pricing submission 2021 community research report february ...€¦ · melbourne water pricing...

Melbourne Water

Pricing Submission 2021

Community Research

Report

February 2020

Contents

Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

Background and research objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of findings: Key themes .......................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of findings: Response to specific initiatives proposed ........................................................................... 7

Background and methodology ................................................................................................................... 10

Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Explore: Qualitative research ................................................................................................................................ 11

Assess: population representative survey ............................................................................................................ 17

Findings in detail ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Comparison of options .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Bill certainty and water security ........................................................................................................................... 21

Resource recovery................................................................................................................................................. 26

Recycled water ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

Stormwater harvesting ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Biosolids re-use ..................................................................................................................................................... 32

Access to open space and recreation ................................................................................................................... 35

Reservoirs ........................................................................................................................................................... 35

Pipetracks ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

Sewerage system .................................................................................................................................................. 40

Resilience ........................................................................................................................................................... 40

Odour management .............................................................................................................................................. 44

Carbon offsets ....................................................................................................................................................... 45

Managing runoff from surfaces ............................................................................................................................ 49

Educating Melburnians ......................................................................................................................................... 50

Western Treatment Plant access and ecotourism ................................................................................................ 51

Water cycle education and awareness ................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix - questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 58

Melbourne Water Price Submission ..................................................................................................................... 58

Introduction Text .................................................................................................................................................. 58

SECTION A: SCREENING QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................... 58

SECTION B: WATER SECURITY AND BILL CERTAINTY ................................................................................ 62

SECTION C: RESOURCE RECOVERY .......................................................................................................... 64

SECTION D: ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION .......................................................................... 70

SECTION E: SEWERAGE .......................................................................................................................... 74

SECTION B: CARBON OFFSETS ................................................................................................................ 75

SECTION C: MANAGING RUNOFF FROM SURFACES ................................................................................. 79

SECTION B: EDUCATING MELBURNIANS ................................................................................................. 80

SECTION C: SIMALTO EXPERIMENT ........................................................................................................ 84

SECTION D: DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................. 88

Executive summary

Background and research objectives

Melbourne Water’s values – Care, Integrity and Courage – and its vision of “Enhancing Life and Liveability” provide a profound imperative for the organisation to put Melburnians’ wellbeing at the centre of its work – and to engage them in an open and transparent process about current and future developments.

The 2021 price submission will help set Melbourne Water up to lead the supply of essential services that deliver enormous value to customers. Melbourne Water’s internal experts have identified a range of innovations in service delivery that offer enormous potential for the organisation to better meet its vision. However, these innovations require investment from the community, and their willingness to engage with and invest in Melbourne Water’s vision will be a critical factor in its long-term success.

To this end, Melbourne Water engaged Whereto to conduct community research with a representative cross-section of Melburnians. Following on from a qualitative phase comprising 12, 3-hour focus groups and an online discussion board in late 2019, a large scale (n=2,549) representative online survey of Melburnians was conducted over January 2020.

Focus group and survey participants were provided stimulus material, including text, images and audio describing the need for each of the initiatives, as well as a range of potential options for additional investment around:

Bill certainty

Biosolids re-use

Water recycling

Stormwater harvesting

Access to open space and recreation

Sewerage

Carbon offsets

Managing runoff from hard surfaces

Ecotourism development at WTP

Educating Melburnians

The research was designed to elicit bill payers’ willingness-to-pay for a range of different initiatives, including a simultaneous trade-off analysis that pitted each of the initiatives against the estimated increase in their yearly bill.

Summary of findings: Key themes

Water security and a high functioning sewerage system are essential investments

Melburnians support decisive action to ensure our city’s water security and a high functioning sewerage systems in the face of population growth and climate change. They believe greater investment in water security and sewerage system resilience is essential to Melbourne’s future as a liveable, prosperous city. Some can name cautionary examples overseas where environmental context and poor planning has led to almost apocalyptic water security outcomes (e.g. Johannesburg), and compromised conditions more locally (e.g. in western NSW) – for participants across our groups, it is unthinkable that this could or would be allowed to happen to Melbourne.

“If we haven’t got water security, we’re in trouble – look at Flint Michigan – it’s a huge issue even in first world countries, sewerage and water delivery is vital, or it affects everyone in our community and our wellbeing.” Male, 60+ Located within South East Water’s region

Melburnians are looking for evidence that Melbourne Water is a responsible actor

How investments to ensure water security and a high functioning system are made will determine perceptions of Melbourne Water as a good manager, and whether people are willing to give their support to those investments. Melburnians have decisive opinions on:

the benefits of acting now vs later,

the extent to which the full potential of investments are realised through a systems approach,

whether Melbourne Water should act outside/beyond what they understand to be its core business of water security/sewerage, and

whether Melbourne Water’s actions should benefit a subset of people or the whole community.

In more detail, the community want to see:

Evidence of strong forward planning and considered action... While people are appreciative that

Melbourne Water has taken the time to ask them about water security, sewerage system resilience and

other important issues, they are also concerned that these issues are being addressed in a reactive fashion.

They can easily list off numerous other examples where Melbourne’s infrastructure isn’t keeping up with

population growth – roads, schools, transport, housing, etc. – and are looking for evidence that Melbourne

Water is doing responsible forward planning.

Acting in advance is not only seen as being a cheaper option for infrastructure investment, it is also

considered essential to Melbourne Water being seen as a wise, shrewd and sensible actor. Melburnians

want to feel that they are receiving the best value for money, that actions are assessed in terms of short and

longer term implications, opportunity cost, financial viability, potential benefit, the broader environmental

impact and whether they can eventually become self-funding or can feed revenue back into the system.

“What I really appreciated about the information was seeing how proactive Melbourne Water are being about so many things... I commented on the homework that our Federal Government could take a few leaves out of their book! I think it's very smart to be thinking ahead about infrastructure and impact on the environment. I think being ready for things before you have no choice and have to make a contingency plan is really important, across the board!” Female, 35-59, chronic Illness, Located within Yarra Valley Water’ region

Holistic system integration for long-term sustainability… That a growing population increases pressure on

existing systems was readily understood, accepted and set a compelling framework to consider the mix of

initiatives – despite some misgivings around the costs and benefits of population growth. Melburnians are

reassured that a comprehensive range of initiatives for their city’s long-term future are being considered

and pursued. They appreciate that Melbourne Water is taking a holistic, future focused approach and

attributed benefits both to the specific initiatives but also to their combination.

In particular, people wanted to see evidence that Melbourne Water’s initiatives reflect wise and

interconnected use of the system as a whole. There is greater support, for instance, for recycling, or

optimising existing resources (e.g. through bioenergy or solar panels on treatment plants) than for new,

standalone initiatives. Related to this, people are much more accepting of initiatives that involved

‘prevention rather than cure’ – for example, emissions reduction rather than carbon offsets.

“Melbourne Water seems to be thinking well ahead about challenges we might face in the not-too-distant future, and I think this is the smart way to go. I think it's wise to be concerned about water security generally, so knowing that Melbourne Water is looking to mitigate any issues early is reassuring.” Female, 35-59, chronic illness, Located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

A focus on Melbourne Water’s core business… The scope and importance of Melbourne Water’s work is

unarguable. However, Melburnians are divided on initiatives outside Melbourne Water’s core business of

delivering water and sewerage services – for example, providing tourism infrastructure. They are quick to

point to local and state governments having greater responsibility in those areas.

“It’s vital, the work [Melbourne Water] do, without it, none of us would be here – they keep us and the environment healthy” Male 60+, Located within South East Water’s region

Benefits that flow equally to all Melburnians… In discussion groups, there was lower levels of support for

investments that only benefit a subset of Melburnians – for example, pipe track parks that were perceived

to only benefit people living in particular Melbourne areas, or odour management strategies that only

benefit those who have bought houses near treatment plants or exhaust stacks. Even where a project may

only add a few cents to an average water bill, in discussions people typically rejected these projects based

on the principle of universality – that the benefits of Melbourne Water investments really do need to be for

all Melburnians. Where citizens could envisage the broader social benefit of these initiatives, they could be

more supportive

Burden on business vs community … There was some resentment in group discussions that the burden of

water infrastructure was being talked about solely in terms of household, rather than business

responsibility.

“One thing I noticed was that this is all about what households have to do. That’s not fair… what about business, they use more!” Female, 60+ years, Located within City West Water’s region

“This all needs to be done as efficiently as possible, and I don’t see why we should have to be charged more – it should be part of an efficiency dividend.” Located within Male 60+ Yarra Valley Water’s region

Involving the community and explaining the issues further

This analysis also suggests that it is not enough for Melbourne Water to act in people’s best interests and in a responsible manner – people also need to know that it is acting. There was, in addition, a near universal desire among Melburnians to personally contribute to water security, and to further understand the issues. In more detail:

Melburnians want to play a part… Melburnians want to know how they can contribute to our water

security. Those who recall it are nostalgic about the Millennium Drought water restrictions, and younger

people are highly concerned about climate change. They would be happy to take more personal

responsibility in relation to reducing household’s water use.

Melburnians are also surprisingly eager to make a contribution (through their water bills) to water infrastructure. The exception is people who argued strenuously that system improvements should be funded through Melbourne Water’s dividend to Government, or via efficiencies across the system.

“I just want to know what else we can all do to help – we can all use water better and save the need for some of these things.” Male 25-35, Located within South East Water’s region

More communication about water issues / solutions welcomed… Participants in every group initially

expressed sense of surprise at the scope and breadth of Melbourne Water’s work and its importance to our

city. Few without direct involvement in Melbourne Water or its predecessors had any understanding about

what Melbourne Water did, or the complexity of the systems that it manages. This included most of the

issues and innovations covered in the document shared with participants prior to their sessions.

Melburnians are typically interested in learning more about the water issues facing our city; and how

Melbourne Water is planning to tackle these.

“I didn’t know Melbourne Water was into desalination and recycling, and carbon and offsets so this was something new to me and I wanted to know more about Melbourne Water and what they do.” Female, CALD, 25-35, Located within City West Water’s region

“I was very happy to hear they were into things like clean energy and renewables – I didn’t know they were into it so much.” Female 25-35, Located within South East Water’ region

While most participants could accept an increase in bills, this was not without a desire for greater accountability – Melburnians expected that Melbourne Water would and should share its progress on any new initiatives. Most assumed this could be communicated on their bills – with simple visuals or statements on what the initiatives are and progress made. Some expected that Melbourne Water should invest in local signage and advertising that also showcases how water is being used – and how the system is being managed - responsibly.

Assumptions about the nature of water retailers and Melbourne Water need to be addressed… Many

across our groups – especially those in younger generations – indicated a belief that Melbourne’s Water

retailers are private, profit-making companies, rather than state-owned enterprises returning a dividend to

the government. This stems partly from their being referenced to as ‘retailers’, and the nature of other

utilities services in Victoria. In other words, participants expectations were set by the context of other

essential services, for example electricity and gas in Victoria, where the retail, customer-facing billing

agencies are not usually government owned, but are private companies.

“I didn’t know that Melbourne Water was a Victorian Government body – that surprised me from the reading pack.” Male, 25-35. Located within South East Water’s region

In the absence of being told otherwise, it is natural for many Melburnians in our discussion groups to have

thought that water runs on a similar model. This does have a significant impact on perceptions – especially

when asking people to pay increases to fund community initiatives, and should be addressed.

Summary of findings: Response to specific initiatives proposed

Across the discussion groups and the online survey, Melburnians revealed strong levels of support for a majority of the initiatives proposed, and a willingness to invest alongside Melbourne Water to see them borne out. To illustrate, across the groups, people were willing to pay an additional $60-$80 per annum to help fund their choice of initiatives, and in the quantitative survey, Melburnians indicated an average willingness to pay for their choice of initiatives of $18.88. The difference between these figures can be mostly ascribed to the different cost bases presented in the different streams of research.

“So what’s that $70 – so $1.50 a week and we get all that – I wouldn’t have a problem with that.” Male, 25-35, South East Water

The quantitative survey showed that more than half of Melburnian water bill payers were willing to pay for more than the minimum investment for every initiative, with exception of ecotourism facilities at WTP (44%). Only one in ten (11%) bill payers were not willing to pay more than the minimum across any of the areas included - a clear majority (89%) are willing to pay for greater investment in one or more of the initiatives detailed in the survey.

The most favoured initiatives presented to participants were (in order):

Stormwater harvesting… Melburnians across all group discussions were strong supporters of increased investment and focus on stormwater recovery and recycling. Many felt this was a priority area for investment – that letting stormwater go into the bays is wasteful, and that we should be collecting and re-using more of it throughout the year.

In the quantitative survey, increasing the amount of stormwater harvesting was the most strongly supported option overall, with three-quarters (75%) of Melburnians willing to pay for additional investment.

Sewerage system resilience… Participants across our group discussions were strongly and nearly ubiquitously supportive of greater investment in ensuring our sewerage system is resilient and ready for the future challenges of population growth and climate change. The risk of a leaky or unsound sewerage system is not a risk that Melburnians are willing to take.

In the quantitative survey, investing in sewerage system resilience had very strong support (72%), almost all Melburnians (87%) agree it’s important to ensure the sewerage system is fit for future generations and our growing population, to ensure a healthy environment for all Melburnians and avoid the risk of issues emerging later.

Carbon offsets…Carbon offsets are not necessarily a well understood topic – some people required a great deal of explanation in addition to the reading pack to digest the information and consider the options - carbon offsets are confusing for many, and have some level of distrust in the community. In addition, the idea of carbon offsets can be contentious. Age divides on this issue, with many of those in older groups more distrustful of offsets, and less likely to favour rapid offsets, if at all. Younger groups were much more supportive.

The quantitative survey reinforced these findings the options presented were highly polarising – with roughly a third (37%) opting for the cheapest possible, and a third opting for high value local versions at the highest cost (34%). However, overall, 69% supported faster abatement or higher quality, Australian based carbon offsets than the minimum required by the government.

Pipetrack access and amenity… While few in discussion groups had any objections to the idea of opening up pipe tracks – and most felt that it is an idea with merit – almost everyone across the group discussions felt that those more likely to use these areas (that is, those who live nearby) should cover any costs required to do so.

In the quantitative survey, the low costs ($0.04) involved meant that improving pipetrack access and amenity was strongly supported (69%) – clearly seen as low-cost, good value improvements to create green corridors and for urban cooling and air quality – it added a total of $0.17 to the average increase.

Access to open space and recreation…In focus groups, many showed support for a range of recreational uses around the “downstream” reservoirs, as is already the case. Some can imagine an argument for opening up the reservoirs further, including allowing people to recreate in the water. However, in tension with this, people are concerned about water contamination, increased fire risk or even acts of deliberate terrorism becoming more likely if our pristine catchments and reservoirs are opened further to the public. People were also much more comfortable with the idea of expanded recreation being funded by general tax revenues than via their water bill.

In the quantitative survey, a majority (62%) of Melburnians are willing to contribute to opening up reservoirs to make better use of our beautiful natural spaces for the benefit of the community. Very few do not support Melbourne water providing access to land and reservoirs (11%).

Recycled water…Broadly, the idea that Melbourne could and should be recycling much more water found very strong levels of support across the group discussions, with most reframing it as a responsible waste use and a water security issue. In the quantitative survey, greater levels of water recycling was supported by a little over half (56%), but accounted for the second largest proportion of the average total increase in water bills ($3.07). Bill payers identified reducing effluent into the bays and putting our waste to good use as the key benefits.

Education and awareness… Melburnians are highly supportive of greater investment in water education. After considering the pre-reading pack and discussing Melbourne’s water supply and management options, virtually all participants felt there was a need for ongoing communications informing Melburnians about the water system, Melbourne Water’s work, and how individuals can help by being better users of our water resources. Slightly more than half (56%) in the quantitative survey supported more than the current level of investment in education via digital education programs and interactive facilities. The key benefits noted were improving water use behaviours, and increased awareness about Melbourne’s water, and where it comes from.

Biosolids re-use... Few Melburnians are aware that biosolids are created from our sewage stream, or that there is currently a stockpile of around 20 years’ worth of biosolids. Across discussions, people were shocked (if not

horrified) that such a large amount of biosolid could be amassed without them hearing about it, and were surprised that they weren’t re-used as a standard practice for managing the sewage waste stream. But there were tensions around the requirement for additional investment. In the quantitative survey, biosolid re-use options were among the least supported (54%), but contributed $0.98 to the average total bill increase. Putting our waste to good use, fully treating and re-using waste, and helping farmers were identified as the key benefits.

Bill certainty… Perceptions of the desalination plant have been shaped by (tabloid) rumour and (mis)information – and many came to the groups with negative views, including a widespread lack of real knowledge. Despite this, many feel that desalination should be used more extensively, to provide Melbourne with greater water security, and as a buffer against drought, growth and climate change. Although the second-least favoured proposal in the quantitative survey, with only half (52%) favouring a shift from the current arrangement, the price attached to the options meant that this accounted for the highest proportion of the total average bill increase. Bill payers felt the most important benefits were stable predictable bills and water security.

Ecotourism at WTP…Ecotourism was the least supported option, only 44% in the quantitative survey opted for more than maintaining current approach. Better facilities for schools and improved water and sewerage literacy were seen as the main benefits of increased investment.

Impervious surfaces… Melburnians have not heard about – or considered –the issues with increasing impervious surface area and development across the city. However, the issue makes intuitive sense once people have read or heard about it – few need further convincing of the challenges. Nearly everyone across the more extended and in-depth analysis of focus groups felt the flat charge for impervious surfaces to be unfair. However, in the quantitative survey, with the pros and cons of each approach clearly spelled out, over half (56%) supported no change to the current approach to the impervious surface area charge.

The cost attached to each of the initiatives is also an important variable that needs to be incorporated, because each of the options had very different costs attached the bill payer’s estimated increase. The initiatives with that added, on average the highest amounts to the average water bill were:

Bill certainty ($10.08, from options of $0, $16 and $32 per annum) Water recycling ($3.07 from options of $0 and $5.49) Stormwater harvesting ($2.06, from options of $0, $2 and $4) Access to open space and recreation ($1.19, from four options ranging from $0 to $5) Biosolids re-use ($0.98, from options of $0.62 and $1.42)

The contrast between these two analyses highlights an important overarching theme from the research: the community broadly supports low incremental cost, high value initiatives (like stormwater harvesting, sewerage system upgrades, better carbon dioxide offsets and pipetrack access and amenity).

But there is also a substantial proportion who see Melbourne Water as trusted experts, who support all of Melbourne Water’s recommendations to enhance life and liveability – and who are willing to bear the cost.

Background and methodology

Background

Melbourne Water plays a variety of essential roles in our community

Melbourne Water is an increasingly customer-focused organisation, focussed on providing ever better value and service to the people of Victoria. Customer-centricity in utilities providers usually requires an absolute dedication to uninterrupted service delivery at minimum cost. However, Melbourne Water delivers services far beyond that of an average utilities service provider or water retailer. With services covering reservoirs and catchments, sewerage, the management of high-quality waterways, drainage and flood systems, Melbourne Water takes the lion’s share of responsibility for the healthy environment and essential living standards that all Melburnians rely on and enjoy.

Melbourne Water also manages large tracts of land – over 33,000 hectares – that provide local amenity and recreation opportunities, and supports local communities to help them make the most of these amenities.

