Duty and Standards of Care for Drinking Water Regulation in Australia

• Published in: Environment, development and sustainability development and sustainability, 2001-01, Vol.3 (2), p.127-143
• Main Authors: Mckay, Jennifer, Moeller, Anthony
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Australia; Cost analysis; Cost benefit analysis; Cost estimates; Drinking water; Environmental regulations; Europe; Feasibility; Native peoples; Pesticides; Population; Public health; Quality standards; Regulation; Risk assessment; Rural areas; Studies; Suppliers; USA; Water quality; Water quality standards; Water supply; Willingness to pay
• ISSN: 1387-585X; 1573-2975
• DOI: 10.1023/A:1011628113584

The application of mandatory drinking water standards in Australia should ensure a basic water quality for all communities, with some standards written as a function of population. The main tenet of feasibility would be the capture of public benefits which foreseeably outweighed costs. Benefit-cost analysis can be a very valuable tool which aids in the decision process, however care must be taken to avoid institutional abuse or an over-positioned stature because of its applicative constraints. Many of the benefits associated with drinking water standards will often defy accurate itemization or monetization, and hence feasibility will frequently rely on approximations and a close analysis of case merits. Risk assessment is often used to estimate benefits accrued. Two common methods for valuing water quality are (a) cost of illness approaches, and (b) willingness to pay to avoid risk. The advantage of willingness to pay is that it engenders a larger interpretation of cost and quality value, and allows the community to rank preferences based on their willingness to avoid unnecessary risks. Given the technicalities and details in 'smart' water quality regulation which avoids unnecessary intrusion caused by ill-founded and unresolved clarity, lengthy drafting deliberations may often be necessary. The statutory and administrative structure of a future regulator is therefore a fundamental facet under-pinning the success of a comprehensive and responsive mandatory program. The process and rationale for regulatory development should be transparent and open, and this should include mandatory opportunities for public input during regulation drafting. Post inauguration mechanisms for suggestions on possible improvements and review of real world application should be considered important aspects of this process. Good models for comparison currently exist in the United States and Europe. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]