Urban water quality monitoring
In 2007 Peter Cosier and I from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists visited Eva Abal at University of Queensland to find out about water quality monitoring studies in southeast Queensland (SEQ). We had embarked on a project called “accounting for nature” driven by the premise if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it! In essence it was designed to measure the “condition” of various environmental assets at a regional scale. We were aware of work conducted in SEQ by Eva and others on what was initially termed a “ healthy waterways campaign”. I became familiar with some of the publications of the group which we found inspirational in its science and public communication.
The campaign in SEQ proceeded through a number of stages commencing in 1994. Seven councils together with the Queensland Government bid for and secured matching funds from the National Landcare program to initiate an integrated study of Moreton Bay and three of its estuaries, the Brisbane, Pine and Caboolture Rivers. A scientific advisory group was established chaired by Professor Paul Greenfield from UQ with the objective of developing an integrated strategy for improving estuary water quality. One product of this work was the “Moreton Bay Study. A scientific Basis for the Healthy Waterways Campaign” by William C. Dennison and Evan Abal (1999). This is a remarkable study involving input from many scientists. Bill Dennison came to the study from the USA with experience in polluted estuaries and was inspirational in helping all concerned understand issues of environmental degradation and restoration. It was soon clear they needed to expand the scope of this work to include the entire Moreton Bay catchment as well the waterways of the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast that form SEQ. The result was a further study involving more local councils and with assistance of a range of organisations including CSIRO (“Healthy Waterways Health Catchments, Making the connection in South East Queensland”, E. Abal, S. Bunn and W Dennison, 2005). This was published by the then Moreton Bay and Catchments Partnership.
This is a region undergoing considerable population growth and land use change. The studies placed a lot of emphasis on nutrient and sediment loads coming off diverse catchments. It embraced management actions linked to community views on key issues informed by monitoring at scales relevant to management. What was a powerful tool used by authors were an array of well-illustrated conceptual models to guide investigations and communications leading to the use of annual report cards at a catchment scale. Jumping forward there is now more than 24 years of data and report cards for the SEQ region. This sustained effort is now the responsibility of Healthy Land & Water, a regional entity which looks after the Healthy Waterways Program supported by local councils, state government, water utilities and universities (see info@hlw.org.au). This program has several components: (1) Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) for a range of indicators in catchments and estuaries (e.g. sediment load, nutrients, algae, dissolved oxygen); (2) the annual SEQ report card containing information on environmental condition (grades A-F), socio-economic benefit rating, and a newly created cultural report; and (3) an online monitoring of recreational waterway health for microbial pollution sampling for enterococci as the indicator. While other places have attempted to apply aspects of what has been achieved in SEQ, the Healthy Waterways Program based on a catchment source to sink approach is an exemplar in Australia.
Overseas I have been impressed by the regional water quality program in San Francisco Bay. As with SEQ we have a region which has and will continue to experience population growth with consequences for waterway health. The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality (RMP) was created in 1993 by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) to implement the federal Water Act and California state water legislation. The goal of the RMP is to collect data and communicate information about water quality in San Francisco Bay in support of management decisions. It was seen as a way to replace individual water monitoring actions and requirements with a comprehensive program guided by a charter and MOU between the Regional Board and the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). Staff of the SFEI are engaged in the science that underpins the work of the program. I became aware of this in reading a paper by the SFEI and other organisations including the federal EPA ( Trowbridge, P.R. et al., 2015, “The regional monitoring program for water quality in San Francisco Bay, California, USA: science in support of managing water quality”, Regional Studies in Marine Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.10.002).
What impressed me was: first, the explicit use of management questions related to matters such as concentrations of contaminants, pathways, sources, and impacts (Table 1). Second, use of focus workgroups to look at emerging contaminants, PCBs, dioxin and other priority areas (Table 2). Third is the study design for different indicators and sampling over time and across the Bay (Table 3, Fig. 2). Fourth is the governance structure involving a steering committee and a technical review committee along with the respective workgroups, and strategy teams representing different interested stakeholders (e.g. sport fish). And fifth and deemed essential is the requirement for stable funding. As of 2015, 35 wastewater dischargers, 9 industrial dischargers, 9 stormwater management agencies representing over 100 local municipal agencies, 12 dredgers and one cooling water discharger pay fees in lieu of individual monitoring requirements. The authors state that such “local” funding of the RMP “largely insulates the Program from waxing and waning cycles of state and federal budgets”.
There are a number of guiding principles which define the intentions and expectations of those involved in the RMP. They include development of sound scientific information; use of external science advice and review; the need to prioritise funding decisions through collaborative consensus; and importance of raising public awareness with regular communication on status and trends of water quality. In so many ways this is similar to what has been undertaken in SEQ over a similar period of time. Both are models for water quality monitoring in complex urban estuary environments including catchments. That they both continue to operate is a testimony to the value diverse participants in their respective programs place on the information that comes from sustained monitoring of a range of indicators relevant to both ecological and public health.
Bruce Thom
Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2024. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au
#258