Melbourne Water’s vision is “Enhancing Life and Liveability”, which is supported by three pillars: Healthy People, Healthy Places and Healthy Environment. This vision underpins the delivery of all Melbourne Water services.

Balancing development with human safety and environmental health is a core organisational challenge. Ensuring that our city remains the world’s most liveable, in a future where our population will reach over 8 million residents, relies on strong community collaboration and engagement. Melbourne Water’s values – Care, Integrity and Courage – articulate the imperative for the organisation to put Melburnians’ wellbeing at the centre of its innovation program – and to engage them in an open and transparent process about future developments.

Innovating service delivery

The 2021 price submission will help set up Melbourne Water to lead the delivery of essential services that provide enormous value to customers. Melbourne Water’s internal experts have identified a range of innovations in service delivery that offer enormous potential for the organisation to better meet its vision.

However, each of these require investment from the community, and community willingness to engage and invest with the organisation in meeting its vision will be a critical factor in long-term success.

The potential evolution of Melbourne Water’s services include:

1) Alternative base water service and investment scenarios — covering changes in catchment

management, including the opening of currently closed areas for recreation.

2) Upgrading long-term water security — normalising use and augmentation of the desalination plant,

potential for a second plant, potential alternative sources — including recycling — as well as

technology and research investment.

3) Recycling water from sewerage —introduction of new water recycling plant and processes to

enhance long-term water security and resilience.

4) Integrated water management — a range of integrated water management projects and scenarios,

including many with additional community benefits.

5) Base sewerage service — scenarios covering research and technology, education and system

resilience.

6) Bio-solids – scenarios regarding bio-solid re-use, including rate of meeting re-use targets and

investment in technology to explore alternative re-use options.

7) Carbon offsets – carbon neutrality through investment in carbon credits including potential for

sourcing credits both locally and overseas.

8) Liveability initiatives – relating to water and sewerage services – investing in liveability outcomes

associated with water and sewerage services.

9) Impervious surface area charging – potential for charging based on the impervious area of residential

and non-residential properties, potential offset options for reducing the charge.

Melbourne Water is focussed on delivering a sustainable and best-practice service that is in line with community expectations. As part of its engagement program for the 2021 Pricing Submission, Melbourne Water has drawn on the insights of a representative panel to co-design a community vision for the Price Submission.

“In 2026, Melbourne Water is ensuring the environment is central to all it does. Its sustainable and innovative approach to service delivery provides reliable, efficient and secure outcomes for everyone

and everything. Melbourne’s water is for us and for you.”

This vision is supported by six priority values, including

Environment and sustainability,

Reliability,

Forward thinking,

For everyone,

Innovation, and

Efficiency.

These six priorities are supported by another six values including: honesty and integrity, education, quality,

transparency, system-wide collaboration and value for money. This vision and these values underpin the

approach to community engagement around any potential evolution of Melbourne Water’s services — and in

exploring the community’s willingness to invest alongside Melbourne Water.

Need for community research

As Melbourne Water develops its 2021 pricing submission, it is important to provide ongoing evidence around the community’s perceptions of the value of Melbourne Water’s services. This project will realise parts of Stage 2 of Melbourne Water’s Community Engagement program, which aims to collaborate with the community to understand their preferences around and willingness to pay for services. The community’s response to the Engagement Program will help to inform and define the priorities of the Price Submission.

The objectives of this research are therefore to:

Explore the community’s attitudes and willingness to engage across each potential evolution of Melbourne

Water’s services

Assess, via a robust, population-representative sample within Melbourne Water’s area of service delivery,

the preferences and willingness to pay for potential innovations

Validate and deliberate — provide robust and well-considered direction for Melbourne Water, building on

and refining the options with the strongest community support and willingness to engage.

Methodology

This report summarises findings from the first (explore) and second (assess) phases of the research.

Explore: Qualitative research

The initial qualitative phase was designed to provide a detailed understanding of community perspectives on Melbourne Water’s proposed initiatives.

Melbourne Water | Pricing Submission 2021 Community Research | February 2020 page 16

Twelve, 3-hour discussion groups with pre-reading

Group discussions are an ideal way to understand the views and perspectives of a broadly representative and inclusive group of Melburnians; a well-run group discussion allows discussion and debate — and a full exploration of people’s reactions to stimulus.

In this case, we were interested in how the issues may play out in the community once people understand and have considered them. These are long-term investments that must be properly considered for their costs, benefits and risks. To this end, we ensured that participants came to discussions well prepared, having familiarised themselves with the concepts via both printed and audio stimulus designed to inform about the key issues in a neutral way. A copy of the printed stimulus can be found at Appendix 1.

Sample

Effective qualitative sampling builds on the well-established principle that groups run best and provide the most accurate perspective when they are based around relatively homogenous demographic groupings. For this reason groups were separated based on:

Gender – Women and men talk differently about the issues, and gender-specific groups encourage

participants to more freely express their feelings and opinions.

Age – Different generational cohorts have different levels of experience with Melbourne Water’s services

and talk about their needs and express themselves in different ways.

Level of education / SES – Level of education is an important predictor for the interpretation of complex new

ideas. For the purposes of qualitative samples, level of education is an excellent proxy for both level of

literacy and socio-economic status, and this makes it an important variable to control.

Location — Location within Melbourne dictates which water retailer participants rely on, the Melbourne

Water services they receive or have regular exposure to, and a host of cultural differences. Groups in South

Melbourne included South East Water and City West Water; those in Hampton included South East Water

customers only; those in Ringwood and Healesville included Yarra Valley Water customers only; and those

in Coburg included City West Water customers only.

Other demographic characteristics — such as household size and land ownership, lifestyle, life stage, cultural and linguistic diversity (CALD) and work status — were carefully controlled within each group to ensure broad representation. All participants were water bill payers.

A summary of our sample is tabled below:

Group discussions 6-8 participants in each group

Group # Other sampling criteria Location

1 Male 18-34, SINK / DINK, no university degree Hampton

2 Male 18-34, SINK/DINK, university degree Coburg

3 Female 18-34, SINK/DINK, no university degree South Melbourne

4 Female 35-59, children at home, university degree South Melbourne

5 Male 35-59, children at home, no university degree Healesville

6 Male 35-59, children at home, university degree Ringwood

7 Female 35-59, children at home, no university degree Ringwood

8 Male 60+, empty nester, no university degree Hampton


Group discussions 6-8 participants in each group

Group # Other sampling criteria Location

9 Female 60+, empty nester, university degree South Melbourne

10 Female 60+, no university degree Healesville

11 Male 60+, empty nester, university degree South Melbourne

12 Female 18-34, SINK/DINK, university degree South Melbourne

Other criteria controlled within each group:

CALD – 1 in 4 across the sample were from a range of CALD backgrounds (i.e. that speak another language at home or with parents) including European, Asian, Middle-Eastern and African

Home ownership – 1 in 3 across the sample were renting; 2 in 3 paying off their home or homeowners

Size of property — mix of separated houses, townhouses and apartments broadly reflective of demographic characteristics at group locations

Work participation and employment – in line with population rates, approx. 2 in 3 working, 1 in twenty unemployed and the remainder on full-time caring, home duties or retired

Note: SINK/DINK refers to ‘Single Income No Kids’ or ‘Double income No Kids’

Groups were audio and/or video recorded at all locations.

Online discussion board: people with disability and chronic illness

An online discussion board was used to facilitate the inclusion of those with chronic illness and physical disability who might otherwise find it difficult to participate. People with chronic illness and disability that limit their ability to participate in group discussions make up between 10% - 20% of the population. That their voices are often under-heard in our community because of their different ability to get to central locations for group discussions makes them an important group to include in a project designed to be representative of all people’s needs.

participants were required to engage over on separate days – examining different scenarios each day. This was conduced over the course of a week. The online discussion board was actively moderated by our team, offering expert questioning/probing approaches that ensure high levels of participant engagement.

The online panel discussion included 16-20 individuals, selected to offer a representative range of disability and mobility-limiting chronic illness.

Assess: Population representative survey

This phase of the community research comprised a large-scale online survey of n=2549 Melburnians. The survey took an average of 29 minutes to complete, and included detailed descriptions of the different initiatives being proposed by Melbourne Water for the next pricing submission period (2021-2025). The questionnaire, including the descriptions of the initiatives proposed is provided in the appendix.

The method was designed to provide participants with a realistic, digestible overview of the subjects, and asks them to prioritise either lower bills (e.g. by choosing the options with the lowest bill impact – usually $0) or greater investment in our water and sewerage infrastructure.

The survey focussed on water bill payers’ willingness to pay for the range of initiatives presented. The costs of each option were provided throughout the survey, and again through a SIMALTO experiment, where participants traded off all the initiatives simultaneously against a hypothetical increase in their total annual bill.


Notably, to keep the survey under 30 minutes, participants were randomised such that while all completed the choice of options after going through the stimulus, only half completed the follow-up questions for each initiative. The order of sections presented to participants was also randomised to minimise order effects.

Sample:

The sample was designed to be representative of a range of demographic indicators and water retailer locations – achieved sample details are set out below; a sample of n=385 small and medium business owners / managers was also included (Table 1).

Table 1: Gen pop and small and medium business owners representative sample

Household water bill payers Small and medium business owners

Demographic n=

Weighted percent (%) n=

Unweighted percent (%)

Gender

Male 1,204 47% 237 62%

Female 1,336 52% 148 38%

Non-binary 3 >1% 0 0%

Age band

18-34 887 32% 145 38%

35-54 890 34% 167 43%

55+ 772 34% 73 19%

Highest level of

education

Year 12 or below 591 41% 32 8%

TAFE Certificate I-IV or Diploma 797 28% 90 23%

Uni. Degree or higher 1,146 28% 263 68%

Prefer not to say 15 3% 0 0%

Location

Melbourne CBD 66 2% 36 9%

Inner city (<10km from CBD) 483 17% 82 21%

Middle (10km – 20km from CBD) 813 30% 136 35%

Outer (>10km from CBD) 1,187 50% 131 34%

Water retailer

City West Water 556 21% 89 23%

South East Water 1,006 40% 117 30%

Yarra Valley Water 987 39% 179 46%

Total 2,549 385

Audio versions of the descriptions were made available via the survey to encourage those for whom reading is more difficult and enable them to thoroughly review the material. The survey was presented in a fully accessible format, suitable for those using screen readers.

YourSay

This survey was also made available to members of the community via Melbourne Water’s YourSay page. A total of n=32 community members completed the survey from this link. These respondents were found to be atypical compared to recruited members of the general population, showing greater acquiescence to increased billing and awareness of issues faced my Melbourne Water - for example, 69% of those accessing the survey via the YourSay page were aware that impervious surface area growth is major and growing challenge for waterways and bays, compared to just 21% of those from the recruited general population sample.

Because these respondents were not representative of the broader population, they have been excluded from analysis discussed in the main body of this report. We do however note that these community members represent a highly engaged segment who are more likely to pay more than the minimum on all initiatives.


Participant feedback:

The online survey required participants to read large amounts of information and was therefore longer than normally recommended to maintain engagement. Several strategies were used to maintain participant engagement, including providing participants the option of listening to audio recordings of information and providing supporting images to ‘break up’ large amounts of text.

These strategies appear to have been successful, with many participants providing positive feedback in a final, optional, open-ended question. Key themes expressed by participants include the survey itself being engaging and interesting, interest in the topics raised in the survey and being thankful for an opportunity to express and share their views. However, a few participants still felt the survey took too long to complete.

“Very involving and well written/detailed survey. Also, great use of images to paint a more relevant picture.”

“Interesting topic. I feel better informed now.”

“Very interesting and informative and thanks for allowing my views to be part of the future planning.”

“I am really thankful for the experience while doing this survey, I learnt a lot about Melbourne Water, it’s current issues and future goals and ambitions. It is amazing.”

“Excellent survey about a very relevant topic, our water supply. Without water the human race would become extinct.”

“I really enjoyed this! It was very interesting and had thought provoking questions - I especially liked the final personal tally of proposed cost, as it really puts your money where your morals are. This is also the first survey I've done offering an audio version for the graphics and I just thought it was awesome to see that option included! Thanks.”

“This has been one of the most interesting surveys to date and it has opened my eyes to so much more about Melbourne water!”

“Pleased to hear that Melbourne Water is looking to the future and thinking about ways to make the best use of precious resources.”

“Very long survey but good with the audio.”


Findings in detail

Comparison of options

At an overall level, the highest proportion of Melburnians were willing to pay for additional investments in stormwater harvesting, sewerage system upgrades, better quality or faster offsetting of CO2 than required, and opening up access to pipetracks (Figure 1).

Over half of Melburnians were willing to pay for every initiative tested (with the exception of ecotourism at the WTP), and nine in ten (89%) were willing to pay for at least one of the initiatives.

Figure 1: Comparison of preferences – simultaneous trade-off with bill yearly increase

However, overlaying the costs of each option tells a different story. While only half (52%) were willing to pay for bill certainty, the weighted average increase in bills as revealed in the SIMALTO – which is influenced by the price of the options- shows that those who choose this option are responsible for over half the average total increase in water bills.

By this measure, water recycling ($3.07), stormwater harvesting ($2.06) and access to open space and recreation ($1.19) were the most strongly supported after bill certainty ($10.08) (Figure 2).

Bill payers were, prepared to pay, on average $18.88 additional for the options they selected in the survey.

75%

74%

74%

70%

72%

66%

56%

64%

57%

47%

75%

72%

69%

69%

62%

57%

56%

54%

52%

44%


Sewerage system upgrades

Better quality or faster carbon offsets than

required

Pipetrack access and amenity



Water recycling

Biosolids re-use

Bill certainty (planned water orders)

Ecotourism development at WTP

% selected more than minimum investment Business

Source: I1a-I1j, Consumer choices from SIMALTO experiment.

Base: Consumer sample, weighted, n=2,540. Business sample, unweighted, n=385.

The small-medium business owner sample revealed very similar priorities throughout the survey to the broader

population.

On average, this group appeared to be slightly more willing to pay overall, and slightly more willing to pay for the more expensive options, but these differences

were not generally substantial.


Figure 2: Average contribution to total bill increase

The contrast between these two analyses highlights an important overarching theme from the research: the community broadly supports low incremental cost, high value initiatives (like stormwater harvesting, sewerage system upgrades, better offsets and pipetrack access and amenity), but there is a substantial proportion who support all of Melbourne Water’s proposals – and are willing to bear the cost.

The following sections provide more detailed analysis of responses to each of the initiatives.

Bill certainty and water security

The desalination plant is strongly relied on as a water ‘safety net’ for Melbourne - the community firmly believes that if other water supply options fail then we can rely on the desalination plant.

However, beyond this, perceptions of the desalination plant are shaped by (tabloid) rumour and (mis)information. For many, the last information they had heard about the issue was many years ago. In groups, people raised ideas relating to:

cost blowouts and inefficiencies involved in construction

the notion that the desalination plant is inefficient because we have to operate it whether we need the

water from it or not

the notion that the desalination plant is not operating

the feeling that it was a wasteful investment because the drought broke as soon as building finished and the

project was therefore unnecessary

“I wasn’t aware we were using the desal plant” Male, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

“I don’t understand why we aren’t using the desal plant?” Male, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’ region

“I didn’t know the desal plant had been turned on – I thought it was just mothballed and a massive waste of money” Male 60+, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Despite a lack of good information now, Melburnians are highly supportive of desalination playing a greater role in securing Melbourne’s water security. Many feel that desalination should be used more extensively, to provide Melbourne with greater water security, and to provide a buffer against drought, growth and climate change.

$ average contribution

to bill increase

Pipetrack access and amenity $0.17

Ecotourism development at WTP $0.21

Educating Melburnians $0.27

Sewerage $0.32

Carbon offsets $0.54

Average total increase

from options selected

$18.88

Biosolids re-use



Water recycling

Bill certainty$10.08

$3.07

$2.06

$1.19

$0.98

Source: I1a-I1j, Consumer choices from SIMALTO experiment.



However, there was concern about desalination being the ’primary’ or only water source, because:

it doesn’t seem as sustainable as using storm or recycled water. For example, younger participants had

concerns about the energy required (most weren’t aware that the Wonthaggi plant uses 100% renewable

energy for its operations)

“I’d want to see it using a lot more renewable energy.” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region.

“For me, the fact that our desalination plant uses so much energy stood out. I think this definitely should be of concern. Although it is good we're able to use the desalination plant when needed, should we be looking at more eco-friendly sources?” Female, 25-34, located within City West Water’s region

“I’m a bit uncomfortable about the idea that we can just engineer our way out of any situation. I’d rather just do the right thing in the first place.” Male, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

those few who understand desalination well know it be an expensive option and question its value.

There is no sense that a second desalination plant might be required – the ground will need to be very carefully laid if there is to be community support for this option.

It’s important to note that the options presented in qualitative groups (Figure 3) were actually not about actual production of water, but providing bill certainty – adding a charge for anticipated normal production, smoothing out bill fluctuations and ensuring any surprises were minimal. In relation to this, some had a preference for support in managing their finances; others were more independently minded. The more astute noted that bill smoothing is not fail-safe, and that if extra water is required, then unanticipated bill increases would still occur.

Figure 3: Desalinated water order options provided in group discussions

N.B. for materials provided to participants in the pre-reading pack, refer to appendix.

However, people’s instinctive tendency was to interpret this option as being about paying for greater production: producing water from the desalination plant regardless of whether it is needed, providing a larger buffer against times of drought and hence more water security. Their choice of options should be framed through this lens, as much as choice of bill certainty.

Between the three options provided to them, a larger proportion of participants (in some groups it was everyone, in others it was only half) were happy with paying for the higher ”assumed amount” levels, which they felt guaranteed more water into the system. Older groups (50+) were much better informed about Melbourne Water’s activities, and they tended to be shrewder with their investment decisions, and argue against Melbourne Water’s narrative and the options presented to them. However, even these groups, when

Annual bill increased

to include a

‘assumed’ amount.

Orders that exceed

this amount will pay

a ‘top-up’ fee. If no

water orders, your

bill will then reduce

Water Security –

Desalinated water

Desalinated water is important

for water security. Improving

infrastructure will allows the

plant to provide more water

Maintain current

billing arrangements

for desalinated water

orders – passing of

costs from retail

companies and then

to consumers

Annual bill increased

to include a higher

‘assumed’ amount.

Orders that exceed

this amount will pay

a ‘top-up’ fee. If no

water orders, your

bill will then reduce


forced to decide about funding for desalination, mostly chose a perceived investment in line with the average presented below; only a few wanted to maintain the status quo of a $0 increase.

This meant, on average, groups were prepared to pay $15-25 additional per year to provide the comfortable feeling of water abundance – a city and a broader environment with more than enough water.

“We’ve got it there, we’re already paying the capital costs, we should be using it.” Male, 60+, located within South East Water’s region

“I'm in favour of additional desalination plants being brought online as the need arises. If rainfall and other means of supply are restricted, we need a plentiful supply from somewhere and the oceans seem the logical option. My only concerns would be the cost, which I assume could come down with newer technologies; and the time lag to bring them online to meet population needs.” Male, 60+, disability, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

“I remember the last drought very clearly and how we had to cut back showers, use bath water to water gardens, if it's yellow let it mellow and so on. It was an uncertain time and a bit scary. Water security is very important so it doesn't happen again. Things like desalination and stormwater catching really stood out to me. Desalination being something that excited me as we have a vast ocean which can also be a wonderful source.” 35-59, Female, Chronic illness, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Water security is dominant frame that strongly impacts the way Melburnians think about water.

