Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2012

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) 2011 - These are the national non-mandatory guidelines for drinking water quality prepared by the NHMRC and the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. The ADWG covers microbiological, chemical, and physical characteristics, health-based targets, and operational requirements. By regulation 4, the ADWG is mandatory for South Australian drinking water providers “as in force from time to time”. This means that when the NHMRC issues an update, the standard changes without any amendment to the regulations or parliamentary debate. Providers must track these updates to remain compliant.

Community Water Planner 2011 - This is an alternative document that a risk management plan may be consistent with instead of the ADWG. It was prepared by the NHMRC and the National Water Commission. It appears intended for smaller or more basic supplies where the full ADWG may be disproportionate. The option allows a provider to adopt a simpler plan, but that plan must still be “consistent with” the Planner, which itself references the ADWG in many respects.

Risk management plan (RMP) - In the Act (section 13), a drinking water provider must prepare or adopt a risk management plan. The regulations prescribe the minimum contents: (a) the full name and contact address of the provider, and (b) records of all documents relied on for implementation, such as operating manuals. The plan must be updated within 14 days of any change to the contact address. The plan must be consistent with either the ADWG or the Community Water Planner. The RMP drives the monitoring program, testing regime, and incident response. It is the central document for compliance.

Approved laboratory - Regulation 13 defines a prescribed class of laboratories: those accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for testing of a particular kind. A provider must have most testing done at such a lab. The exceptions are tests for characteristics that vary during transport (e.g. temperature, disinfectant residual) and tests specifically authorised by the Chief Executive. This aims to ensure technical reliability but also creates a monopoly-like effect: smaller providers in remote areas may have to arrange transport to a NATA-accredited lab, adding cost and delay.

Prescribed premises for rainwater notices - Regulation 7(2)(a) defines “place of a prescribed kind” broadly. It includes short-term accommodation (hotels, motels, holiday rentals, houseboats, caravan parks), event and recreation centres (function centres, sports centres, community centres), churches, and public buildings under the care of a Minister, agency, or council. Excluded are regulated care or education premises and regulated food premises, which have separate regimes. For these places, if rainwater is supplied for human consumption, a notice in the form in Schedule 1 must be displayed within 30 centimetres of each tap and also in all promotional material (brochures, newspapers, magazines, internet) and application forms. This requirement applies to existing supplies and to optional alternative supplies.

Vulnerable persons - In the context of regulated care or education premises, a vulnerable person is a person to whom care or education is provided at those premises. This includes children, patients, residents of aged care, and people with disabilities. The regulations impose access restrictions: for regulated care or education premises, rainwater taps must not be accessible to vulnerable persons. For regulated food premises, rainwater must not be used in food or beverages intended for consumption by vulnerable persons or for direct sale to the public at licensed premises, restaurants, cafés, or other retail outlets.

Bulk water supply - Regulation 5 excludes bulk water suppliers from being drinking water providers. Regulation 6 defines bulk water as water supplied in quantities greater than 100 litres. This means a supplier who provides 101 litres or more in a single transaction is not a drinking water provider under the Act. The supplier does not need an RMP, does not need to test at an approved lab, and does not need to report. The 100-litre threshold is arbitrary and creates a bright line. A supplier providing 99 litres is fully caught; one providing 101 litres is not. This may encourage splitting of supplies to stay under the threshold.

Expiation fees - The regulations provide for fixed penalty expiation fees as an alternative to prosecution. Regulation 9(2) sets a $160 expiation fee for failing to update the RMP contact details. Regulation 9(4)(b) and (5) set a $315 expiation fee for testing at a non-approved lab, failing to furnish test results, or failing to keep records for five years. These fees are low relative to the maximum court-imposed penalties ($1,250 and $5,000 respectively), which suggests the government expects most breaches to be minor and administrative.

Enforcement agency - The Act defines enforcement agency but allows regulations to add agencies. Regulation 14 adds the Eastern Health Authority. This means that a local regional authority can appoint authorised officers, conduct inspections, and enforce the Act and regulations. This decentralises enforcement but also introduces variation.

