are no uniform systematic guidelines on determining the levelof assurance policy that is ‘appropriate’ for varying circumstances. This paper establishes such guidelines together with eclectic policy models of ‘appropriate’ practice, based on a comprehensive review and analysis of international best practice.