Storm tank versus bathing water protection two

 

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

One of the things I increasingly appreciate about delivering environmental capital projects is that the engineering solution is only part of the story.

Take storm tanks.

Large storm tanks are an important part of protecting our bathing waters. During periods of heavy rainfall, they provide somewhere for excess flows to be held, reducing the likelihood of sewage spills into rivers and coastal waters.

That is a good thing.

Cleaner bathing waters are good for swimmers. Good for tourism. Good for local businesses. Good for people who live near the coast. And good for the environment.

But there is a less attractive side to the solution.

Storm tanks need to be cleaned.

If they aren't, accumulated solids can become a source of unpleasant odours. Cleaning them requires operational activity — tanker movements, equipment, pumps, access and people. And because these tanks are often located close to the very coastal communities and recreational areas they are protecting, the consequences can be experienced by the people living, holidaying or spending a day there.

So the same community that benefits from fewer sewage spills may also experience the occasional noise, traffic, activity and smell associated with preventing those spills.

And that brings me to something much broader about capital delivery.

Delivering a capital programme is about much more than process engineering.

A successful capital solution is the result of many disciplines coming together.

Process engineers might determine what treatment or storage is required. Civil and structural engineers have to turn that requirement into something that can physically be built. Electrical, mechanical, instrumentation, control, environmental, planning, land, commercial, construction and operational specialists all have their part to play.

And then there are the considerations that don't always fit neatly into an engineering calculation.

How will it actually be constructed?

How will it be operated?

How will maintenance be carried out?

Where will vehicles go?

What will the neighbours experience?

What happens when something needs cleaning at 6am on a summer morning?

What does the solution mean for the people who live beside it, work beside it or come to the area on holiday?

These aren't peripheral questions.

They are part of the solution.

An environmental protection project isn't successful simply because the process works.

It is successful when the process works and it can be constructed, operated, maintained, accessed, regulated, afforded and lived alongside.

And this is where I think we sometimes struggle with environmental infrastructure.

We understandably want the benefit of the solution without experiencing the consequences of delivering it.

We want cleaner bathing waters.

But we don't necessarily want the tankers.

We want fewer sewage spills.

But we don't necessarily want the operational activity required to prevent them.

We want environmental protection.

But we don't necessarily want environmental infrastructure on our doorstep.

None of this means that inconvenience should simply be accepted.

There is a responsibility to minimise noise, odour, traffic and disruption. There is a responsibility to design intelligently, operate well and consider the people living alongside the infrastructure.

But there is also a responsibility to recognise the trade-offs.

You cannot separate the environmental benefit from the infrastructure required to deliver it.

And perhaps that is one of the less glamorous truths about delivering environmental improvements.

The finished project might be invisible when it is working well.

The beach might simply be cleaner.

The bathing water might simply be safer.

The sewage spill that would once have happened simply doesn't happen.

But behind that apparently simple outcome is an extraordinary amount of engineering, construction, operational planning, maintenance and human effort.

And sometimes, unfortunately, a tanker turning up.

That's not necessarily a sign that the solution has failed.

It may simply be the price of making the solution work.

Environmental capital delivery is therefore about much more than designing the right process.

It is about bringing together technical, construction, operational, environmental and social considerations to create something that works not just on a drawing, but in the real world.

Because ultimately, good engineering isn't just about asking:

"Can we build it?"

It's about asking:

"Can we make it work — and can people live with it?"