LHWP - Woolcott Report - Phase 2 Deliberative Forums

Lower Hunter Water Plan
Phase 2: Water Supply and Demand Options
Community Deliberative Forum Report
Prepared for:
July 2019
Hunter Water Phase 2: Water Supply & Demand Options Forum Report
July 2019
Woolcott Research and Engagement is an Australian privately owned research and engagement
agency that provides professional, independent and timely market research and engagement
services. Our professional staff arrange, undertake and publish commissioned research and
community engagement projects for industry, corporations, governments, international agencies
and individuals.
© Woolcott Research and Engagement Pty Ltd 2018

This work is copyright. Individuals, agencies and corporations wishing to reproduce this material
should contact Woolcott Research at the following address.
Woolcott Research and Engagement

Level 6, 104 Mount St
North Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: +61 2 9261 5221

Email: info@woolcott.com.au
Website: www.woolcott.com.au
2
July 2019
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 7
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 8
Detailed Findings .............................................................................................................................. 8
Background and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 14

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 16
1. Initial Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options ................................................................ 19
1.1 Water Usage and Knowledge of Hunter Water ........................................................................ 19
1.2 Initial Perceptions of Water Supply and Demand Options....................................................... 20
2. Planning for the Future and the Considerations .................................................................... 28

2.1 Hunter Water Risk Position....................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Overall Ranking of Considerations – Mean scores ............................................................... 30
2.3 Cost to Build .............................................................................................................................. 31
2.4 Cost to Operate ......................................................................................................................... 32
2.5 Environment ............................................................................................................................. 33
2.6 Social Impact ............................................................................................................................. 34
2.7 Reliability................................................................................................................................... 35
3. De-identified Water Supply and Demand Options against Key considerations ...................... 37
3.1 Option A (Conservation of water)............................................................................................. 39
3.2 Option B (Dams) ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.3 Option C (Desalination)............................................................................................................. 41
3.4 Option D (Ground water) .......................................................................................................... 42
3.5 Option E (Recycled water) ........................................................................................................ 43
3.6 Option F (Stormwater harvesting) ............................................................................................ 44
3.7 Option G (Water sharing).......................................................................................................... 45
4. Overview of Demand-side Options ....................................................................................... 47

4.1 Conservation of Water ............................................................................................................. 47
4.2 Stormwater Harvesting ............................................................................................................ 49
4.3 Recycled Water (non-drinking) ................................................................................................ 50
3
July 2019
5. Overview of Supply Side Options.......................................................................................... 53
5.1 Dams ........................................................................................................................................ 53
5.2 Desalination ............................................................................................................................. 54
5.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................ 56
5.4 Water Sharing ........................................................................................................................... 57
5.5 Environmental Offsets ............................................................................................................. 58
6. Identified Ranking of Water Supply and Demand Options against Key considerations ........... 60
6. 1 Ranking of Conservation of Water ........................................................................................... 62
6.2 Ranking of Dams ....................................................................................................................... 64
6.3 Ranking of Desalination ............................................................................................................ 65
6.4 Ranking of Groundwater........................................................................................................... 66
6.5 Ranking of Recycled Water ....................................................................................................... 67
6.6 Ranking of Stormwater Harvesting ........................................................................................... 68
6.7 Ranking of Water Sharing ......................................................................................................... 69
7. Final Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options ................................................................. 70

7.1 Final Perception of Conservation of Water .............................................................................. 71
7.2 Final Perception of Dams .......................................................................................................... 72
7.3 Final Perception of Desalination ............................................................................................... 73
7.4 Final Perception of Groundwater ............................................................................................. 74
7.5 Final Perception of Recycled Water.......................................................................................... 75
7.6 Final Perception of Stormwater Harvesting ............................................................................. 76
7.7 Final Perception of Water Sharing Between Regions ............................................................... 77
8. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 78
8.1 Overall conclusions ................................................................................................................... 78
8.2 Possible Explanation of Changes in Preference for Water options .......................................... 78
End of session feedback............................................................................................................ 80

Appendix A: Agenda ................................................................................................................. 81
Appendix B: Recruitment Screener ........................................................................................... 88
FORUM DETAILS ..................................................................................................................... 88
QUOTAS .................................................................................................................................. 88
Appendix C: Hand Outs and Materials ...................................................................................... 92
4
July 2019
List of Figures
Figure 1: Average time spent in the shower ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2: Average quantity of drinking water supplied per day ....................................................... 20
Figure 3: Initial Openness to Hunter Water Considerations .............................................................. 21
Figure 4: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water ................. 21
Figure 5: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering dams .......................................................... 22
Figure 6: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering desalination ............................................... 23
Figure 7: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater ............................................. 24
Figure 8: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering recycled water ........................................... 25
Figure 9: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting .............................. 26
Figure 10: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions .............. 27
Figure 11: Opinion of Hunter Water Risk Strategy ............................................................................ 30
Figure 12: Ranking of Importance of Considerations - Mean Scores ................................................ 31
Figure 13: Ranking of Cost to Build .................................................................................................... 32
Figure 14: Ranking of Cost to Operate ............................................................................................... 33
Figure 15: Ranking of Environment .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16: Ranking of Social Impact ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 17: Ranking of Reliability ......................................................................................................... 36
Figure 18: Ranking of De-identified Options - Mean Rankings .......................................................... 38
Figure 19: Ranking of Option A .......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 20: Ranking of Option B .......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 21: Ranking of Option C .......................................................................................................... 42
5
July 2019
Figure 22: Ranking of Option D .......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 23: Ranking of Option E........................................................................................................... 44
Figure 24: Ranking of Option F ........................................................................................................... 45
Figure 25: Ranking of Option G .......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 26: Ranking of Identified Options - Mean Ranking ................................................................. 61
Figure 27: Ranking of Conservation of Water .................................................................................... 63
Figure 28: Ranking of Dams................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 29: Ranking of Desalination .................................................................................................... 65
Figure 30: Ranking of Groundwater ................................................................................................... 66
Figure 31: Ranking of Recycled Water ............................................................................................... 67
Figure 32: Ranking of Stormwater Harvesting ................................................................................... 68
Figure 33: Ranking of Water Sharing ................................................................................................. 69
Figure34: Openness to Consideration of Water Options (Initial versus End Results compared) ..... 70
Figure 35: Final openness to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water ................ 71
Figure 36: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams.......................................................... 72
Figure 37: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams.......................................................... 73
Figure 38: Final openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater ............................................. 74
Figure 39: Final openness to Hunter Water considering recycled water .......................................... 75
Figure 40: Final openness to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting ............................. 76
Figure 41: Final openness to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions ................ 77
Figure 42: Agreement with Statements Regarding the Forum .......................................................... 80
6
July 2019
List of Tables
Table 1: Ranking of Options by the Whole Table ................................................................................. 39
7
July 2019
Executive Summary
Background and Objectives

A major review of the Lower Hunter Water Plan (LHWP) is a collaborative process designed to get the
best outcomes through the involvement of key stakeholders in the decision making. The NSW
Department of Primary Industry and Environment (DPIE) is responsible for the review and remake of
the plan and Hunter Water is involved in the decision making and monitoring of the actions set out in
the plan.
One of the key deliverables of the review of the LHWP is to establish the mix of water supply and
demand management measures that will ensure a secure and sustainable water supply for the region
over the longer term, including during drought.
A key part of this process involves community consultation, which is why a series of Community
Deliberative Forums have been conducted, with Hunter Water leading this consultation process, in
partnership with NSW Government.
An initial phase of community engagement forums was held in October 2018 and explored community
values and aspirations, as well as community stance on restrictions and expected service levels. This
phase of the program aimed to provide community views on supply and demand side options.
Methodology
Phase 2 of the Community Engagement Plan consisted of two Deliberative Forums, one in Newcastle
on the 25th June and one in Maitland on the 26th June 2019.
The forums consisted of a mix of table discussions, presentations/speakers from the front, participant
keypad voting and a feedback session from each table.
A total of n=153 people attended the forums, which ran from 5.30pm – 9.00pm.
Participants who attended the initial forum in October 2018 were contacted and invited to attend
this forum. Additional residents were also recruited through stratified random sampling from the
regions surrounding the forum locations.
Detailed Findings
Water usage and knowledge of Hunter Water
As a warm up, participants were asked to indicate how long they spent on average in the shower.
Overall the majority (90%) tended to spend 10 minutes or less in the shower, with results similar
across Maitland and Newcastle forum attendees.
They were also asked how much water they thought on average, Hunter Water supplied customers
each day. Around half the participants (49%) thought it was 19.4 million litres, with a further 35%
suggesting 1.94 million litres. Only 11% were correct and selected 194 million litres.
8
July 2019
Initial Perceptions of Water Supply and Demand options
As a baseline for later comparison, participants were asked how open they were to Hunter Water
considering various supply and demand options on a 5 point scale from they should ‘definitely
consider’ through to ‘they should give no consideration to this option’.
Participants were most open to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting (85% indicated they
should definitely consider this option), followed by recycled water (78%), water sharing (46%), and
dams (41%). The least favoured options were conservation, groundwater and desalination.
Planning for the Future
When asked to provide feedback regarding Hunter Water’s risk position with regard to long term
water planning, the majority (90%) of participants felt that they should invest more up-front and
reduce the risk of needing to build emergency desalination.
Ranking of the considerations
Participants were explained that the options they were considering had varying levels of impact on a
number of aspects. Of the aspects or considerations put to participants, the most important were
seen to be reliability (4.3 out of 5) and the environment (4.0). The option’s social impact (2.6) and
cost to operate (2.5) were equally the next most important, with cost to build ranked last (1.7).
De-identified Water Supply and Demand options against key considerations
Hunter Water explained that there were pros and cons against each option they could consider in
relation to the values, for example some options are better or worse on cost or the environment.
Participants were also informed that water quality across all options would meet quality standards
hence was not a value that needed to be included in the consideration matrix.
De-identified options were handed to each participant with their accompanying performance on the
considerations. Without any knowledge of what the options were, participants tended to give the
highest preference to Option D (ground water). The next options sharing equal second place were
Option G (water sharing) and Option E (recycled water). The remaining options were fairly close in
their mean score ranking, with Option A (conservation of water) and Option F (stormwater harvesting)
emerging in equal 4th place and Options B (dams) and Option C (desalination) ranked equal last.
Overview of Demand-side options
Hunter Water presented an overview of the demand-side options outlining the characteristics of
three option types that would help reduce demand for drinking water. These options included
conservation of water, stormwater harvesting and recycled water (non-drinking). Participants were
then asked to discuss the perceived pros and cons for each.
Conservation of Water
It was thought that conservation of water should be encouraged early in times of drought, to slow
down the usage rate. The positive aspects raised by participants were:
9
July 2019
• Promoting the value of water
• Involving the community in a positive way
• Can be implemented immediately
• Low cost
• Customer can save money
The main negatives were seen to be:

• Relies on the action of the community
• Difficult to monitor and enforce
• Complicated to describe the regulations
Stormwater Harvesting
Perceptually this option made sense to participants as it is effectively utilising an otherwise wasted
resource and aligns with the perceived value they feel should be placed on water.
The main positives were seen to be:

• Good for the environment
• Efficient in that the operation could be localised to be close to the area receiving it
The biggest negative was that it was still climate dependent.
Recycled Water (non-drinking)

Recycled water evoked many of the same positive and negative associations as stormwater
harvesting. The main positives were:
• Reliable
• Good for industrial use
• Environmentally friendly
The significant negatives were:

• Risk of cross contamination
• Reduction in the value of water
Overview of Supply-side options
Hunter Water presented an overview of the supply-side options outlining the characteristics of four
different option types that would help increase the supply of drinking water. These options were
dams, desalination, groundwater, and water sharing.
Dams
There was a lot of discussion around Dams within the forum. Some were quite strongly against Dams,
whilst others were pro.
The positive aspects mentioned were:

• Large storage capacity
• Low ongoing running costs
10
July 2019
• Recreational purposes/ tourism
• Flood mitigation
• Job creation
The downsides were:

• Displacement of people and animals
• Disruption to the ecosystem
• Long lead time
• Costly
• Susceptible to evaporation
• Potential for ‘dam failure’
Desalination
Overall, desalination plants were something that all were aware of as a potential supply option.
The perceived positives were:

• Reliability
• Can be turned on and off
• Most of Australia lives on the coast
The negatives associated with desalination were:

• The amount of electricity needed to run it
• The cost and time to build
• Uncertainty of the impact of the by-product on the ocean
Groundwater
Groundwater appeared to be one of the options that participants were less familiar with – particularly
in terms of the potential environmental impact of using groundwater sources.
The perceived advantages were:

• Low cost
• No large visual impact
A number of disadvantages emerged during the discussion:

• Difficult to manage
• Unknown environmental impact
• Poor quality
• Potential for contamination from mines etc.
Water Sharing
At the outset it was regarded positively, with the main advantages being seen as:
• Spreading the risk
• Good to share
• Low operating cost
• Costs to build are shared
11
July 2019
The negatives were:
• Ugly pipes
• Potential for people to tamper with the pipes
• Potential for arguments
Identified ranking of water supply and demand options against key considerations
The final session of the forum involved participants revisiting the various water supply and demand
options however this time the types of options were revealed. Participants were asked to rank them
in terms of preference now that they had a better knowledge of what they were and how they
performed against the considerations.
When the names of the options were revealed recycled water emerged as the option with the highest
mean preference score (5.7). This was followed by conservation of water (4.8), water sharing (4.1)
and stormwater harvesting (4.0).
Comparing identified with de-identified results, interestingly preference for groundwater declined
significantly (from a score of 6.7 to 3.4). Other differences to emerge were a general increase in
preference for conservation of water, water sharing and stormwater harvesting.
Final Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options
At the end of the forum participants were asked the same question that they were asked at the
beginning regarding their willingness to consider a range of water supply and demand options.
Overall the water demand options (water conservation, recycled water, stormwater harvesting),
gained higher preference levels than the water supply options (dams, desalination, ground water and
water sharing).
Popularity remained highest for recycled water (94% indicated they should definitely consider or were
quite open to them considering this option), followed by stormwater harvesting (89%) and water
conservation (88%), and water sharing (82%).
There were significant changes in preference for some of the options after further discussion.
Preference for conservation of water increased markedly throughout the forum from 30% definitely
should consider to 65%, largely due to a lack of understanding of what it meant prior to any
discussion.
Desalination and stormwater harvesting both suffered a significant decline in preference at the end
of the forum, shifting from 31% for desalination (85% for stormwater harvesting) of participants
feeling Hunter Water should ‘definitely’ consider them as an option down to only 15% for desalination
(59% for stormwater harvesting) on further discussion.
12
July 2019
Conclusions
In developing the LHWP, the community would prefer that investment be made more up-front to
reduce the need for the building of an emergency desalination plant rather than leave it to the last
minute.
In deciding on the most appropriate supply and demand solutions, it will be important from a
community perspective to consider reliability and the environment foremost. Interestingly, the cost
to build appears to be a relatively low priority when looking at the considerations in isolation.
After considerable discussion, recycled water (for non-potable use) emerges as the most preferred
option, despite concerns regarding potential cross contamination. Water conservation, stormwater
harvesting and water sharing appear to be regarded as logical solutions, however they remain reliant
on rainfall and changing people’s water use behaviours.
At the de-identified level, groundwater is seen to have merit and becomes an appealing option,
however there are likely to be community concerns regarding the environmental impact on aquifers.
Desalination is known to be reliable and is seen to make sense as the population density is highest
along the coast, however there are concerns over their environmental impact and expense to build
and operate.
There is contention over the building of dams especially regarding the displacement of farm land and
animals, and the changes that can occur to the ecosystem. Dams are seen as a very reliable water
source but placement of any new dams would need to be carefully managed.
There were a number of instances within the deliberative voting process where significant shifts
occurred in the appeal of some water options from their initial scores to those obtained later in the
evening following more in-depth discussion and the presentations made to the room. The final
assessment given to the options was based on a combination of their inherent appeal (as revealed by
the initial judgements), their position in terms of the considerations, and issues that emerged during
the deliberative process.
It would be regarded as prudent for the LHWP to comprise a mix of options in developing supply and
demand solutions, however solutions will require varying levels of education to overcome
perceptions and dispel any myths currently held.
13
July 2019
Background and Objectives
Background
Hunter Water is a NSW Government owned corporation with responsibility for suppling water to the
Lower Hunter catchment area. It provides water to over 570,000 people in the Lower Hunter area
across 6,671 km2 from Dungog in the north, Port Stephens in the east, Lake Macquarie in the south
and Wollombi in the West.
The NSW DPIE, previously the Metropolitan Water Directorate, led the development of the 2014
LHWP. The 2014 LHWP focused on the drought security of the Lower Hunter region, outlining a
portfolio of measures to be implemented as storage levels depleted. The Plan did not address the
long term supply/demand balance.
A major review of the LHWP has commenced, which will be overseen by the NSW DPIE, and one of
the key deliverables of the review of the Lower Hunter Water Plan is to establish the mix of water
supply and demand management measures that will ensure a secure and sustainable water supply
for the region over the longer term, including during drought.
This will be supported by a Decision Support Framework that will help inform which options are the
best to be applied in Hunter Water’s area of operations to secure the water supply. This Decision
Support Framework needs to reflect the values of our community, include the insights and opinions
of the community, and make their customers partners in participative decision making.
In order to do this, Hunter Water are planning a long term consultation process to have a conversation
and gather not only customer values and aspirations about water services today but also to talk about
preferred levels of service and opinions on different supply and demand options to secure the water
future of the Lower Hunter.
The review of the LHWP is a collaborative process designed to get the best outcomes by involving key
stakeholders in the decision making.
A key part of this process involves community consultation, which is why a series of Community
Deliberative Forums were conducted, with Hunter Water leading this consultation process, in
partnership with NSW Government.
An initial Phase of Deliberative Forums was conducted in October 2018 which had the following
specific objectives:
1. To build water literacy in the community including building understanding of the water
supply/demand system, future challenges and opportunities and building trust in the water
planning process;
14
July 2019
2. To obtain an in-depth understanding of community water values, considerations and
aspirations; and
3. To explore the community stance on restrictions and the level of service they expect. This refers
to the frequency, duration and severity of restrictions that may be implemented during a
drought, as well as the level of risk willing to be accepted to run out of water.
A second Phase of Deliberative Forums was conducted in June 2019 which explored perceptions and
preferences for water supply and demand options.
The Phase Two specific question areas at each forum were as follows:
• Community perceptions of Hunter Water’s risk position with respect to long term water
planning,
• Considerations that need to be taken into account when investing in water supply and demand
options and a ranking of those considerations,
• Perceptions and attitudes toward the water supply and demand options available to Hunter
Water,
• Level of consideration for various water supply and demand options (de-identified and
identified), and
• A ranking of preferred options (de-identified and identified).
This document reports the main findings from the Second Phase of Deliberative Forums.
A copy of the agenda and all materials used at the forums is appended to this document (see
Appendices A-C).
15
July 2019
Methodology
Two Deliberative Forums were held, one in Maitland and one in Newcastle. The Newcastle forum was
conducted on Tuesday 25th June and the Maitland forum was conducted on Wednesday 26st June
2019. The forums ran from 5.30 to 9.00pm and were conducted in the Newcastle City Hall and the
Maitland City Club.
The forum in Maitland had 74 participants, while the forum in Newcastle had 79, with the
demographics as follows:
Total Maitland Newcastle

No. of participants
(n=153) (n=74) (n=79)
Gender
Male 77 34 43
Female 76 40 36
Age
18-34 years 47 23 24
35-54 years 74 32 42
55+ years 32 19 13
As with the first phase a deliberative style methodology was used for the forums whereby participants
were seated at round tables and engaged in discussion rather than in a lecture theatre style format.
Furthermore, considering that it is planned that the participants of the forums will be invited for later
stages of community consultation, the use of deliberative forums facilitates the development of a
‘learning journey’ in water literacy, and the formation of advocates in water conservation among the
attendees.
Participants spent most of the time working on tables in small groups each with a table facilitator.
The table facilitators from Woolcott Research and Engagement guided the discussions and recorded
the main points.
The forums consisted of a mix of table discussions, presentations/speakers from the front, keypad
voting, participants completing activity sheets and feedback sessions from a spokesperson at each
table. The agenda is included in the appendix.
Woolcott Research provided a Lead Facilitator, who chaired the forums, and sufficient table
facilitators for each of the forums.
Laptops were used at each table for facilitators to capture the table's discussions. Each laptop was set
up to offer: Facilitator prompts - providing a structured format for facilitators to input discussion
summaries, with screen prompts where necessary, and time-coded storage of all qualitative data -
available for download into grids for subsequent detailed analysis.
16
July 2019
As mentioned, keypad polling was also included whereby participants were each given a handheld
device that was used to answer questions shown on screen, and results given in real time.
The results of the keypad voting have been reported on in this document. Considering the sample
size of n=153, a more conservative approach should be used while looking at results broken by
different subsamples, but when viewing the total sample we are confident (at the 95% confidence
level) that the true answer lies between plus or minus 8 percentage points
Recruitment
Recruitment for the forums took place between two and three weeks before each forum. Participants
who attended the initial forum in October 2018 were contacted and invited to attend this forum. A
total of 40 participants returned from the previous forum in Newcastle and 44 from the Maitland
forum. Additional residents were also recruited through stratified random sampling from the regions
surrounding the forum locations. People were telephoned randomly within the community and asked
for their interest in attending, then those interested completed a short screening questionnaire (see
Appendix).
Screening ensured a good cross section of participants from a range of locations and income levels
and quotas were set on age and gender, however as is common in community engagement programs,
in some areas it proved difficult to recruit the youngest age group, so Facebook was used to
supplement the recruitment process. Hunter Water’s Customer Segmentation was used as a guide to
understand the customer base and to ensure each of the eight segments were represented. Overall
this process resulted in the inclusion of people ‘off the street’ who were not generally engaged in the
water industry.
Confirmation telephone calls, emails and SMS messages were made in the week leading up to each
event.
17
July 2019
Detailed Findings from the

Community Deliberative Forums
18
July 2019
1. Initial Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options
At the commencement of the forum participants were welcomed by the Woolcott Research &
Engagement Lead Facilitator, an Elder from the Aboriginal community and a representative from
Hunter Water. Hunter Water provided a brief presentation outlining the LHWP and a recap of the
values that participants considered important in long term water planning from the first forum.
Following this participants voted on a series of questions that served as a ‘warm-up’ activity and a set
of benchmark questions to compare back to at the end of the forum regarding attitudes toward
various water supply and demand options.
1.1 Water Usage and Knowledge of Hunter Water
The first question asked participants to indicate, on average, how long they spend in the shower.
Overall the majority (90%) tended to spend 10 minutes or less in the shower, with results similar
across Maitland and Newcastle forum attendees. Participants aged 55 years or over were more likely
to have shorter showers than their younger counterparts (76% had 5 minute showers or less,
compared to 45% of 35-54 year olds and 33% of 18-34 year olds).
Figure 1: Average time spent in the shower
1 1 8 2 3
9 10 9 11
20 minutes or more
21
11-20 minutes
42 40 45 44
56
5-10 minutes
% 59
3-5 minutes
40 39 42 38
1-2 minutes
31
9 17
7 5 2 6 Less than a minute
1 1 1
Total Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+
Q1. On average, how long do you spend in the shower?

Base: n=153
19
July 2019
A second question asked participants to estimate on average how much drinking water Hunter Water
supplied to customers each day, with four options from which to choose. Around half the participants
(49%) thought it was 19.4 million litres, with a further 35% suggesting 1.94 million litres. On average
11% provided the correct answer of 194 million litres per day.
Figure 2: Average quantity of drinking water supplied per day
11 12 9 11 12 7
194 million litres
49 47 47 55
52 51 19.4 million litres
%
1.94 million litres
35 39 34 34
30 34
194,000 litres
5 5 5 4 7 3
Q2. On average, how much drinking water does Hunter Water supply to customers each day?
Base: n=153
1.2 Initial Perceptions of Water Supply and Demand Options
It was highlighted to participants that there are ‘many options Hunter Water could consider to ensure
there will be enough water for our region into the future’ and they were then asked how open they
were to Hunter Water considering various supply and demand options. Options presented included
conservation of drinking water, dams, desalination, ground water, recycled water (non-drinking),
stormwater harvesting and water sharing between regions. These served as a base line comparison
to see how participants’ attitudes towards water options changed throughout the forum.
Consideration was highest for stormwater harvesting and recycled water (97% indicated they should
definitely consider or they would be quite open to them considering these options), followed by water
sharing (80%).
20
July 2019
Figure 3: Initial Openness to Hunter Water Considerations
1 2
0
1 1
7 1 7 1
9 9
12 11 Don't Know
19 10 13
9 17
20 They should give no
10 16 consideration to this option
34 9 17
I am slightly against them
28 considering this option
33 31 I am undecided
85
% 78 39
I am quite open to them
46 41 considering this option
31 30 They definitely should be
Stormwater Recycled Water Sharing Dams Desalination Conservation Groundwater

Harvesting Water
Q1. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering… Base: n=153
1.2.1 Consideration of Conservation of Drinking Water
Overall, two out of three (61%) participants were in favour of Hunter Water considering the
conservation of drinking water, inclusive of 30% who felt strongly about this indicating ‘they should
definitely’ consider this option. This positive sentiment did not vary significantly by location or age.
Figure 4: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water
1
9 1
7 2
7 10
12 14 Don't Know
20 19 24 16
21 21 They should give no
9 7 15
12 4 4 consideration to this option
31 36 37 26
% I am undecided
30 30 29 26 33 25 I am quite open to them

considering this option
Total Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+ They definitely should be
Q1a. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water (i.e. reducing
everyone’s demand for drinking water)…
Base: n=153
21
July 2019
1.2.2 Consideration of Dams
Participants were also asked to consider their openness towards dams. Most participants (69%)
indicated that Hunter Water should definitely consider dams or were quite open to the idea as a
water solution, with slightly lower levels of openness amongst Newcastle attendees (61%)
compared to Maitland (76%). This attitude did not vary significantly by age group.
Figure 5: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering dams
1 1 Don't Know
8 3 2
4
11 13 7 12 13
8
9 7 13 11 10
13
32 33 I am slightly against them
28 27 23 considering this option
24
% I am undecided
41 44 37 41 41 40 I am quite open to them

They definitely should be

Total Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+ considering this option
Q1b. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering dams…
Base: n=153
22
July 2019
1.2.3 Consideration of Desalination
Participants showed a similar attitude toward desalination of water, with 64% indicating that they
were open to the idea. A significantly larger proportion (20%) of those aged over 54 years felt that
Hunter Water should give no consideration to desalination.
Figure 6: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering desalination
2 Don't Know
7 10 5 5
9
13 14 15 20
16 14 18 10 consideration to this option
23 7
% 33 38 28 33
27 I am undecided

