To meet increasing urban water requirements in a sustainable way, there is a need to diversify future sources of supply and storage. However, to date, there has been a lag in the uptake of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) for diversifying water sources in urban areas. This study draws on examples of the use of MAR as an approach to support sustainable urban water management. Recharged water may be sourced from a variety of sources and in urban centers, MAR provides a means to recycle underutilized urban storm water and treated wastewater to maximize their water resource potential and to minimize any detrimental effects associated with their disposal. The number, diversity and scale of urban MAR projects is growing internationally due to water shortages, fewer available dam sites, high evaporative losses from surface storages, and lower costs compared with alternatives where the conditions are favorable, including water treatment. Water quality improvements during aquifer storage are increasingly being documented at demonstration sites and more recently, full-scale operational urban schemes. This growing body of knowledge allows more confidence in understanding the potential role of aquifers in water treatment for regulators. In urban areas, confined aquifers provide better protection for waters recharged via wells to supplement potable water supplies. However, unconfined aquifers may generally be used for nonpotable purposes to substitute for municipal water supplies and, in some cases, provide adequate protection for recovery as potable water. The barriers to MAR adoption as part of sustainable urban water management include lack of awareness of recent developments and a lack of transparency in costs, but most importantly the often fragmented nature of urban water resources and environmental management.

Use of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) has rapidly increased in Australia, USA, and Europe in recent years as an efficient means of recycling stormwater or treated sewage effluent for non-potable and indirect potable reuse in urban and rural areas. Yet aquifers have been relied on knowingly for water storage and unwittingly for water treatment for millennia. Hence if ‘leading edge’ is defined as ‘the foremost part of a trend; a vanguard’, it would be misleading to claim managed aquifer recharge as a leading edge technology. However it has taken a significant investment in scientific research in recent years to demonstrate the effectiveness of aquifers as sustainable treatment systems to enable managed aquifer recharge to be recognised along side engineered treatment systems in water recycling. It is a ‘cross-over’ technology that is applicable to water and wastewater treatment and makes use of passive low energy processes to spectacularly reduce the energy requirements for water supply. It is robust within limits, has low cost, is suitable from village to city scale supplies, and offers as yet almost untapped opportunities for producing safe drinking water supplies where they do not yet exist. It will have an increasingly valued role in securing water supplies to sustain cities affected by climate change and population growth. However it is not a universal panacea and relies on the presence of suitable aquifers and sources of water together with effective governance to ensure human health and environment protection and water resources planning and management. This paper describes managed aquifer recharge, illustrates its use in Australia, outlining economics, guidelines and policies, and presents some of the knowledge about aquifer treatment processes that are revealing the latent value of aquifers as urban water infrastructure and provide a driver to improving our understanding of urban hydrogeology.

Escherichia coli isolates ( n = 300) collected from six sites in subtropical Brisbane, Australia, prior to and after storm events were tested for the presence of 11 virulence genes (VGs) specific to diarrheagenic pathotypes. The presence of eaeA , stx ₁ , stx ₂ , and ehxA genes specific for the enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) pathotype was detected in 56%, 6%, 10%, and 13% of isolates, respectively. The VGs astA (69%) and aggR (29%), carried by enteroaggregative (EAEC) pathotypes, were frequently detected in E. coli isolates. The enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) gene bfp was detected in 24% of isolates. In addition, enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) VG ipaH was also detected in 14% of isolates. During dry periods, isolates belonging to the EAEC pathotype were most commonly detected (23%), followed by EHEC (11%) and EPEC (11%). Conversely, a more uniform prevalence of pathotypes, EPEC (14%), EAEC (12%), EIEC (10%), EHEC (7%), and ETEC (7%), was observed after the storm events. The results of this study highlight the widespread occurrence of potentially diarrheagenic pathotypes in the urban aquatic ecosystems. While the presence of VGs in E. coli isolates alone is insufficient to determine pathogenicity, the presence of diarrheagenic E. coli pathotypes in high frequency after the storm events could lead to increased health risks if untreated storm water were to be used for nonpotable purposes and recreational activities.