Technical Report No. 12/07
Water Management in South Creek Catchment Current state, issues and challenges
Debbie J. Rae
November 2007
BETTER IRRIG ATION BETTER FUTURE T BETTER ENVIRONMEN
Water Management in South Creek Catchment: Current state, issues and challenges
Debbie J. Rae1
1University of Western Sydney
CRC for Irrigation Futures
CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 12/07 November 2007
CRC for Irrigation Futures i CRC IF Copyright Statement
© 2007 IF Technologies Pty Ltd. This work is copyright. It may be reproduced subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source.
Important Disclaimer
The Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge those who have provided inputs to this review. In particular I acknowledge:
• Ass/Prof Basant Maheshwari for providing a list of topics to be covered in the review and comments on the manuscript
• Mr Bruce Simmons for discussions and comments on the overall structure of the document
• Mr Gavin Beveridge for production of South Creek catchment maps and his contributions to the section on groundwater
• Mr Bill Yiasoumi, Department of Primary Industries for provision of information on annual estimated water use in agriculture in South Creek catchment
• Department of Natural Resources for provision of information on the surface water licenses and volumes from South Creek catchment under FOI (1989), section 17
• Department of Environment and Conservation for access to unpublished reports and information on the monitored discharge volumes from STPs in the catchment under POEO (1987), Section 320
• Sydney Water for provision of data free of charge under a “Licence and Privacy Protection Agreement”
• Department of Environment & Climate Change NSW for provision of groundwater data under a “Data Licence Agreement”
ii CRC for Irrigation Futures
Contents
Executive Summary...... iv 1. Introduction...... 1 2. South Creek and its catchment...... 2 2.1 Geographical location ...... 2 2.2 Geology and soil landscapes...... 2 2.3 Climate...... 3 3. Historical perspective...... 4 3.1 European settlement...... 4 3.2 Early irrigation and water supply issues ...... 5 3.3 Land use and environmental changes during the 20th Century ...... 5 4. South Creek catchment in the 21st Century ...... 6 4.1 Demographics and land use ...... 6 4.2 Environmental condition ...... 9 4.3 Agricultural production ...... 10 5. Legislative framework and institutional arrangements...... 12 5.1 Paradigm shift from waste disposal facility to degraded resource...... 12 5.2 First round of Australian Government reform of state laws ...... 12 5.3 Second round of Australian Government reform of state laws ...... 14 5.4 The planning system and environmental management ...... 16 6. Major environmental issues...... 19 6.1 Water quality...... 19 6.2 Salinity ...... 26 6.3 Vegetation conservation and restoration ...... 29 6.4 Groundwater ...... 33 7. Water use in the catchment...... 34 7.1 Urban water use ...... 34 7.2 Agricultural water use ...... 36 7.3 Recycled water use ...... 38 7.4 Stormwater ...... 39 8. Closing comments ...... 40 9. References ...... 42 Appendix 1. Land use and land cover categories in the South Creek catchment ...... 53 Appendix 2. Research needs analysis...... 54
CRC for Irrigation Futures iii Executive Summary
Management of water is linked to all parts of the environment and as such needs to be considered in the context of the whole catchment and water cycle. The CRC IF Systems HarmonisationTM program aims to identify opportunities for improved management of water resources to satisfy environmental and consumptive demand in catchments with irrigation industries. This review presents the results of a wide-ranging search for literature relating to the water cycle and water use including irrigation in South Creek catchment specifically, or in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Basin that incorporates South Creek catchment. The aim of the review is to facilitate the development of the first component of systems harmonisation by providing a summary of existing information about the hydrological system, the economic, social and environmental outcomes of the hydrological systems and the existing institutional framework.
