Redefining risk for a more complex water future
The water industry is entering its next phase of transition, defined not just by the need for resilience, but by the scale and complexity of delivering it under increasing constraints.
For the past decade, the focus has been on strengthening systems: investing in infrastructure and improving reliability alongside preparing for climate variability. That work remains critical — but the context is shifting. Utilities are now navigating mounting affordability pressures, aging asset bases, more frequent and severe climate impacts, and rising expectations from customers and communities.
At the same time, productivity across Australia has struggled to keep pace with growing demand. Population growth and rising service expectations are driving the need for continued investment, while funding constraints are tightening. This creates a more difficult set of trade-offs around where to invest and how to prioritize outcomes and manage the cost of making the wrong decisions.
A more complex and volatile risk environment
Taken together, these forces are reshaping the operating environment and challenging long-held assumptions about how risk is managed. The industry is also facing more urgent and rapidly evolving risks on the ground — from flooding and inundation to broader climate impacts — further increasing the consequences of inaction. Boards are also navigating rising stakeholder expectations around transparency, equity and environmental outcomes, adding another layer of complexity to decision-making.
Alongside these pressures, the regulatory environment is adding further complexity. Water utilities operate within a dense and expanding framework of economic, environmental, health and safety regulations — each with its own objectives, performance expectations and compliance requirements.
Individually, these frameworks are well intentioned. However, in practice they can create competing or misaligned priorities. Decisions that optimize affordability under economic regulation may conflict with environmental outcomes or long-term resilience. Similarly, public health and compliance requirements can limit flexibility in how systems are designed or operated, even where alternative approaches may deliver broader benefits.
The result is a progressively narrowing band within which utilities can operate. In effect, organizations are being asked to solve multiple — and at times incompatible — objectives simultaneously. This creates a structurally constrained environment where no single decision fully satisfies all requirements and where trade-offs are unavoidable.
From a governance perspective, this fundamentally shifts the nature of risk. Boards are increasingly exposed regardless of the path taken — whether through cost impacts, service outcomes, regulatory compliance or broader community expectations. In this context, decision-making can take longer, as organizations seek to minimize downside risk.
Traditionally, risk in the water industry has been approached with caution, prioritizing stability and compliance. In today’s environment, that approach alone is no longer sufficient. The scale and pace of change require a shift toward more adaptive, forward-looking models, where risk is both mitigated and actively enabled to support better outcomes.
Our work with Urban Utilities in Brisbane reflects this shift, applying adaptive planning for water cycle resilience through dynamic adaptive pathways and strategic investment planning. This enables more flexible, trigger-based decisions that can adjust over time as conditions change.
The role of leadership and governance
Recalibrating risk appetite is a practical necessity for balancing affordability and service expectations with long-term resilience. It requires clearer alignment between strategy and governance, stronger integration of financial and non-financial risks, and greater confidence in decision-making under uncertainty. It also requires a more explicit understanding of risk trade-offs, including the risks of delaying or avoiding investment altogether. It also requires acknowledging that not all regulatory expectations can be fully optimized at once. Stronger governance is needed to navigate these tensions explicitly — making informed trade-offs, articulating where value is prioritized, and building confidence to progress decisions within a constrained and imperfect framework.
There is much the water industry can learn from others navigating similar challenges in other industries. In energy, governance models are evolving to better manage disruption, accelerate investment and respond to shifting stakeholder expectations. These lessons offer valuable insight but must be adapted to the unique context of water.
Enabling better decisions for our complex water future
Ultimately, this transition is about more than managing downside risk — it’s about enabling better decisions in an increasingly constrained environment, where investment has, in some cases, slowed, and the consequences of underinvestment are becoming more visible.
Leaders in the water industry must be prepared to take a bolder, more deliberate approach to risk. In many cases, doing nothing is the greatest risk of all. As the industry continues to evolve, the question is not whether change is needed, but how governance frameworks must adapt to enable it.
-
Director of Operations, Water, Australia and New Zealand
Kate Simmonds leads strategy, performance and operational delivery across Australia and New Zealand. She brings extensive experience across major infrastructure programs, utility collaborations and organizational transformation, with a strong focus on commercial performance, risk governance and workforce capability.