The regulations bind a diverse set of actors, primarily drinking water providers, premises operators, and enforcement bodies.

Drinking water providers are the primary duty holders. These include SA Water (the state-owned corporation), local councils that operate water supplies, private water utilities, and any person who supplies drinking water to customers. The test is factual supply, not legal status. The regulations do not exempt small providers. A community group that operates a rainwater tank and supplies drinking water to a hall used for community events could be a drinking water provider if not excluded by the bulk water threshold. The exemption for bulk water suppliers (regulation 5) means that water carters, emergency water suppliers, and other intermittent bulk suppliers are not drinking water providers, provided each supply is greater than 100 litres. A provider serving fewer than 50,000 customers must furnish test results within 21 days after an audit or inspection, but providers serving more than 50,000 can have alternative arrangements with the Chief Executive.

Operators of prescribed places under regulation 7 bear notice and access obligations. These include owners and operators of hotels, motels, holiday rentals, caravan parks, camping grounds, houseboats (if used for short-term accommodation), function centres, sporting and recreation centres, community centres, churches, and public buildings (including government offices). If any of these premises supply rainwater for human consumption, they must display the prescribed notice within 30 centimetres of each tap and include the notice in all promotional material (including websites) and application forms. This imposes a compliance cost on every business that uses rainwater, even if the rainwater is an optional alternative. The regulations do not require the premises to provide rainwater; they only regulate the circumstances when it is provided. For many operators this is a simple signage requirement, but for those with many taps or multiple outlets the cumulative cost can be significant.

Regulated care and education premises are defined broadly in regulation 7(4). They include hospitals (under the Health Care Act 2008), any premises providing health services (including prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and ongoing care), residential aged care facilities, premises caring for persons with disabilities, childcare centres, kindergartens, schools (primary and secondary), and associated outdoor areas. For these premises, additional restrictions apply if rainwater is supplied for human consumption. First, the taps supplying rainwater must not be accessible to vulnerable persons (the persons receiving care or education). This means that if a school has a rainwater tap in a playground or classroom, it must be physically inaccessible to children, for example by a lock or key. Second, the rainwater must not be used in the preparation of food or beverages intended for consumption by vulnerable persons at those premises. In practice, this means a school canteen cannot cook with rainwater. Third, for regulated food premises (restaurants, cafés, licensed premises preparing food for direct sale), rainwater cannot be used in food or beverages intended for vulnerable persons at care/education premises or for direct sale to the public. This creates an additional compliance layer for caterers supplying schools or hospitals.

Regulated food premises include premises used in the course of business for preparing food or beverages intended for vulnerable persons at regulated care/education premises or for direct sale at licensed premises, restaurants, cafés, or other retail food or beverage outlets. A café that uses rainwater for making coffee is prohibited from doing so for customers. This may require the café to have a separate water supply or to treat the rainwater to a standard that makes it equivalent to mains water.

Laboratories are affected indirectly. Only NATA-accredited laboratories can be used for compliance testing (except for field-degradable tests). This creates a captive market for NATA-accredited labs, but also a supply risk: if no NATA-accredited lab exists near a remote provider, the provider must either arrange transport (which may affect test results for some characteristics) or seek Chief Executive authorisation.

Enforcement agencies and officers include SA Health (the primary agency), the Eastern Health Authority (added by regulation 14), and presumably other bodies appointed under the Act. Authorised officers can enter premises, inspect documents, and issue improvements notices or expiation notices. The regulations expand the scope of audits to include compliance with the regulations themselves, not just the Act.

Auditors and inspectors must be approved under the Act. The fee for auditor approval is $130 (unless the applicant is a Public Service employee or approved food safety auditor under the Food Act 2001). Inspectors pay no fee. These fees cover administration but are small relative to the potential liability for non-compliance.

The regulations impose numerous duties on drinking water providers and premises operators. Rights are more limited, mainly procedural rights to challenge enforcement or to seek Chief Executive authorisation.

