When in the project lifecycle should we invest in water resilience?

Resilience is often best understood as an insurance investment, something put in place before it is needed, so it can protect service continuity when conditions deteriorate. While some assets may not be used at full capacity all the time, they are critical during periods of disruption.

The cost of underinvesting in resilience can far exceed the cost of maintaining it. These assets may be costly to build and operate, but the alternative of failing to meet demand or maintain service levels can have much greater economic and social consequences. Severe disruptions such as water shortages or prolonged restrictions can carry significant costs for communities and industry. A useful comparison is the cost of maintaining a credible reserve option versus the economic, social and political cost of discovering too late that the system has no reserve.

Australia’s large desalination plants illustrate this point. Several were commissioned during or shortly before wetter periods and therefore operated only intermittently, or not at full production, in their early years. As drier conditions have returned, those same assets are now operating at, or close to, full capacity. Their value is not measured by how often they run in wet years, but by the certainty they provide when the climate turns dry.

The value of these assets is in the certainty they provide when conventional sources fail. 

Delaying resilience investment often leads to reactive decision-making. As systems are pushed to their limits, organisations may be forced to commit to high-cost solutions under tight timeframes, with limited opportunity to explore alternatives, engage communities or sequence delivery effectively.

Delayed investment can increase the risk of overbuilding or locking in options that are more expensive and less flexible over time. It can also shift investment from planned delivery to crisis response, bringing higher procurement costs, greater disruption and lower public confidence.

Early investment creates more room to assess triggers and make better-informed, lower-risk decisions before conditions become acute.

For major water supply projects, which can take seven to fifteen years from concept to commissioning, the most effective approach is often to invest modestly in the early stages and scale up only when conditions justify it.

An early investment of even as little as five percent of the project value can cover several processes that can aid future operations such as:

• Feasibility studies and concept design
• Environmental and regulatory approvals
• Community and stakeholder engagement
• Detailed sight investigations
• Procurement-ready documentatiom

Together, early-stage activities help projects progress to a more informed and delivery-ready position without locking in major capital too soon, creating the flexibility to wait until the last responsible moment to commit to full investment.

Committing too early can lead to stranded assets, community backlash, price impacts and erosion of public trust. Committing too late can result in crisis procurement costs, economic disruption and legal risk. A modest upfront investment helps organisations monitor triggers and scale up at the point when action is justified.

The lesson from major desalination and water security programs is that the decisive choices are usually made well before construction. Site investigations, approvals strategy, procurement models, environmental performance requirements, stakeholder confidence and risk allocation often shape the outcome more than the final process technology. Treating resilience as an early lifecycle investment is about making sure the owner has enough evidence and control to make the right commitment at the right time.