31 35 36 29 30 considering this option
27
Q1c. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering Desalination (i.e. treating seawater for drinking)…
Base: n=153
23
July 2019
1.2.4 Consideration of Groundwater
Over half of participants (57%) overall were open to the use of groundwater. Openness to
groundwater as a solution for Hunter Water did not significantly vary depending on location or age.
Figure 7: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater
2 Don't Know
9 11 6 10
13 17
15
17 19 22 They should give no
13 consideration to this option
19 28 3
17 14 14 I am slightly against them
%
32 47 I am undecided
39 36 38
46
27 21
19 17 20
10 They definitely should be
Q1d. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering groundwater (i.e. extracting water from beneath
the ground and treating for drinking)…
Base: n=153
24
July 2019
1.2.5 Consideration of Recycled Water
Participants were overwhelmingly (97%) open to using recycled water for non-drinking purposes.
Again support was consistent across both Newcastle and Maitland and across the age groups.
Figure 8: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering recycled water
2 2 1 Don't Know
1 1 3
1 3 3
19 21 16 19 16 24 They should give no
consideration to this option

%
I am undecided
78 76 80 79 80
72

Q1e. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering recycled water (i.e. treating and reusing water for
non-drinking uses)…
Base: n=153
25
July 2019
1.2.6 Consideration of Stormwater Harvesting
The majority of participants (97%) were also in favour of considering stormwater harvesting. Again,
scores were similar across locations and age ranges.
Figure 9: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting
1 2 Don't Know
1 3
1 8 4 1 3
12 15 17
16
They should give no

% 92 94
85 78 82 79 I am undecided


Q1f. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting (i.e. treating and reusing
stormwater for non-drinking uses)…
Base: n=153
26
July 2019
1.2.7 Consideration of Water Sharing Between Regions
High levels of openness towards water sharing were recorded amongst participants in both forums
(81%) and across the age ranges.
Figure 10: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions
1 2 Don't Know
1 3
1 8 4 1 3
12 15 17
16
They should give no

% 92 94


Q1g. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions?...
Base: n=153
27
July 2019
2. Planning for the Future and the Considerations
Hunter Water presented information about planning for the future, and the challenges, risks and
opportunities it presents. Some of the considerations for water supply and demand options were
outlined such as cost, time to implement, the environment, reliability and social impact. Participants
were presented with information about the performance of Hunter Water’s system during a drought,
including triggers (based on overall storage levels) to implement drought response measures,
including water restrictions and an emergency drought-response desalination plant.
Following on from this, participants were asked to consider the future and what they thought was
important for Hunter Water to consider in terms of how their water is supplied.
A table discussion session followed with participants asked to discuss that they felt Hunter Water’s
position should be with regard to long term water planning, and to discuss and complete an Activity
Sheet (see Appendix C) outlining what they thought were the most, through to the least, important
values to be considered when planning for the future. This was followed by keypad voting of the
considerations, where participants were asked to rank five considerations from one to five in terms
of importance.
2.1 Hunter Water Risk Position
When asked to provide feedback regarding Hunter Water’s risk position, the majority (90%) of
participants felt that they should invest more up-front and reduce the risk of needing to build
emergency desalination. Only 5% said that Hunter Water should invest less up-front and accept a
greater risk of needing to build emergency desalination, and another 5% did not know how they felt.
This sentiment was strongly reflected in the table discussions, with participants agreeing that
investment should be up-front rather than waiting for an emergency.
“Definitely investing upfront, we need to be prepared before a drought comes. I think nothing
is done well when we have to perform under pressure and if we’re organised and do it at a
leisurely rate we’ll be better off. Doing it early means the cost isn’t as high in the long term”
(Newcastle participant)
“Emergency to me means a lack of planning, why would we get into such a situation. It is
hard to plan when a main is going to burst. We should be planning for a dry future. In Sydney
they left their desal plant for 10 years without using it and I’m sure it would have been
expensive.” (Maitland participant)
28
July 2019
29
July 2019
Figure 11: Opinion of Hunter Water’s Risk Position
5 6 3 2
5 6 4
5 4 6 2 12
Don't know
Invest less up-front & accept

a greater risk of needing to
% 90 90 91 93 92
85 build emergency desalination
Invest more up-front &

reduce the risk of needing to
build emergency
desalilnation
Q. Do you think Hunter water should invest less up-front and accept a greater risk of needing to build emergency
desalination or invest more up-front and reduce the risk of needing to build emergency desalination. Base n=153
2.2 Overall Ranking of Considerations – Mean scores
Participants were asked to rank the options in order of importance by giving each option a number
from 1 to 5. In analysis we have given 1 = a score of 5, 2 = a score of 4, 3 = a score of 3, 2 = a score of
4 and 1 = a score of 5. This means that the chart below should be interpreted as the higher the score
to 5 the higher the ranking that option achieved.
In an overall sense, comparing the mean scores, reliability emerged as the most important
consideration (average mean score of 4.3 out of 5 in terms of importance). This was followed by
environment (4 out of 5). Cost to build was the least important consideration, achieving a score of 1.7
out of 5 on average. Differences were minor across the two locations and by age the only significant
difference was reliability being more likely to be rated lower amongst the over 55 years group than
their younger counterparts.
30
July 2019
Figure 12: Ranking of Importance of Considerations - Mean Scores total and by Location and Age
Most important
Reliability 4.3
Environment 4.0
Social Impact 2.6 Mean*
Cost to Operate 2.5
Cost to Build 1.7
Total Location Age

Average Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+
Consideration
mean score (n=74) (n=79) (n=47) (n=74) (n=31)
Reliability 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.8
Environment 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9
Social Impact 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7
Cost to Operate 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6
Cost to Build 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0
Q2a. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
the least important. Rank your top 5 choices in order of importance with the most important being a 1 and least
important a 5. * N.B. The higher the score to 5 the higher that consideration was ranked. Base: n=153
2.3 Cost to Build
As mentioned on average, cost to build obtained a relatively low mean score of 1.7 out of 5 in terms
of importance. Figure 11 shows the proportion of participants who ranked cost to build first, second,
third and so on. Only 3% ranked this consideration as 1st (most important), while 61% ranked it as
their least important (5th). Rankings did not vary significantly across age groups, however while not
significant, the over 55 years group were slightly more likely to rank cost to build as their first or
second preference.
Discussions amongst the tables regarding cost to build indicated that while most were conscious of
Hunter Water not spending too much and ensuring the costs they pass on to customers is kept to a
minimum, there was a common feeling that the cost to build was of lower importance than reliability
or environment. Some thought that could be paid off over a long period of time and that there may
be other sources to help with the initial outlay. Improvements in technology would also potentially
help reduce costs in the future. Others were uncertain about how much of the cost to build would
be passed on to the end user.
31
July 2019
“Cost to build is less because it’s over a long term – it’s a big cost but a long term asset. Funding
would be a problem people will lend them the money over a long term” (Newcastle participant)
“Are they asking us to spend money and bear the cost?” (Newcastle participant)
Figure 13: Ranking of Cost to Build
Ranked 5th
61 52 59 57
68 64 Ranked 4th
% Ranked 3rd
16 10
18 22
15 19 13 Ranked 2nd
20
11 9 13
12 6 11
8 4 4 8 7 Ranked 1st
3 4 1 2 1
Q2a. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
important a 5. Base: n=153
2.4 Cost to Operate
Cost to operate tended to be somewhat more highly ranked than cost to build, with its score being
2.5 out of 5. Participants from different locations and age groups did not rank cost to operate
significantly differently.
32
July 2019
Figure 14: Ranking of Cost to Operate
10 7 4 7
13 15
Ranked 5th
47 60 53 Ranked 4th
53 49
58
% Ranked 3rd
23
22 19 20 Ranked 2nd
26
20
18 10
12 15 Ranked 1st
6 9 10
4 5 3 2 3
Q2b. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
2.5 Environment
Participants strongly considered the environmental impacts of water supply and demand options,
with the score achieved being 4 out of 5. While the importance of considering the environment did
not vary significantly across locations or ages, participants in Newcastle and those aged over 55 years
were slightly more likely to rank it as their first preference.
Preservation of the environment was an important consideration with themes raised such as the
impact of loss of land (through dam building), altering the natural river flow, tree felling, chemical
contamination, altering the water table, greenhouse gases from desalination. The environment, like
water reliability, was considered crucial because ‘we rely on our environment to survive’.
“I’d like to put the environment first, we can find more water but the environment is
irreparable and it will lead to other costs” (Newcastle participant)
“The environment - we need to look at our actions and how we can manage better – things
like land clearing, energy efficiency and use of coal because desals are very energy intensive”
(Maitland participant)
33
July 2019
Figure 15: Ranking of Environment
2 3 1
8 2 1 3
11 11 9
15 17
10 6
13 16 Ranked 5th
15 13
35 Ranked 4th
36 47 35 20
37
% Ranked 3rd
46 47 Ranked 2nd
38 34 38
30
Ranked 1st
Q2c. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
2.6 Social Impact
Social impact was a moderately appraised consideration, with achieving a score of 2.6 out of 5 in
terms of importance. Again, ranking of importance did not significantly vary by participants’ location
and age, although again the Newcastle and over 55 years participants tended to rate social impact
higher than the average.
Across the table discussions participants generally found social impact very difficult to assess as it was
felt to be very dependent upon the specific situation or community affected. It was also commented
that the social impact can be lessened if communities are consulted with and are in agreement with
the plans proposed.
“They need community support for these projects but that also comes into research, they
need to make sure they engage with the communities beforehand” (Maitland participant)
“Environmental impact and social impact are grouped together…. They need to keep people
on side. You are not going to be able to do things that are going to be disadvantageous to a
whole community” (Newcastle participant).
34
July 2019
Figure 16: Ranking of Social Impact
16 22 Ranked 5th
25 28 30
34
13
16 11 20 Ranked 4th
10
19
% 47 30
Ranked 3rd
41 51 39
34 Ranked 2nd
23
16 23 18
10 Ranked 1st
11 7
2 3 1 1
Q2d. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
2.7 Reliability
Participants scored reliability, on average, as a 4.27 out of 5. This means that reliability tended to be
the most important consideration. Importance of reliability did not vary significantly across locations
however those aged 55 years and over were significantly more likely to rank reliability lower than the
younger participants.
Through the discussions on the tables amongst participants, clearly reliability of the water was felt to
be extremely important factor to consider as it was felt to determine whether or not the various
options are worth considering. Ensuring there is enough water for people in the Hunter now and in
the future was felt to be the main focus and point of the discussions.
“You’ve got to have enough water – we die if we don’t have water!” (Newcastle participant)
“Reliability of supply is crucial and the most important consideration” (Newcastle

participant)
“I think reliability – making sure we’ve got water, and reliability of the asset – making sure
it’s being used” (Newcastle participant)
“Well of course reliability would have to be first and foremost….we need water to live, it’s
the difference between the tree’s life and mine” (Maitland participant)
“Reliability is important – that’s what it’s all about” (Newcastle participant)
35
July 2019
Figure 17: Ranking of Reliability
3
2 4 1 2 3 3
3 6 10
14 12 16 16 Ranked 5th
30 23
28 23 23 Ranked 4th
32
% 33 Ranked 3rd
58 62 57 Ranked 2nd
53 49
30
Ranked 1st
Q2e. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the most important consideration, and your last choice being
36
July 2019
3. De-identified Water Supply and Demand Options against Key

considerations
Hunter Water explained that there were pros and cons against each option type they could consider
in relation to the values, for example some option types are better or worse on cost or the
environment. Participants were also informed that water quality across all options would meet quality
standards hence was not a value that needed to be included in the consideration matrix.
Participants were given a series of matrices which had each option type (de-identified) rated in terms
of the considerations (e.g. cost to build, cost to operate, environmental impact, social impact and
reliability). Hunter Water informed participants that the ratings of considerations for each option
type was based on current industry knowledge and best available information.
The matrices were handed to each participant and asked to rank them in order of preference at both
the individual and table level based on their impact on the considerations. They were encouraged to
discuss their trade-offs and the reasons for the order selected.
Table and individual rankings were recorded on activity sheets (see Appendix C) and were also
entered into the key pad voting system at the end of the session.
4, a 5 = a score of 3, a 6=a score of 2, and a 7 = a score of 1. This means that the chart below should
be interpreted as the higher the score to 7 the higher the ranking that option achieved.
As shown on Figure 18 below, without any knowledge of what the option types were, participants
tended to give the highest preference to Option D (ground water). The next option types sharing
equal second place were Option G (water sharing) and Option E (recycled water). The remaining
option types were fairly close in their mean score ranking, with Option A (conservation of water) and
Option F (stormwater harvesting) emerging in equal 4th place and Options B (dams) and Option C
(desalination) ranked equal last.
In terms of differences by location, while the variations were not significant, Newcastle participants
tended to rank Option F (storm water harvesting) higher than Maitland participants, and Options B
(dams) and D (desalination) lower than Maitland participants. The only significant variation by age
was the over 55 years group ranking Option C (desalination) higher than the two younger groups.
37
July 2019
Figure 18: Ranking of De-identified Options - Mean Rankings (total and by location and age)
Most preferred
Option D (ground water) 6.7
Option G (water sharing) 5.2
Option E (recycled water) 5.1
Option A (conservation of water) 2.9 Mean*
Option F (stormwater harvesting) 2.9

Option B (dams) 2.6
Option C (desalination) 2.6
Total Location Age

Av. mean Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+
Consideration
score (n=74) (n=79) (n=47) (n=74) (n=31)
Option D (ground water) 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.2
Option G (water sharing) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 4.8
Option E (recycled water) 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.4
Option A (conservation) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Option F (stormwater) 2.9 2.6 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.7
Option B (dams) 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7
Option C (desalination) 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.4
Q3. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option. Rank
your top 7 choices in order of importance with the most important being a 1 and least important a 7.
Base: n=153
*N.B. The higher the score to 7, the higher that option was ranked.
Below are the results of the table sheets where participants decided together their preference ranks.
These results should be taken as indicative as mean scores are based on very small sample sizes (i.e.
8 tables per forum, totalling 16). Overall a very similar pattern of results emerged compared to the
individual results.
38
July 2019
Table 1: Ranking of Options by the Whole Table
TOTAL NEWCASTLE MAITLAND