Duty to observe the ADWG (regulation 4). This is the most fundamental duty. It applies directly to drinking water providers. The ADWG sets out health-based targets, guideline values for contaminants, and operational requirements. Non-observance is a breach of the regulations. However, the ADWG is a lengthy guideline document; a provider must constantly monitor for updates. There is no statutory defence that the provider was not aware of a change.

Duty to prepare and maintain a risk management plan (regulation 9). The provider must ensure the plan contains the prescribed content (name and contact address, records of documents relied on). The plan must be updated within 14 days of any change to contact details. This duty is enforced by a maximum penalty of $1,250 and an expiation fee of $160. The duty also includes making the plan consistent with either the ADWG or the Community Water Planner. The provider must also keep copies of all plans and implementation documents for at least five years, with a maximum penalty of $5,000.

Duty to test at approved laboratories (regulation 9(4)(a)). Except for characteristics subject to variation during transport (e.g. temperature, disinfectant residual) and testing authorised by the Chief Executive, all testing must be at a NATA-accredited laboratory. This duty carries a maximum penalty of $5,000 and an expiation fee of $315.

Duty to furnish test results (regulation 9(4)(b)). For providers serving more than 50,000 customers, results must be in the manner and form approved by the Chief Executive. For all others, results must be furnished within 21 days after completion of the audit or inspection, in the approved form. Non-compliance also carries a $5,000 maximum penalty.

Duty to make monitoring information publicly available (regulation 12). The results of testing must be made available within 14 days after the provider receives the results from the lab (or produces them, if not sent to an approved lab). This is a transparency duty. The regulations do not specify the method (e.g. website, notice board), but the duty is immediate and ongoing.

Duty to display rainwater notices (regulation 7). For places of a prescribed kind, the notice must be in the prescribed form (Schedule 1) and displayed within 30 centimetres of each tap, in all promotional material, and in application forms. This duty applies to the operator of the premises, not necessarily the drinking water provider. For optional alternative rainwater supplies, the same notice requirements apply, with additional restrictions for regulated care/education and food premises. These duties are not backed by specific penalties in the regulations (the Act’s general offence provisions apply).

Duty to not serve rainwater to vulnerable persons at certain premises (regulation 7(3)(b)(i)). For regulated care or education premises, taps supplying rainwater must not be accessible to vulnerable persons. This is an active duty to restrict access, not just a warning. For regulated food premises, rainwater must not be used in food or beverages intended for vulnerable persons or for direct sale.

Rights. Providers have the procedural right to apply for auditor or inspector approval and to challenge enforcement decisions under the Act. They may also seek Chief Executive authorisation to use non-NATA labs for specific testing. Operators of premises have the right to avoid the rainwater notice requirement by not supplying rainwater for human consumption; the regulations only apply if rainwater is supplied. There is also a right under regulation 15(2) to be charged no more than $200 for an inspection and to have the cost limited to reasonable costs. The regulations do not create a private right of action for consumers; enforcement is left to the enforcement agencies.

The regulations create two tiers of penalties: maximum court-imposed fines and fixed expiation fees that can be paid without court appearance. The penalties appear moderate but accumulate across multiple breaches.

For breach of the duty to update risk management plan contact details (regulation 9(2)), the maximum penalty is $1,250. An expiation fee of $160 is available. This means a provider could pay $160 to avoid prosecution for failing to update an address, which is a minor administrative breach. However, if a provider knowingly maintains an incorrect address for an extended period, the regulator could allege a separate breach for each day? The regulation does not say “each day” so likely one breach per omission.

For the three duties under regulation 9(4) and (5) - testing at non-approved lab, failing to furnish test results, and failing to keep records for five years - the maximum penalty is $5,000 each. The expiation fee for each is $315. These are more serious because they go to the heart of water quality assurance. A provider who uses a lab that is not NATA-accredited for routine testing faces a potential $5,000 fine per instance. Similarly, failing to keep records for five years could destroy the evidentiary trail for an investigation.

The expiation fees are set at roughly 6% to 13% of the maximum penalty. This is low compared to some other regulatory schemes and may encourage the regulator to use expiation notices for administrative efficiency rather than court proceedings. The fees are payable to the enforcement agency.

