Measuring the gaps in drinking water quality and policy across regional and remote Australia

Abstract

Drinking water quality remains a persistent challenge across regional and remote Australia. We reviewed public reporting by 177 utilities and conducted a national assessment of reported exceedances against the health-based and aesthetic guideline values of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). Four definitions of a basic level of drinking water quality were tested to quantify service gaps across regional and remote areas of each subnational jurisdiction in 2018–2019. At least 25,245 people across 99 locations with populations <1000 reportedly accessed water services that did not comply with health-based guideline values. Including larger towns and water systems, the estimated service gap rises to at least 194,572 people across more than 115 locations. Considering health parameters and the ADWG definition of ‘good’ aesthetic characteristics, the reported service gap rises further to at least 627,736 people across 408 locations. Forty percent of all locations with recorded health exceedances were remote Indigenous communities. Monitoring and reporting gaps indicate that the actual incidence of non-compliance with the guideline values of the ADWG could be much higher than our estimates. Our results quantified the divergence in the assessment of water quality outcomes between Sustainable Development Goal Target 6.1 and the ADWG, demonstrated disparities between service levels in capital cities and the rest of Australia, and highlighted the need for place-based solutions. The methods and dataset provide a ‘proof-of-concept’ for an Australian national drinking water quality database to guide government investments in water services.

Water sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Pathways to pluralist, legitimate and sustainable water laws in settler colonial states

“…Indigenous Peoples continue to be largely excluded from water governance by settler state governments [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Indigenous communities are more likely to experience unsafe drinking water quality [16][17][18][19], as well as being excluded from holding rights to water for economic development [15,[20][21][22]. Impacts of this ongoing water dispossession have physical, mental, economic, cultural, and spiritual dimensions [23].…”

Goals, progress and priorities from Mar del Plata in 1977 to New York in 2023

“…15) 14 and, in 2010, in Resolution 64/292, the UN General Assembly declared water and sanitation as a human right. These recognitions have not yet been sufficient to ensure clean water for all at an affordable price including the impoverished, marginalised, many Indigenous peoples 15 and those in remote locations in both the global North and South 16,17 .…”

Addressing Water Poverty Under Climate Crisis: Implications for Social Policy

“…Despite its high income, developed country status with a history of 'Big Water' systems of water and sanitation (Sofoulis, 2006), Australia has consistent service gaps in delivering drinking water access and drinking water quality to regional and remote regions (Wyrwoll et al, 2022). In 2015, 100 percent of Australia's residents were classified as having access to 'at least basic' sanitation, with 74 percent of population having access to 'safely managed' sanitation facilities (WHO and UNICEF, 2017).…”