Option (n=16*) (n=8*) (n=8*)
# # #
Option D (ground water) 7.0 6.9 7.0
Option G (water sharing) 5.4 5.4 5.3
Option E (recycled water) 5.3 5.3 5.3
Option A (conservation) 2.8 3.0 2.5
Option F (stormwater) 2.8 3.1 2.5
Option B (dams) 2.5 2.3 2.6
Option C (desalination) 2.5 2.1 2.9
Base: Total (n=16*), Newcastle (n=8*), Maitland (n=8*)
*Caution: Low base size
3.1 Option A (Conservation of water)
On average, Option A achieved a score of 2.9 out of 7. There was very little significant difference
across the forum locations or by age. Those in Maitland were slightly more likely to rank this option
as one of their most or second most preferred (17%) versus Newcastle participants (13%).
The general feeling during the table discussions was that Option A, whilst there was no cost to build,
was low on reliability.
“You wouldn’t want to preference this over others as it doesn’t produce much” (Newcastle
participant)
“A is hardly worth worrying about” (Maitland participant)
39
July 2019
Figure 19: Ranking of Option A
Ranked 7th
44 39 39 43 45
50
Ranked 6th
6 6 Ranked 5th
7 5
10
% 7 23 23 16 Ranked 4th
13 3 10
12 10
13 14 Ranked 3rd
11 14 14
8 10
5 5 8 Ranked 2nd
7 9 4 4 5 6
8 8 9 9 8 10 Ranked 1st
Q3a. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Rank your top 7 choices in order of importance with the most important being a 1 and least important a 7.
Base: n=153
The other positive aspects to this option participants favoured was the low social and environmental
impacts. It was recognised however that this option was probably not going to be a solution on its
own due to its low yield and that there would definitely need to be other options in the mix.
“The ones that have low everything like A, is OK if something else is done with it” (Newcastle
participant)
“I think Option A will be something to do with people “(Maitland participant)
“Option A just seems to be relying on mother nature” (Maitland participant)
3.2 Option B (Dams)
Option B was less favourably ranked amongst participants, with no one indicating it was their most
preferred choice. It achieved a score of 2.6 out of 7 on average, which did not significantly vary across
locations or age groups.
40
July 2019
Figure 20: Ranking of Option B
11 17 16
18 20 Ranked 7th
25
Ranked 6th
39 32 29
33 35 Ranked 5th
27
% Ranked 4th
18 29
24 30 18 Ranked 3rd
30
27 20 Ranked 2nd
19 15 23
11
5 3
3 6 4
2 5 3 Ranked 1st
1 1
Q3b. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
This lower preference for Option B was reflected on the tables where many participants commented
that this option had a high impact on the environment and society, a high cost to build, and only a
relatively moderate reliability rating. Despite having a low ongoing operating cost, this was not
enough to overcome the other disadvantages.
“This only has limited reliability and a high cost to the environment” (Newcastle participant)
3.3 Option C (Desalination)
Option C also scored poorly amongst participants, ranking 2.6 out of 7 on average. However, the
proportion of participants’ rankings varied significantly, with Maitland attendees ranking Option C
(Desalination) lower than Newcastle participants (4% versus 19% of Newcastle participants ranked it
as their top or second top preference). Additionally, on average, participants over 55 years of age
ranked Option C significantly more favourably than the overall sample.
41
July 2019
Within the discussion, this option was favoured for having high reliability and a low social impact,
however, the cost was felt to be too high. Some suggested that the high cost could be outweighed
due to its reliability and the fact that it could probably be a solution on its own.
“Option C has a huge expense so it might be desal, and that makes sense that it has high
reliability” (Maitland participant)
Figure 21: Ranking of Option C
23 16 Ranked 7th
29 34 32 32
13 Ranked 6th
8
20 Ranked 5th
21 20 26
% 30 Ranked 4th
45
26 26 27 19
9 Ranked 3rd
8
14 11 16 Ranked 2nd
20 15 14
8 1 11 4 10 Ranked 1st
3 3 4 3
Q3c. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
3.4 Option D (Ground water)
Option D was a highly ranked water solution, with the average score 6.7 out of 7. The proportion of
Option D’s ranking did not vary significantly across location or age, although the over 55 years group
were slightly less likely to rank it as their most preferred option.
This option was preferred by many participants in the table discussions due to its low social and
environmental impact, low cost to build and operate and its high rating on reliability.
“It would have to be D at the top because it is high on reliability, good environmental and social
impact and also pretty low on cost” (Newcastle participant)
“D looks good – low impact and high reliability” (Newcastle participant)
42
July 2019
“I like D because it is low on cost and low environment but good on reliability” (Maitland
participant)
Figure 22: Ranking of Option D
1
2 3
1
4 3
1 2
9 3
1
9 3
6
8 13 3
6 Ranked 7th
Ranked 6th
Ranked 5th
85 86 84 87 86
% 77 Ranked 4th
Ranked 3rd
Ranked 2nd
Ranked 1st
Q3d. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
3.5 Option E (Recycled water)
Option E also scored quite well, with its average rank being 5.1 out of 7. However, it was rarely ranked
as a most preferred option, with participants thinking of it as the second or third best option. The
proportion of participants ranking recycled water as their first or second preferred option was slightly
higher amongst Maitland participants and those aged 55 years and over.
With its low social and environmental impact and good reliability, many participants preferred this
option, however it was recognised as being costly to build.
“I liked E better than anything because I’m happy to pay a bit more for quality” (Maitland
participant)
“E is our next favourite as it has a high degree of reliability” (Maitland participant)
43
July 2019
Figure 23: Ranking of Option E
1 1 1
6 2
4 1
9 12 12 10
6 6 11 3
5 4 Ranked 7th
32 35 Ranked 6th
44 56 45 49 Ranked 5th
% Ranked 4th
45 45 Ranked 3rd
37 38 32
30
Ranked 2nd
2 4 1 6
Ranked 1st
Q3e. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
3.6 Option F (Stormwater harvesting)
Participants did not score Option F highly, with its average rank being 2.9 out of 7. Very few
participants ranked Option F as their most favoured water solution. High preference ranking scores
did varied slightly by location and age. Maitland participants more often ranked stormwater
harvesting as their first or second preference as did those aged over 55 years.
In the discussions, this was not a favourable option for participants, largely based on its relatively high
cost to build for low reliability. Despite being low on environmental and social impact it was not a
preferred option.
“Option F is fairly costly and not very reliable even though it is good on the environment”
Newcastle participant
44
July 2019
Figure 24: Ranking of Option F
7 4 4
14 13 Ranked 7th
33
34 36 Ranked 6th
37
42 45 Ranked 5th
24
% 22 30 23 Ranked 4th
20 10 Ranked 3rd
39 23
30 30 34 Ranked 2nd
20
3 3 3 6 Ranked 1st
1 1 1 2 1 3
Q3f. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
3.7 Option G (Water sharing)
Option G was quite highly ranked, with it achieving a score of 5.2 out of 7 on average. A larger
proportion of Newcastle participants ranked Option F as their first or second most preferred option
(56%), compared to Maitland (36%). This option was relatively less popular amongst the over 55 year
old forum participants.
The biggest advantage discussed regarding this option was its relatively low cost to operate after the
initial outlay to build. The option also was seen to have the benefit of being low in terms of its
environmental and social impact.
“G looks food, a bit of a cost to build and everything else is low” (Newcastle participant)
45
July 2019
Figure 25: Ranking of Option G
1
2 1 1
3 4 1
4 6
4 12 8 10 Ranked 7th
16 19 14
20 Ranked 6th
19
30
30 49 13 30 Ranked 5th
% 29 Ranked 4th
48 Ranked 3rd
42 43 47
35 29 Ranked 2nd
5 8 4 4 6 Ranked 1st
1
Q3g. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
46
July 2019
4. Overview of Demand-side Options
Hunter Water presented an overview of the demand-side options outlining the characteristics of
three option types that would help reduce demand for drinking water. These options included
conservation of water, stormwater harvesting and recycled water (non-drinking).
A table discussion session followed whereby participants were provided with factsheets to read (refer
to Appendix C), then discussed the options and explored the perceived positive and negative aspects
of each. A volunteer spokesperson from each table then presented back to the room one positive
and one negative aspect for each option.
4.1 Conservation of Water
It was frequently mentioned that water conservation should occur alongside the introduction of other
demand and supply side options and should almost be a ‘given’. It was seen to be different to other
demand and supply options in that it is more of a preventative action than a solution.
“It’s a no brainer – it is essential.” (Newcastle participant)
It was thought that conservation of water should be encouraged early in times of drought, to slow
down the usage rate, but also that water restrictions and education become even more important as
drought continues to avoid running out of water.
4.1.1 Positive aspects
A key positive of water conservation was that it is promoting the value of water and encouraging
people to using it more efficiently, so was seen as a proactive action which can involve the community
in a positive way.
“People will think about the value of water.” (Maitland participant)
“The public is actively involved in doing it.” (Newcastle participant)
“People can take ownership of it at grassroots level. They are part of it and making changes.”
Parents and schools were mentioned as having a strong role to play in educating young people about
the importance of using water wisely, to ensure that the next generation grows up to appreciate this
valuable resource.
“We should be bringing up our children to appreciate our water, too many people just don’t
care.” (Maitland participant)
“If you teach them from a young enough age then they will hold on to it for a long time.”
47
July 2019
The fact that it can be implemented immediately and relatively easily was thought to be an advantage,
as was the fact that it would slow down depletion rates and therefore extend the ‘life’ of the water
that is stored already.
“It’s easy if you get into the habit.” (Maitland participant)
Alongside the community participation in water saving behaviours, it was thought to be equally
important that Hunter Water increases its leak detection and maintenance program to ensure that
water is conserved before it reaches people’s houses. Ideally reducing evaporation would also be
implemented although people were not as sure about how this could actually be done effectively.
Water conservation was seen as a low cost option, in that other than the budget for marketing
campaigns there are no infrastructure costs. Customers can also save money directly by decreasing
the water usage component on their bills.
Less frequently mentioned pros were that it is a positive option for the environment as less water has
to be captured, treated or moved and that it would create some employment opportunities in terms
of marketing campaigns and fixing leaks.
4.1.2 Negative aspects
When asked about the negative aspects of water conservation, conversely the main positive aspect
of involving the community in being proactive about saving water was also seen to be a downside, in
that it relies on the actions of consumers to make a difference.
“It relies on the caring nature of people, which is always going to be problematic.” (Maitland
participant)
It was believed that with enough education and promotion small changes could be made to water
usage behaviour quite quickly, but that it could take a long time, and mass community input, to make
large enough changes. Ultimately it was thought that it wouldn’t be enough as a solution on its own,
but rather must be used in combination with other options.
It was also thought to be difficult to monitor and enforce. It is easier to police outdoor water
restrictions in that it is more obvious if residents are using water to wash hard surfaces or watering
their gardens at the wrong times of day, but that it is impossible to know if people are taking long
showers or wasting water indoors in other ways.
“How do you police it and ensure that everybody is doing it right?” (Newcastle participant)
Some suggested that people would need to be incentivised to save more water and that water meters
would help them to monitor their usage. A minority suggested raising the cost of water would be a
good option as hitting people’s back pocket will do more in terms of changing behaviour than
appealing to their social conscience. Although others believed a disadvantage of this option is that
there are costs involved already such as installing a rainwater tank or water saving devices.
48
July 2019
The loss of the liveable environment with water conservation measures was mentioned by a few, i.e.
less attractive gardens and parks.
If water conservation is to be encouraged it was thought that regulations should be made easier to
understand, for example the complexity of obtaining a BASIX certificate was mentioned by one table.
New developments or renovations of over $50,000 require a BASIX certificate which includes a
measure of the water efficiency of the home’s appliances and fixtures, the design of the landscaping
and the use of alternative water sources in the development. One participant who had been through
this process stated that it was long, difficult and hard to understand which does not make the concept
of water conservation appealing for consumers.
4.2 Stormwater Harvesting
Perceptually this option made sense to consumers as it is effectively utilising an otherwise wasted
resource and aligns with the perceived value they feel should be placed on water.
“I live close to a really large water drain - it always bothers me that’s it flooded and they just
don’t seem to use it.” (Newcastle participant)
“People don’t like seeing it all being wasted, so it just makes sense to capture it and use it.”
Stormwater harvesting is a visual concept in that current facilities are quite evident to the community
so participants thought that it is a good way of showing that something is being done to protect future
water supply and that this would gain public support and acceptance.
Participants were supportive of the ‘fit for purpose’ element of stormwater harvesting in that it
doesn’t need to be treated to drinking water standards and can instead be used on green spaces and
ovals to keep them looking good in times of drought.
“People can see areas of green spaces rather than a dirt bowl.” (Newcastle participant)
It was described as being good for the environment because the process extracts pollutants such as
plastics from the water system and reduces the potential for flooding.
The localised operation of stormwater harvesting was thought to be efficient as tanks can be located
next to the recipient area such as a sporting field or golf course. In fact there were suggestions that
every home should have a stormwater tank, similar to a rainwater tank, for personal use.
“The tank can be close by to the oval you are going to water.” (Maitland participant)
“Has the potential to get people involved on the smaller scale. Imagine if everyone was
collecting their water in tanks.” (Maitland participant)
49
July 2019
If the captured stormwater could then be transferred between areas with high levels to areas in
drought, participants thought that would be even more beneficial (linking to water sharing in the next
section).
“If you can send it back up country that would be great. Pipe it to someone who has more of a
need.” (Maitland participant)
The main negative aspect associated with stormwater harvesting was that it is still climate dependent
– if it isn’t raining then it isn’t going to provide much water. The scale of it was also thought to be
quite small in that it produces a low yield for each scheme.
The cost to build and storage capacity required were also thought to be key prohibitive factors by
participants.
“You’re dealing with an enormous amount of water and there is nowhere to put it.” (Maitland
participant)
Perceptions were that it would have a relatively long establishment period for the system and that it
would be difficult to maintain.
A negative aspect was also that it reduces the natural water run-off in the system so taking water
away from the creeks and rivers (especially in regional areas). In turn this was thought to affect the
natural water cycle which could have a negative impact on wildlife downstream.
Evaporation rates were mentioned as a disadvantage – they were thought to be high due to the large
surface area of tanks.
4.3 Recycled Water (non-drinking)
Recycled water evoked many of the same positive and negative associations as stormwater
harvesting. There were also some questions asked about this option with some wanting clarification
about the type of water that would be recycled – specifically whether it would be grey water or black
water.
Many also suggested that they already do this on an individual scale by using their own tank water.
Recycled water was thought to be a reliable option worthy of consideration as communities will
always discharge waste water and so it is independent of the amount of rainfall.
Participants thought that it would make a big difference as it would eliminate the use of drinking
water for non-essential purposes, thus reducing the consumption of drinking water overall.
50
July 2019
“If everyone did it, even just for their toilet water they could save so much. Why does toilet
water need to be potable?” (Maitland participant)
Some suggested that even if recycled water could be produced for industrial users only, it would save
a substantial volume of drinking water that could be used purely for drinking purposes.
It was also perceived to have environmental benefits, as rather than releasing wastewater into the
system it would be treated so that potential contaminants would not be put back into the
environment.
Outdoor facilities and playing fields could be more drought resistant if recycled water could be used
instead of applying water restrictions.
The cost of building and operating a recycled water system was seen as a negative factor by many
participants. The need for a dual system with separate taps and pipes was thought to be a bit
excessive and could also result in mistakes being made and a risk of cross contamination.
“What happens if a kid drinks it on the footy field?” (Newcastle participant)
Some were concerned about the chemicals that would be used to treat the water before it can be
used, particularly as it could be used for crop irrigation.
“What are the chemicals that are used for the recycled water? We might find out that the
treatment is carcinogenic.” (Maitland participant)
A minority also suggested that having a recycled water system could actually present people with an
excuse to use more water than they would have previously, as they wouldn’t ‘value’ it as much as
drinking water.
4.3.3 Indirect Potable Reuse
This option generated polarised views. There were more positive associations with recycled water
being used for non-drinking purposes than for indirect potable reuse (IPR), although many
participants were quite accepting of this in principle, as long as strict conditions, safeguards and
testing were applied to ensure it is safe. It was acknowledged that a high level of trust in Hunter Water
would be required if recycled water were to be used for drinking purposes.
“What I don’t like about recycled water is I don’t trust people who are running the industry.”
“I think if they can show that the science is there and it’ll be safe then they should do it.”
51
July 2019
Many believed that it is only the thought of it that puts people off but that it must be a viable option
as it is used in many other places around the world. The general perception was that it is probably
only a matter of time before recycled water will be used for drinking in Australia.
“It is like filling up your drink bottle in the bathroom. There is nothing wrong with using the
water for drinking from the bathroom tap but you feel it is not as good quality as the kitchen!”
“If I didn’t know then it would be fine!” (Newcastle participant)
“It’s not a case of if, it’s a case of when.” (Newcastle participant)
52
July 2019
5. Overview of Supply Side Options
Hunter Water presented an overview of the supply-side options outlining the characteristics of four
different option types that would help increase the supply of drinking water. These options were
dams, desalination, groundwater, and water sharing.
Following this a table discussion session followed whereby participants discussed the options and
explored their perceived positive and negative aspects of each option. A volunteer spokesperson
from each table then presented back to the room one positive and one negative aspect for each
option.
5.1 Dams
5.1.1 Positive Aspects
While there were numerous positive aspects mentioned by the participants, the key positive aspects
(mentioned at most tables) were that a new dam would most likely have a large storage capacity, and
that it would be a relatively low cost options in terms of ongoing running costs. This option was one
that all were quite familiar with, and while some were clearly not in favour of a new dam in the Hunter
area, most welcomed the idea because it was a ‘known quantity’ and was seen to be a reliable source
of water with huge potential.
Participants also often cited other potential ‘spin-off’ positives that may be derived from a new dam
– such as the recreational possibilities both on and beside the dam storage area, and leisure and picnic
spots that were envisaged by the waterside. Some also felt that there was the potential for the site
to be a tourist drawcard.
“They create large calm water areas for people to use for recreation” (Maitland participant).
Some participants also felt that the option of a new dam may actually assist in terms of flood
mitigation for areas near the dam site, while there was also the suggestion (at a few of the tables)
that the production of hydroelectricity may be an option with a new dam.
Other potential positives cited by individuals included the jobs generated while the dam was being
constructed, the potential use of existing mine sites in the area, and the creation of new ecosystems.
“I know they can eliminate ecosystems, but they also create new ones” (Newcastle
participant)
5.1.2 Negative Aspects
There were, however, a number of down-sides that consistently came through in relation to new
dams. These included the fact that dams generally take up large areas of land (which some believed
53
July 2019
was generally ‘always good farming land’), and was likely to result in the displacement of both people
and animals from their homes.
Some were particularly concerned in relation to ‘on river’ dam options as they thought that these
may have greater potential to disrupt existing ecosystems, as water flow was likely to be decreased
significantly if not eliminated.
“You hear about the damage that they do to river systems, so if they can divert water to a
storage area elsewhere that would probably be better” (Newcastle participant)
The large cost of building/establishing a new dam was also commonly mentioned. In addition, it was
felt that there was a long lead time involved with the build process – taking into account the time
required to select a site, gain public approval, acquire land, and then build the required infrastructure,
in addition to the time required to fill the dam.
Another negative raised in relation to dams was that they often caused a great deal of tension and
division amongst communities.
“They just seem to cause so much tension in communities, it’s a very contentious issue.
People don’t want them in their community” (Maitland participant)
One of the other commonly discussed negatives associated with dams was that they tend to have a
large surface area and are therefore susceptible to high evaporation rates. Some wondered if this
made this supply option rather inefficient.
“I’m not sure how much, but I know they lose a lot of water just through normal evaporation”
A few of the participants (though relatively few in number) expressed a concern in relation to the
potential of what they called ‘dam failure’ – should the dam wall break, or should the dam need to
release large volumes of water during times of heavy rain/flood. This, they thought, would lead to
catastrophic damage to areas downstream of the dam catchment area.
5.2 Desalination
Overall, desalination plants were something that all were aware of as a potential supply option.
However, some stated outright that they didn’t know a lot about them, and that their reactions to
them were based on perceptions, rather than solid knowledge.
Some of the tables seemed to struggle to think of positives aspects that weren’t already mentioned
in the presentation to them, and as a result there were a few tables where the only positive aspect
mentioned was that desalination was reliable – in that seawater is plentiful and desalination can take
place at any time and in any climatic conditions.
54
July 2019
“You’re not going to run out. That’s for sure!” (Newcastle participant)
Some went further, and indicated that one of the main positives was that a desalination plant can be
turned on and off as required. Others suggested that the plants can be built to different sizes
depending on the water needs of an area.
There was also a suggestion that desalination was probably a good option for Australia in general
because most of the Australian population lives along the coast-line, so producing fresh water in these
areas would minimise the cost of transporting water. There was also the suggestion at one table that
sea levels were known to be rising due to climate change, so it may be a good thing to use the
resource, and convert it into useable drinking water.
“Sea levels are going up aren’t they? So why not use it?” (Newcastle participant)
At a few of the tables there was discussion around the fact that technology was forever improving,
and that the desalination process was likely to become easier and more cost effective as time went
on.
Overall though, there seems to be a sense that desalination was something of a ‘last resort’ that was
only tuned to when ‘things got desperate’.
One of the main downsides discussed in relation to desalination was the large amount of electricity
that was needed to run the plants. The cost aspect of this was seen to be a negative in itself, but for
many the idea of contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere for the electricity generation was
also another downside.
“The process uses up a lot of energy, and that’s got to come from somewhere, and you’re
just adding to the greenhouse issue to run it” (Maitland participant)
Some of the tables also discussed the by-product of the desalination process. There was some
uncertainty displayed in relation to this process, and some were unaware that there were any issues
with discharging salty water back into the ocean, while others were adamant that it could have major
impacts on the natural environment. On several tables this tended to lead to the question being raised
as to why the salt produced couldn’t be refined and sold – to effectively off-set the cost involved with
the process.
“Surely they can do something with the salt. We probably import salt from somewhere, so
why not make it here?” (Maitland participant)
At a few of the tables there was also discussion about the cost of keeping desalination plants
maintained while they were not actually producing fresh water. There was a perception that these
plants were expensive to have in place even when they weren’t operating.
55
July 2019
“I hear the one in Sydney was costing a fortune just sitting there doing nothing” (Newcastle
participant)
Another potential negative was that desalination plants were known to take a while to put in place.
Participants were indicating that desalination was sometimes ‘bandied about’ when water supplies
were low, but that they may not be a viable option at that time, as they believed that it would take
too long to from the planning stage to the time a plant is able to produce fresh water for it to be of
use.
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater appeared to be one of the options that participants were less familiar with – particularly
in terms of the potential environmental impact of using groundwater sources. While many cited
minimal environmental impact as a key positive of groundwater use – others weren’t sure that this
was the case, and felt that Hunter Water wasn’t being honest in their portrayal of this option in these
terms. Some insisted that there must be implications in removing groundwater from natural
underground storage areas – while others went along with the information provided to them, and
felt that having low environmental impacts was a key positive for this supply option.
The low cost aspect also came through as a potential positive for this supply options, as did reliability.
The only other positive aspect mentioned was that the extraction of groundwater did not involve
large plants, and so this was unlikely to be unsightly in terms of any visual impact. Along similar lines,
some also stated that there was unlikely to be any form of social impact resulting from this option.
“The picture they showed was of a very small area. I don’t think anyone could complain about
that. It’s tiny.” (Maitland participant)
A negative aspect commonly mentioned was that the water source was still somewhat weather
dependant, as it was seen as a finite resource that needed to be replenished through rain.
Some also felt that it would be difficult to manage and monitor the water use of underground storage
areas because it was underground, and the true scale of the storage area may not be
known/definable.
“I’m not sure that they could accurately know how much is down there, and how much is
being used” (Newcastle participant)
At some of the tables the aspect of water quality was also raised. Some had the perception that
groundwater was generally of poor quality, while others suggested that there was the potential for
water contamination to result from mining work within the region.
56
July 2019
As has already been mentioned, some participants were insistent that there had to be environmental
implications caused by using groundwater, and this was a common point of discussion at most tables.
These discussions tended to be centred on the notion of this being a relatively new source and that
the long term implications were greatly ‘unknown’. Some likened it to the fracking debate, where
there were assurances of little environmental impact, but case studies where negative outcomes had
resulted.
“I just feel very uneasy about it. How can they know what impact this will have in the long
term?” (Maitland participant)
Similarly, there were some concerns expressed over potential land subsidence, and the development
of sinkholes once groundwater sources were lowered.
“If they take all the water out won’t the land be at risk of caving in?” (Newcastle participant)
5.4 Water Sharing
The most consistent positive aspect to emerge in relation to sharing water between regions was the
sense of community aspect to it – what was seen as the equivalent of people banding together to
help others in need.
“It just makes sense that you would share if you could afford to” (Newcastle participant)
Most also felt that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial. To this end it was seen as
‘spreading the risk’ in that the region in need at one point in time may have excess at another point
in time, and so the sharing would be a two-way process.
“If it was all going one way some people may start to have an issue with it, but if you have
more than you need I can’t see a problem” (Maitland participant)
A few of the participants also suggested that the transfer of water may reduce flood risk in area with
an oversupply of water. In this case, they would welcome reducing the potential of catastrophic
damage by off-loading some of their excess water.
Some of the participants also thought that this option would have low operating costs – and costs
that (they assumed) would be shared by the two regions involved.
On the negative side, the fact that the pipes are generally above ground was mentioned consistently
across tables. There were two main negatives associated with this. Firstly, many saw large scale above
ground pipes to be a visual blight, but many were also concerned about the security aspect of having
exposed pipes. Some thought that this would make the pipes relatively easy to access and therefore
tamper with.
57
July 2019
“Those things are there for anyone to get at” (Maitland participant)
Another main negative to emerge was the potential cost involved in establishing a pipe network.
Some assumed that it may require the acquisition of private land, and that this was likely to be very
costly.
“Good to use if you have it in place already, but I can’t image what would be involved in
having to build a new one. It would cost a bomb” (Newcastle participant)
Some (though fewer in number) of the participants also wondered about the accountability of the
sharing partners. There were suggestions that if one of the sharing partners was more likely to be on
the receiving end of the water sharing, they may become somewhat complacent, and not look to
other sources for relief of their situation.
“They could start to rely on their neighbours always helping them out” (Newcastle
participant)
A few of the participants also expressed concern over the negotiation process between regions as to
when and how much water is shared, while some suggested that this option was of little use if there
was widespread drought.
“Surely in most cases we’re all in the same boat” (Maitland participant)
5.5 Environmental Offsets
Where possible, the issue of environmental offsets was further discussed, and most seemed to think
that this was something worthwhile that should be pursued – particularly in relation to options that
were high energy users, such as desalination. There was a feeling that the establishment of a solar
power plant would be a good option in this scenario, as it would have benefits even when the
desalination plant wasn’t operating.
“If they had something like that in Sydney they would have generated a lot of electricity, and
covered some of the cost of having the plant there doing nothing. And now that it’s running,
it would offset some of the energy requirement so of the process” (Newcastle participant)
Because some also viewed desalination as more of a ‘last resort’ option, they concluded that the
Hunter area would be in fairly desperate times if a desalination plant was required. They went on to
suggest that in such circumstances it may be even more important to be mindful of environmental
impacts – thereby providing more justification for offsets such as a solar farm.
Others weren’t quite as sure about offsets. They were in favour of the general idea, but seemed wary
of offsets that involved the purchase of offset credits in a larger scheme. They much preferred the
idea of establishing something (physically) that they know would be used to offset emissions.
58
July 2019
“When you are making a physical offset that is better. When just buying renewable offset
credits then that is not as good.” (Maitland participant)
A few of the participants were less than positive about the idea of environmental offsets. They viewed
the idea as ‘shifting the problem’ only to create a new problem elsewhere.
“It’s kind of like throwing the rubbish over the neighbour’s fence so you don’t have to deal
with it” (Maitland participant)
59
July 2019
6. Identified Ranking of Water Supply and Demand Options against Key

