The Myth

of the

Water Manager
by
Brigid Walsh
3 Holly Court
Mitcham Vic 3132
Phone: 03 9874 0947
Mobile: 0439 425 751
Email: brigidwalsh1@dodo.com.au
12 April 2010

Brigid Walsh is an independent researcher and commentator living in

Melbourne.
She is a graduate of the University of Qld in Economics, Government,
Sociology , and Religion.
Brigid is a born and bred Queensland who has spent most of her long
existence in North Queensland and the Northern Territory where she
developed her skills in community engagement and advocacy.
The Victorian Government, in its current term, has attempted to get runs on the
board on water management in a time of drought and climate variability. What a
pity neither Brumby nor Holding learned lessons from the past. This would have
been possible had they read J.M. Powell’s seminal work, Watering the Garden
State: water, land and community in Victoria 1834-1988.

Joe Powell adapts the 1985 work of Sewell, Smith and Handmer to provide a
table comprising five major Australian ‘water myths’. The fifth and last of these
myths is as follows:

5. ‘Water Management is Mainly for Technical Experts’

a) Domination of water agencies by engineeers/water scientists;
search for a ‘technical fix’ is increasing, minimal provision for
public involvement.
b) Multi-faceted nature of problems ignored; less expensive,
environmentally benign solutions overlooked or downgraded;
forgets that ‘public’ contains some equally well-qualified experts;
does not harness public concern; misses opportunities for
monitoring changing values.

Domination of water agencies by engineeers/water scientists

A tour of Victoria’s government owned water corporations’ websites is
enlightening. Particularly, that of Coliban Water. On the Board of Coliban Water
sits an engineer who is the Group General Manager for Veolia Environmental
Services. Veolia is a French multi-national with a corporate history second only
to Suez whose subsidiary, Degremont, is part of the AquaSure consortium
building the desalination plant at Wonthaggi. The presence of Veolia
management on the Coliban Board raises questions of probity and conflicts of
interest as well as future intentions and presence in the decision-making of a
government entity.

Search for a ‘technical fix’ is increasing

This statement was made in 1985 and is still true to-day. Surely, the search for
the ‘technical fix’ has reached its zenith with the construction of a desalination
plant and the completion of a huge-pipeline to supposedly bring water ‘savings’
to Melbourne. Any water coming to Melbourne currently is subtracted from
environmental flows. Other ‘fixes’ have not been seriously contemplated:
mandatory tanks; stricter behaviour modification; compulsory retro-fitting of
water meters to premises lacking them; wide-scale storm-water harvesting; and
extension of recycled water past the northern suburbs of Melbourne.

Minimal provision for public involvement

The Brumby Government does little or no social benchmarking to monitor impact
of major infrastructure decisions on human communities. Long struggles for
environmental impact statements succeeded. It’s time there were human
community impact statements required as well. Community engagement as it
may sketchily exist in the Victorian Government certainly is not best practice. A
glance at the construction of the Community Liaison Committee established with
the construction of the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant shows that it will have no
impact, it will have no strong community voice, and is not answerable to the
community at all.

The Brumby Government ignores and endeavours to cut out any opposition or
compaints of poor management. The North-South Pipeline has divided
communities and has absorbed community energies and resources over a
considerable period of time. Mediation does not seem to have occurred to
Brumby. It appears that water down a pipe to Melbourne equals votes in 2010
and that is all that matters. Surely, the government can do better than this. As
we move into periods of great climate variability, there will be many policy issues
to be decided in relation to natural resource management. Are the current
actions of the Brumby Government in relation to community engagement and
problem solving to be the model for the future? Or are communities destined to
fight battles for their environment to the point of exhaustion and resource
depletion?

As if cutting off community voices is not bad enough, 2010 has seen the Brumby
Government is prepared to abridge the civil liberties of Victorian citizens with a
contract allowing AquaSure to provide ‘spy-type’ information on protesters to the
police and the spying on and collation of information in relation to Jan Beer, a
Plug the Pipe leader. Does the Brumby Government consider this a way to gain
broad community confidence for its water plans? Do Melbourne Water and
AquaSure consider this community engagement?

Forgets that ‘public’ contains some equally well-qualified experts

Miranda Fricker, the British Philosopher, writes on epistimic injustice - when
some people are deemed “to know” and others are deemed not to have a clue.

There are many educated people within the wider community who understand
water science and engineering and have views which are worth listening to.
Similarly, there are those who have gained experience and knowledge through
life and work experience – like farmers, bush residents. Then there are those
with expertise in the social sciences who can speak of the sociology involved, the
spiritual impact of decisions and so on. These are ignored. The only social
sciences that seem too be considered are economics and politics. Other social
sciences aren’t in the race.

Monitoring changing values

This seems to be beyond the understanding of the Brumby Government and

those advising it. Joe Powell points out how developkment went hand in hand
with water in the Victoria’s early days. This mindset continues. However, there
is widespread interest in environmental values and impacts that did not exist
when Deakin and the Chaffey brothers were dominant in water affairs. In the
construction of the North-South Pipeline and the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant,
there is no evidence of recognition of dominant environmental values. A trip
along-the Pipeline shows forest devastation. Yet to be faced is the reality of
ocean degradition.

In short, a strong case can be made that current water managers and the
Brumby Government are incapable of responding to changing environmental and
social values in management of Victoria’s water resources. There are hints that
questions will be raised in the election on whether the Brumby Government
really has a plan for Victoria’s water resources. There may well be a plan of
sorts. Is it of environmental and community benefit? Will communities exercise a
voice in water resource management? Or will the plan merely satisfy private and
public water corporations and politicians who may be seeking to underwrite a
post-political career?