Enforcement actions are carried out by authorised officers appointed by enforcement agencies. Regulation 10 prescribes the functions of auditors and inspectors: determining compliance with the regulations, assessing remedial action, making recommendations on the risk management plan, and flagging other matters of concern. The documents that must be produced are the risk management plan and all implementation records (including monitoring results, maintenance logs, and incident reports). This gives the officer broad access to the provider’s internal operations.

Regulation 11 requires the auditor or inspector to furnish a written report to the Chief Executive within 21 days of completing the audit or inspection. The report must include the results of the investigations and any recommendations made. This creates a paper trail that could be used in subsequent enforcement or to escalate to the Minister.

Regulation 14 adds the Eastern Health Authority as an enforcement agency. This is a local council-based authority. The effect is to expand the pool of potential enforcers beyond the central health department. This may lead to variation in enforcement stringency across regions.

Fees for inspections are capped at $200 and must not exceed reasonable costs (regulation 15(3)). The fee is recoverable as a debt from the occupier of the premises or the owner/operator of the vehicle. This gives the enforcement agency a civil recovery mechanism without needing to prove a breach first. The inspection can be triggered merely because it is “reasonably required in connection with the administration or enforcement of the Act or these regulations”. This is a broad trigger that could apply even on a random basis.

The regulations do not create any defence or due diligence exemption. A provider who has a risk management plan and uses a NATA-accredited lab but still serves water that does not meet the ADWG may face enforcement under the Act itself (the regulations do not create an offence for supplying non-compliant water, but the Act does). The regulations focus on process compliance rather than outcome compliance, though process is presumed to lead to outcomes.

The regulations operate within a web of South Australian and national legislation. The parent Act is the Safe Drinking Water Act 2011 (SA). The regulations specify matters that the Act left to subordinate legislation: the definition of bulk water (regulation 6), the class of premises for rainwater notices (regulation 7), the prescribed period for ceasing supply (regulation 8), the prescribed content of risk management plans (regulation 9), the prescribed functions for audits (regulation 10), reporting requirements (regulation 11), public availability of monitoring data (regulation 12), approved laboratories (regulation 13), additional enforcement agencies (regulation 14), and fees (regulation 15).

Food Act 2001 (SA) - The regulations cross-reference the Food Act directly. Regulation 7(4) defines “regulated food premises” by reference to food prepared for vulnerable persons at regulated care or education premises or for direct sale to the public at licensed premises, restaurants, cafés, and other retail outlets. An “approved food safety auditor” under the Food Act is exempt from the $130 fee for auditor approval under these regulations (Schedule 2 note). This suggests integration between water safety and food safety regimes, but it also means that a food business that uses rainwater must navigate both the Safe Drinking Water regulations and the Food Act standards. The Food Act already requires food businesses to use potable water; the rainwater notice regime adds an extra layer for businesses that choose to use rainwater.

Development Act 1993 (SA) - The term “Building Code” is given the same meaning as in the Development Act. This connects the building classification system (Class 1A, 2, 4, 10 buildings) to the definition of domestic premises under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that whether a building is subject to the domestic premises exemption depends on its classification under a separate act administered by planning authorities.

Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA) - The definition of “regulated food premises” includes premises at which food or beverages are intended for direct sale or supply to the public at licensed premises under the Liquor Licensing Act. This means that a pub or club serving food must comply with the rainwater restrictions if they use rainwater for food preparation for sale, even if the sale is to members only.

Health Care Act 2008 (SA) - The definition of “hospital” in the Health Care Act is used to define “regulated care or education premises”. This pulls in the full scope of healthcare facilities, including rehabilitation and ongoing care.

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 and Community Water Planner 2011 - These are not legislation but are given legal force by regulation 9(3). They are external documents prepared by the NHMRC. The ADWG is updated periodically without any South Australian parliamentary scrutiny. This delegation of standard-setting is a common technique but creates risk for regulated entities: they must monitor the NHMRC website for changes or rely on industry alerts. The guidelines refer to World Health Organisation guidelines and various standards, so compliance cascades.

