Water decisions in an uncertain world

Across the water sector, many planning discussions still start with a familiar set of questions. How much water is needed? Where does it need to be supplied? And how quickly can infrastructure be delivered? Those questions matter, but can be difficult to answer when considering long term water requirements for strategic infrastructure projects. Broader discussion is needed.

Conversations about water uncertainty often come back to the same point: the need to take a wider view of water. That wider view means considering the broader context of how water supports communities and the environment.

In practice, people tend to see water through four distinct lenses: water for life, water for prosperity, water for the environment and water for country. These perspectives shape everyday decisions.

Water for life focuses on households and essential services, while water for prosperity reflects growing demand from sectors such as mining, data centres and green energy that need water to carry out day to day business. Water for the environment focuses on keeping ecosystems healthy and water for country reflects and honours First Nations’ deep cultural, spiritual and custodial connections to water.

When leaders push ahead without recognising these differences, they may solve one problem but unintentionally create another. The first step is agreeing what water needs to be delivered and who it needs to serve.

Better outcomes depend on stronger collaboration and a shift in mindset. Simply approaching decisions through a purely traditional water perspective doesn’t work.

Leaders need to bring industrial players, communities and traditional landowners into discussions early so all perspectives are heard.

One practical example is emerging on the northwest coast of Western Australia, where public utilities, Traditional Owners and industry are collaborating on a desalination plant worth AUD 600 million. The desalination plant will reduce reliance on groundwater abstraction from the Bungaroo aquifer, which is deeply important to the local Indigenous community.

The lesson here goes beyond mere collaboration being a nice idea to demonstrating that shared planning can change the shape of a project. It can change who invests, how risk is shared and how benefits flow across industry and community.

When it comes to the future, the only certain thing is uncertainty. Traditional planning often focuses on a single outcome, such as a fixed volume of water by a certain date. That approach assumes we can predict what will happen. Recent experience shows we cannot.

This is especially apparent in longer timeframes. For example, Western Australia has been adapting its water management since the 1970s as rainfall declined. The system shifted from surface water to groundwater and now faces pressure on groundwater as industry expands and new sectors such as hydrogen and green steel emerge.

The broader lesson is that adaptation and economic growth don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Water management can evolve over time without undermining productivity or prosperity.

For leaders making long-term investment decisions, this matters. Water infrastructure lasts decades. Demand, climate conditions and expectations can change much faster. Choosing one path too early can remove the ability to respond later.

Whilst there is more to it, water uncertainty essentially consists of two parts: how much water communities need, and when it will be needed.

Combining adaptive pathways with more quantitative tools, including scenario modelling and financial option analysis, can give decision makers more confidence when stakes are high and conditions are unclear. This is especially important for industrial water.

With an adaptive pathway, teams identify a set of options that could work under different scenarios instead of committing to one solution upfront. Agreed upon trigger points allow them to move between those options as the future becomes clearer.

• Start by agreeing what water needs to be delivered. Name the different ways people value water before moving to solutions.
• Bring collaboration forward. Use early discussions to shape options, not to defend decisions already made.
• Challenge plans built on a single forecast. Ask what happens if demand arrives earlier, later, at a different capacity or in a different location.
• Use data science. Model a range of potential future outcomes informed by both known and uncertain variables.
• Use adaptive pathways planning to keep options open. Map workable choices and agree on trigger points so teams can change direction with confidence.
• Accept uncertainty as part of the job. Uncertainty is not a failure of planning but a condition leaders need to plan for.

To hear the full conversation behind these insights, listen to the podcast episode.