considerations
The final session of the forum involved participants revisiting the various water supply and demand
options however this time the types of options were revealed. The matrices were again handed to
each participant and they were asked to rank them in order of preference at both the individual and
table level based on their impact on the considerations. They were encouraged to discuss their trade-
offs and the reasons for the order selected.
Following this preferences were recorded via keypad voting so that results could be shared amongst
the room. Results of the keypad voting with de-identified water demand and supply options were
then compared to the results with identified options.
4, a 5 = a score of 3, a 6=a score of 2, and a 7 = a score of 1. This means that the chart below should
be interpreted as the higher the score to 7 the higher the ranking that option achieved.
When the names of the options were revealed recycled water emerged as the option with the highest
mean preference score (5.7). This was followed by conservation of water (4.8), water sharing (4.1)
and stormwater harvesting (4.0).
Comparing identified with de-identified results, interestingly preference for groundwater declined
significantly (from a score of 6.7 to 3.4). Many of the table discussions revealed that this was perhaps
because on the Fact Sheet it only received one dot for environmental impact, however after table
discussions and knowing what the option was, many felt the environmental impact was much greater.
Other differences to emerge were a general increase in preference for conservation of water, water
sharing and stormwater harvesting.
The table overpage compares the mean scores for each option compared pre (de-identified) and post
(identified), by location and age. Green highlighting indicates a significant increase and red
highlighting indicates a significant decrease. For recycled water increases occurred amongst
Newcastle and younger (18-24yrs) participants; Conservation of water increased amongst all sub-
segments; water sharing decreased amongst the majority of sub-segments and stormwater
harvesting also increased amongst most participants. Preference for dams increased mainly amongst
Maitland and over 55 year old participants and desalination preferences did not vary significantly.
60
July 2019
Figure 26: Ranking of Identified Options - Mean Ranking
Recycled Water (Option E) 5.1

