Remote and regional Queensland water systems show why water security cannot be measured by infrastructure condition alone, according to Infrastructure Project Solutions.
Toby Chalmers, General Manager, Engineering at Infrastructure Project Solutions, part of Sequana Group, said recent work in two remote Queensland communities highlighted deeper sector challenges.
The work examined two communities with different supply arrangements.
One relied on a conventional surface water treatment system, while the other used groundwater, river extraction and transfer infrastructure.
Despite those differences, both communities faced ageing assets, constrained maintenance, incomplete documentation, limited operational capacity and increasing system complexity.
Why does remote water security need a broader definition?
Chalmers said many of the issues identified were not caused by a single failed asset.
“We found that technical problems were often symptoms of broader systemic challenges that had developed over many years,” Chalmers said.
The projects showed that treatment plants can remain technically functional while still carrying prolonged operational risk.
For remote communities, that risk can affect more than water treatment performance.
“When drinking water systems become unreliable, the impacts extend well beyond treatment performance,” Chalmers said.
“They affect public health, community confidence, healthcare services, education and economic participation.”
- Want more information on what Inside Water is up to? Sign up for our weekly email, landing in inboxes with the latest news.
- Do you want the magazine delivered to your letterbox? Sign up here to subscribe.
Are different standards being accepted?
The Queensland experience raises a difficult question for the water sector: whether different risk settings are being accepted in remote communities compared with metropolitan areas.
Chalmers said operational challenges can become normalised when they persist over time.
That can make service disruption feel routine, even where the same level of risk would attract stronger attention elsewhere.
For utilities, councils, regulators and funding bodies, the lesson is that remote water security needs earlier intervention, not only emergency response.
What role does preventative investment play?
One of the strongest findings from the Queensland work was the value of preventative investment.
Targeted improvements to monitoring systems, process optimisation, maintenance planning, operational procedures and operator support delivered measurable improvements before major capital works were required.
Those activities also helped generate the evidence needed to support long-term infrastructure funding applications.
“The value of early intervention is often underestimated,” Chalmers said.
“Relatively modest investments can significantly reduce operational risk while providing a clearer pathway towards more sustainable infrastructure renewal programs.”
The projects ultimately contributed to funding pathways worth more than $60 million for future water security improvements.
Why is workforce capability central to resilience?
The work also highlighted the importance of operators in remote and regional water systems.
Across both communities, operators were responsible for many essential services beyond drinking water.
That included wastewater operations, waste management, fleet activities and emergency response.
At the same time, water systems are becoming more reliant on automation, digital monitoring and more sophisticated treatment processes.
“Operator responsibilities continue to expand as systems become more sophisticated,” Chalmers said.
“Yet access to training, mentoring and specialist support remains inconsistent.”
Chalmers said workforce capability should be treated as part of infrastructure resilience.
“Even the most advanced treatment plant cannot deliver safe drinking water without skilled people operating and maintaining it.”
What does this mean for water equity?
The Queensland work connects water security with broader questions of equity.
Infrastructure condition, workforce capability, geographic isolation, funding models and access to specialist expertise all influence long-term outcomes.
Addressing one issue without the others is unlikely to produce lasting improvement.
That means a new treatment plant will not solve remote water security if operator training, maintenance planning, documentation and support systems are not strengthened at the same time.
For Chalmers, the challenge is not only technical.
“Water security is not only an engineering challenge,” he said.
“It is a public health challenge, a community challenge and ultimately an equity challenge.”
What should the sector take from Queensland?
The lessons from remote Queensland suggest that resilience depends as much on systems and people as it does on assets.
Earlier investment can reduce risk before failure occurs.
Better documentation can support decision-making and future funding.
Operator support can help communities manage increasingly complex treatment systems.
For governments and utilities investing in regional and remote infrastructure, the message is clear: safe drinking water needs sustained capability, not only capital works.
“Because safe drinking water should not depend on postcode.”