Since the establishment of the first European farms on the alluvial river flats of South Creek near the confluence with the Hawkesbury River in 1794, South Creek catchment has been subjected to continually changing land use patterns. Intensive agriculture and urban settlements were established near the waterways while much of the remainder of the catchment was cleared for grazing. The rate of urbanisation increased at a slow but steady rate until the 1950s, when it increased dramatically. By 2000, 20% of land was occupied by urban development, which exceeded the intensive agricultural land use of 17% (including improved pastures) with only around 10% of the original native vegetation remaining. Cleared land made up of unimproved pasture or unused land constitutes around 34% of the catchment with the remaining 19% being made up of roads, parks, rural residential and regrowth bushland. The rate of urbanisation is likely to increase again in the near future with the recent rezoning of 39,500 residential lots in the North West and South West Growth Sectors, and the anticipated release of 141,500 more lots by 2021.
A population of around 390,000 is resident in South Creek catchment, which is considered to be one of the most seriously degraded sub-catchments in the Sydney region with land use changes resulting in alterations to the hydrology, geomorphology and ecology of the watercourses. In the financial year 2004-5, Sydney Water supplied 33,162 ML potable water from dams outside the catchment to 105,102 properties (residential and business) and 28,243 ML of wastewater was discharged into the waterways from 5 sewage treatment plants. These discharges contribute up to 95% of base flow in the lower reaches of the catchment during dry weather. Limited data are currently available about agricultural water use but estimates indicate that around 18,000ML is used each year in the catchment and more than half of this is estimated to be potable water. Other sources of water for agriculture include farm dams, extractions from the waterways and groundwater. Licensed extractions from South Creek and its tributaries are generally not metered, but the total annual surface water extraction entitlement is 8,729 ML. Annual groundwater extractions are estimated to be in the order of 200 ML. Limited information is available about the value of agriculture in South Creek catchment, but the annual value of agriculture in the Sydney Basin is over 1 billion dollars and peri-urban landscapes across Australia are responsible for 25% of the total gross value of agricultural production from just 3% of total area of agricultural lands.
The legislative framework and institutional arrangements relating to South Creek catchment have been in a continual state of change since the 1970s when the government first adopted the view that an important part of the solution to
iv CRC for Irrigation Futures
environmental problems lay in policy and institutional change. The Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust was established in 1993 to provide a strategic framework for implementation of the concept of total catchment management, but was disbanded after 8 years. Environmental protection was improved with the replacement of 5 separate acts with a single coordinated licensing arrangement through the EPA and introduction of a load based licensing system. The Healthy Rivers Commission for the Hawkesbury-Nepean led to a Statement of Joint Intent for sustainable management of the river system which identified 25 critical strategies for implementation including the establishment of the Hawkesbury Nepean River Management Forum and Expert Panel. In its final report the Forum made 69 recommendations for restoration of the health of Sydney’s major rivers. Under the national reforms of the Water Management Act 2000, a water sharing plan is being developed for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, but is not expected to be available for public comment until late 2007. Components of the National Water Initiative are being implemented in South Creek catchment including the Building Sustainability Index, Integrated Water Cycle Management and the Replacement Flows Project, but the rate of implementation has been considered slow.
Recent changes in the legislative regime for management and conservation of natural resources resulted in the establishment of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority in 2004. The Authority has subsequently developed a Catchment Action Plan and a river health strategy for the Hawkesbury Nepean. However, as the Catchment Action Plan is non-regulatory, the potential for targets to influence land use and water planning outcomes is not known. Importantly the Plan points out the complex interactions between the differing areas of operation of state and local government agencies and the need for changed attitudes and practices to allow all managers of catchment resources to work together to reduce the current threats to sustainability. Planning in South Creek catchment is mainly regulated at the State and Local government levels with planning decisions at the local level differing between areas depending on the particular focus of that area. A standard instrument for Local Environmental Plans gazetted in 2006 is expected to result in greater planning alignment between councils in the future. A number of councils in South Creek catchment have previously combined efforts on a number of projects including the development of a stormwater management plan, establishment of guidelines for erosion and sediment reduction and development of best practice guidelines for greener subdivisions in Western Sydney.