5.7
Conservation of Water (Option A) 2.9

4.8
Water Sharing (Option G) 2.6

4.1
Stormwater Harvesting (Option F) 2.9

4.0 De-identified
Dams (Option B) 2.6 Identified

3.6
Groundwater (Option D) 6.7

3.4
Desalination (Option C) 2.6

2.4
Mean scores Location Age

Total
Maitland Newcastle 18-34 35-54 55+
Consideration (n=153)
(n=74) (n=79) (n=47) (n=74) (n=31)
Recycled water
Pre 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.4
Post 5.7 5.3 6.0 6.2 5.6 5.0
Conservation of water
Pre 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Post 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.4 5.0 4.9
Water sharing
Pre 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 4.8
Post 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.0
Stormwater harvesting
Pre 2.9 2.6 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.7
Post 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2
Ground Water
Pre 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.2
Post 3.6 3.0 4.2 3.6 3.8 3.1
Dams
Pre 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7
Post 3.6 4.3 2.9 3.5 3.3 4.3
Desalination
Pre 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.4
Post 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.6
Q4. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option. Rank
your top 7 choices in order of importance with the most important being a 1 and least important a 7.
Base: n=153 *The closer the score to 7, the higher the option was ranked in terms of preference.
61
July 2019
“I think the groundwater thing is a bit unfair, sure it’s low if managed properly, but there’s a
long history of stuff-ups and disasters….. they used to take out way too much” (Newcastle
participant)
“On the card ground water was low on environmental, but that was when we didn’t know
what it was. It should be higher than that, we’re worried about what it’s doing at a bigger
level to the environment” (Newcastle participant)
“I changed water sharing to bring it up rather than build more dams – we should use what
we have first before building more dams” (Newcastle participant)
6. 1 Ranking of Conservation of Water
Participants considered conserving water as a moderately favourable option, with an average score
of 4.8 out of 7. Overall Maitland participants appeared to prefer this option more than Newcastle
participants (55% ranked it first or second compared to 38% of Newcastle attendees). Ranking varied
slightly by age with the over 55 year olds preferring it more than their younger counterparts.
From the table discussions it was clear that water conservation was important however many felt
that it was slightly different and should be happening all the time anyway, therefore did not rank it
as high as other options.
“I think water conservation is something that should be off to the side and done anyway”
62
July 2019
Figure 27: Ranking of Conservation of Water
16 14 18 21 14 14 Ranked 7th
6 7 3
4
5 10
5 4 5 9 11 3 Ranked 6th
9 12 5 4 10
4 Ranked 5th
8 19 10
19 29
% 23 Ranked 4th
21 14
14 16
8 11 Ranked 3rd
32 34 33 38 Ranked 2nd
30 28
Ranked 1st
Q4a. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
63
July 2019
6.2 Ranking of Dams
Overall dams were ranked as a mid-level option achieving a mean ranking score of 3.6 out of 7.
Preference for dams was higher amongst Maitland participants than Newcastle (24% ranked it as their
first or second preference compared with 7% of Newcastle participants). In terms of age differences,
while not a significant difference, the 18-34 years group were generally less favourable toward dams
than those aged over 35 years.
Overall dams were ranked slightly higher when they were identified, compared to when participants
did not know what they were ranking.
“Dams are so reliable so should be up there - 90% of the hunter is dams already. The pros
outweigh the cons. You can measure how much is there very easily” (Newcastle participant).
Figure 28: Ranking of Dams
14 9
17 20 22 22 Ranked 7th
8
26 Ranked 6th
20 11
32 23 23
10 11 Ranked 5th
11
% 10 10 Ranked 4th
19 33 11 22
18 18 Ranked 3rd
18 28
12 24 12 12 Ranked 2nd
7 4 7 7
8 12 3 7 8 8 Ranked 1st
4 2
Q4b. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
64
July 2019
6.3 Ranking of Desalination
Desalination did not rank favourably amongst participants once it was identified, obtaining the lowest
mean score ranking of 2.4 out of 7. Its relatively low ranking level did not vary greatly between the
de-identified and identified scores. Preference rankings were slightly higher in Newcastle than
Maitland and did not vary significantly by age group.
Figure 29: Ranking of Desalination
Ranked 7th
28
44 42 45 48 48 Ranked 6th
Ranked 5th
38
% 23 18 Ranked 4th
27 17 19
Ranked 3rd
15 17 13 14
12 16
3 3 3 4 3 Ranked 2nd
7 5 7 1 7
10 8
7 4 11 11 5 7 Ranked 1st
1 1 1 1 3
Q4c. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
65
July 2019
6.4 Ranking of Groundwater
On average, groundwater obtained a relatively low preference mean score ranking of 3.4 out of 7,
and its ranking declined significantly after table discussions and the option being identified. A
significantly larger proportion of Newcastle attendees ranked groundwater as their first or second
most preferred option (34%) compared with Maitland residents (7%). Differences by age were small
although it was slightly least preferred amongst the over 55 year olds.
As mentioned ranking scores for groundwater decreased significantly after table discussions and
revealing the name of the option.
Figure 30: Ranking of Groundwater
12 8 6 11
16 Ranked 7th
13 24
23 30 19 Ranked 6th
33 27 21
21 Ranked 5th
21 21
% 14 21 Ranked 4th
14
17 4 13 19
Ranked 3rd
19 12 9 7 14
7
8 9 8 7 Ranked 2nd
11 22 7
13 4 13 15 Ranked 1st
3 7
Q4d. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
66
July 2019
6.5 Ranking of Recycled Water
Recycled water for non-drinking purposes ranked well as a demand solution, receiving an average
score of 5.7 out of 7. However, preference towards this solution varied by age. On average,
participants between 18-34 years old ranked recycled water significantly higher than their older
counterparts. Preference for recycled water was also higher amongst Newcastle participants than
Maitland, with 82% ranking it as their top first or second option versus 63% amongst Maitland
attendees.
Figure 31: Ranking of Recycled Water
2
3 4 3 6 3 3
4 4 2 4 7
9 4 6 10 Ranked 7th
5 15 8 14
7 5
7 Ranked 6th
7 10
7 40
44 10 Ranked 5th
37 33
% 29 Ranked 4th
41 Ranked 3rd
45
36 34 38 38 Ranked 2nd
14 Ranked 1st
Q4e. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
67
July 2019
6.6 Ranking of Stormwater Harvesting
On average, stormwater harvesting was a mid-level water supply option obtaining a mean score
ranking of 4 out of 7. Preference for stormwater harvesting did not vary significantly across locations
however it was a more preferred option amongst the 55+ years group compared with the under 54
year olds.
Figure 32: Ranking of Stormwater Harvesting
5 3 1
8 9 10
14 6 19 Ranked 7th
14 14 14
Ranked 6th
21 23 18 28 19 14
Ranked 5th
19 16 17
% 21 22 Ranked 4th
30
14
25 Ranked 3rd
19 16 22
15 17 Ranked 2nd
15 16 14 18
9 14
5 5 4 4 Ranked 1st
1
Q4f. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
68
July 2019
6.7 Ranking of Water Sharing
Similarly, water sharing between regions was ranked 4.1 out of 7 on average. Maitland participants
more often ranked this option at the first or second most preferred (24%) compared to Newcastle
participants (10%), as did the 18-34 year olds (24%).
Figure 33: Ranking of Water Sharing
4 7 1 6 1 7
11 7 14 12 7 Ranked 7th
11
19 21 18 17 21 21 Ranked 6th
Ranked 5th
27 27 27 26 28 28
% Ranked 4th
15 17 Ranked 3rd
22 29 28 28
14 15 Ranked 2nd
11 3 3
5 10 9 9 7 7 Ranked 1st
1
Q4g. Please rank the options, with your first choice being the best option, and your last choice being the worst option.
Base: n=153
69
July 2019
7. Final Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options
At the end of the forum participants were asked the same question that they were asked at the
beginning regarding their willingness to consider a range of water supply and demand options.
Keypad voting was conducted and the initial results were compared with the end forum results for all
participants to observe.
Overall the water demand options (water conservation, recycled water, stormwater harvesting),
gained higher preference levels than the water supply options (dams, desalination, ground water and
water sharing).
Consideration remained highest for recycled water (74% indicated they should definitely consider this
option), followed by water conservation (65%), stormwater harvesting (59%) and water sharing
(46%).
Figure34: Openness to Consideration of Water Options (Initial versus End Results compared)
Water Sharing End 46 36 6 8 31

Water Sharing Initial 46 34 10 7 30
Stormwater Harvesting End 59 30 5 51
Stormwater Harvesting Initial 85 12 110
Recycled Water End 74 20 3 12
Recycled Water Initial 78 19 012
Groundwater End 21 30 14 24 11
Groundwater Initial 19 39 17 17 9
Desalination End 15 32 11 31 11
Desalination initial 31 33 16 13 7
Dams End 36 24 8 17 15 0
Dams Initial 41 28 10 9 11 1
Conservation End 65 23 2 7 20
Conservation Initial 30 31 9 20 9 1
They definitely should be considering this option I am quite open to them considering this option
I am undecided I am slightly against them considering this option
They should give no consideration to this option Don't Know
70
July 2019
7.1 Final Perception of Conservation of Water
Overall openness to conserving water as a supply solution greatly increased by the end of the forum,
with total openness increasing from 61% to 88%.
Figure 35: Final openness to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water
1 2 1 Don't Know
9 7 7 5 4
4 12 10
2
23 28 21 18
7
9
12 I am slightly against them
31 36
% 27
68 I am undecided
65 63
30 30 29 I am quite open to them

Total Total Maitland Maitland Newcastle Newcastle They definitely should be

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final considering this option
Q5a. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering conservation of drinking water (i.e. reducing
everyone’s demand for drinking water)…
Base: n=153
71
July 2019
7.2 Final Perception of Dams
Support for dams as a supply solution somewhat decreased (although not significantly) throughout
the forum, with the 69% of participants initially open to the option, decreasing to 60% at the
conclusion of the event. A significantly larger proportion (56%) of participants over 54 years of age
felt that Hunter Water should definitely be considering dams. Final openness did not vary significantly
across locations although fewer Newcastle participants indicated they would definitely consider this
option.
Figure 36: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams
1 Don't Know
8 10 3
11 15 13 20
8
9 7 13
10 6 consideration to this option
13 21
8 32 23 I am slightly against them
28 11
%
24 I am undecided
41 44 48
36 37
24 I am quite open to them

Q5b. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering dams…
Base: n=153
72
July 2019
7.3 Final Perception of Desalination
Openness to desalination also decreased throughout the forum, with 64% of overall support
decreasing to 47% by the conclusion of the event. Final scores were similar across locations and ages.
Figure 37: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams
Don't Know
7 11 10 9 5
13
13 11 14
16 31 14 18 33 consideration to this option