The quantitative survey took a different approach to examining preferences for planned water orders, de-emphasising water security, and focussing participants on bill certainty. This was done deliberately as the qualitative groups had shown people were strongly influenced by the pre-reading material that stated facts about the frequency of droughts, and highlighted the pressures of a growing population and climate change, rather than strictly a greater desire for bill certainty. A majority of the difference in response – where the qualitative phase suggested most would be interested in higher planned water orders, the quantitative phase revealed only half were willing to pay for anything above the current status quo – can be put down to this difference in framing between the phases.

A key lesson for Melbourne Water and regulators is that the of framing issues around water security, or an environment where water security issues are more salient (e.g.: a drought) is likely to strongly influence the level of support for water saving and production initiatives, including desalination, but also stormwater and recycled water.

In the quantitative survey, participants were provided with information about the uncertainty of the impact of desalinated water orders – which are made by the Minister each year on advice about their necessity - on household water bills (Figure 4).

Three options to smooth the costs of desalinated water orders were proposed to participants:

1. Maintain current billing arrangements (No change to water bill) 2. Increase annual water bill to include a planned amount of $16 3. Increase annual water bill to include a planned amount of $34

Quantitative results showed that half of Melburnians (48 - 51%) would prefer to maintain current billing arrangements for desalinated water orders, while the other half would prefer to include planned amounts.

One in three (37 - 41%) preferred the smaller water order ($16/year) while one in ten (11-12%) preferred the larger order ($32/year).


Figure 4: Desalinated water order – Melburnians’ willingness to pay

Bill payers more likely to wish that the status quo be maintained include:

Males (54% compared to 49% of females), and Those aged 55+ (58% compared to 54% aged 35-54 and 41% aged 18-34)

Billy payers with an annual household pre-tax income greater than $99,999 were less likely to desire the status quo be maintained (46% compared to 52% of those with an annual pre-tax income less than $100,000)

The shift between the earlier asking of the question (51% status quo) and the later SIMALTO stage (48%) was minimal but shows that in the context of the average annual bill and the costs of the other initiatives proposed, a few (3%) shifted from the status quo to preferring a planned amount – prioritising bill certainty in the big picture. Interestingly, this was the only shift in this direction observed between the individual and simultaneous testing of initiatives – every other initiative lost support in the simultaneous stage.

Two thirds of Melburnians (66%) agree that the desalination plant will be increasingly necessary in the future, while nearly half believe we should run the plant year-round to top up the dams and keep our water storages high. But there is a tension here – 43% also agree we should use the desalinated plant only when necessary (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Opinions on desalination

Bill payers aged 18-34 are more likely to prefer a more predictable bill even if it’s a little more expensive (55% compared to 41% over 34), while bill payers in high SES areas are less likely to agree that the desalination plant should be run year round (41% compared to 52% of other bill payers).

Maintain current billing

arrangements for desalinated

water orders, passing on the

costs when orders are made.

No change to water bill

Source: B1. In five years from 2021, what option to pay for desalinated water orders would you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?

Base: Consumer sample, weighted, n=2,549.

Increase annual water bill to

include a planned amount of $16

per year to cover the cost of

desalination orders, instead of

increasing prices when orders are

made.

Increase annual water bill to

include a planned amount up to

$34 per year to cover the cost of



made.

51% 37% 12%

Data checked – DY

Tested individually

Tested simultaneously with other initiatives

48% 41% 11%

24%

19%

18%

21%

Source: B2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


The desalination plant will be increasingly necessary in the future

We should run the desalination plant year-round to top up the dams

and keep our water storages high

I would prefer a bill that is more predictable, even if it’s a little

more expensive

We should avoid using the desalination plant - and only use when

absolutely necessary

2%

6%

8%

7%

4%

16%

18%

19%

27%

31%

29%

31%

41%

33%

34%

27%

25%

15%

12%

16%

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neither agreenor disagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Data checked – DY

Business(% Strongly agree)


Figure 6: Perceived benefits from including a planned amount of desalination

The survey showed that stable predictable bills (selected by 45%) and water security (41%) were the main benefits that Melburnians felt would flow from including a planned amount of desalinated water in their bill (Figure 6). A quarter (28%) felt that more water for the environment and more water for us all to use (26%) were important benefits. Bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to identity more water for the environment (36% compared to 24% of bill payers aged 35+) and it being the responsible thing to do (28% compared to 17% of older bill payers) as benefits.

In the qualitative focus groups, participants had indicated they felt – given Melbourne’s water security issues – that the water, if paid for up front, should be produced regardless of whether it was actually required or not.

When asked in the quantitative survey – more focussed on bill certainty than water security, there was a clear preference for reducing the following bills where the water was not required (Figure 7), however bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to expect water to be produced even if it wasn’t needed (32% compared to 23% of older bill payers).

Figure 7: Expectation of planned water order in event water wasn’t needed

45%

41%

28%

26%

21%

3%

17%

Stable, predictable bills

Greater water security

More water for the environment

More water for us to all use

It’s the responsible thing to do

Something else

Not sure

Source: B3. What do you see as the main benefit from adding an ‘assumed amount’ of desalination to your water bills?


42%

38%

31%

28%

27%

3%

10%

Business

64%

26%

1%

9%

Your next bill to be reduced

The water to be produced anyway, to top up the dams

Something else

Not sure

Source: B4. If Melbourne Water was to bill an ‘assumed amount’ for desalination upfront, but we didn’t actually need the water that year, would you expect…


61%

32%

2%

6%

Business


Resource recovery

Recycled water

Waste and recycling / re-use are currently having a “moment” in Australia – it’s not surprising that this topic was of strong interest across the sample; and that Melburnians are shocked to learn that we aren’t recycling more.

Broadly, the idea that Melbourne could and should be recycling much more water found very strong levels of support across the group discussions, with most reframing it as both a responsible waste use and a water security issue. Melburnians are surprised that more water isn’t being recycled – and they wondered why, and whether, in a dry continent like Australia, we can afford to let water that could be re-used go to waste when it could be safely used for non-drinking purposes.

Inevitably, some in each group brought up using recycled water for drinking, noting that it is done in other countries. This tended to have a more polarised reaction – it was usually only one or two in each group who were strongly supportive of recycled water being used for drinking purposes (noting that this was not brought up in the pre-reading pack) and most were ambivalent or strongly opposed to the notion.

“And I thought it [recycled water] would be used for drinking.” Male, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

“But haven’t we got the best water in the world – why would you want to drink recycled water?” Male, 60+, located within South East Water’s region

“My concern is whether having dual systems is efficient. While it is wasteful to use drinking water to flush toilets, would that be an issue if we recycled water to a point where it was drinkable? Male, 60+, disability, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

When the relative expense of recycled water was brought up (that is, the fact that recycled water is more expensive than desalinated water), our relatively low levels of recycling made more sense to participants. However, even when this greater cost is considered, most across our groups felt we should be recycling more.

People who frame water recycling as the natural endpoint or optimal way to manage human waste are most convinced of the worthiness of paying for water recycling. For these people, water recycling is emotive, it’s about ‘doing the right thing’ with our waste, cleaning up after ourselves properly.

When presented with options for increasing investment in recycled water, many people across the groups were willing to pay to see a doubling in the level of water recycling – which was how they interpreted the option presented to them (i.e. from 8% to 20% of our water recycled). However, the range they were willing to pay varied widely, ranging from $5-25 annually.

Figure 8: Recycled water options provided in group discussions


Fund the construction of

new recycled water

distribution systems to

increase recycling by 20%

Resource Recovery –

Recycled water

Recycled water can take

pressure off drinking water

supplies. Currently only 8% of

treated sewage flows are

converted to recycled water

Maintain current levels

converted to recycled

water at 8%. Increase

current levels where

current cost recovery

arrangements allow for

investments


“I didn’t realise that it was only 8% recycled water that we use – I thought there was more.” Male, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

“So where does all that water go then?” Male, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

In the online survey, participants were presented information about Melbourne’s current level of water recycling, and the costs and benefits of recycled water - including that it does not operate on a cost-recovery basis, but is instead subsidised through the sewerage charge.

Despite this clearly spelled-out cost disadvantage, a slim majority of Melburnians (56-59%) would be willing to pay an additional $5.49 per year to fund the construction of new recycled water systems from the Eastern Treatment Plant to supply an additional 5 billion litres of water.

Figure 9: Recycled water options presented in quantitative survey

Not surprisingly, the survey found very strong levels of agreement (74% net agree) that we should recycle as much water as possible from our sewerage system. Fewer (52%) are happy to pay more to ensure our waste is fully recycled, but bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to agree with this (61% compared to 47% of those aged 35-54 and 49% aged 55+). Very few (13%) agree that our treated waste should not be recycled and should continue to be released into the bays.

Figure 10:Opinions on recycled water

While analysis revealed Melburnians aged 18-34 are more willing to pay (64% compared to 55% of those aged 35-49 and 58% of those aged 50+). This is not because Australians over 35 fundamentally disagree that water should be recycled - agreement with this statement was stable across age. However, those aged 35+ are less

Maintain current level of recycling at around

8.4% (27 billion litres of water per year) or

increase it if new customers are willing to pay

the full cost of recycled water production and

distribution

No change to water bill $0

Source: C1. In five years from 2021, which option for recycled water distribution for Melbourne Water would you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Fund the construction of new recycled water

distribution systems from the Eastern Treatment

Plant to provide capacity to supply an additional

5 billion litres of water per year to customers (a

19% increase in recycling on current levels)

Cost $5.49 per year paid by sewerage customers

as part of their water bill.

41% 59%

Tested individually


44% 56%

Source: C2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


We should recycle as much water from our sewage as possible

I’m happy to pay more to ensure our waste is fully recycled

Our treated waste should not be recycled - it should continue to be

released into the bays

3%

8%

30%

5%

10%

31%

18%

30%

25%

38%

34%

8%

37%

18%

5%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

43%

32%

7%



willing to wear costs associated with greater water recycling – 61% of those aged 18-34 agree that they’re happy to pay more to ensure waste is full recycled, compared to 47% of those aged 35-54 and 49% of those aged 55+.

These finding echoe qualitative groups with older Melburnians (50+), which tended to focus more on the idea that recycled water should pay for itself (costs paid by users, such as councils who purchase water for sports ground watering). Participants argued rationally - and were largely convinced - that if recycled water costs more to produce than users are willing to pay, then Melbourne Water should not pursue greater levels of water recycling. Younger groups (Under 35) framed it with a waste reduction and climate change adaptation lens, and more clearly articulated it as an investment in their future, and the responsible thing to do.

The quantitative data shows the most widely perceived benefits from increased investment in water recycling are that (Figure 11):

It means our waste is fully treated, reducing effluent into the bays (38%) It puts our waste to good use (34%) It would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve (33%)

In line with findings outlined above, younger bill payers (18-34) are also more likely to see helping to manage the impacts of climate change as a benefit (33% compared to 23% of those aged 35-54 and 14% of those aged 55). Those aged 55+ were more likely to list:

Waste being fully treated, reducing effluent into the bays (48% compared to 33% aged 18-54) Helping to conserve the existing drinking water reserve (40% compared to 27% aged 35-54 and 33%

aged 18-34) Not using valuable drinking water for parks, sports grounds, etc. (40% compared to 25% aged 18-54)

Highlighting a key difference in the way the benefits are framed, males are more likely to nominate improved water security as a benefit of increasing investment in water recycling (27% compared to 15% of females), while females are more likely to identify helping to manage the impacts of climate change (27% compared to 19%).

Figure 11: Perceived benefits of increasing investment in water recycling

38%

34%

33%

30%

28%

26%

23%

21%

19%

0%

5%

It means our waste is fully treated, reducing effluent into the bays

It puts our waste to good use

It would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve

We are not using valuable drinking water for parks, sports grounds

etc.

It could benefit the environment, because there would be more

water


It would help manage the impacts of climate change

Improved water security

It would help manage the impacts of population growth

Other

I don’t see any benefits

Source: C3. What do you see as the main benefits of increasing investment into water recycling as opposed to maintaining current levels of water recycling?


32%

34%

24%

22%

30%

31%

30%

27%

24%

1%

3%

Business



Melburnians across all group discussions were strong supporters of increased investment and focus on stormwater recovery and recycling. Many felt this was a priority area for investment – that letting stormwater go into the bays (and using potable water for watering ovals, etc.) is wasteful, and that we should be collecting and using more stormwater throughout the year. These sentiments were particularly strong among those who witness flooding of streets due to what they consider to be inadequate systems. The visibility of the ”water waste” made this option particularly compelling.

The idea that it could be used directly on sporting grounds and gardens found strong and intuitive support throughout the groups, participants appreciated the difference water can make to their local environments – providing better liveability across the city.

“I was surprised they weren’t doing a lot of those things already – like the stormwater thing, especially,” Female, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

“I had no idea the runoff from hard surface – the impervious surfaces was such a problem – not something I was aware of!” Male, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

Although not specifically presented in the options pack for group discussions, the idea of using more stormwater was broadly seen as one of the best options for increasing Melbourne’s water security and ensuring that our open spaces remain green and lush throughout summer without impinging on potable water supplies.

In the quantitative phase, survey participants were presented with Melbourne Water’s current level of stormwater harvesting (2.7 billion litres) along with a short blurb describing the benefits in terms of conserving drinking water, and allowing us to keep parks and gardens green over summer.

Three options were proposed to participants: maintaining the current approach ($0), compared with increases in the investment into stormwater harvesting at price points of $2 and $4 per year as detailed in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Stormwater harvesting options presented in quantitative survey

Increasing the amount of stormwater harvesting was the most positively received and strongly supported of all the initiatives included in the survey – only a quarter (24%-25%) opted for maintaining the current arrangements, while three-quarters opted for additional investment. Those more willing to pay for greater stormwater harvesting including:

Bill payers aged 18-34 (81%, compared to 71% of those aged 35-49 and 76% of those aged 55+)

Maintain the current level of

water planning, education and

investment in storm water

harvesting water programs


Source: C4. In five years from 2021, which option for recycled water distribution for Melbourne Water would you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Reduce pressure on our drinking

water supplies by investing in

stormwater programs, further

supporting healthy rivers and

bays, and providing cooler,

greener spaces

Cost of $2 per year for 5 billion

litres - equivalent water use of

40,000 homes

Further reduce pressure on our

drinking water supplies by

investing more in stormwater

programs, further supporting

healthy rivers and bays, and

providing cooler, greener spaces

Cost of $4 per year for 10

billion litres - equivalent water

use of 80,000 homes

24% 31% 44%

Tested individually


25% 47% 28%


Bill payers in high SES areas (79%, compared to 74% in medium SES areas and 72% in low SES areas)

Bill payers in higher income households (82% of those with an annual pre-tax household income greater than $149,999 compared to 76% of those with an annual pre-tax household income less than $150,000).

Notably, the proportion who selected the highest investment option ($4 per year) reduced significantly when all survey options were tested simultaneously, but the proportion supporting no change barely shifted.

In accordance with this result, Melburnians almost ubiquitously (85%) agree we should be harvesting as much stormwater as possible (this was higher among bill payers aged 55+, at 92%), and nearly two-thirds (62%) agree they are happy to pay more to allow greater harvesting of stormwater - implying that 13% who would pay for it, aren’t happy about it! Those aged 35-54 were the least likely to agree that they’re happy to pay more to allow greater harvesting of stormwater (53% compared to 68% aged 18-34 and 66% aged 55+).

Fewer (46%) could agree (and only one in eight (12% could strongly agree) they were previously aware that stormwater is captured and re-used – highlighting an important knowledge gap on a strongly supported activity.

Figure 13: Opinions on stormwater harvesting

The benefit from stormwater harvesting most likely to be selected by Melburnians was the conservation of existing drinking water supplies (52%). Reducing stormwater runoff into the bays (40%) and the improved water security (36%) that would allow us to keep parks and gardens greener during dry times (35%) were also more likely to be seen as important benefits.

Those aged 18-34 were more likely to nominate managing climate change as a benefit (40% compared to 30% aged 35-54 and 20% aged 55+), while those aged 55+ were more likely to list:

Helping conserve the existing drinking water reserve (62% compared to 47% aged 35-54 and 48% aged 18-34)

Reducing stormwater runoff into the bays (52% compared to 38% aged 35-54 and 28% aged 18-34).



We should be harvesting as much stormwater as possible

I’m happy to pay more on my water bill to allow greater harvesting of

stormwater

I was aware stormwater was harvested and re-used

1%

6%

9%

1%

9%

21%

13%

24%

24%

40%

43%

34%

45%

19%

12%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

46%

28%

24%



Figure 14: Perceived benefits from increased investment in stormwater harvesting

52%

40%

36%

35%

32%

30%

28%

1%

4%

This would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve

It would reduce stormwater runoff into the bays

Improved water security

It would allow us to keep parks and gardens greener during dry times



This would help prevent flooding in urban areas

Other


Source: C6. What do you see as the main benefits of increasing stormwater harvesting as opposed to maintaining current levels of stormwater harvesting?


53%

35%

42%

33%

31%

29%

21%

1%

4%

Business


Biosolids re-use

Few Melburnians in group discussions were aware that biosolids are created from our sewage stream, or that there is currently a stockpile of around 20 years’ worth of biosolids. Across our discussions, people were shocked (if not horrified) that such a large amount of biosolid could be amassed without them hearing about it, and were surprised that these weren’t re-used as a standard practice for managing the sewage waste stream.

“I did wonder why we’ve got 1.6 million tonnes stockpiled – why isn’t it used every year?” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

While for some, discussion around biosolids could create an instinctive reaction of disgust, most across our groups clearly indicated that they supported the wider re-use of biosolids, and wondered why they weren’t being used more. All were confident that Melbourne Water would undertake rigorous testing to ensure there was no risk with the use of this waste product.

“I’m going to stop flushing my cat’s poo down the toilet now.” Female, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

When the costs of re-use were raised in explanation, some across all groups (but especially Melburnians 50+) tended to make the argument that their bio-solid re-use should pay for itself, and found it hard to believe that it wouldn’t currently do so. People instinctively felt that commercial solutions – including using bio-solids for power generation and direct on-land application could easily be found (and assumed that this is already happening in more progressive/innovative countries overseas). They imagined their waste was valuable, and that this value should at least offset the costs to extract it.

“I’d really like to see it used, but I feel like it should be the end-users who pay for it – can like Coles or whoever’s buying it off the farmers pay for it? I know we’ll pay for it the end, but I feel like it should be more direct.” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

This again demonstrates the principle of universality – people don’t want to see individuals benefitting (for e.g. a farmer, or land developer) at their expense.

When presented with options for greater biosolid re-use (Figure 15), groups were divided – many wanted increased use, but the amount of re-use they were willing to pay for was contentious.

Figure 15: Biosolids re-use options provided in group discussions


However, when pushed to accept that commercially viable solutions to bio-solid re-use were not currently available, and that re-use would require additional investment on their behalf – both to find and test alternative solutions, and to develop existing approaches such as direct land application – most asserted that they were willing to pay between $3-5 to ensure their waste was fully re-used and recycled, and wasn’t creating an ongoing issue.