National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) - Regulation 13 ties approved laboratories to NATA accreditation. NATA is a not-for-profit company that provides laboratory accreditation. This means that the regulations outsource the quality assurance of testing to a private, national body. There is no provision for reciprocal recognition of overseas accreditation or other Australian standards. This may create a barrier for providers using in-house testing or labs accredited by other bodies.

Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) - Not referenced in the regulations, but there may be interaction: an employer who supplies drinking water to workers has duties under WHS law to provide safe drinking water. Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations may be evidence of meeting that duty, but the two regimes are separate. The WHS regulator could enforce even if the Safe Drinking Water regulator does not.

Environmental Protection Act 1993 (SA) - Not directly referenced, but the discharge of water, or the operation of a water treatment plant, may require environmental licences. The risk management plan under these regulations may include operational controls that also satisfy environmental obligations.

The Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2012 were made on 6 December 2012, published in the South Australian Government Gazette on the same day (page 5459), and commenced on 1 March 2013 (regulation 2). The regulations commenced on the same day as the Safe Drinking Water Act 2011, which entered operation on 1 March 2013.

The legislative history provided in the source shows only the principal regulations. There are no amendment regulations listed. This means that as of the version supplied, the regulations have not been amended since 2013. However, the regulations themselves incorporate the ADWG “as in force from time to time”, so the substantive standard has likely changed several times since 2011 without any amendment of these regulations. The Community Water Planner is similarly dynamic.

A note in the legislative history states: “For further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.” This indicates that any amendments may be tracked through the official index, but the source provided does not list any. It is possible that subsequent amending regulations exist but were not included in the extract supplied. For the purpose of this analysis, we treat the regulations as unamended since commencement.

The regulations have been in force for over a decade. The lack of amendment may indicate that the regime is considered stable, or that amendments have been made via the Act itself rather than the regulations. For example, the definition of “drinking water provider” in the Act could be changed without touching the regulations. The fee schedule has not been updated in the source; the fees ($130 for auditor approval) look low in 2025 terms and may have been adjusted by regulation amendment or by ministerial determination under the Act. If not amended, the real value of the fees has eroded due to inflation, making cost recovery less effective.

The source does not mention any litigation, and there are no case citations in the legislative history or in the regulations themselves. The Safe Drinking Water Act 2011 and these regulations are relatively obscure compared to larger regulatory regimes. To my knowledge, there are no reported court decisions in South Australia that directly interpret these regulations. The reasons are likely: (a) the regulations are technical and prescriptive, leaving little room for interpretive disputes; (b) enforcement is primarily administrative through expiation notices or improvement notices, which are rarely litigated; (c) the penalties are low, making it uneconomical for providers to challenge a $315 expiation notice or even a $5,000 penalty; (d) the dispute resolution mechanisms within the Act (reviews and appeals) may not generate published judgments.

There may have been internal tribunal hearings (such as in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, SACAT) for review of enforcement decisions, but these are not reported in the ordinary law reports. If a provider was served with an improvement notice or a prohibition notice under the Act, they could seek review. The regulations themselves do not create reviewable decisions; the Act does.

One possible area of future litigation is the meaning of “observing” the ADWG in regulation 4. Does “observe” mean comply strictly, or does it allow a provider to depart from a guideline value if they can justify the departure in their risk management plan? The ADWG itself says it is advisory, not mandatory, but regulation 4 makes it mandatory. A provider might argue that the ADWG’s own language allows for local circumstances. A court might have to construe the interplay.

Another area is the scope of “prescribed place” under regulation 7(2)(a). The list is broad but not exhaustive: it includes examples such as “farmstay” and “houseboat”. A dispute could arise over whether a particular premises (e.g. a charitable soup kitchen) is covered. The definition also excludes “regulated care or education premises” from the category, but there could be overlap (e.g. a church running a childcare centre). The regulations do not resolve how to treat mixed-use premises.

Given the lack of case law, practitioners should advise clients that the regulations have not been tested in court and that there is a risk that a court might interpret them strictly against the provider. The safest approach is to comply fully.