33 38 11
%
I am undecided
32 39 25
31 35
27 I am quite open to them
15 13 17 considering this option

Q5c. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering Desalination (i.e. treating seawater for drinking)…
Base: n=153
73
July 2019
7.4 Final Perception of Groundwater
Openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater somewhat decreased by the end of the forum,
with the initial openness of 58% decreasing to 51% after the event. Openness did not vary across
locations or ages.
Figure 38: Final openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater
Don't Know
9 11 11 11 6 11
17 15
24 19 17 They should give no
31 consideration to this option
17 19
14 19
% 32
46
21 22 27 20 I am quite open to them

19

Q1d. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering groundwater (i.e. extracting water from beneath
the ground and treating for drinking)
Base: n=153
74
July 2019
7.5 Final Perception of Recycled Water
Despite some slightly decreasing, participants continued to be overwhelmingly (94%) open to using
recycled water for non-drinking purposes, and support did not vary by location or age.
Figure 39: Final openness to Hunter Water considering recycled water
2
1 2
1 1 1 3
1 1 Don't Know
3
19 21 15 16 15
20
They should give no

% 78 76 83 80 83
74 I am undecided


Q1e. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering recycled water (i.e. treating and reusing water for
non-drinking uses)…
Base: n=153
75
July 2019
7.6 Final Perception of Stormwater Harvesting
Support for stormwater harvesting was still strong, with openness dropping from 97% to 89%.
However, there was a noticeable decrease in those who definitely thought stormwater should be an
option, in favour of those who were quite open to considering it as an option. The distribution of
scores did not vary by location or age.
Figure 40: Final openness to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting
1 1 1 Don't Know
1 5 3
1 3 8 7
12 5 4
16 5
They should give no

92
% 85 78 I am undecided
59 56 62


Q1f. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting (i.e. treating and reusing
stormwater for non-drinking uses)…
Base: n=153
76
July 2019
7.7 Final Perception of Water Sharing Between Regions
Whilst remaining high, openness to water sharing between regions decreased throughout the forum,
with total openness initially scored at 97%, falling to 82% by the end of the event. Overall support
was still in the majority, however, the proportion of those definitely considering this option noticeably
changed across course of the event. Although not significant a change, the proportion of Maitland
participants who felt water sharing should be considered increased from 44% to 57%. Support did
not vary by age.
Figure 41: Final openness to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions
1 1 1 2 Don't Know
3 3 7 3 3
7 8 10 8 6
10 6 11 9 5
22 32
34 36 37 49 I am slightly against them
%
I am undecided
57
46 46 44 49
36

Q1g. Can you indicate how open you are to Hunter Water considering water sharing between regions?
Base: n=153
77
July 2019
8. Conclusions
8.1 Overall conclusions
In developing the LHWP, the community would prefer that investment be made more up-front to
reduce the need for the building of an emergency desalination plant rather than leave it to the last
minute.
In deciding on the most appropriate supply and demand solutions, it is will be important from a
community perspective to consider reliability and the environment foremost. Interestingly, the cost
to build appears to be a relatively low priority when looking at the considerations in isolation.
After considerable discussion, recycled water (for non-potable use) emerges as the most preferred
option, despite concerns regarding potential cross contamination. It will require a great building of
trust for the community to accept recycled water for indirect potable reuse, although many
recognised that it is currently being used in other places around the world.
Water conservation, stormwater harvesting and water sharing appear to be regarded as logical
solutions, however they remain reliant on rainfall and changing people’s water use behaviours.
At the de-identified level, groundwater is seen to have merit and becomes an appealing option,
however there are likely to be community concerns regarding the environmental impact on aquifers.
Desalination is an option that is known to be reliable and is seen to make sense as the population
density is highest along the coast, however there is concern over their impact on the environment
and expense in terms of cost to build and operate.
There is contention over the building of dams especially regarding the displacement of farm land and
animals, and the changes that can occur to the ecosystem. Dams are seen as a very reliable water
source but placement of any new dams would need to be carefully managed.
It would be regarded as prudent for the LHWP to comprise a mix of options in developing supply and
demand solutions, however solutions will require varying levels of education to overcome
perceptions and dispel any myths currently held.
8.2 Possible Explanation of Changes in Preference for Water options
There were a number of instances within the deliberative voting process where significant shifts
occurred in the appeal of some water options from their initial scores to those obtained later in the
evening following discussion.
At the outset, prior to any thinking or discussion about the considerations involved, participants
regarded stormwater harvesting and the use of recycled water as the most appealing options (85%
78
July 2019
and 78% respectively definitely considering each). Groundwater was the least attractive of the seven
alternatives at this point (19% definitely consider).
With the considerations introduced to the discussion, and options evaluated against these
considerations in an unrevealed form, the relative appeal pattern changed. Groundwater became the
most attractive alternative by some margin (average rank score 6.7 out of 7), based on its
presentation as low cost, low environmental impact and high reliability - seemingly the perfect
solution. The other appealing option at this point was recycled water, presented as a higher cost but
high reliability alternative (5.1 out of 7).
The options were then revealed and discussed in some depth, following which table presentations
were made to the room.
It would seem that the final assessment given to the options was based on a combination of their
inherent appeal (as revealed by the initial judgements), their position in terms of the considerations,
and issues that emerged during the deliberative process.
Stormwater Harvesting experienced a significant fall in appeal (from 85% to 59%). Again, this idea
conceptually seemed logical; lots of water was felt to just go ‘down the drains’ and it was seen to
make sense to capture it. The problem in this case was also basically the imposition of practical issues
such as cost, environmental concern and the fact that this option relies on rain, which would also
presumably fill the dams.
Conservation increased from a relatively low early figure of 30% definitely consider to 65%. Given the
nature of the discussion around this option, it may be that it was not fully understood at the time of
the initial voting. The table discussion positioned this option as a ‘no brainer’ which should be in place
regardless of the other strategies adopted.
Groundwater did not change in terms of the definitely consider scores (19% initially and 21% at the
end of the forums). However, when presented as a de-identified option, groundwater emerged as the
top preference with a ranking score of 6.7 out of 7, but fell to 3.4 after being revealed and discussed.
In our view the high de-identified score resulted from its presentation as virtually the perfect solution.
The subsequent much lower ranking score probably relates to the fact that groundwater was not
inherently regarded as a good option (so its identity simply being revealed had a deflating effect),
combined with the emergence of reasonable environmental concerns during discussion (including
emotionally based concerns over the unknown future impact on aquifers).
There were no major shifts in the appeal of dams, recycled water and desalination.
79
July 2019
End of session feedback
The following graph presents the feedback collected from participants anonymously at the end of
each forum, from the End of Session Feedback form.
Overall there was strong agreement with all the statements regarding the forums, particularly the
statements “I enjoyed taking part in the sessions” (99% nett agreement), and ‘I was able to provide
views and contribute during the session” (97% nett agreement).
Figure 42: Agreement with Statements Regarding the Forum

Maitland Newcastle
Strongly agree Agree % Net % Net
Neighter agree nor disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Strongly disagree Don't Know
I enjoyed taking part in 97 100

the session
65 34 1
I was able to provide my

97 97
views and contribute 59 38 3
during the session
The session was well
96 97
organised and 72 25 3
structured
I think events like this 95 90
are a good way of 68 24 5 21
consulting with the…
89 92
It was informative and I
feel I have learned a lot
58 33 7 2
I think Hunter Water will 82 76

act on the information 38 41 14 25
from this session
80
July 2019
Appendix A: Agenda
Deliberative Agenda
Project: Hunter Water Phase 2

Event: Deliberative Forum
Details:
Dates and Newcastle – Tuesday 25 June Time: 5.30pm-9.00pm Duration: 3.5
location: Maitland – Wednesday 26 June hours
Forum Understand perceptions of and preferences for water supply and demand options
outcomes: Ensure the shortlist of options are the right ones
Build trust & confidence in the planning process
Time Session details Responsibility Materials
5.00pm Pre-forum – Room set up WR

onwards Organise tables and chairs, check audio visual equipment and set
up, check catering, set up registration desk
5.20- Meet and greet WR Name
5.30pm Sign in, provide name labels, direct to tables (all participants will labels
have allocated tables - 8 tables)
5.20- Pre-forum displays/information WR Posters &
5.30pm Posters/displays – LHWP objectives, supply demand balance, displays
overview of existing system
Pledge wall – Love Water
5.30- COMMENCEMENT WR Lead PP slides
5.35pm Plenary: Welcome, Overview and Guidelines Facilitator
Welcome to Country. Woolcott Research Lead Facilitator to and
welcome and thank participants for coming Aboriginal
Woolcott Research Lead Facilitator to give overview of forum Elder
agenda and approach, the key sessions, guidelines and
housekeeping. Location of toilets and evacuation in emergency.
5.35- Presentation: Welcome by HW and Context Setting Hunter Water PP slides &
5.45pm Welcome from HW (Darren) Video
What is the LHWP, whole of government approach
The LHWP 2014 addressed drought response, the next plan will
address long term water planning.
Why long term water planning? (+ video)
Purpose of today’s forum – to discuss demand and supply
options for the future. High level option types (values based
discussions).
Specific options/schemes will not be discussed.
Tillegra Dam is not under consideration.
81
July 2019
Provide context of current drought – tonight is our longer term
plan and ensuring we have a robust drought response for future
droughts.
Decision framework (simplified) – how community views are
being reflected in decision making
Recap on values discussed in Phase 1
This forum is only one part of the decision making process – there
will be further opportunities for community input.
5.45- Keypad questions WR Lead Keypads

5.50pm Warm up questions Facilitator
Here is a warm up question, just to test out those key pads.
Q1. On average, how long do you spend in the shower?

1. Less than a minute
2. 1-2 minutes
3. 3-5 minutes
4. 5-10 minutes
5. 11-20 minutes
6. 20 mins or more
7. I never shower
SHOW ANSWER STRAIGHT AFTER
Showers are our largest internal use (~30% of household use).

The average shower uses around 9L of water per minute. Hunter
Water recommends limiting shower to 4 minutes to conserve
water.
Q2. On average, how much drinking water does Hunter Water

supply to customers each day?
194,000 litres
1.94 million litres
19.4 million litres
194 million litres
SHOW ANSWER STRAIGHT AFTER – D 194 million litres
‘Real’ Question
Q3. There are many options Hunter Water could consider to
ensure there will be enough water for our region into the future,
as I read out each one, can you tell me how open you are to
Hunter Water considering this as an option. PLEASE BASE YOUR
ANSWERS ON WHAT YOU CURRENTLY KNOW ABOUT EACH
OPTION – REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH YOU KNOW
Taking the first one, how open are you to them considering the
option of …
Conservation of water
82
July 2019
Dams
Desalination
Ground water
Recycled water
Stormwater harvesting
Water sharing between regions
They definitely should be considering this option 1

I am quite open to them considering this option 2
I am undecided 3
I am slightly against them considering this option 4
They should not be considering this option 5
Don’t know 6
5.50- Presentation: Planning for the future and the considerations Emma
6.00pm
Supply/demand balance & drought planning – introduce the
concept of upfront investment vs drought response risk
Uncertain future – challenges/opportunities
Drought response – with no up-front investment, options have
to be implemented earlier, at greater implementation &
regulatory risks
We need to be adaptable, ready for an uncertain future
We also need to have a plan in case the worst happen
In deciding what the plan should be, there are a number of
factors or considerations that need to be taken into account
The cost to build
Cost to operate
Time to implement
Environmental impact
Social impact
Reliability
6.00- Table Discussion: Ranking of importance of considerations Table HAND OUT

6.10pm Do you think HW should invest more in options up front to Facilitators
reduce risks to our water supply from drought, or defer Individual
investment until needed in a drought? sheets to
What do you think is most important for HW to consider when write down
they are deciding which options to consider? Which would you personal
put next and so on. Discuss reasons for the order selected. ranking
HAND OUT CARDS WITH CONSIDERATIONS AND ASK THE TABLE
TO RANK THEM IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE
Are there any other considerations/ values they should be
considering
ASK THEM TO FILL IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL SHEETS
6.10- Keypad Voting WR Lead
6.15pm Facilitator
Ask them to input their personal rankings for each consideration
83
July 2019
What ranking did you give …
The cost to build
The cost to operate
Environmental impact
Social impact
Reliability
Q. Do you think Hunter Water should…

Invest less up-front, and accept a greater risk of needing to build
emergency desalination.
Invest more up-front and reduce the risk of needing to build
emergency desalination.
Don’t know
6.15-6.20 Presentation: Water supply and demand options against HW (Emma) PP slides
pm values categories
Explain that each water supply and demand option has pros and
cons in relation to the values categories, i.e. some are better or
worse on cost or environment, etc.
Water quality across all options will meet quality standards
(robust systems are in place to ensure this)
Present the matrix that shows how each option impacts these
categories i.e. how favourable they are on each category. This
doesn’t have to be a matrix, could be symbols/icons e.g. $$ that
show how each one rates on the value categories.
Explain the ranking of option types is based on current industry
knowledge and best available information. The purpose of
ranking these options is to get your feedback and prompt
discussion.
6.20 - Table discussion: Water supply and demand options WR Table
6.30pm against values categories (blind) Facilitators
Explain we are undertaking this exercise to gauge whether
option preferences change depending on their level of De-
understanding of the different types of options available. identified
We will be repeating this exercise at the end of the session to see matrix
if preferences change as you learn more about each option type.
HANDOUTS
GIVE OUT DE-IDENTIFIED HANDOUT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO
FILL IN Individual
HAND OUT OPTIONS ON CARDS WITH THEIR INFORMATION ranking
FOR TABLES TO WORK TOGETHER ON sheet
Ask which option looks acceptable to you and why? CARDS FOR
Ask them to work together as a table and rank the options in EACH
order from most to least acceptable OPTION
Explain that they will also have the opportunity to fill in their own
worksheet with their your own rankings. Ask them to do this
84
July 2019
Briefly discuss results as a group and advise we will be doing the
same exercise at the end of the session once everyone has had
the opportunity to find out more information.
6.30- Keypad voting on de-identified options WR Lead