Dependence on inter-catchment transfers has long allowed the natural water yielding capacity of South Creek catchment to be exceeded. Within the catchment the level of extraction from waterways relies on discharges from sewage treatment plants which have considerably altered flow regimes and increased flows. Further pressure on water supply and quality is inevitable with expected increases in population, economic growth and climate change. Water quality in the waterways is constantly poor as a result of discharges from both point and diffuse sources and is likely to be further threatened by increased levels of stormwater from urban areas and further clearing of vegetation. Substantial opportunities are available to make better use of available water through recycling and capture and utilisation of stormwater, but the quality of these water sources and their uses needs to be carefully matched and managed in order to prevent exacerbation of existing environmental problems such as salinity. Considerable efforts within the catchment have slowed the pace of environmental degradation, but further change in the way in which water is managed is necessary to ensure that environmental, social and economic requirements of the region are met.
CRC for Irrigation Futures v
1. Introduction
Across Australia water use in urban catchments has reached or even exceeded their water yield capacity. High levels of extraction, resulting in altered flow regimes and changes to groundwater systems, coupled with other threats including water pollution and clearing of vegetation are causing significant environmental deterioration. Further pressure on water supply is inevitable with expected increases in population, urban and industrial development and more intensive agricultural practices. The CRC IF System HarmonisationTM program aims to identify opportunities for improved management of water resources to satisfy environmental and consumptive demand in catchments with irrigation industries (CRC IF, 2007). System harmonisation is a strategy to enhance cross-organisational communication and system-wide management in order to improve production and environmental outcomes in a whole of catchment context (Khan et al. in press). As water resource systems involve many subsystems which are intrinsically linked with one another, system wide productivity cannot be optimised without a unified or harmonised approach across subsystems (Khan et al. in press).
South Creek catchment is characterised by a mosaic of diverse urban and agricultural land uses and a high level of environmental degradation which is overlain by a complex planning system involving 8 local government areas, and state and federal agencies. Land uses involved in irrigation include agricultural enterprises such as market gardening, greenhouse and horticultural crops and pastures, public open spaces such as parks and sporting fields and urban back yards. Greenfield development planned for the designated North West and South West Growth Centres, which are currently largely peri-urban and agricultural areas within the catchment, will result in a dramatic change in land use over the next 25-30 years. This situation presents a number of significant challenges and opportunities to engaging business in delivering improvements in multi-purpose water use productivity.
The establishment and implementation of the system harmonisation processes involves the two components of, development of new science and knowledge needed for harmonising irrigation systems within the operating environment, followed by business development (see Figure 2 in Khan et al. in press). This review of literature relevant to water resource management aims to document the key events that led to the current situation in South Creek catchment and the considerable research effort and on ground implementation that has been conducted previously in a range of areas. This will facilitate the development of the first component of systems harmonisation by providing a summary of existing information about the hydrological system, the economic, social and environmental outcomes of the hydrological systems and the existing institutional framework.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 1 2. South Creek and its catchment
2.1 Geographical location
South Creek is a major tributary of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River that runs for over 64 kilometers in a generally northerly direction from where it rises in low hills near Narellan through the Western Cumberland Plain to Windsor (Figure 1). The major tributary is Eastern Creek which joins South Creek near Riverstone. Both creeks are influenced by the tide in their lower reaches, but remain fresh. The other larger tributaries include Kemps, Ropes and Rileys creeks. The system forms a major drainage basin which results in changes in flow and water quality having an important influence on the Hawkesbury River downstream of Windsor.
