Actual sustainable water solutions for Australian urban communities

5. Did not use triple bottom line assesment of assets, operations or lifecycle aspects of its strategy (2)

6. Did not assess the likely impacts of the delivery of its strategy on its surrounding catchment and other stakeholders (2)

7. Did not commit to and explain the long-term vision for its strategy, instead only offering a series of tactical initiatives that would be worked on (2)

8. Not suprisinngly, having failed to define a visionary strategy, no transparency, no accountability or contractually-binding performance targets were included (1).

So yes, in my opinion, this Draft GSWS document (similar to most of the 15 pilot studies I initiated in 2001) has failed on all counts of the 8 steps required by SWCM approach. The bracketed figures are the "1-10 scores" for each step, giving the GSWS a score of 15/100 (i.e. not good). On the 29^th October 2021, NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment held a single Webinar lasting 1.5 hours and attended by 30-50 attendees (mostly local and state government stakeholders/consultants). I was one of only 3 independent members of the public (as far as I could ascertain). My queries were ignored and I submitted a formal submission (not made publicly available by the authors of the Draft GSWS document – should you wish to obtain a copy, please request it in a comment to this article and I will email you a copy).

The closure for submissions was only 10 days after this single, constrained public webinar "consultation". The Draft GSWS took 4 years to develop! From experience, I would expect no less when the NSW bureaucrats chosen by our politicians deliver strategies, while practitioners watch on, scratching their heads in bewilderment. Strategy works well in commerce and war because those who succeed/fail are held personally accountable, something that is anathema to Sir Humphrey and bureaucrats. Alas, the same bureaucrats are plying their strategic wares across 12 regional NSW strategies to be delivered by the end of 2022. Based on the failings of the GSWS, I fear they will deliver little, be non-strategic and under no circumstances will be delivered with accountability to the taxpayers of NSW.

Every water utility, (from small towns to metropolis-sized cities like New York or Shanghai) can attain a sustainable water solution strategy for their customers/citizens. While rocket science is not required, without clear strategic planning and leadership, it can not be envisaged, let alone developed and delivered on the ground. While our urban, and indeed rural water planning (eg the Murray Darling Basin, Lake Eyre, Timor Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria catchments), continue to be led by tacticians driving lowly bureaucrats, rather than by "above the shoulder" strategic leaders, then we will continue to fumble along from crisis to crisis. There are 250 plus water utilities in Australia, managing $50+billions worth of assists to harvest/manage our interaction with the water cycle. May I suggest that you check out your water utility's strategic plan and read it in the context of the 8 simple steps of SWCM and see how they do. Comments via OLO would be welcome so we can find the best water strategy. I know the worst from the 15 pilot studies I selected in 2001 it would be helpful if you could use the 8 simple criteria/steps of SWCM to assess how your water utility has performed.

Media and politicians announce one crisis after another, be it drought, flood, pollution incidents, health pandemics and the economic crashes. Indeed, all have been cloaked with the gravest, existential catastrophic threat, namely the climate change crisis. Within my 40 years of professional experience in studying water, I have seen at least a dozen crisis management responses to crises that should never have existed. That's what happens when strategies (such as NSW Water's November 2021 draft GSWS) are devised by tactic-level bureaucrats, with no long-term vision. Where are our strategic leaders and politicians, I ask?