6.35pm Ask them to put in their rankings of the options Facilitator
Question: What ranking did you give option …
6.35- DINNER
7.05pm
7.05- Presentation: Overview of Demand-side options – HW (Kirsty PP slides or
7.15pm characteristics of option types for reducing demand for Jones) videos
drinking water
Water loss
Water efficiency
Alternative water sources (potable substitution) – IPR, non-
potable reuse, stormwater harvesting (incl. rainwater tanks)
7.15- Table Discussion: Perceptions of demand options Table Factsheets

7.30pm GIVE OUT FACTSHEETS Facilitators
Explore perceptions of demand options – positives and negatives
Acceptability of options and why?
For different uses/in different circumstances?
At different levels of drought? Are some more acceptable as
water levels fall?
Are there any that shouldn’t be on the shortlist at all?
Concerns/questions about any of the options
Are there other demand options that should be considered?
Capture views on IPR – it is ok all the time/some of the
time/never eg would you be comfortable having treated recycled
water fed back into dam water? Is it ok as a separate tap to your
house for washing machines, garden watering and toilet
flushing? Is it never ok?
GET TABLE PARTICPANT TO WRITE UP PROs AND CONs ON EACH

OPTION ON FLIPCHART
CHOOSE A SPOKESPERSON TO TELL THE ROOM ONE PRO AND
ONE CON THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY ANOTHER TABLE
PREVIOUSLY
7.30- TABLE FEEDBACK SESSION

7.40pm Tables to feedback one pro and one con for each option.
As we go around the table ensure that they mention a pro and a
con that has not been mentioned yet
7.40- Presentation: Supply Side Options – characteristics of HW PP slides or

7.50pm option types for increasing water supply videos
85
July 2019
Surface water – Present overview of options - new/upgraded (Steve
dams, inter-regional connectivity (water sharing). McAleer)
Groundwater –Investigating the feasibility of new groundwater
sources..
Desalination
Introduce concept of environmental offsets
7.50- Table Discussion: Perceptions of supply options Table Factsheets

8.05pm GIVE OUT FACTSHEETS Facilitators
Explore perceptions of each supply option – positives and
negatives
Acceptability of each option and why?
For different uses/in different circumstances?
At different levels of drought? Are some more acceptable as
water levels fall?
Are there any that shouldn’t be on the shortlist at all?
Concerns/questions about any of the options.
Are there other supply options that should be considered?
Capture views on environmental offsets as part of the discussion
– should we be including offsetting any water generation enviro
costs eg carbon output of running a desalination offset by
building a solar farm to power it – is this important and should it
be factored into the cost.
GET TABLE PARTICPANT TO WRITE UP PROS AND CONS ON EACH

OPTION ON FLIPCHART
CHOOSE A SPOKESPERSON TO MENTION ONE PRO AND ONE
CON NOT PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED
8.05- TABLE FEEDBACK SESSION

8.15pm Tables to feedback one pro and one con for each option
As we go around the table ensure that they mention a pro and a
con that has not been mentioned yet
8.15- DESSERT
8.25pm
8.25- Water supply and demand options against values WR Lead
8.30pm categories Facilitator
Welcome back from break and brief intro to next activity
We’re now going to reveal the supply and demand option types
with their values so we can do the activity again.
This will show whether your preferences might change based on
factors other than the values that have been identified so far.
8.30- Table discussion: Options revealed WR Table Matrix

8.45pm GIVE OUT OPTIONS REVEALED (options now identified in Facilitators revealed
matrix)
Thoughts on options now? HANDOUT
86
July 2019
Does knowing how each option impact the values categories Individual
change your preferences at all? Why? Ranking
Ask them to rank the options in order as a table Sheet
Ask them to indicate their personal rankings of the options on CARDS FOR
their worksheet again, now they know what they are EACH
OPTION
8.45- Keypad voting on identified options WR Lead
8.55pm Question: What ranking did you give option … Facilitator
8.55- Next steps, staying involved HW (Darren) PP Slides

9.00pm HW to present next steps and plans/timelines for deliberative
forums
Emphasise that this is just the beginning of the conversation on
developing a portfolio of options (i.e. not going to go away a
build an x, y or z) and that the solution will be a mix of options.
Encourage people to stay involved and ways to stay involved (e.g
Your Voice, Surveys, Attend more forums)
9.00pm CLOSE WR Lead End of

Woolcott Research Lead Facilitator – thanks and reminder Facilitator and session
to fill in end of session questionnaire on tables table questionnai
facilitators re,
incentives
and signing
sheet
87
July 2019
Appendix B: Recruitment Screener
Project Name: Hunter Water – Water Options for the Future (Phase 2)
Client: Hunter Water
Woolcott Job Number: 9882-DE
Sample Description: Males and females aged 18 + yrs for both Maitland & Newcastle
Date: June 2019
FORUM DETAILS
Newcastle
Newcastle City Hall – Concert Hall
5.30-9.00pm
290 King Street, Newcastle CBD
Tuesday 25 th June
Maitland The Quarry Function Centre
5.30-9.00pm (within Club Maitland City)
Wednesday 26 th June 14 Arthur Street, Rutherford.
QUOTAS
TOTAL OVERALL QUOTAS
TOTAL 18-34 35-64 65+ Male Female Postcode Owner Renter
CHECK
Newcastle 100 25 50 25 50 50 67 33
QUOTAS
Maitland 100 26 53 21 50 50 67 33
IF CALLING PAST FORUM PARTICIPANT:

Good morning/ afternoon, my name is ______________ from Woolcott Research and I’m calling on
behalf of Hunter Water. I understand that you attended a forum last year in Newcastle/Maitland
and I’m calling to see if you’d like to attend another paid community forum.
IF CALLING POTENTIAL NEW PARTICIPANT:

Good morning/ afternoon, my name is ______________ from Woolcott Research and I’m calling
on behalf of Hunter Water [PROVIDE EXTRA INFO IF NEEDED*]. The reason for my call is that
Hunter Water are holding a number of paid community forums and we are inviting a random
selection of people to register their interest in taking part.
*INFORMATION ABOUT HUNTER WATER FOR INTERVIEWERS

Hunter Water are responsible for providing running water to your property and for removing waste
water, as well as minimising the impact on the environment from these activities.
88
July 2019
The purpose of the forum is for Hunter Water to seek community views regarding supply and
demand water options for the future in the Lower Hunter region. You do not need to know
anything at all about water or wastewater services to take part. Your input will help Hunter Water
ensure our community values and preferences are reflected in our planning decisions and will
inform the next Lower Hunter Water Plan.
The forum in your area is being held on 25 th /26 th June from 5.30 to 9pm at the Newcastle City
Hall/Club Maitland. Up to 80 community members will take part. (MENTION LOCATION LATER)
Tea and coffee will be provided, with a dinner served midway through the forum. You will be given
$100 at the event to compensate you for your time and to cover any expenses.
CHECK POSTCODE:_______________
1. Would you be interested in participating (again)?

Yes 1
No 2 – THANK AND TERMINATE
Thank you, hopefully you’ll find it quite informative and enjoyable.
FOR PAST PARTICIPANTS: CHECK DEMOGRAPHICS.

FOR NEW PARTICIPANTS: I will just need to ask you a few questions to ensure we get a good
cross-section of participants. So firstly…
2. Do you, or any immediate members of your family, work for Hunter Water, any other water
or wastewater utility company?
Yes 1 – TERMINATE
No 2
3. Is the place you live in: CHECK QUOTAS

Owned outright or with a mortgage 1
Being rented or occupied rent-free 2
Other (please specify) 3
4. Record gender: CHECK QUOTAS

Male 1
Female 2
5. Can you please tell me your exact age: __________________ CHECK QUOTAS
6. Do you speak a language other than English at home or with family?

No, English only 1
Yes 2
7. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?
89
July 2019
No 1
Yes 2
Prefer not to say 3 DO NOT OFFER
8. What is your approximate annual household income? READ OUT

Less than $41,600 1
Between $41,600 and $78,000 2
Between $78,000 and $104,000 3
Between $104,000 and $156,000 4
More than $156,000 5
Do not wish to answer 6 DO NOT OFFER
9. Are you a member of any special interest groups or associations related to water?
Yes (please specify) 1
No 2
Thank you for providing all of this information, you have qualified to participate in the
community forum and we look forward to seeing you on the day.
Just to confirm, you have agreed to attend the forum on 25 th /26 th June from 5.30 to 9pm at the
Newcastle City Hall/Club Maitland.
Due to space limitations, only people who have completed this questionnaire will be able to
attend on the day, and only one person per household
10. Could I please record your full name and contact details so we can send you a letter or
email to confirm your attendance and provide all the details of the event?
TITLE:
FIRST NAME:
SURNAME:
CONFIRM PH. NO.:
MOBILE NUMBER:
1 ST LINE ADDRESS:
2 ND LINE ADDRESS:
SUBURB:
POSTCODE:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Repeat back all details above to check spelling
90
July 2019
11. Would you prefer to be contacted by letter or by email?
Letter 1
Email 2
12. And finally, do you have any special needs to enable you to attend on the day? E.g.
accessibility or dietary requirements (due to health, cultural or religious reasons)
__________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time and willingness to attend. We will also give you a phone call in the
week leading up to the forum to remind you of the forum and confirm attendance.
If you find you are unable to attend for any reason, please contact Melissa Homann on 02 9261
5221 as soon as possible as we will need to find a replacement for you. You can also contact
Melissa if you require any further information about the forums.
91
July 2019
Appendix C: Hand Outs and Materials
Activity Sheet 1
Activity Sheet 1A
92
July 2019
Activity Sheet 2
Activity Sheet 3
93
July 2019
Hunter Water Fact Sheets
94
July 2019
95
July 2019
96
July 2019
97
July 2019
98
July 2019
99
July 2019
100

LHWP - Woolcott Report - Phase 2 Deliberative Forums

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LHWP - Woolcott Report - Phase 2 Deliberative Forums

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lower Hunter Water Plan

Phase 2: Water Supply and Demand Options

Community Deliberative Forum Report

© Woolcott Research and Engagement Pty Ltd 2018

Woolcott Research and Engagement

Telephone: +61 2 9261 5221

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5

Background and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 14

2. Planning for the Future and the Considerations .................................................................... 28

4. Overview of Demand-side Options ....................................................................................... 47

7. Final Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options ................................................................. 70

End of session feedback............................................................................................................ 80

Figure 1: Average time spent in the shower ..................................................................................... 19

Figure 2: Average quantity of drinking water supplied per day ....................................................... 20

Figure 3: Initial Openness to Hunter Water Considerations .............................................................. 21

Figure 5: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering dams .......................................................... 22

Figure 6: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering desalination ............................................... 23

Figure 7: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater ............................................. 24

Figure 8: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering recycled water ........................................... 25

Figure 9: Initial openness to Hunter Water considering stormwater harvesting .............................. 26

Figure 11: Opinion of Hunter Water Risk Strategy ............................................................................ 30

Figure 12: Ranking of Importance of Considerations - Mean Scores ................................................ 31

Figure 13: Ranking of Cost to Build .................................................................................................... 32

Figure 14: Ranking of Cost to Operate ............................................................................................... 33

Figure 15: Ranking of Environment .................................................................................................... 34

Figure 16: Ranking of Social Impact ................................................................................................... 35

Figure 17: Ranking of Reliability ......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 18: Ranking of De-identified Options - Mean Rankings .......................................................... 38

Figure 19: Ranking of Option A .......................................................................................................... 40

Figure 20: Ranking of Option B .......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 21: Ranking of Option C .......................................................................................................... 42

Figure 23: Ranking of Option E........................................................................................................... 44

Figure 24: Ranking of Option F ........................................................................................................... 45

Figure 25: Ranking of Option G .......................................................................................................... 46

Figure 26: Ranking of Identified Options - Mean Ranking ................................................................. 61

Figure 27: Ranking of Conservation of Water .................................................................................... 63

Figure 28: Ranking of Dams................................................................................................................ 64

Figure 29: Ranking of Desalination .................................................................................................... 65

Figure 30: Ranking of Groundwater ................................................................................................... 66

Figure 31: Ranking of Recycled Water ............................................................................................... 67

Figure 32: Ranking of Stormwater Harvesting ................................................................................... 68

Figure 33: Ranking of Water Sharing ................................................................................................. 69

Figure 36: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams.......................................................... 72

Figure 37: Final openness to Hunter Water considering dams.......................................................... 73

Figure 38: Final openness to Hunter Water considering groundwater ............................................. 74

Figure 42: Agreement with Statements Regarding the Forum .......................................................... 80

Table 1: Ranking of Options by the Whole Table ................................................................................. 39

Background and Objectives

Planning for the Future

Ranking of the considerations

De-identified Water Supply and Demand options against key considerations

The main negatives were seen to be:

The main positives were seen to be:

The biggest negative was that it was still climate dependent.

Recycled Water (non-drinking)

The significant negatives were:

Overview of Supply-side options

The positive aspects mentioned were:

The downsides were:

The perceived positives were:

The negatives associated with desalination were:

The perceived advantages were:

A number of disadvantages emerged during the discussion:

Final Perceptions of Supply and Demand Options