Achieve 50% reuse

for both Western

Treatment Plant and

Eastern Treatment

Plant by year

2025/26, and achieve

100% reuse at the

WTP by year 2030/31

Resource Recovery –

Biosolid reuse

Melbourne Water currently

reuses 10-40% of biosolids for

land application. MW is

committed to meet EPA

regulations to reuse 100% by

2030/31. MW could either

reuse just to stay on track or

invest to sooner meet EPA

requirement

Achieve 40% reuse

for both Western

Treatment Plant and

Eastern Treatment

Plant by year

2025/26, and achieve

100% reuse at the

WTP by year 2030/31

Maintain current

reuse program (40%

reuse for Western

Treatment Plant by

year 2025/26) and

allow for ‘one-off’

large scale reuse

opportunities for

both WTP and ETP


“We have to do something about it, it can’t just keep piling up there, and somebody’s gonna have to pay for it and I guess it’s gonna be us.” Female, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

Similarly to recycled water, when framed more as being the natural endpoint of the sewage treatment process – that is, when re-using biosolids is seen as part of the whole process rather than something that happens after sewage treatment – people across the sample were more supportive of paying to move biosolids off the stockpile.

“Yeah I feel better about when you say you get charged for sewerage treatment anyway.” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

In the Assess Phase, online survey participants were presented with the current biosolids situation – the rate of production, the size of the stockpile and current re-use activity. Results from the survey suggest that a majority (54-64%) of Melburnian bill payers are in favour of greater re-use of our biosolids (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Biosolid re-use options presented in quantitative survey

Notably, there was a significant difference when this was tested (and the cumulative impact on bills noted) simultaneously, with the proportion opting to meet the minimum EPA requirements increasingly substantially (from 36% to 46%) in the later SIMALTO test. The proportion opting for the greatest investment level also dropped significantly (from 40% to 27%). This pattern suggests, that while quite strongly supported, biosolids re-use is seen as a lower order priority when compared with the other initiatives.

Bill payers aged 18-34 are more likely support greater re-use of biosolids (72% compared to 56% aged 35-54 and 64% aged 55+, when tested alone).

Attitudinally, bill payers are strongly supportive (80% agree) of research into biosolids re-use, as well as re-using and recycling as much as possible (74%). In line with the willingness to pay observed above, just over half (52% agree) are happy to pay more to facilitate increased use of biosolids; just under half (49%) are happy to pay more to facilitate research into biosolids re-use. A third (34%) feel that sewage customers should not pay for research into re-use of their biosolids (Figure 17). Bill payers aged 55+ are more likely to agree that we should be researching how bio-solids could be re-used (86% compared to 76% aged 18-34 and 77% aged 35-54).

Source: C6. In five years from 2021, what option for biosolids reuse for Melbourne Water do you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Note: *The cost impact would be roughly equivalent to achieving an average level of 50% reuse across both plants. The exact amount reused would depend on the nature and location of the large-scale reuse opportunities.

Tested individually


46% 27% 27%

Meet the Environment Protection

Agency requirement to achieve 40%

re-use by year 2025/26, and be on

track to achieve 100% reuse by year

2030/31, at the WTP. No allowance

for reuse from the ETP.

Total re-use of 16,500 tonnes/yr.

Cost $0.62 per year paid by

sewerage customers as part of their

water bill


Agency requirement for WTP as

from Option 1, plus:

Allow for re-use from the ETP as

well, achieving an average level of

40% re-use across both plants.

Total re-use of 28,000 tonnes/yr.



water bill


Agency requirement for WTP as

from Option 1, plus:

Also allow for one-off large scale

(opportunistic) re-use opportunities

for both WTP and ETP.

Equivalent total re-use of 37,000

tonnes/yr.



water bill

36% 24% 40%


Figure 17: Opinions on biosolids re-use

Notably on these willingness-to-pay questions there is a large neutral segment (28-30%) – who aren’t sure and probably would not be strongly opposed to additional costs, while a smaller proportion (20%) would definitely not be happy to pay more.

Putting our waste to good use (57%), ensuring it’s fully treated and re-used (51%) and the benefits to famers (48%) were the strongest perceived benefits from greater investment into re-use opportunities (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Perceived benefits of bio-solids re-use

Helping manage climate change impacts proved a divisive benefit. Those more likely to identify this include:

Females (31% compared to 20% of males) Bill payers aged 18-34 (40% compared to 25% of those aged 35-54 and 13% aged 55+) Bill payers living in the CBD or inner city (35% compared to 24% of other bill payers).

Those aged 55+ are more likely to list several benefits, including:

Waste being put to good use (64% compared to 53% of those aged 18-34 and 54% of those aged 35-54) Waste being fully treated and re-used (65% compared to 40% of those aged 18-34 and 50% aged 35-54) Farmers having greater access to fertiliser (56% compared to 48% aged 18-34 and 43% aged 35-54)



We should be researching how bio-solids could be re-used

We should be trying to re-use and recycle as much waste as possible,

even if it costs a little more

I’m happy to pay more on my water bill to facilitate increased use of

bio-solids

I’m happy to pay more on my water bill to facilitate research into

bio-solid re-use

Sewage customers should not pay for research into re-use of their

biosolid

1%

2%

8%

8%

8%

2%

3%

12%

12%

19%

17%

21%

28%

30%

38%

49%

40%

36%

33%

21%

31%

34%

16%

16%

13%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

37%

36%

24%

23%

17%


57%

51%

48%

33%

26%

22%

0%

6%

It would put our waste to good use

It would mean our waste is fully treated and re-used

Farmers could benefit from more access to fertiliser




Other


Source: C8. hat do you see as the potential benefits of investing more into the re-use of bio-solids?


59%

44%

44%

39%

31%

23%

0%

4%

Business


Whilst not a key focus of the reading pack and not tested in the quantitative research – there is strong interest in the idea of biogas, and the effective use of methane emissions from sewage. People would welcome more information on this.


Melburnians clearly value our city’s beautiful and expansive gardens and outdoor spaces. Open spaces are one of the defining features of our city, and an aspect that clearly sets it apart. However, it was clear from the discussion groups that Melburnians do not necessarily believe that Melbourne Water has a large role to play in developing these, and on balance, if it means they will see a significant increase in their water bills, they would prefer Melbourne Water remains focused on priority areas that align with its core business.

Reservoirs

Many across our groups support a range of recreational uses around the “downstream” reservoirs as is already the case. Some can imagine a case for opening up the reservoirs further, including allowing people to recreate in the water. They imagine themselves using the areas for camping, fishing and kayaking, and that having access to previously inaccessible, pristine natural environments could only be a good thing – both for themselves and for any other Melburnians who would like to visit.

“Why not open them up, let people use them, if it’s just a little bit of work needs to be done – it’s not just walking tracks, it’s kayaking, it’s multi-use, for everyone.” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

But, in tension with this, people are concerned about water contamination, increased fire risk or even acts of deliberate terrorism becoming more likely if our pristine catchments and reservoirs are opened further to the public. For these people, the risks outweigh the benefits. They reason being that if Melburnians have done without access to these areas so far, then few would mind if access continues to be restricted.

“We already have enough open spaces for people to use – why would you risk potentially contaminating [the water supply].” Female, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

As with other qualitative options, the costs attached to each option were not provided, and participants were asked to nominate what they felt

Figure 19: Recreation and open space options provided in group discussions


When the conversations turned towards what people were willing to pay for the necessary upgrades to allow safe opening of the reservoirs (options presented in Figure 19), only a minority were willing to contribute via their water bill.

Melbourne Water to invest

in two large areas close to

Melbourne to allow for

activities. Activities

include bike riding, hiking,

and canoeing

Recreation and open

space

Two water supply reservoirs

have been identified where

recreational activities could

be allowed if investments

were made

Manage water supply

reservoirs to meet current

standards, allowing for

recreation where water

quality standards allow


“I think it should be encouraged, bushwalking, fishing and other things – it’s all good, but as long as there’s no impact on my bill.” Female, CALD, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

“They should stick to their core business.” Male, 60+, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

People were much more comfortable with such an initiative being paid for out of general tax revenues. This is an interesting tension: while the overlap between taxpayers and water-bill payers is undoubtedly high, on balance people felt it was fairer if the costs involved in opening up catchments were borne by the former rather than the latter.

For the online survey, the stimulus for this section outlined the commitment of the Victorian government to enhancing the recreational values of water, including increasing recreation on some of the state’s water storages - opening up two reservoirs for additional recreation activities.

Bill payers were presented with five options of additional funding for open space and recreation in the initial set and four in the SIMALTO to help explore the broader level of support and opposition – and the relationship to cost (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Open space and recreation options presented in quantitative survey

Results suggest that bill payers are broadly supportive of investment in increased recreation, with six in ten (62%) willing to bear some additional cost – although more than half of these supporters (35%) selected the minimum level of additional investment ($0.75 per year). Bill payers aged 18-34 are more likely to support paying for this option via their water bill (61% compared to 52% of those aged 35-54 and 53% of those aged 55+).

Interestingly, not all those who previously said they supported the option but didn’t want to pay selected the ‘don’t support’ option in the SIMALTO. Some decided, looking at the whole annual bill, that they would be prepared to bear a small cost – and the overall proportion not prepared to pay decreased.

Melburnian bill payers broadly recognise (62%) the community benefits of recreation in and around Melbourne’s reservoirs, even if they are less likely to make use of the increased recreational opportunities in and around reservoirs themselves (41%, 49% for those aged 18-34 ) and be happy to pay for it (39%) (Figure 21). That Melburnians are less ‘happy to pay’ for increased access to open spaces than recycled water (52%), biosolid re-use (49%) and stormwater(62%) harvesting supports the notion that they are more likely to see this as outside their responsibility as water bill payers.

A substantial minority (29%) don’t like the idea of increased community recreation in water reservoirs (such as fishing, boating, kayaking), and a similar proportion (26%) are opposed to increased recreation around reservoirs, like picnics and bushwalking.

Don’t support - $0

Source: D1. In five years from 2021, how much would you be willing to contribute annually for this initiative? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Support option,

but don’t want to

pay through water

bill $0

$2.50 per year

paid by water

customers as part

of their water bill

$0.75 per year

paid by water

customers as part

of their water bill

$5.00 per year

paid by water

customers as part

of their water bill

10% 34% 27% 14% 14%


38% 35% 17% 10%

Tested individually


Figure 21: Opinions on open space and recreation

For those opposed to increased investment in open space and recreation, the potential for contamination to our water supply was the most commonly selected reason for their opposition (41%), with the cost not seeming worth it, and the potential for harm to existing ecosystems also key issues.

Figure 22: Reasons for not supporting open space and recreation

Supporters of Melbourne Water’s proposals were most likely to select making better use of our beautiful natural spaces (67%) and the broader community benefit (60%) as the reasons for their support. Bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to indicate that they would personally benefit from increased access to reservoirs (40% compared to 34% of those aged 35-54 and 26% of those aged 55+).

Source: D2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


Increased recreation in and around reservoirs would benefit the

community

I would personally make use of increased recreation opportunities

like fishing, bushwalking, bike riding or canoeing in and around

reservoirs

I would be happy to pay for more community recreation in and

around Melbourne reservoirs

I don’t like the idea of increased community recreation in water

reservoirs (e.g. fishing, boating, kayaking)

I don’t like the idea of increased community recreation around

drinking water reservoirs (e.g. picnics, bushwalking)

2%

8%

9%

14%

13%

7%

17%

19%

27%

30%

29%

33%

33%

31%

31%

45%

30%

28%

19%

18%

17%

11%

11%

10%

8%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

24%

15%

14%

11%

7%


41%

38%

38%

32%

28%

11%

10%

10%

5%

The potential for contamination to our water supply

The cost doesn’t seem worth it

Potential for harm to existing ecosystems

Only a few people would benefit

I wouldn’t personally benefit from this

Increased bushfire risk

The community wouldn’t benefit from this

Risk of terrorism

Other

Source: D4. Why do you not support increased community recreation around reservoirs?

Base: Consumer sample, weighted, do not support increased community recreation around reservoirs, n=116. Business sample, unweighted, n=14.

Note: *Low base size for Business sample.

36%

21%

43%

29%

7%

14%

21%

21%

0%

Business*


Figure 23: Reasons for supporting open space and recreation

Pipetracks

While few had any objections to the idea of opening up pipe tracks – and most felt that it is an idea with merit – almost everyone across the group discussions felt that those more likely to use these areas are those who live nearby, and that they should shoulder any costs required to do so. They felt that local councils should take responsibility for the land in their areas, including making it suitable for recreation and commuter use.

This means that from a willingness-to-pay perspective, pipe tracks within Melbourne were much less polarising: few were willing to pay for these. Part of this response may be about the visibility of pipe tracks – there weren’t many across our sample who aware of any such land near to their homes or workplaces, and this lack of awareness underpinned their lack of support for such opening up of the land – the options presented to them (Figure 24) did not appeal strongly.

“I think the people benefitting from this should be paying – perhaps through their council rates.” Male, 60+, located within South East Water’s region

“I’m not against it. I just don’t want to pay for it.” Male, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

Figure 24: Pipetrack options presented to group discussions


They were more supportive where the potential 6.5 km referred to in the options pack was understood to be across Melbourne and across multiple council areas, rather than in a single localised area.

“I live in the inner West and we don’t have a lot of green open space, so I would support anything they could do to provide more.” Female, 25-35, located within City West Water’s region

67%

60%

34%

4%

Make better use of our beautiful natural spaces

The broader community would benefit from this

I would personally make use of and benefit from this

Other

Source: D5. Why do you support increased community access to reservoirs?


65%

66%

36%

3%

Business

.Melbourne Water

provides a 50%

contribution to

works, including

improved access to

6.5km pipetrack

for the local

community

Recreation and open

space

Melbourne’s transport network

will need to cope with an

extra 10.6 million trips a day

by 2050. There is opportunity

to improve linear corridors

connecting to open spaces via

pipetracks

.Melbourne Water

provides a 10%

contribution to

works, including

improved access to

6.5km pipetrack

for the local

community

.Melbourne Water

provides a 100%

contribution to

works, including

improved access to

6.5km pipetrack

for the local

community

.Melbourne Water

provides land

only, no capital

funding


If the use of pipe track development would create bike paths that were more than just recreational (i.e. worked in with the public transport system, or allowed for easier riding to work, etc.) then the perceived value of this initiative increased. For some, the potential additional cost of 4 cents was so low that the topic become redundant, with many declaring it should just be done and not even discussed.

“Just do it and don’t tell anyone.” Female, 60+, Ringwood, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Building from the group discussions, quantitative stimulus for investment in pipetrack shown to survey participants provided an overview of the opportunity pipetracks offer to connect open spaces with linear green corridors, and the fact that the improvements would occur in several locations across Melbourne.

Three options were presented to participants, outlining different co-investment approaches to opening up pipetracks, including Melbourne Water providing land only ($0), and options for 6.5km and 12km of improvements costing $0.04 and $0.50 per annum (Figure 25).

Although bill payers revealed the strongest preference towards pipetrack investment of any of the initiatives initially, when considered amongst other options simultaneously, their enthusiasm waned. When tested individually, more than three in four (78%) bill payers were in favour of contributing at least an extra $0.04 per year on their water bill. When this option was considered amongst other initiatives, the proportion who supported no capital funding increased ten percentage points; indicating that that a substantial proportion balked at the (very small) additional cost when looking at their overall total, and trading-off against other initiatives. Despite this dynamic, pipetrack investment has very strong levels of support overall.

Figure 25: Pipetrack options presented in quantitative survey

Around seven in ten (69%) Melburnians support the notion that Melbourne Water should make as much land as possible available for recreation, and half (55%) are happy to pay for it. (Figure 26). However, bill payers are split on who should bear the costs of pipetracks investment – 31% think that not only local residents who benefit from this land should pay (33% are neutral, and 36% agree) – echoing a sentiment which was more commonly expressed in group discussions.

Melbourne Water provides land

only, no capital funding

Source: D6. In five years from 2021, what option for increasing access to Melbourne Water land do you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Melbourne Water co-invests and

works with partners such as

councils and community to

undertake the work needed to

make spaces safe along 6.5km

of pipe track land across

Melbourne – these

improvements would occur in

several different locations

across Melbourne.


water customers as part of

their water bill

Melbourne Water co-invests and

works with partners such as


undertake the work needed to

make spaces safe and nice

places to access along 12km of

pipe track land across

Melbourne – these


several different locations

across Melbourne.


water customers as part of their

water bill

22% 40% 38%

Tested individually


32% 39% 29%


Figure 26: Opinions on access to open space and recreation - pipetracks

For bill payers, the most significant benefits of pipetracks investment were environmentally focused. These benefits include allowing more spaces for local fauna (44%) and better air quality and urban cooling (43%) (Figure 27). Few (5%) don’t see any benefits.

Figure 27: Perceived benefits of opening up access to pipetrack land

Sewerage system

Resilience

Although sewerage is clearly something most Melburnians take for granted as an almost invisible component of their day to day life, they also clearly recognise its fundamental importance, and do not like the idea of a degraded or inferior system incapable of handling Melbourne’s growth and development. A leaky or unsound sewerage system is not a risk that Melburnians are willing to take, and when it is explained that the sewerage system has infrastructural elements that are hundreds of years old, most participants agreed that were willing to invest in its ongoing function and longevity.

“I think if it’s going to cost more in the long-run, we should do something about it now.” Female, 25-35, located with South East Water’s region

“It is important to build a resilient system and since most of our pipes are centuries old, and given that our population is increasing, they won’t be able to handle the amount, so I think we should invest in this.” Female, 25-35, CALD, located within City West Water’s region

Source: D7. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


Note: Labels less than 4% have been removed for clarity.

Melbourne Water should make as much land as possible open for

recreation

I would be happy to pay to see more access to parkland and green

corridors throughout Melbourne

Only those who benefit from access to this land (e.g. local residents)

should have to pay for it

5%

9%

4%

10%

22%

26%

30%

33%

48%

38%

26%

21%

17%

10%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

25%

24%

12%


44%

43%

42%

40%

38%

34%

0%

5%

More green corridors for native animals

More green spaces for urban cooling and air quality

Better use of land across Melbourne

Better for the environment / maybe less pollution / traffic

Increased recreation spaces for residents

Improved transport options (e.g. walking, cycling)

Other


Source: D8. What do you see as the main benefits of opening up access to pipetrack land across Melbourne?


45%

47%

40%

40%

44%

29%

0%

5%

Business


“If you don’t make the investment, you pay for it later.” Female, 25-35, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

“Do this once and do it properly.” Male, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Participants across our group discussions were strongly supportive of the options provided for greater investment in ensuring our sewerage system is resilient and ready for the future challenges of population growth and climate change (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Sewerage system resilience options presented to group discussions


A few participants questioned why they were being asked to invest further now, at this particular moment, wondering why the level of investment and the costs they incur on their water bills to cover sewerage disposal and treatment aren’t enough to cover proper management of the sewerage system. They reasoned that Melbourne Water should have been including the full costs of maintenance in the sewerage charge over time, rather than needing to ask for additional funding now. Some deemed the request for additional funding an apparent failure of effective planning and foresight.