Incorporation of the ADWG by reference. Regulation 4 requires observance of the ADWG “as in force from time to time”. This means that when the NHMRC updates the ADWG, the legal standard changes automatically. There is no requirement for the Minister to publish a notice or for the regulations to be amended. A provider who last checked the 2011 edition may be non-compliant with the 2025 edition. The maximum penalty of $5,000 for testing failures is modest, but the reputational risk from a potential public health incident is much larger. Providers should subscribe to NHMRC updates or use commercial advisory services.

Bulk water threshold of 100 litres. Regulation 6 says bulk water means water supplied in a quantity greater than 100 litres. This is a relatively small threshold. A supplier providing 101 litres in a single transaction is not a drinking water provider; one providing 99 litres is fully caught. This creates an incentive to supply in quantities just over 100 litres to avoid the regime. However, the concept of “supplied” is not defined in the regulations. If a water carter makes three deliveries of 80 litres each to the same premises on the same day, does that count as a single supply of 240 litres? The regulations do not address aggregation.

Rainwater notices in promotional material. Regulation 7(2)(b)(ii) requires that the rainwater notice be included in “all promotional material for the place published in brochures, newspapers, magazines or on the Internet”. This is broad. It covers a single advertisement in a local newspaper. It also covers the operator’s website. For a small bed-and-breakfast operator who lists a rainwater tap in the bathroom, this is a significant compliance burden. The operator must ensure every online listing, from their own website to third-party booking sites, includes the notice. The notice must be in the form in Schedule 1, which is a prescribed text. This may be technically impossible on some booking platforms. The regulations do not provide for a link or alternative.

Accessibility of taps to vulnerable persons. For regulated care or education premises (schools, aged care, childcare), taps supplying rainwater must not be accessible to vulnerable persons (regulation 7(3)(b)(i)). This means not just a warning label but physical inaccessibility. If a school has a rainwater tap in an outdoor area that children can reach, the school must lock it off or remove the tap. This may require retrofitting and reduces the benefit of having rainwater.

Use of rainwater in food for direct sale. Regulated food premises cannot use rainwater in food or beverages intended for direct sale or supply to the public at licensed premises, restaurants, cafés, or other retail outlets. This applies even if the rainwater is filtered or treated to a high standard. A café that uses a rainwater tank for making coffee is prohibited from selling that coffee. The only way to comply is to have a separate mains water system or to treat the rainwater to a standard that the enforcement agency accepts as not being rainwater (but the regulation applies to “rainwater supplied as an optional alternative”). The definition of “rainwater” is not in the regulations, so presumably it means water collected from roof runoff. If the café treats it to meet ADWG standards, is it still “rainwater”? The regulations do not say.

Five-year record retention. Regulation 9(5) requires that all risk management plans and implementation documents be kept for at least five years. This includes records and results of monitoring and testing, maintenance activity, incident notification, and remedial action. For a large provider, this means storing vast amounts of data. For a small provider, it means keeping paper records. The penalty is $5,000. After five years, can the records be destroyed? The regulation says “at least 5 years”, so after five years the duty ends. But other laws (e.g. tax, work health and safety) may require longer retention.

Approved laboratories limited to NATA. Regulation 13 only recognises NATA accreditation. This excludes other accreditation schemes such as APAL or international ISO 17025 by other bodies. If a provider uses a laboratory accredited in another state or a government laboratory that is not NATA-accredited, the testing is not compliant. The only way out is authorisation by the Chief Executive. This creates a bottleneck and potential delays.

No statutory duty of care to third parties. The regulations do not create a private right of action for a person who becomes ill from drinking non-compliant water. The Act and regulations are enforced only by enforcement agencies. A consumer would need to rely on common law negligence or breach of contract, using the regulations as evidence of the standard of care.

Eastern Health Authority as enforcement agency. Regulation 14 adds the Eastern Health Authority to the definition of enforcement agency. This is a local government authority covering a small part of metropolitan Adelaide. It is unusual to have a single local authority added; it suggests some historical or political arrangement. Providers in the Eastern Health Authority area may face more frequent or rigorous enforcement than those in areas without a specially authorised local agency.

