By: David Nixon, NSW SQID Taskforce Chair, Sydney
Date: October 11, 2025
Talk of reform can be unsettling. When you propose significant changes to a long-standing national system, the natural fear is that you intend to tear everything down and start from scratch, creating chaos and uncertainty in the process.
Let’s be very clear: when it comes to reforming the Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP), that is not our proposal.
The NSW SQID Taskforce has identified critical flaws in our current approach, but we also recognise the value in what already exists.1 The solution is not a revolution that discards years of work; it’s a smart, practical evolution. We are proposing a parallel path—a new framework that complements the existing system, rather than replacing it. 🛣️
The Car Analogy: Safety Ratings vs. Fuel Efficiency
To understand our proposal, think about how you buy a new car. You look at two completely different, but equally important, sets of ratings:
- Fuel Efficiency Rating: This tells you how well the car performs its primary function of transportation, measured in litres per 100km.
- ANCAP Safety Rating: This tells you how safe, reliable, and durable the car is, measured in stars.2
One rating doesn’t replace the other; they are parallel assessments that, together, give you a complete picture to make an informed decision. You wouldn’t buy a car with a 5-star fuel rating but a 1-star safety rating.
Right now, our industry is only measuring fuel efficiency (pollutant removal). We are completely ignoring the safety rating—the Lifecycle Costs, Safety, Constructability, and Maintainability (LSCM).
Building a Two-Lane Highway for Evaluation
Our proposed solution is to create a two-lane highway for asset evaluation. Both lanes are essential, and they run side-by-side.
Lane 1: Pollutant Removal Performance (The Existing SQIDEP)
This lane already exists. The current national protocol is a robust and scientifically-backed process for answering one critical question: “How effectively does this device remove pollutants from water?” We propose to leave this process and its methodology intact. It does its job well.
Lane 2: Whole-of-Life Performance (The New LSCM Framework)
This is the new lane we must build. This parallel process would be a separate, equally rigorous evaluation designed to answer the other critical question: “What is the true, long-term cost, risk, and effort required to own and operate this asset for its entire life?” This is where we formally assess all the LSCM factors.
The Result: An Empowered Decision-Maker
Under this new framework, when a council engineer is evaluating a new SQID, they would receive a comprehensive “spec sheet” with two distinct ratings. For the first time, they would be able to make a balanced, evidence-based decision:
- Device A: 5-Star Pollutant Removal | 1-Star LSCM Rating (Very high maintenance costs, poor safety access).
- Device B: 4-Star Pollutant Removal | 5-Star LSCM Rating (Slightly lower removal, but extremely cost-effective and safe to maintain over 30 years).
Which is the better choice for the community? With a parallel system, the choice becomes clear. You are no longer choosing in the dark.
Improving our evaluation methods doesn’t have to mean starting from scratch. The NSW SQID Taskforce Report proposes this innovative parallel governance framework to assess LSCM factors while leaving the existing pollutant-removal protocol in place. Is this dual-stream approach the most practical way forward? We welcome your technical review and feedback on this core recommendation.
We have commenced a broad consultation process across industry, government, councils and industries. We are aiming to prepare a feedback supplement at the conclusion of the consultation period.
Review the consultation draft, Volume One, outlining recommendations, available on the Stormwater 2030 website.Submit feedback via the Taskforce Feedback Form by Monday, December 1, 2025.