However, regardless of whether they viewed the needs for greater investment as a failure or just a fact of life, virtually all in group discussions were prepared to pay in the order of $10-20 to ensure Melbourne’s sewerage system remains robust and resilient to future needs.

Survey participants were presented stimulus about the sewerage system, detailing its importance, its age, and the notion that if not upgraded, pressures imposed by population growth and climate change could risk spillage into the environment.

Bill payers were shown three options for increasing sewerage system resilience – maintaining the current approach ($0) compared to Melbourne Water investing an additional 1% or 2% of total sewerage system capital costs ($0.31 and $0.60 per annum added to their bills respectively) (Figure 29).

Overall results suggest that Melburnians see strong value in the options to improve the current sewerage system – three quarters (72-76%) were willing to pay additional costs on top of their water bill, while the remaining quarter (24-28%) opted to maintain minimum renewals and upgrades. Notably, in the final simultaneous trade-off, sewerage upgrades found the second-highest levels of support for additional investment, behind only stormwater harvesting. This flags sewerage resilience as a priority issue for bill payers.

When this topic was tested alone, bill payers aged 35-54 were less likely to support more than the minimum investment (71% compared to 77% of those aged 28-34 and 79% of those aged 55+).

MW invests a small

percentage in

upgrading the

sewerage system to

prepare for future

challenges

Minimum upgrades

that fixes present

day problems but not

future challenges

MW invests a higher

percentage in

upgrading the

sewerage system to

better prepare for

future challenges

Sewage – Resilience

The sewerage system is

ageing and needs to be

replaced. Investing in this

will allow us and future

generations to be prepared

for the future


Figure 29: Sewerage options presented in quantitative survey

The majority of bill payers are in support of ensuring that the sewerage system is fit for future generations (87% agree), prepared to cope with a growing population (87%), and that investments should be made for the long term (86%). While many agree that it is a good investment, bill payers are hesitant to pay out of their own pockets for future repairs and upgrades – around six in ten (59%) are happy to bear additional costs (Figure 30).

Figure 30: Opinions on sewerage

Agreement with the above statements varied across age group. For example, younger bill payers were more likely to agree that upgrading Melbourne’s sewerage system is a waste of money (16% of those aged 18-34 agreed, compared to 12% of those aged 35-54 and 3% of those aged 55+). This may be the result of older Melburnians being more aware (via stories passed from older generations) of the city’s struggle with odour before being connected to a sewerage system in the late 1800s – an issues which earnt Melbourne the dubious

Melbourne Water continues to

invest in minimum renewals

and upgrades to the sewerage

system which manages risk to

public health and the

environment but does not fully

set us up to meet future

challenges

Source: D6. In five years from 2021, what option for increasing sewerage system resilience do you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Melbourne Water invests an

additional 1% of the total

sewerage system capital costs in

greater than minimum renewals

and upgrades now to provide

greater flexibility to respond to

challenges such as population

growth and climate change in

the future.

Cost additional $0.31 per year

paid by sewerage customers as

part of their water bill.

Melbourne Water invests an

additional 2% of the total






growth and climate change in

the future.

Cost additional $0.60 per year

paid by sewerage customers as


24% 36% 39%


28% 39% 33%

Tested individually

Source: E2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…



It’s important to ensure the sewerage system is fit for future

generations

It’s important to ensure the sewerage system is fit for our growing

population

If we’re investing in the sewerage system it should be for the long

term, not a quick fix

It’s worth paying to ensure that there are no problems with the

sewerage system

I’m happy to pay more on my water bill to ensure the resilience of

our sewerage system

Upgrading the sewerage system is a waste of money

3%

5%

37%

4%

10%

34%

11%

11%

11%

20%

26%

19%

45%

45%

37%

44%

39%

8%

42%

42%

49%

29%

20%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

39%

38%

41%

27%

18%

9%



nickname ‘Smellbourne’ – a working sewerage system is more likely to be taken for granted by young generations.

Older Melburnians were also more likely to agree that:

It’s important to ensure the sewerage system is fit for future generations (95% compared to 81% of those aged 18-34 and 85% of those aged 35-49)

It’s important to ensure the sewerage system is fit for our growing population (93% compared to 82% of those aged 18-34 and 85% aged 35-54)

If we’re investing in the sewerage system it should be for the long term, not a quick fix (95% agree compared to 82% of those aged 35-54 and 83% of those aged 55+)

Higher socio-economic status was also was also associated with a desire for greater future-proofing of our sewerage system, specifically:

Ensuring the sewerage system is fit for a growing population (91% high SES agree, compared to 88% low and 84% medium)

Being happy to pay more on a water bill to ensure the resilience of our sewerage network (65% high SES agree, compared to 50% low and 57% medium)

Feeling that it’s worthwhile paying extra to ensure there are no problems with the sewerage system (78% high SES compared to 65% low SES and 72% medium SES).

Health related benefits and long-term planning and use were perceived to be the most important benefits of increasing investment into Melbourne’s sewerage system (Figure 31). Ensuring a sanitary environment for Melburnians (54%) and avoiding future risks with the sewerage system (50%) were the top benefits.

Figure 31: Perceived benefits of increasing investment into the city's sewerage system

Like attitudinal beliefs, perceived benefits of investing more into the sewerage system vary with age. Specifically, those aged 55+ are more likely to list the following as benefits:

It avoids the risk of issues with the sewerage system emerging down the track (58% compared to 48% of those aged 18-34 and 45% of those aged 35-54)

It would help manage the impacts of population growth (44% compared to 35% aged 18-34 and 34% aged 55+)

54%

50%

38%

34%

32%

18%

18%

7%

0%

4%

To ensure a healthy and sanitary environment for all Melburnians

It avoids the risk of issues with the sewerage system emerging

down the track

This would help manage the impacts of population growth

It would mean the sewerage system is cheaper to maintain the

future


The broader community would benefit from this

It would help manage the impact of climate change

I would personally benefit from this

Other


Source: E3. What do you see as the main benefits of increasing investment into the city’s sewerage system - as opposed to maintaining current levels of investment?


47%

44%

39%

32%

32%

23%

19%

14%

2%

3%

Business


It would mean the sewerage system is cheaper to maintain the future (43% compared to 30% aged 18-54)

Those aged 18-34 are more likely to list managing impacts of climate change as a benefit (26% compared to 20% aged 35-54 and 9% aged 55+) and are more likely to acknowledge that they stand to personally benefit from greater investment (11% compared to 8% aged 35-54 and 3% aged 55+).

Odour management

The issue of odour was contentious. Not all were willing to accept that odour is an issue – and some argued vigorously that there aren’t really additional odours associated with the treatment plant. In addition, for many across our groups, odour issues are not a personal problem, but an issue strictly for those who live in affected areas.

Groups consistently brought up the argument that if people had bought houses near treatment plants or sewer vents then they would have “known what they were getting themselves into”, and potentially would’ve paid a lower property price than if the area wasn’t subject to the odour. Those who saw it this way felt that where the need for odour management arose from a pre-existing plant and equipment, then they would not be prepared to pay for that.

“I know it sounds savage, but if they bought into that area [with an odour] then that’s on them, they probably bought in cheaper because of it.” Female, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

Some framed the issue with a broader perspective – bringing up the importance of citizen and city-wide health, the need to ensure a high degree of sanitation, and the value of providing a good quality of life across the full community.

Options provided to participants in group discussions


There was some consideration that with Melbourne’s continued growth odour may not remain restricted to outer areas and could easily become their problem in the future. Others imagined what it would be like for workers and tourists if the CBD started to smell like a sewer. For these citizens, poor odour was associated with developing world cities and something to be avoided. When these perspectives were raised, there was a far greater willingness to invest in effective odour prevention.

“We don’t want Melbourne to smell like Bangkok.” Female, 25-35, located within South East Water’s region

Melbourne Water

invests in upgrades at

the Western

Treatment Plant to

impacts on

communities

Melbourne Water

manages to statutory

obligations for odour

across the sewerage

network

Melbourne Water

invests in upgrades at

the Western

Treatment Plant. MW

also invests in

improved venting and

air treatment

Sewage – Odour

With population growth,

houses are being built closer

to treatment plants. Odour

may also increase as a result

of larger treatment plants

increasing sewer ventilation


“You don’t want it to be like the bad old days of ’Smellbourne‘” Male, 60+, located within South East Water’s region

This meant in group discussions most were willing to contribute up to $5 per annum extra to their water bill to address odour management.

No questions pertaining to odour management were included in the online survey.

Carbon offsets

Carbon offsets are not necessarily a well understood topic – some people required a great deal of explanation in addition to the reading pack to digest the information and consider the options (Figure 32).

“To be honest, I’m not really sure what a carbon offset is.” Male, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Figure 32: Carbon offsets options presented to group discussions


In addition, the idea of carbon offsets can be contentious. Age divides the community on this topic, with many of those in older groups more distrustful of offsets, and less likely to favour rapid offsets if at all.

Those in younger (25-35) groups, mostly settled on the most rapid carbon abatement offered in the selection

(100% by 2021), willing to incur the additional costs. They fully accepted the need to offset CO2 production.

They indicated that offsetting was the responsible thing to do while working towards zero-carbon

operations, and the additional cost of high-benefit local offsets seemed reasonable to them. For these

groups, an additional $7-10 per year, starting in 2021 to 100% offset the carbon dioxide equivalents

Voluntarily

purchase additional

offsets to reduce

emissions by 50%

by 2021, instead of

waiting until 2025

Carbon offsets –

speed/amount of

offsetting

MW is 1 of the biggest

carbon emitters in the

state. Melbourne Water is

required to halve emissions

by 2025, and has a goal to

achieve net zero by 2030

Purchase enough

offsets to reduce

emissions by 50%

by 2025, as

required by

Government

Voluntarily

purchase additional

offsets to achieve

net zero emissions

(100% reduction)

by 2021

Carbon offsets –

additional benefits of

offsets

Carbon offsets options have

different costs and benefits, such

as improving forests and

landscape in our region,

supporting local investment in

renewable energy and supporting

communities in Australia or

neighbouring countries

Basic Local – These

offsets provide

Australian

accreditation

High Benefit Global

– These offsets

provide additional

social and

environmental

benefits in other

countries

High Benefit Local

– These offsets

provide additional

social and

environmental

benefits in

Australia

.Basic Global


produced by their waste streams with high benefit local offsets, felt like good value and the right thing to

do.

“Look, I don’t think we can do enough on climate change. I’d be happy to pay the top rate.” Male, 25-39, located within City West Water ‘s region

Older (50+) groups debated the overall need for abatement. But despite their hostility towards offsets, only

a minority believe Melbourne Water has no responsibility to manage its greenhouse gas emissions; and a

majority were supportive of investing in plant and technology that helps achieve this. For these groups, the

minimum approach to offsets found more favour – they were less willing to speed up the offsetting of carbon

dioxide ahead, or in excess of, the government’s targets. These groups also included a few climate-change

deniers, or those who do not believe that humans can do anything about global warming - for those

participants, any level of offset that meant they incurred additional costs were outright rejected. This meant

that the average willingness to pay among these groups was considerably lower.

Among both younger and older groups, there was a preference that Melbourne Water become more energy efficient, rather than needing to buy offsets.

This sentiment was echoed in the quantitative research - more than half (57%) of bill payers prefer that Melbourne Water reduce its emissions rather than utilise carbon offsets (Figure 33). However, Melburnians clearly lack a detailed understanding of carbon offsets with half (52%) of bill payers not sure whether carbon offsets are a good way to reach net zero. A third (33%) agree that they don’t really trust offsets, but half (51%) aren’t sure whether they trust them or not.

This poor understanding leads people to be suspicious of offsets and carbon accounting. Group discussion participants felt that offsets could seem like a sleight of hand, and there was nothing offered in the information pack to suggest that accounting standards are robust or monitored. The most suspicious were far less supportive of offsetting any faster than was necessary, based partly on this distrust – especially in relation to overseas initiatives.

“I’d like to see them not just looking at carbon offsets but at mitigating in the first place. Looking at where they can add renewables into their business. Otherwise they don’t have any incentive to change their behaviour. They’ll just keep to the status quo.” Male, 25-39, located within City West Water’s region

Figure 33: Opinions on emission reduction

Agreement with these statements varied across key demographics.

Source: F1. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…



I would rather Melbourne Water reduce its emissions than use carbon

offsets

I would support Melbourne Water to reach net zero emissions earlier

than 2030, even if it cost me more

I’m not really sure how carbon offsets work

Carbon offsets are a good way to reach net zero in the short term

I don’t trust carbon offsets

There’s no need for Melbourne Water to try and reach net zero

emissions before 2030

7%

5%

5%

4%

21%

4%

11%

17%

9%

12%

27%

38%

33%

30%

52%

51%

31%

40%

33%

38%

27%

23%

14%

17%

16%

11%

7%

10%

7%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

23%

23%

11%

15%

13%

13%



For example, bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to agree that they’re not really sure how carbon offsets work (55% agreed compared to 46% aged 35-54 and 44% aged 55+). Interestingly, this poorer understanding did not translate to a decreased desire to see Melbourne Water utilize carbon emission – 43% of bill payers aged 18-34 agreed that carbon offsets are a good way to reach net zero in the short term (compared to 37% aged 35-54 and 24% aged 55+). Those in this age group were also more likely to agree that they would support Melbourne Water to reach net zero emissions earlier than 2030, even if it cost them more (58% agree compared to 51% aged 35-54 and 38% aged 55+).

Other key demographics are detailed below:

Those aged 55+ were more likely to agree that they don’t trust carbon offsets (40% agree compared to 28% aged 18-34 and 30% aged 35-54)

Bill payers in lower income household were more likely to agree they’re not really sure how carbon offsets work (54% with an annual pre-tax household income up to $60,000 agreed, compared to 43% of other bill payers)

Billy payers from higher income household were more likely to support Melbourne Water to reach net zero emissions earlier than 2030, even if it cost them more (62% with an annual pre-tax household income greater than $149,999 agreed, compared to 47% of other bill payers)

Bill payers within South East Water’s region are less likely to support Melbourne Water to reach net zero emissions earlier than 2030, even if it cost them more (43% compared to 52% of bill payers in other regions)

Online survey participants were shown stimulus about Melbourne Water’s goal to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and given a description of the benefits of carbon offsets. They were also shown options to reduce emissions by 50% by 2025 or by 2021, and fell under the categories of ‘Basic global’, ‘High benefit global’, ‘Basic local’, and ‘High benefit local’ (Figure 34).

Carbon offsets were probably the most polarising items included in this survey – Melburnians tended to select either the highest cost, ‘high benefit local’ (34%) or lowest cost ‘basic global’ (37%) options.

Figure 34: Carbon offset options presented in quantitative survey

Preference for carbon offsetting was also shown to vary across key demographics:

Basic global,

reduce direct

emissions by

50% by 2025

with offsets

from overseas

$0.08 per

year

Source: F2. In five years from 2021, what level of emission reduction do you support, and what type of offsets should Melbourne Water purchase? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue

between 2021 and 2026?


31%

Basic global,

reduce direct

emissions by

50% by 2021

with offset

from overseas

$0.20 per

year

High benefit

global, reduce

direct

emissions with

high

environmental

and social

benefits

overseas by

50% by 2025

$0.28 per

year

High benefit

global, reduce

direct

emissions with

high

environmental

and social

benefits

overseas by

50% by 2021

$0.69 per

year

Basic local,

reduce direct

emissions by

50% by 2025

with offsets

from Australia

$0.30 per

year

Basic local,

reduce direct

emissions by

50% by 2021

with offset

from Australia

$0.74 per

year

High benefit

local, reduce

direct

emissions with

high

environmental

and social

benefits in

Australia by

50% by 2025

$0.55 per

year

High benefit

local, reduce

direct

emissions with

high

environmental

and social

benefits in

Australia by

50% by 2021

$1.38 per

year

8%23% 9% 16%7%7% 7% 23%

22%12%6% 8% 7% 8% 5%


Tested individually

Basic global (37%) High benefit global (15%) Basic local (13%) High benefit local (34%)


Males were more likely to prefer basic global offsets than females (33% vs to 27%), while females were more likely than males to prefer high benefit local offsets (44% vs to 34%)

Bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to prefer

Those located further than 10km from the city were more likely to preference basic global offsets (32% compared to 25% of those living within 10kms of the city)

Bill payers living in low SES areas were less likely to prefer high benefit local offsets (32% compared to 41% of bill payers in medium or high SES areas)

In line with a higher endorsement for high benefit local carbon offsets, Melburnians are in strong disagreement (43%) that Melbourne Water should prioritise international benefits over local benefits (Figure 35). Additionally, around three in ten (32%) bill payers remain neutral regarding choosing between international and local benefits, possibly highlighting a lack of understanding around carbon offsets.

Figure 35: Opinions on carbon offsets

Males were more likely to preference international over local benefits (29% agree compared to 22% of females), while females were more likely to prefer pursuing carbon offsets that offer the greatest additional social or environmental benefits (67% compared to 59% of males).

The perceived benefits of purchasing carbon offsets most likely to be selected by Melburnians was to minimise harmful impacts on the environment (43%) as well as to provide one of many avenues to tackle the issues of climate change (36%) (Figure 36). Compared to most of the other options, a larger proportion of Melburnians are likely to not view any benefits of carbon offsets (15%).

Figure 36: Perceived benefits of purchasing carbon offsets

Source: F3. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


Melbourne Water should pursue carbon offsets that offer the greatest

additional social/ environmental benefits

Melbourne Water should offset its carbon emissions at the cheapest

possible cost

Melbourne Water should prioritise international benefits over local

benefits from its offsets program

3%

4%

18%

4%

12%

25%

30%

34%

32%

43%

35%

19%

20%

15%

6%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

24%

18%

11%


Source: F4. What do you see as the potential benefits of purchasing carbon offsets?


43%

36%

36%

34%

32%

17%

2%

15%

It means we minimise the impact on the environment

I think we should take whatever action we need to on climate change

Offsets can be used to produce additional social and environmental

benefits in Australia

This would help manage the impacts of climate change


Offsets can be used to produce additional social and environmental

benefits in developing countries

Other


44%

40%

32%

40%

35%

21%

1%

10%

Business


Males were more likely to not see any benefits of purchasing carbon offsets (20% compared to 12% of females), while younger bill payers were more likely to think we should take whatever action we need to on climate change (44% compared to 33% aged 35-54 and 32% aged 55+) and identify social and environmental assistance to developing countries as a benefit (22% compared to 16% aged 35-54 and 13% aged 55+.

Managing runoff from surfaces

Melburnians have not heard about – or considered – the issues with increasing impervious surface area and development across the city – just one in five (21%) bill payers were that impervious surface area growth is major and growing challenge for waterways and bays. However, the issue makes intuitive sense to them once they have read or heard about it – few needed further convincing of the challenges.

Figure 37: Impervious surface area options presented in group discussions


For many, this initiative was considered a “surprising fact”, compelling them to reflect on their own environments. One woman noted that she would have chosen a different driveway design if she had been made aware of the implications. Another noted that she no longer resented the small patch of lawn that she has to manage and had been considering removing, now she understood its value. Some were aggrieved by the fact that they had little control over the extent of impervious surface in their home – they felt that if they were more aware of the problem, they could contribute in other ways.