Inspection fee up to $200. The fee is capped at $200 and must not exceed reasonable costs. However, it applies even if no breach is found. The enforcement agency can charge the occupier for an inspection that is “reasonably required”. An occupier who refuses to pay faces debt recovery action. This gives the agency a funding mechanism that is independent of any enforcement outcome, potentially incentivising more inspections.

Compliance requires a systematic approach that integrates the process duties under the regulations with the substantive quality standards of the ADWG.

Step 1: Determine your status. First, assess whether you are a drinking water provider under the Act. If you supply water for human consumption, you are likely a provider unless you fall within the bulk water exclusion (supply >100 litres per transaction). If you supply only rainwater at your premises for your own use and not to others, you are probably not a provider, but you may still be an operator of a prescribed place subject to notice duties. Check the definition in the Act (which the regulations do not restate) and regulation 5.

Step 2: Prepare or adopt a risk management plan. If you are a drinking water provider, you must have a risk management plan that is consistent with either the ADWG or the Community Water Planner. The plan must include the full name and contact address of the provider and records of documents relied on. It must be a living document: update any change to contact details within 14 days. The plan must set out a monitoring program for testing water quality. Consider engaging a consultant familiar with the ADWG framework.

Step 3: Ensure testing at approved laboratories. Except for characteristics that change during transport (temperature, disinfectant residual) and tests authorised by the Chief Executive, all testing must be done at a NATA-accredited laboratory. Identify which labs near you have NATA accreditation for the relevant testing (e.g. microbiological, chemical). Arrange contracts and sample transport. Keep certificates of accreditation on file.

Step 4: Maintain records for five years. Keep copies of every version of the risk management plan and all implementation documents: monitoring results, maintenance logs, incident notifications, remedial action taken. Use a database or physical filing system. After five years, you may destroy records, but consider keeping longer for legal risk management.

Step 5: Publish monitoring results. Within 14 days of receiving results from the lab (or producing them yourself if exempted), make the results publicly available. Decide on a method: a dedicated webpage, a notice board at your premises, or a publicly accessible register. The regulations do not prescribe the format, so choose one that is easily accessible.

Step 6: Cooperate with audits and inspections. If an auditor or inspector attends, produce the risk management plan and all implementation records promptly. Pay the inspection fee (up to $200) if demanded. If you disagree with the fee, dispute it formally but pay under protest to avoid debt recovery. Implement any recommendations from the audit report.

Step 7: If your premises supplies rainwater for human consumption. Identify whether you fall within regulation 7. If you operate a hotel, motel, holiday rental, function centre, church, community centre, or public building, and you supply rainwater for drinking, you must display the prescribed notice (Schedule 1) within 30 centimetres of each tap. Also include the notice in all promotional material (brochures, website, newspapers, application forms). If the rainwater is an optional alternative (guests can choose to drink it), the same requirements apply. For regulated care or education premises (hospitals, aged care, childcare, schools) and regulated food premises (restaurants, cafés, licensed premises preparing food for sale) you must also ensure: (a) taps are not accessible to vulnerable persons (e.g. locked or positioned out of reach), and (b) rainwater is not used in food or beverages intended for vulnerable persons or for direct sale. If you cannot comply, stop supplying rainwater for human consumption.

Step 8: Pay fees. If you apply to become an approved auditor, pay $130 unless you are a Public Service employee or approved food safety auditor under the Food Act 2001. No fee for inspector approval.

Step 9: Monitor external changes. Subscribe to the NHMRC website for updates to the ADWG and the Community Water Planner. When a new edition is published, review your risk management plan and update it if needed. Also monitor the SA legislation website for any amending regulations (e.g. fee increases, new definitions).

Step 10: Seek Chief Executive authorisation if needed. If you need to test at a non-NATA lab for a specific characteristic, apply to the Chief Executive for authorisation. If you are a large provider (>50,000 customers) seek approval for alternative reporting arrangements. If you are unsure about an exemption from the ADWG for local conditions, seek written guidance.