This paper focuses on the use of three economic approaches to water management in Australia that can increase the efficiency of water use and water security, thus providing a fillip to sustainability and economic growth: the establishment of water markets and water pricing; government spending; and the adoption of legislation and economic regulations promoting the development of water markets. Australia is well down the reform path, but needs to complete implementation. Australia's challenge is relevant to many countries struggling with demand and supply water imbalances, and the consequential declining environmental outcomes in rural areas and persistent water shortages in urban areas.

Australia will not meet Sustainable Development Goal target 6.1, to “achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all” by 2030, unless water service provision is improved to hundreds of small (less than 10,000 residents), rural and remote (SRR) communities. We have estimated the national benefits of a programme to upgrade drinking water services to ensure ‘good quality’ for 395 Australian SRR communities using a stated preference survey of 3,523 participants reflective of the Australian population. Using multiple model estimates, we calculated the willingness to pay at between AU$324 and AU$847 per Australian household per year for 10 years. Aggregating across the relevant Australian population, we calculated the aggregate willingness to pay for water quality improvements at AU$1.2–4.7 billion yr⁻¹, or AU$8.3–33.2 billion as a 10-year net present value. We further estimated the capital and operating costs to provide ‘good-quality’ drinking water in the 395 SRR communities under three scenarios; the costs range from AU$0.51 to AU$3.29 million per community and, in total, from AU$0.2 billion to AU$1.3 billion.

This article discusses how key risks from extreme weather events might affect progress towards meeting Sustainable Development Goals 6 and 11 in cities in developing countries. It outlines the magnitude of the existing shortfall in safe water and sanitation services, and how climate change will exacerbate existing problems. It argues that the performance of many governments thus far has lacked urgency and purpose. Unless governments in particular become more committed, with redoubled effort, the goals are unlikely to be achieved.

This paper examines three actions by national and state governments – the role of the Cap, the Living Murray (TLM) and the National Action Plan for Water Security/Water for the Future, embodying the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) Plan – in the Murray–Darling Basin over a 20-year period. The three actions sought to address declining environmental conditions through water policy reform. All were significant in their own way, but only the third offers the prospect of improving environmental outcomes. Taken together, the case studies illustrate that in real life and in complex, multilevelled policy-making, politics is central to water policy decision-making.

Urban water security in Australia’s major cities is now very high, reflecting in part recent policy interventions. Important indirect potable water reuse projects were completed but no direct potable reuse project was undertaken and none seems likely in the near term. Governments have much to learn from decisions to build very large desalination and recycling plants, particularly around timing and scale. Future water reuse decisions are likely to have a much greater commercial focus. Policies and regulations giving more flexibility to decentralized provision of water-related services could result in further growth of climate-resilient water resources and non-potable reuse.