“I’d never heard about it. This was the most interesting thing I learnt.” Female, 60+, located within City West Water’s region

Across our sample, many felt that the flat charge for impervious surfaces was unfair. The sense of unfairness stems from the fact that larger and smaller properties, as well as properties with entirely impermeable surfaces and those with entirely permeable surfaces, are all charged at the same rate. People reasoned that those with larger impervious surface areas are more likely to be bigger businesses. Across groups, the notion of a small local retailer or office paying the same rate as a large suburban shopping centre or supermarket with acres of carpark seemed ridiculous. Hence, the proposed flat charge appears to penalise smaller property owners and benefit those with larger land area – with the outtake that those who are worse off pay relatively more (a regressive tax).

“So you’ve got small households like me and small businesses like the fruit shop over there and we’re paying virtually the same as Chadstone. How does that even make sense?” Female, 60+, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

People also felt that the flat impervious surface charge is likely to be ineffective at reducing impervious surfaces across our city. The flat charge approach, we were consistently told, does not provide an incentive to do the

Melbourne Water to

explore options for

use of future pricing

to address

impervious surface

area growth

Impervious surface

area

Urban development

generates excess run-off

during rainfall and increases

the hard (impervious)

surface area of the city.

Managing this increased run-

off requires renewed and

improved infrastructure

Maintain current

arrangements

Melbourne Water to

explore all options

including use of

incentive schemes

and education

programs alongside

pricing to address

impervious surface

area growth


right thing and won’t encourage businesses to minimise runoff from their properties. They rejected the idea that the flat charge is a tool to ‘manage the growth of impervious surface area’ as presented in the options pack.

“It just doesn’t make sense! A flat charge isn’t going to encourage people to change behaviour. I think they must have got it the wrong way round.” Male, 25-39, located within City West Water’s region

Overall, people felt that businesses with larger properties and more impervious surface areas should pay more. They recognised the challenges (and administrative cost) involved in calculating charges based on impervious surface area, however they reasoned that rates charges based on land area and this would be an acceptable substitute on which to calculate an impervious surface change.

Further, there was strong sentiment that developers – those who have relatively more control over the growth of impervious surface area – should be made more accountable for their decisions in this regard (even if any charges made on developers would inevitably be passed on to the buyers). Others discussed alternative solutions to a charge, including more effective regulation – ensuring development is responsible, for example, and that developers use materials and designs that minimise the problems.

In the quantitative survey, participants were presented information about the current costs for both residential housing and businesses in managing stormwater runoff. Participants were shown two payment options – the current fixed flat charge model and an alternative ‘user pay’ approach.

In contrast to the group discussions, more than half (56%) indicated a preference for Melbourne Water to continue with the current flat charging model for impervious surface area, while 44% support the proposal to investigate moving to a ‘paying for your impact’ charging model (Figure 38).

Figure 38: Waterways and drainage service options presented in quantitative survey

This apparent contradiction with the discussion group findings could be explained by the differences in information presented to participants – those completing the survey saw a balanced list of pros and cons for the initiative that stated there would be little difference in most cases, and that there would be some costs associated with the change. But it could also be explained by the more detailed examination of the issue in the focus groups, and the invocation of ‘fairness’ in discussions of the ‘pay for your impact’ model and social desirability bias.

Those more likely to be in favour of moving to a ‘paying your impact’ model include:

Bill payers living in the inner city, but not the CBD itself, (53%, compared to 44% living in the CBD and 42% living greater than 10km from the city)

Bill payers living in high SES areas (49% compared to 41% in low SES areas and 42% in medium SES areas)


Melburnians are highly supportive of greater investment in water education. After absorbing the pre-reading pack and discussing Melbourne’s water supply and management options, virtually all participants felt there was a need for ongoing communications informing Melburnians about the water system, Melbourne Water’s work, and how they can help by being better citizen-users of our water resources. They also felt that Melbourne Water

Source: G1. Over the next five years from 2021, what approach for charging businesses for waterways and drainage services do you support?


I support Melbourne Water to continue with

current flat charging model for impervious

surface area

I support Melbourne Water to investigate moving

to a ‘paying for your impact’ charging model for

impervious surface area

56% 44%


should be informing Melburnians about any of the initiatives they were exposed to through the research process – like for example water recycling, stormwater reuse and biosolids.

“I think the education should be done over many mediums. Things like social media, tv, radio, newspapers, website's, etc. Making it jump out at people.” Female, 35-59, disability, located within South East Water’s region

“Once you know more you can be a bit more mindful. It’s important.” Male, 25-39, located within City West Water’s region

“To be honest, I’m not going to become any more water saving if they don’t give me a good nudge.” Male, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

“I personally feel that it's really important for Melburnians to know more about what Melbourne Water does and how, and how they can play a part. I kinda feel as though living in the city can mean we take water for granted, and don't pay much mind to how the water coming out of our taps actually gets there. I think an awareness of HOW it all happens could help people to better appreciate the process.” Female, 35-39, chronic Illness, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Participant preferences were to have this awareness built into public education through schools, but many felt this was, in and of itself, not enough. They reasoned that many older adult Melburnians would not have been exposed to any education on the water system in a long time, and that as one of the fastest growing cities in Australia, they felt that recent migrants from both other countries and other states of Australia may not know about the particulars of Melbourne’s world-class water system.

Hence, many felt that an ongoing, low-level campaign – via bills, highly targeted digital advertising, or project-specific outdoor signage – would be a useful way to build awareness of the scope of Melbourne Water’s activity.

“You don’t want them to spend a lot of money on advertising, but they should be keeping us in the loop. What they’re doing to keep the water supply up, what they are doing with the sewerage system.” Male, 35-59, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

Western Treatment Plant access and ecotourism

Participants in group discussions were broadly supportive of the proposed improvements (Figure 39) to the visitor facilities at the Western Treatment Plant, and the relatively low costs involved when amortised across all Melburnians meant that only a few across the discussions were ultimately opposed.

Figure 39: WTP ecotourism options presented to group discussions


Increase investment at the

Western Treatment Plant

by installing a boardwalk

network, additional places

to watch birds, and create

site tours and educational

materials. This will

encourage visitation to the

WTP and learn about the

site’s heritage

Western Treatment Plant

Access and Ecotourism

Melbourne Water’s Western

Treatment Plant is an

important site for biodiversity.

The site also plays an

important part of school

education programs

Melbourne Water to

maintain current standard

of education program and

ecotourism at the Western

Treatment Plant

Melbourne Water to build

Visitor Centres at both the

Western and Eastern

Treatment Plants to

provide education services

to the community


Very few previously knew that the Western Treatment Plant was open for public access, or that it is a specialist bird watching area. However, with the exception of a few committed birders, there was a notable lack of enthusiasm about the idea and few could imagine themselves paying the centre a visit – it emerged as a lower order priority. Even the bird watchers in the sample were cautious about innovations that might encourage more people to visit the Plant. They imagined that people who weren’t as passionate as they were about bird watching might behave inappropriately – with the noise of increased crowds scaring away the birdlife that the area is prized for.

“You’d think I’d like it being a bird watcher. But more people aren’t necessarily a great thing. I know some people who would be really against.” Female, 60+, located within City West Water’s region

“I think an actual physical visit would perhaps have more impact, but if that wasn't always doable, a virtual tour could be great! Better that than nothing at all, I think!’” Female, 35-59, chronic illness, located within Yarra Valley Water’s region

“Although it isn't a bad idea, I think money is better invested elsewhere than into the facilitating visitation to Western treatment plant. I don't think this initiative would be accessible (or even interesting) to a lot of people, and I feel this knowledge can still be taught in a school/workplace/community setting. Perhaps a virtual tour on a website instead? This means there would be no interruption to the wildlife/native flora either.” Female, 18-34, mental health, located within City West Water’s region

Quantitative participants were shown information about access to and ecotourism of the Western Treatment Plant, and the costs and benefits of investment into education materials and visitor facilities. They were presented with two options:

To maintain the current level of ecotourism facilities at the Western Treatment Plant ($0 per year) To invest in additional ecotourism facilities to increase visitor capacity and improve visitor experience

($0.47 per year).

Figure 40: Ecotourism options presented in quantitative survey

Melbourne Water to maintain current level of

ecotourism facilities at the Western

Treatment Plant

Source: H1. In five years from 2021 which option for investment in ecotourism do you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Note: *This will encourage additional visitors to the WTP and learn about the site’s heritage (natural and built), the water cycle and biodiversity.

Melbourne Water to invest in additional

ecotourism and visitor facilities at the

Western Treatment Plant to facilitate visits for

people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to

experience it. Paths, boardwalks and bird

watching hides will make the site more

accessible, protect habitat and minimise

disturbance to birds, increase visitor capacity

and improve visitor experiences. An

interpretive heritage walk will provide

opportunities for visitors to understand the

site’s history*.

Cost $0.47 per year paid by sewerage

customers as part of their water bill.

45% 55%


56% 44%

Tested individually


Overall results indicate that just over half (55%) of Melburnians support the proposal to invest in additional visitor facilities at the Western Treatment Plant while 45% believe Melbourne Water should maintain the current level of visitor facilities (Figure 40). Bill payers aged 18-34 were more likely to support additional ecotourism investment (63% compared to 52% aged 35-54 and 51% aged 55+).

However, when the options were tested simultaneously, these positions reversed, with under half (44%) contributing when tested simultaneously alongside other initiatives – substantially fewer Melburnians were willing to pay when considering the combined impact of their choices on their potential bill.

Despite half of bill payers agreeing that improving visitor facilities would be a worthwhile investment, fewer than four in ten (37%) would consider visiting the Western Treatment Plant, while 45% believe better facilities would make no difference to them personally (Figure 41). Those within City West Water’s region are more likely to consider visiting the Western Treatment Plan (46% compared to 34% living in other areas).

Figure 41: Opinions on Western Treatment Plant investment

Making the Western Treatment Plant more visitor-friendly for schools and children (44%), improving water education and literacy (42%) and increasing understanding of our sewerage system (39%) were listed by bill payers as the strongest perceived benefits from investment into better ecotourism and visitor facilities at the Western Treatment Plant (Figure 42).

Around one in six (16%) bill payers do not see any benefits in improving visitor and ecotourism facilities at the Western Treatment Plant.

Source: H2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


Improving visitor facilities at Western Treatment Plant would be a

worthwhile investment

Better facilities at Western Treatment Plant wouldn’t make any

difference to me

I would consider visiting the Western Treatment Plant

5%

7%

11%

8%

18%

20%

36%

32%

32%

37%

31%

28%

13%

13%

9%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

20%

17%

19%



Figure 42: Perceived benefits of improving visitor and ecotourism facilities at the Western Treatment Plant

Water cycle education and awareness

Participants in groups discussion felt that the development of a range of digital education resources would be useful in helping people learn more about Melbourne Water’s work, the water cycle, and what they can do to help. They envisaged these would be useful in school classrooms, as teaching aides, and for the general public.

Figure 43: Education options presented in group discussions


But many wondered whether and how they would come across these without being specifically prompted by social marketing materials, and they consistently raised the idea of an ongoing advertising or marketing campaign and its capacity to broaden awareness and drive people to access resources.

“I would like to see initiatives set up in schools, workplaces and the general community (eg having letterbox pamphlets, stalls in the local shopping centres etc) and making sure the information is accessible and appropriate to our CALD communities also.” Female, 18-34, mental health, located within City West Water’s region

44%

42%

39%

30%

28%

13%

7%

0%

16%

It would be better for schools and children to visit

It would improve water education and literacy

It would improve understanding of our sewerage system

It would make the best possible use of existing facilities

It would be better for tourists (e.g. birdwatchers) to visit

I would like to visit

I would personally benefit

Other


Source: H3. What do you see as the main benefits of improving visitor and ecotourism facilities at the Western Treatment Plant?


35%

43%

40%

29%

23%

20%

16%

0%

14%

Business

Melbourne Water to

develop digital education

programs to increase

understanding of water

cycle

Water Cycle Education

and Awareness

Water is used in homes and

businesses is not well

understood. Increased

knowledge in the

community can allow people

to make smarter choices.

MW currently runs

education programs, but

these could be extended

Maintain current

education programs


“Yeah – I’d like to see a digital campaign that would tell Melburnians about all this stuff – it’s really important, and none of us really know about it” Female, 18-34, located within South East Water’s region

The sense of community action and communal spirit in saving water that information, education and campaigns can help foster was also discussed in positive terms. Many felt that the millennium drought brought the community together around a common purpose - and ultimately reduced water use substantially - but this sense of collective stewardship of our water resources had since diminished.

This meant that, across the groups, people were willing to pay a few dollars – between around $1 and $3 – for Melbourne Water to better inform Melburnians about its work, including both the development of digital resources and other forms of advertising to build broader awareness.

Survey participants were presented information about the current level of understanding by the community about what happens to water that has been used in homes and businesses. They were also shown different investment options for developing digital education programs and the building of interactive facilities (Figure 44).

More than half (57%) are supportive of the plan to invest in better education programs and facilities with one in five (21%) bill payers likely to take up the maximum level of additional investment - $0.78 per year (Figure 44).

When tested simultaneously, a similar proportion of bill payers supported each investment option.

44% suggest that Melbourne Water should maintain their current education programs 38% support the development of digital education programs 19% support the investment into building more interactive facilities.

Those aged 18-34 are more likely to support increased investment into water cycle education (68% compared to 53% aged 35-54 and 50% aged 55+). Those in South Easter Water’s region are more likely to prefer the status quo be maintained (47% compared to 41% in other areas).

Figure 44: Water cycle education options presented in quantitative survey

There is an appetite among Melbourne Water bill payers for learning more about the water cycle. Three-quarters (73%) of bill payers agree that it is important for Melbourne Water to educate Melburnians about what they do,

Melbourne Water to maintain

current education programs

Source: H4. In five years from 2021, which option for investment in education do you support? I1. The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026?


Melbourne Water to develop

digital education programs for

the whole community to

increase understanding of the

water cycle, in partnership with

other organisations such as

universities and Museums

Victoria.


sewerage customers as part of

their water bill

Melbourne Water to build more

interactive facilities, such as

demonstration plants and visitor

centres, at the Western and/or

Eastern Treatment Plant.

These would provide education

services to the community, and

facilities for innovation and

demonstration of new

technologies.



their water bill

43% 36% 21%

Tested individually


44% 38% 19%


and two-thirds (67%) believe educating Melburnians more about the water cycle is a worthwhile investment (Figure 45).

Around 6 in 10 bill payers indicate they would like to understand more about the issues impacting Melbourne’s water (62%) and sewerage system (56%).

Despite such strong support for investment into education programs and facilities, only 36% would consider visiting the Western Treatment Plant (this was higher among bill payers in City West Waters region, at 48%), while a quarter (26%) of bill payers believe that an investment into water cycle education won’t achieve anything.

Figure 45: Opinions on water cycle education

Improving water use behaviours (55%) and gaining a better understanding of where Melbourne’s water comes from and how it is treated (44%) were cited as the most significant perceived benefits from investing in water cycle education. Only 7% of bill payers see no benefits in investing in water cycle education (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Perceived benefits of investing in water cycle education and awareness

Source: H5. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you agree or disagree with the following…


It’s important that Melbourne Water educate Melburnians about what

they do

It’s worth investing in educating Melburnians more about the water

cycle

I’d like to understand more about issues impacting Melbourne’s water

I’d like to understand more about issues impacting Melbourne’s

sewerage system

I would consider visiting the Western Treatment Plant

Investing more in educating Melburnians about water won’t achieve

anything

2%

2%

2%

3%

10%

15%

3%

6%

7%

9%

19%

30%

22%

26%

29%

32%

34%

29%

51%

46%

49%

43%

27%

20%

22%

21%

13%

13%

9%

6%

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree

24%

24%

19%

19%

16%

13%


55%

44%

35%

25%

25%

23%

20%

0%

7%

Improving water use behaviours

Increased awareness and understanding about Melbourne’s water e.g.

where it comes from, how it is treated etc.

This would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve

Lower water bills




Other


Source: H6. What do you see as the main benefits of investing more in water cycle education and awareness?


47%

44%

32%

24%

32%

27%

22%

3%

4%

Business


Females (27% compared to 18% of males) and those aged 18-34 (34%, compared to 18% of older bill payers) were more likely to list helping to manage the impacts of climate change as a benefit. Those aged 55+ were more likely to list conservation of existing drink water reserves as a benefit (44% compared to 27% aged 18-34 and 33% aged 35-54).


Appendix - questionnaire

Melbourne Water Price Submission

Introduction Text

Welcome! Thanks for agreeing to take our survey. Important decisions will be made based on what you tell us, so we’d really appreciate it if you can answer the questions we have for you carefully and honestly.

This survey is being conducted by Whereto Research in accordance with the Market and Social Research Privacy Code, which you can read about here. If you have any questions at all about this survey, please feel free to contact Whereto Research on (03) 8648 3418 or via [email protected].

Please read all of the questions carefully and give us your honest opinion. There are no right or wrong answers, we are just really interested in what you have to say.

FOR OPEN GENERIC LINK: To thank you for participating, you’ll be given the option to enter a prize draw to win an iPad once you’ve completed the survey.

SECTION A: SCREENING QUESTIONS

ASK ALL Do you, or any of your immediate family members work in any of the following industries?

(MULTIPLE RESPONSE)

Advertising 1 CONTINUE

Market research 2 CONTINUE

Public relations 3 CONTINUE

Utilities 4 TERMINATE

Marketing 5 CONTINUE

None of these 99 CONTINUE

ASK ALL A.1.a Which of the following best describes you?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Australian Citizen 1 CONTINUE

Permanent resident 2 CONTINUE

On a temporary visa (e.g. Holiday and/or working visa) 3 TERMINATE

None of the above 4 TERMINATE

ASK ALL In Which state or territory do you currently live?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

NSW 1 TERMINATE

VIC 2 CONTINUE

ACT 3 TERMINATE

QLD 4 TERMINATE

NT 5 TERMINATE

WA 6 TERMINATE

SA 7 TERMINATE

TAS 8 TERMINATE

None of these 9 TERMINATE

mailto:[email protected]


ASK ALL Which of the following household bills do you take responsibility for?

(RANDOMISE, MULTIPLE RESPONSE)

Water 1 MUST SELECT TO CONTINUE

Electricity 2 CONTINUE

Gas 3 CONTINUE

Rates 4 CONTINUE

Rent / mortgage 5 CONTINUE

MUST SELECT 1 TO CONTINUE, ELSE TERMINATE

ASK ALL Which one of the below is your water retailer?

(RANDOMISE, SINGLE RESPONSE)

City West Water 1 CHECK QUOTAS

South East Water 2 CHECK QUOTAS

Yarra Valley Water 3 CHECK QUOTAS

Don’t know / can’t recall 4 TERMINATE

ASK ALL Please type in your home postcode below:

TEXT BOX – ENSURE VALID 4 DIGIT POSTCODE, MUST BE VIC CHECK POSTCODE AGAINST FILE SUPPLIED AND CODE SES LEVEL (H/M/L) CHECK POSTCODE AND CODE FOR METRO vs NON-METRO, CHECK QUOTAS CHECK POSTCODE AGAINST RETAILER AREA – TERMINATE IF NOT IN A WATER RETAILER POSTCODE

ASK ALL Please indicate whether you are…

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Male 1 CHECK QUOTAS

Female 2 CHECK QUOTAS

Non binary / Other 3 CHECK QUOTAS

Prefer not to say 4 CHECK QUOTAS

ASK ALL Which of the following age ranges do you fall into?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Under 18 1 TERMINATE

18-24 2 CHECK QUOTAS










65+ 11 CHECK QUOTAS

ASK ALL

What is the highest education level you have completed?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Year 12 or below 1 CHECK QUOTAS

CHECK QUOTAS TAFE Certificate I-IV or Diploma 3

University undergraduate or postgraduate degree 4 CHECK QUOTAS

Prefer not to say 99 CHECK QUOTAS

ASK ALL Which of the following best describes your current work status?

(READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE)

Employed (full time, part time or casual) 1 CONTINUE

Not currently employed but looking for work 2 CONTINUE

Not in the labour force/ home duties / retired 3 CONTINUE

Studying full-time 4 CONTINUE

ASK IF A.9=1 Which of these best describe your role?


Business owner 1 CONTINUE

Senior decision maker 2 CONTINUE

Manager 3 CONTINUE

Employee 4 CONTINUE

Prefer not to say 99 CONTINUE

ASK IF A.10=1 OR 2

How many people does this business employ?


None (on-employing sole trader) 1

CONTINUE AS SME 1-19 2

20-199 3

200+ 4 CONTINUE

Not sure 97 CONTINUE

Prefer not to say 99 CONTINUE

SHOW ALL Great – it looks like you qualify for the survey. This survey is about Melbourne Water’s services – which benefit all Melburnians. Melbourne Water is a government owned organisation that manages and protects our city's major water resources.


Melbourne Water’s 2021 Price Submission is an opportunity to examine how it can better provide services that deliver what water customers want – at a price that all believe is fair. Your participation will help prioritise investment and the prices charged for their services - helping balance the social and economic needs of the community with the long-term interests of the environment. Please take the time to read each question and carefully consider your response, Melbourne Water take your input seriously. Thanks for taking the time to provide your input. [PRESS NEXT TO CONTINUE]

• Managing water supply

catchments

• Collecting, storing,

treating and supplying

drinking water

• Collecting and treating

most of Melbourne’s

sewage

• Recovering resources

from sewage

• Managing major

drainage systems

• Providing integrated

drainage and flood

management services

• Protecting and improving

waterway health

• Helping to create natural

community spaces

About Melbourne Water

More than four million Melburnians rely on Melbourne Water’s water supply system.


SECTION B: WATER SECURITY AND BILL CERTAINTY

RANDOMISE SECTION B: TO SECTION B:

ASK ALL Bill certainty: We have heard that people prefer more predictable bills. Desalinated water order costs can have a noticeable impact on the level of bills. Desalinated water from the plant is ordered each year based on storage levels and predicted rainfall and water use. The order can be zero. Each time we order water, the cost is currently passed directly on to customers as an additional cost in their water bill. To minimise annual bill variations, your water bill could include an annual amount to cover the cost of expected desalination orders. This would create more certainty in the costs on your bill each year, instead of having a single full charge passed on when a water order is made. However, there will still be an increase over this amount if the order is larger than allowed for.

In five years from 2021, what option to pay for desalinated water orders would you support?

Three options for how Melbourne Water could manage billing of desalinated water are provided below. Please read each of these carefully and select the billing structure you would prefer Melbourne Water adopt. (SINGLE RESPONSE)

B.1.a Maintain current billing

arrangements for desalinated

water orders, passing on the

costs when orders are made.


B.1.b Increase annual water bill

to include a planned amount of

$16 per year to cover the cost of



made.

This option is equivalent to a normal desalinated water order of 50 billion litres each year. Where orders exceed this

amount then a “top up” amount

would be added to your quarterly

bill. If no water orders were made

your bill would reduce.

B.1.c Increase annual water bill

to include a planned amount up

to $34 per year to cover the cost

of desalination orders, instead of


made.

This option is equivalent to a normal desalinated water order of 100 billion litres each year. Where orders exceed this

amount then a “top up” amount

would be added to your quarterly

bill. If there were no water

orders, your bill would reduce.

ASK B.2-B.4 TO 50% OF SAMPLE

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you

agree or disagree with the following…

(SINGLE RESPONSE)


Strongly disagree Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree Agee

Strongly agree

B.2.a The desalination plant will be

increasingly necessary in the future 1 2 3 4 5

B.2.b We should avoid using the

desalination plant –and only use

when absolutely necessary

1 2 3 4 5

B.2.c We should run the

desalination plant year-round to top

up the dams and keep our water

storages high

1 2 3 4 5

B.2.d I would prefer a bill that is

more predictable, even if it’s a little

more expensive

1 2 3 4 5

What do you see as the main benefit from adding an ‘assumed amount’ of desalination to your water

bills?

(MULTIPLE RESPONSE, RANDOMISE, SELECT UP TO 3)

Greater water security 1

Stable, predictable bills 2

More water for us to all use 3

More water for the environment 4

It’s the responsible thing to do 5

Something else (specify) 96

Not sure 97

If Melbourne Water was to bill an ‘assumed amount’ for desalination upfront, but we didn’t actually

need the water that year, would you expect…

(SINGLE RESPONSE, RANDOMISE)

Your next bill to be reduced 1

The water to be produced anyway, to top up the dams 2

Something else (specify) 96

Not sure 97


SECTION C: RESOURCE RECOVERY ASK ALL Resource recovery: water recycling Melbourne’s growing population and the impacts of drought and climate change create greater stresses on our ability to deliver a reliable water supply. Recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP) and Western Treatment Plant (WTP) can ease pressure on drinking water supplies and other water resources such as groundwater and creeks/rivers, and provide water security for a range of non-drinking uses. Recycled water is currently used for farming and irrigation, industry, firefighting, watering parks and sportsgrounds, and in toilets, laundries and gardens in new housing suburbs via “dual pipe” distribution systems. Recycled water is partially paid for by those who use it, with the “gap” paid for by sewerage customers. This “gap” is because the cost of treating and distributing recycled water is often greater than what recycled water customers are willing or able to pay. Recycled water can be more expensive than other sources of water that may be available such as ground water and surface waters such as stormwater and creeks/rivers. Under current arrangements, on average end users (e.g. irrigators) pay approximately 33% of the cost with the remaining 67% paid by sewerage customers. Currently around 8.4% of treated sewage flows are recycled, the remainder (91.6%) goes into Port Phillip Bay (WTP) or the ocean (ETP). More could be recycled (particularly from the ETP where there is ample supply available) however we would need to invest in building distribution capacity, and partner with a water retailer to deliver recycled water to new customers.

In five years from 2021, which option for recycled water distribution for Melbourne Water would you

support?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

C.1.a Maintain current level of recycling at around

8.4% (27 billion litres of water per year) or increase it

if new customers are willing to pay the full cost of

recycled water production and distribution.


C.1.b Fund the construction of new recycled water

distribution systems from the Eastern Treatment Plant

to provide capacity to supply an additional 5 billion

litres of water per year to customers (a 19% increase

in recycling on current levels).

Cost $5.49 per year paid by sewerage customers as



ASK C.2-C.3 TO 50% OF SAMPLE

ASK ALL On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do you


(SINGLE RESPONSE)



Strongly agree

C.2.a We should recycle as much

water from our sewage as possible 1 2 3 4 5

C.2.b Our treated waste should not

be recycled – it should continue to be

released into the bays

1 2 3 4 5

C.2.c I’m happy to pay more to

ensure our waste is fully recycled 1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL What do you see as the main benefits of increasing investment into water recycling as opposed to

maintaining current levels of water recycling?


Improved water security 1

It would help manage the impacts of population growth 2

It would help manage the impacts of climate change 3

It would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve 4

It means our waste is fully treated, reducing sewage into the bays 5

It could benefit the environment, because there would be more water in rivers and creeks

6

It puts our waste to good use 7


We are not using valuable drinking water for parks, sports grounds etc. 9

Other (specify) 96

I don’t see any benefits 99


ASK ALL Water security – stormwater harvesting Melbourne’s growing population and the impacts of drought and climate change creates greater stresses on our ability to deliver a reliable water supply. Stormwater harvesting involves collecting, treating, storing and using stormwater runoff from urban areas. If stormwater is captured it can be used for a range of purposes (like sportsgrounds and industry) as a substitute for our drinking water. Capturing stormwater before it enters waterways also helps keep our rivers and creeks healthy. Melbourne Water currently reuses some stormwater (approx. 2.7 Billion litres). Much more could be captured and used if there was greater investment in infrastructure to capture and treat, taking the pressure off drinking water supplies.

In five years from 2021, which option for recycled water distribution for Melbourne Water would you

support?

C.4.a Maintain the current level

of water planning, education and

investment in storm water

harvesting water programs.


C.4.b Reduce pressure on our

drinking water supplies by investing

in stormwater programs, further

supporting healthy rivers and bays,

and providing cooler, greener

spaces.

Cost of $2 per year for 5 billion litres

- equivalent water use of 40,000

homes

C.4.c Further reduce pressure on

our drinking water supplies by

investing more in stormwater

programs, further supporting

healthy rivers and bays, and

providing cooler, greener spaces.

Cost of $4 per year for 10 billion

litres - equivalent water use of

80,000 homes

ASK C.5-C.6 TO 50% OF SAMPLE



(SINGLE RESPONSE)



Strongly agree

C.5.a I was aware stormwater was

harvested and re-used 1 2 3 4 5

C.5.b We should be harvesting as

much stormwater as possible 1 2 3 4 5




Strongly agree

C.5.c I’m happy to pay more on my

water bill to allow greater harvesting

of stormwater

1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL What do you see as the main benefits of increasing stormwater harvesting as opposed to maintaining

current levels of stormwater harvesting?


Improved water security 1



This would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve 4

This would help prevent flooding in urban areas 5

It would reduce stormwater runoff into the bays 6

It would allow us to keep parks and gardens greener during dry times 7

Other (specify) 96



ASK ALL Resource recovery- Biosolids reuse: Biosolids are the solid, organic material left over after the sewage treatment process. As part of treating your sewage, large amounts of biosolids – approximately 70,000 tonnes - are produced every year, and there are legacy stockpiles of around 1.6 million tonnes. In recent years Melbourne Water has explored various opportunities to re-use biosolids. Options range from spreading biosolids onto land through to fuel for energy production. Currently land application is the only viable option available to Melbourne Water while other re-use options may take a few years to investigate and implement. Presently most of the cost associated with biosolids re-use is associated with the transportation for land application. Melbourne Water has committed to meet a new Environment Protection Agency requirement for biosolids from our Western Treatment Plant (WTP), that will require re-use of at least 40% (or 16,500 tonnes per year) by 2025/26, and 100% by 2030/31. Presently there is no EPA requirement for the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP), due to a recent large land remediation project which reduced ETP’s legacy stockpiles by over 1 million tonnes. In addition to land application programs Melbourne Water will continue to investigate new technologies, which have the potential to recover energy and/or nutrients from biosolids, for future generations. Melbourne Water could meet the minimum EPA re-use requirement at the WTP. Or it could invest in a higher level of re-use, building on increasing interest from local farmers and seeking large one-off re-use opportunities such as land rehabilitation, from both treatment plants. (Q4)- In five years from 2021, what option for biosolids reuse for Melbourne Water do you support? (SINGLE RESPONSE)

C.6.a Meet the Environment

Protection Agency requirement to

achieve 40% reuse by year

2025/26, and be on track to

achieve 100% reuse by year

2030/31, at the WTP.

No allowance for reuse from the

ETP.

Total reuse of 16,500 tonnes per

year.



their water bill

C.6.b Meet the Environment

Protection Agency requirement for

WTP as from Option 1, plus:

Allow for re-use from the ETP as

well, achieving an average level of

40% re-use across both plants.

Total reuse of 28,000 tonnes/yr.



water bill

C.6.c Meet the Environment

Protection Agency requirement for

WTP as from Option 1, plus:

Also allow for one-off large scale

(opportunistic) reuse opportunities

for both WTP and ETP (e.g. land fill

rehabilitation).

The exact amount reused would

depend on the nature and location

of the large scale reuse

opportunities, but the cost impact

would be roughly equivalent to

achieving an average level of 50%

reuse across both plants.

Equivalent total reuse of 37,000

tonnes/yr.




water bill

ASK C.7-C.8 OF 50% OF SAMPLE






Strongly agree

C.7.a We should be researching

how bio-solids could be re-used 1 2 3 4 5

C.7.b Sewage customers should

not pay for research into re-use of

their biosolid

1 2 3 4 5

C.7.c We should be trying to re-

use and recycle as much waste as

possible, even if it costs a little more

1 2 3 4 5

C.7.d I’m happy to pay more on my

water bill to facilitate research into

bio-solid re-use

1 2 3 4 5

C.7.e I’m happy to pay more on my

water bill to facilitate increased use

of bio-solids

1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL What do you see as the potential benefits of investing more into the re-use of bio-solids?


Farmers could benefit from more access to fertiliser 1



It would mean our waste is fully treated and re-used 4

It would put our waste to good use 5


Other (specify) 96



SECTION D: ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ASK ALL Recreation & Open Space: Some of the land Melbourne Water manages is around water storage reservoirs. Recreation has been confined to reservoir parks down stream of the reservoir to prevent impacts on drinking water quality. The Victorian government is committed to enhancing recreational values of water, including increasing recreation on some of the state’s water storages.

To support that commitment, Melbourne Water have

investigated the costs and benefits of increasing

recreation activities at a number of reservoirs, and

identified two reservoirs where additional recreation

could potentially take place - if investments were

made in additional drinking water treatment and

other facilities needed to make them a nice, safe place

to visit.

These two sites, both within 110km of Melbourne

could provide the community with opportunities for

parklands, fishing, bushwalking, bike riding or

canoeing.

In five years from 2021, how much would you be willing to contribute annually for this initiative’?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

D.1.a Don’t

support - $0

D.1.b Support

option, but don’t

want to pay through

water bill $0

D.1.c $0.75 per

year paid by water

customers as part of

their water bill

D.1.d $2.50 per

year paid by water


their water bill

D.1.e $5.00 per

year paid by water


their water bill

ASK D.2-D.5 OF 50%






Strongly agree

D.2.a I don’t like the idea of

increased community recreation

around drinking water reservoirs

(e.g. picnics, bushwalking)

1 2 3 4 5

D.2.b I don’t like the idea of

increased community recreation in

water reservoirs (e.g. fishing,

boating, kayaking)

1 2 3 4 5




Strongly agree

D.2.c Increased recreation in and

around reservoirs would benefit the

community

1 2 3 4 5

D.2.d I would personally make use

of increased recreation opportunities

like fishing, bushwalking, bike riding

or canoeing in and around reservoirs

1 2 3 4 5

D.2.e I would be happy to pay for

more community recreation in and

around Melbourne reservoirs

1 2 3 4 5

REMOVED

ASK IF D.1 = 1

Why do you not support increased community recreation around reservoirs?


The potential for contamination to our water supply 1

The cost doesn’t seem worth it 2

I wouldn’t personally benefit from this 3

The community wouldn’t benefit from this 4

Potential for harm to existing ecosystems 5

Increased bushfire risk 6

Only a few people would benefit 7

Risk of terrorism 8

Other (specify) 96

ASK IF D.1>1

Why do you support increased community access to reservoirs?


I would personally make use of and benefit from this 1

The broader community would benefit from this 2

Make better use of our beautiful natural spaces 3

Other (specify) 96


ASK ALL Recreation and open space Melbourne Water is the second largest landowner in Melbourne. There is increasing demand for public open space due to population growth. Melbourne’s transport network will need to cope with an extra 10.6 million trips a day by 2050 (almost double current). To accommodate this, the share of trips by public transport, walking and cycling must increase. Pipetracks – the land under which Melbourne Water’s pipes run - provide a linear corridor which often connect to surrounding open space. Before this land can be used by the community, it may need work to make it safe and protect the core services it supports – for example, fencing off valves and ensuring nothing is built on top of pipes. The land may also need improvement to make it an enjoyable community space, such as landscaping or installing educational signage. This type of work would be delivered in partnership with local councils and Parks Victoria. There is an opportunity to maximise these linear corridors as :

Linear parks for passive recreation

Active transport links

Green and shaded places for people and wildlife.

Places that improve the communities understanding of; MW’s role and history, local biodiversity

and cultural heritage values.

These pipetracks are all across our city and could benefit a wide range of Melburnians.

In five years from 2021, what option for increasing access to Melbourne Water land do you support?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

D.6.a Melbourne Water

provides land only, no capital

funding

D.6.b Melbourne Water co-invests

and works with partners such as


undertake the work needed to make

spaces safe along 6.5km of pipetrack

land across Melbourne – these


several different locations across

Melbourne.

Cost $0.04 per year paid by water

customers as part of their water bill

D.6.c MW co-invests and works

with partners such as councils and

community to undertake the work

needed to make spaces safe and nice

places to access along 12km of pipe

track land across Melbourne – –

these improvements would occur in

several different locations across

Melbourne.

Cost $0.50 per year paid by water

customers as part of their water bill

ASK D.7-D.8 OF 50%

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, how much do

you agree or disagree with the following…





Strongly agree

D.7.a Melbourne Water should

make as much land as possible open

for recreation and transport

1 2 3 4 5

D.7.b I would be happy to pay to

see more access to parkland and

green corridors throughout

Melbourne

1 2 3 4 5

D.7.c Only those who benefit from

access to this land (e.g. local

residents) should have to pay for it

1 2 3 4 5

What do you see as the main benefits of opening up access to pipetrack land across Melbourne?


Improved transport options (e.g. walking, cycling) 1

More green spaces for urban cooling and air quality 2

Better use of land across Melbourne 3

Increased recreation spaces for residents 4

More green corridors for native animals 5

Better for the environment / maybe less pollution / traffic 6

Other (specify) 96



SECTION E: SEWERAGE ASK ALL Sewerage- Resilience: The Sewerage System has a key role in keeping Melburnians and the environment healthy through safe collection, transport and treatment of sewage across Melbourne. Our sewers need to be renewed and upgraded to prevent the otherwise high risk of sewage spilling into the environment. Some of our sewers are over 100 years old and many show considerable signs of corrosion. A warming climate and growing population will increase the impacts on our sewers. Going beyond just delivering minimum renewals and upgrades will help us to be prepared for the future and ensure that future generations have the same benefits from the sewerage system as we do. A sewerage system that can continue to provide a reliable service in the face of future challenges is the hallmark of a resilient system.

In five years from 2021, what option for increasing

sewerage system resilience do you support?

E.1.a Melbourne Water

continues to invest in minimum

renewals and upgrades to the

sewerage system which manages

risk to public health and the

environment but does not fully set

us up to meet future challenges.

E.1.b Melbourne Water invests

an additional 1% of the total






growth and climate change in the

future.

Cost additional $0.31 per year paid

by sewerage customers as part of

their water bill.

E.1.c Melbourne Water invests an

additional 2% of the total sewerage

system capital costs in greater than

minimum renewals and upgrades

now to provide greater flexibility to

respond to challenges such as

population growth and climate

change in the future.

Cost additional $0.60 per year paid

by sewerage customers as part of

their water bill.

ASK E.2-A.1 OF 50%







Strongly agree

E.2.a It’s important to ensure the

sewerage system is fit for future

generations

1 2 3 4 5

E.2.b Upgrading the sewerage

system is a waste of money 1 2 3 4 5

E.2.c It’s important to ensure the

sewerage system is fit for our

growing population

1 2 3 4 5

E.2.d I’m happy to pay more on my

water bill to ensure the resilience of

our sewerage system

1 2 3 4 5

E.2.e If we’re investing in the

sewerage system it should be for the

long term, not a quick fix

1 2 3 4 5

E.2.f It’s worth paying to ensure

that there are no problems with the

sewerage system

1 2 3 4 5

What do you see as the main benefits of increasing investment into the city’s sewerage

system - as opposed to maintaining current levels of investment?


I would personally benefit from this 1

The broader community would benefit from this 2

This would help manage the impacts of population growth 3

It would help manage the impact of climate change 4

It would mean the sewerage system is cheaper to maintain the future 5

It avoids the risk of issues with the sewerage system emerging down the track 6


To ensure a healthy and sanitary environment for all Melburnians 8

Other (specify) 96


SECTION B: CARBON OFFSETS

ASK ALL Carbon offsets:


Pt 1 As part of providing water and sewerage services to the residents and businesses in our city, Melbourne Water is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) in Victoria. Most emissions come from two sources: the energy used to pump and treat sewage, and direct emissions from the sewage itself. Melbourne Water is required by the Victorian Government to halve emissions by 2025, and has a goal to achieve net zero by 2030. However, if customers are supportive, Melbourne Water could take additional action to reduce its emissions earlier than this. We will halve our energy-related emissions by improving energy efficiency and generating renewables. Reducing direct emissions from the sewage itself is more difficult, so in the short to medium term we will have to “offset” these emissions. In the long term we will need to make changes to our treatment infrastructure to reduce them.

ASK B.1, B.3 & B.4 OF 50%






Strongly agree

B.1.a I would support Melbourne

Water to reach net zero emissions

earlier than 2030, even if it cost me

more

1 2 3 4 5

B.1.b There’s no need for

Melbourne Water to try and reach

net zero emissions before 2030

1 2 3 4 5

B.1.c I would rather Melbourne

Water reduce its emissions than use

carbon offsets

1 2 3 4 5

B.1.d I don’t trust carbon offsets 1 2 3 4 5

B.1.e I’m not really sure how

carbon offsets work 1 2 3 4 5

B.1.f Carbon offsets are a good

way to reach net zero in the short

term

1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL


Melbourne Water has pledged to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2030. Like any product, not all carbon offsets are equal. Firstly, Carbon offsets can be purchased locally within Australia or internationally. Additional benefits of carbon offsets could also be realised with different approaches. This could include more trees for the forests and special landscapes in Australia - that also provides greater habitat for local threatened species - or local investments in renewable energy. Otherwise Melbourne Water could make these investments overseas in developing countries for example. To meet its obligations, Melbourne Water could purchase: • ‘basic’ offsets in cheaper overseas countries to meet its

targets,

• ‘basic’ offsets from Australian providers that meet

Australian standards

• ‘high value’ offsets that provide additional environmental and social benefits in other countries

• ‘high value’ offsets that provide additional environmental and social benefits in Australia

In the five years from 2021, what level of emission reduction do you support, and what type of

offsets should Melbourne Water purchase?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

How quickly should we cut

emissions? Additional Benefits of Offsets

Purchase enough offsets to reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2025, as required by Government.

Voluntarily purchase additional offsets to reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2021, instead of waiting until 2025.

Basic Global B.2.a Cost of approximately $0.08

per year

B.2.b Cost of approximately $0.20

per year

High Benefit Global These offsets provide additional social and environmental benefits in other countries

B.2.c Cost of approximately $0.28

per year

B.2.d Cost of approximately $0.69

per year

Basic Local These offsets provide Australian accreditation

B.2.e Cost of approximately $0.30

per year

B.2.f Cost of approximately $0.74

per year

High Benefit Local These offsets provide additional social and environmental benefits in Australia

B.2.g Cost of approximately $0.55

per year

B.2.h Cost of approximately $1.38

per year







Strongly agree

B.3.a Melbourne Water should

offset its carbon emissions at the

cheapest possible cost

1 2 3 4 5

B.3.b Melbourne Water should

pursue carbon offsets that offer the

greatest additional social/

environmental benefits

1 2 3 4 5

B.3.c Melbourne Water should

prioritise international benefits over

local benefits from its offsets program

1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL

What do you see as the potential benefits of purchasing carbon offsets?



This would help manage the impacts of climate change 2

It means we minimise the impact on the environment 3

Offsets can be used to produce additional social and environmental benefits in Australia

4

Offsets can be used to produce additional social and environmental benefits in developing countries

5

I think we should take whatever action we need to on climate change 6

Other (specify) 96



SECTION C: MANAGING RUNOFF FROM SURFACES ASK ALL

Impervious Surface Area: Part of the Waterways and Drainage charge on your bill covers management of stormwater runoff - which contributes to flooding and water quality issues in our waterways and bays. Urban Development (e.g. houses, buildings, roads and carparks) generates run-off from hard surfaces during storm and rainfall. We refer to these hard surfaces as impervious surface area. Property owners currently pay a flat charge which reflects the principle of shared benefit for services provided in the greater Melbourne region. Residential houses in Melbourne pay on average $100 per year. Businesses are moving towards a flat charge of approximately $150 per year. An alternative is to design the charge so that those with more impervious surface area pay more for their impact. Most residential properties are similar in size and have a similar amount of impervious surface area. Some businesses have larger impervious surface areas. The flat and ‘user pays’ approach are alternative ways of collecting the same amount of revenue. There are two option to consider

Option One: Retain current arrangements (everyone pays a fixed flat charge) An example of another fixed fee charge you may pay includes your car registration Benefits

Most customers would pay a similar amount

under either a flat charge or impervious surface area

charge

Predictable and steady bills for customers

Low administration costs for Melbourne

Water to administer

Disbenefits

Those who contribute more to the problem

do not pay more for their impact on stormwater

runoff.

Those who are contributing to the problem

may not be aware of actions they can undertake to

mitigate their impact.

Option Two: Investigate moving to a user pays (everyone pays by their impact) Examples of other ‘impact’ pays charges you may pay includes charges for additional rubbish bins provided by councils or when you pay to dispose of waste at your local tip. Benefits

Those contribute more to the problem pay

more for their impact on stormwater runoff

May encourage customers to reduce their

impact by doing works on their properties to reduce

stormwater runoff

Disbenefits For the majority of customers, the bill wouldn’t

change significantly. This would not provide enough

of a price signal to encourage action to reduce

impervious surface area.

Impervious surface area information would

need to be collected and maintained for every

property in Melbourne. This is costly, resource and

time consuming and does not pick up water tanks

and other infrastructure that property owners may

have already installed to reduce their runoff.

Pricing is more complex to develop,

implement and maintain.

(Q9) Over the next five years from 2021, what approach for charging businesses for waterways and

drainage services do you support?


C.1.a I support Melbourne Water to continue with

current flat charging model for impervious surface area

C.1.b I support Melbourne Water to investigate

moving to a ‘paying for your impact’ charging model for

impervious surface area

ASK A.1 OF 50%

Before today, were you aware that impervious surface area growth is a major and

growing challenge for our waterways and bays?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Yes 1

No 2

SECTION B: EDUCATING MELBURNIANS

ASK ALL

Western Treatment Plant Access and Ecotourism The Western Treatment Plant (WTP) is an internationally significant site for migratory birds and is an important part of protecting the health of Port Phillip Bay. We want to ensure that the biodiversity and habitat at WTP is protected and valued and able to be enjoyed by everyone in Melbourne. Additional investment in education materials, programs and resources would benefit school groups, members of the community visiting the plant and the broader population. Ecotourism can help educate the community about this world-renowned site of environmental significance by facilitating visits for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to experience it. Investing in boardwalks would make the site more accessible, and huts for birdwatching would increase visitor capacity, improve their experience and minimise disruption to bird life We already provide some access to bird watchers but we could provide additional paths, boardwalks and bird hides so that people can safely access the key areas of the site and ensure that the biodiversity and habitat values are protected.

(Q10) In five years from 2021 which option for investment in ecotourism do you support?

B.1.a Melbourne Water to maintain current level

of ecotourism facilities at the Western Treatment

Plant

B.1.b Melbourne Water to invest in additional

ecotourism and visitor facilities at the Western

Treatment Plant to facilitate visits for people who

wouldn’t otherwise be able to experience it.

Paths, boardwalks and bird watching hides will make

the site more accessible, protect habitat and minimise


disturbance to birds, increase visitor capacity and

improve visitor experiences.

An interpretive heritage walk will provide

opportunities for visitors to understand the site’s

history.

This will encourage additional visitors to the WTP and

learn about the site’s heritage (natural and built), the

water cycle and biodiversity.

Cost $0.47 per year paid by sewerage customers as


ASK B.2-B.3 OF 50%






Strongly agree

B.2.a Improving visitor facilities at

Western Treatment Plant would be a

worthwhile investment

1 2 3 4 5

B.2.b Better facilities at Western

Treatment Plant wouldn’t make any

difference to me

1 2 3 4 5

B.2.c I would consider visiting the

Western Treatment Plant 1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL What do you see as the main benefits of improving visitor and ecotourism facilities at the Western

Treatment Plant?


I would personally benefit 1

I would like to visit 2

It would be better for schools and children to visit 3

It would be better for tourists (e.g. birdwatchers) to visit 4

It would improve water education and literacy 5

It would improve understanding of our sewerage system 6

It would make the best possible use of existing facilities 7

8

9

Other (specify) 96


ASK ALL


Water Cycle Education and Awareness Currently, what happens to the water that has been used in homes and business is not well understood by the community. Increased knowledge in the community about water as a precious resource allows people to make smarter water choices and minimise their impact on the environment. It also helps them have their say in discussions with Melbourne Water and others on how Melbourne’s water needs should be met in future. Working alongside the retail water companies, Melbourne Water currently runs education programs, but these could be expanded. For example, digital education programs for the whole community could be offered. Melbourne Water could partner with organisations such as universities and Museums Victoria to leverage funding and extend the reach of these programs. More facilities for visitors to the Western Treatment Plant and Eastern Treatment Plant could also be offered, including immersive experiences to educate visitors about the water cycle and innovative technologies that could be used in future.

In five years from 2021 which option for investment in

education do you support?

B.4.a Melbourne Water to maintain

current education programs

B.4.b Melbourne Water to

develop digital education

programs for the whole

community to increase

understanding of the water cycle,

in partnership with other

organisations such as universities

and Museums Victoria.



their water bill

B.4.c Melbourne Water to

build more interactive facilities,

such as demonstration plants

and visitor centres, at the

Western and/or Eastern

Treatment Plant.

These would provide education

services to the community, and

facilities for innovation and

demonstration of new

technologies.



their water bill

ASK B.5-B.6 OF 50%







Strongly agree

B.5.a It’s important that

Melbourne Water educate

Melburnians about what they do

1 2 3 4 5

B.5.b It’s worth investing in

educating Melburnians more about

the water cycle

1 2 3 4 5

B.5.c I’d like to understand more

about issues impacting Melbourne’s

water supply

1 2 3 4 5

B.5.d I’d like to understand more

about issues impacting Melbourne’s

sewerage system

1 2 3 4 5

B.5.e Investing more in educating

Melburnians about water won’t

achieve anything

1 2 3 4 5

B.5.f I would consider visiting the

Western Treatment Plant 1 2 3 4 5

ASK ALL

What do you see as the main benefits of investing more in water cycle education and awareness?


Lower water bills 1



This would help conserve the existing drinking water reserve 4


Increased awareness and understanding about Melbourne’s water e.g. where it comes from, how it is treated etc.

6

Improving water use behaviours 7

Other (specify) 96



SECTION C: SIMALTO EXPERIMENT We’ve talked a lot about the different things Melbourne water could do to balance affordability with preparing for future challenges like climate change and population growth – ensuring Melbourne remains healthy, green and prosperous for generations to come. We’d now like you to consider the options we’ve talked about, and select the ones you would like to see Melbourne water implement. Making these changes will cost money, and part of those costs will be passed on to consumers like yourself. These prices will be reflected in your bill from 2021, and will be a once-off increase to pay for all the actions you would like to see Melbourne Water invest in. You can use the table below to select different options that you believe Melbourne Water should choose, on behalf of Melburnians. As you select options, the box below will update to reflect the bill increase the average customer would expect to see. The average water bill is $1,000 per year and the increase per year is shown as a dollar amount. While making selections, please keep an eye on this amount – we want you to only select options that you’re willing and prepared to pay for. If you feel the number increases too much, you can change some of your selections.

SHOW AT TOP OF PAGE: The average bill is $1,000 per year per household. Which options would you like to see Melbourne Water pursue between 2021 and 2026? SHOW AT TOP: INCREASE IN AVERAGE ANNUAL BILL FROM SELECTIONS

C.1.a Desalinated

water Maintain current billing arrangements for

desalinated water orders $0 per year

Increase annual water bill cover the cost of an

annual 50 billion litre desalination order

$16 per year

Increase annual water bill cover the cost of an

annual 100 billion litre desalination order

$34 per year

C.1.b Recycled

water Maintain current level of recycling at around 8.4% (27 billion litres of water per year) or increase it in cases where current cost recovery arrangements

allow additional investment. $0 per year

Fund the construction of new recycled water distribution systems from the Eastern Treatment Plant to increase

recycling by provide capacity to supply an additional 5 billion litres of water per

year to customers (a 19% increase in recycling on current levels)

$5.49 per year


C.1.c Stormwater

Maintain the current level of water planning,

education and investment in alternate water

programs $0 per year

Reduce pressure on our drinking water supplies by

investing in stormwater programs, further

supporting healthy rivers and bays, and providing cooler, greener spaces.

Cost of $2 per year for 5 billion litres - equivalent

water use of 40,000 homes

$2 per year

Further reduce pressure on our drinking water

supplies by investing more in stormwater programs,

further supporting healthy rivers and bays, and

providing cooler, greener spaces.

10 billion litres -

equivalent water use of 80,000 homes

$4 per year

C.1.d Biosolid

reuse

Lowest cost option to achieve 40% reuse by

2025/26, to be on track to reach 100% reuse by

2030/2031

$0.62 per year

Allow for re-use from the ETP as well, achieving an average level of 40% re-use across both plants. Total reuse of 28,000

tonnes per year

$1.14 per year

Also allow for one-off large scale reuse

opportunities for both WTP and ETP (e.g. land fill

rehabilitation). The exact amount reused

would depend on the nature and location of the

large scale reuse opportunities, but the cost impact would be roughly equivalent to

achieving an average level of 50% reuse across both

plants.

$1.42 per year

C.1.e Recreation

and open space How much would you be willing to contribute to increasing recreation on some of the state’s water storages?

$0 $0.75 per year $2.50 per year $5.00 per year

C.1.f Increasing

access to

Melbourne Water

land

Provide land only, no capital funding

$0 per year

Co-invest and work with

partners such as councils

and community to make

spaces safe along 6.5km

of pipetrack land across

Melbourne – these

improvements would

occur in several different

locations across

Melbourne.

$0.04 per year

Co-invest and work with

partners such as councils

and community to make

spaces safe along 12km of

pipetrack land across

Melbourne – these

improvements would

occur in several different

locations across

Melbourne.

$0.50 per year


C.1.g Resilience

Continue investment into minimum upgrades to the

sewerage system which manages risk to public

health and the environment but does not set us up to meet future

challenges. $0 per year

Invest an additional 1% of the total sewerage system

capital costs in greater than minimum renewals

and upgrades now to provide greater flexibility to respond to challenges

such as population growth and climate change in the

future. $0.31 per year

Invest an additional 2% of the total sewerage system

capital costs in greater than minimum renewals

and upgrades now to provide greater flexibility to respond to challenges

such as population growth and climate change in the

future. $0.60 per year

C.1.h Carbon

dioxide offsets (4 x 2

grid)

Basic global, reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2025 with offsets from overseas

$0.08 per year

Basic global, reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2021 with offset from overseas

$0.20 per year

High benefit global, reduce direct emissions with high environmental and social benefits overseas by 50% by 2025

$0.28 per year

High benefit global, reduce direct emissions with high environmental and social benefits overseas by 50% by 2021.

$0.69 per year

Basic local, reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2025 with offsets from Australia

$0.30 per year

Basic local, reduce direct emissions by 50% by 2021 with offset from Australia

$0.74 per year

High benefit local, reduce direct emissions with high environmental and social benefits in Australia by 50% by 2025

$0.55 per year

High benefit local, reduce direct emissions with high environmental and social benefits in Australia by 50% by 2021

$1.38 per year

C.1.i Ecotourism

Melbourne Water to maintain current level of ecotourism facilities at the

Western Treatment Plant $0 per year

Melbourne Water to invest in additional ecotourism and visitor facilities at the Western Treatment Plant to facilitate visits for people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to experience it. This will encourage additional visitors to the WTP and learn about the site’s heritage (natural and built), the water cycle and biodiversity.

$0.47 per year


C.1.j Education Melbourne Water to maintain current

education programs $0

Melbourne Water to develop digital education programs for the whole community to increase understanding of the water cycle, in partnership with other organisations such as universities and Museums Victoria.

$0.31per year

Melbourne Water to build more interactive facilities, such as demonstration plants and visitor centres, at the Western and/or Eastern Treatment Plant. These would provide education services to the community, and facilities for innovation and demonstration of new technologies.

$0.78 per year


SECTION D: DEMOGRAPHICS Almost done! Thanks for sticking with us. We just have a few final questions to understand the range of people we’re speaking to a bit better.

REMOVED

REMOVED

ASK ALL Do you mainly speak a language other than English at home?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Yes 1

No 2

ASK ALL Do you identify as Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Yes 1

No 2

Prefer not to say 99

ASK ALL Do you have a disability - that is, any limitation, restriction or impairment which restricts everyday

activities and has lasted, or is likely to last, for at least six months?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Yes 1

No 2

Prefer not to say 99

ASK ALL Which of the following best describes your household?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Single, living alone 1

Single, living in a share house 2

Couple, no children / no children living at home 3

Family, youngest child aged under 18 4

Family, adult children (over 18) living at home 5

Other (specify) 99

ASK ALL What is your annual household income before tax?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Up to $20,000 1

$20,000 to $39,999 2

$40,000 to $59,999 3

$60,000 to $79,999 4

$80,000 to $99,999 5


$100,000 to $119,999 6

$120,000 to $149,999 7

$150,000 to $199,999 8

$200,000 or more 9

Don’t know/Prefer not to answer 99

SHOW ALL That’s it, you’re all done! Thank you for taking our survey – we really appreciate you taking the time out to tell us your thoughts and opinions!

ASK ALL If there is anything else you would like to say about this survey or anything you have read, please let

us know by typing in the box below:

(OPEN ENDED RESPONSE)

FOR OPEN GENERIC LINK: As thanks for taking the time to complete this survey, Melbourne Water would like to offer you the chance to win an iPad. To enter the prize draw, please complete the form on the following webpage: Melbourne Water iPad prize draw [LINK: https://yoursay.melbournewater.com.au/index.php?cID=1580]

pricing submission 2021 community research report february ...€¦ · melbourne water pricing...

Documents