Figure 1. South Creek catchment locality map
2.2 Geology and soil landscapes
South Creek catchment covers an area of around 620 km2 (EPA 2005) and falls entirely within the Cumberland Lowlands physiographic region, which consists of low lying gently undulating plains and low hills formed on sediments of the Wianamatta Group. Bringelly Shale with small areas of Ashfield Shale and Minchinbury Sandstone outcrop over most of the catchment with much smaller areas of Jurassic diatremes, Tertiary fluvial sediments and Quaternary alluvium (Clark & Jones 1991). Soils in the catchment relate strongly to geology and geomorphic position. Three major soil landscape units identified in the catchment are Blacktown, Luddenham and South Creek (Bannerman & Hazelton 1990). The residual Blacktown soil landscape occurs on gently undulating slopes and dominant soils include shallow to moderately deep red, brown and yellow podsolic types. The erosional Luddenham soil landscape occurs on low rolling to steep low hills. Soils are moderately deep, with dark podsolic on crests, red podsolic on upper slopes and yellow podsolic and prairie soils on lower slopes. The South Creek fluvial landscape unit has a high to extreme erosion hazard and includes very deep red and yellow podsolic soils on terraces and structured plastic clays on
2 CRC for Irrigation Futures
drainage lines (Bannerman & Hazelton 1990). Knowledge of the soils in the catchment is currently being updated in a 2nd edition of the Penrith 1:100 000 soil landscape map and report which includes salinity hazards and a discussion of the factors involved in them (DNR pers. com.).
2.3 Climate
Average annual rainfall in South Creek catchment is less than 800 mm and varies only slightly from the area where it arises south of Bringelly to the confluence with the Hawkesbury River in the north (Bringelly 760 mm, St Marys 759 mm, Windsor 757 mm) (DEC 2005a). In order to provide an overview of the typical climatic conditions of the catchment, the SILO Data Drill was used to generate interpolated data from observations by the Bureau of Meteorology (QNR&M, 2007) for a location near the geographical centre of the catchment (33º45'S, 150 º48'E). Monthly averages were generated from 50 years of data (1956-2006). The average January maximum temperature is 29ºC while the average July minimum is 5 ºC (Figure 2). A higher proportion of the annual total rainfall occurs in the warmer months of the year and summer rainfall is less variable than winter rainfall (Figure 3). Average rainfall only exceeds evaporation in June, with the difference between rainfall and evaporation being greatest in December.
35
30
25
20 Max 15 Min
10
5
Monthly average temperature (oC) 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2. Long term average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures at the centre of South Creek catchment (33º45'S, 150 º48'E)
CRC for Irrigation Futures 3 250
200
150
100 Volume (mm) Volume 50
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rainfall Evaporation
Figure 3. Long term average monthly rainfall and evaporation volumes at the centre of South Creek catchment (33º45'S, 150 º48'E)
3. Historical perspective
3.1 European settlement
Within six years of the initial arrival of Europeans in Australia in 1788, the natural landscape in South Creek catchment was subjected to changes that were possibly more dramatic than it had experienced in the last 40,000 years of habitation by aboriginal people (Kohen 1993). While the local indigenous people, the Darug, had used fire to manage the eucalypt dominated open grassy woodlands, settlers cleared timber from the land they intended to cultivate and for a certain distance around that land as a precaution against fires (Rosen 1995). The introduction of exotic crops, pasture grasses and hard-hoofed animals displaced the Darug from their traditional use of resources and reduced floral and faunal diversity. The establishment of towns soon followed cultivation, and because settlements were always initiated beside waterways, their impact on those waterways was intense and immediate (Rosen 1995). On the 18th December 1803 a letter to the Sydney Gazette described South Creek as unsafe for sailing boats because so much wood and rubbish had been dumped in the water (BCC 2006).
The woodlands and forests within South Creek catchment held great appeal to early European settlers as grazing and farming land with some of the first European farms established on the banks of South Creek in sections with few trees. Later piggeries, meatworks, wool-washing companies and tanneries were also established along the banks of South Creek (BCC 2006). By the 1800s most of the area around South Creek, in the heart of the Cumberland Plain, had been taken up in land grants and was being developed as farming land, with later colonists clearing much of the remainder of the catchment for grazing (NHT 2004). Gregory Blaxland had a property on South Creek and it appears that a shortage of available land in the region was an important stimulus for the crossing the Blue Mountains by Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth in 1813. On reaching the heights of a peak (now known as Mount Blaxland) they saw vast expanse of forest and grass land stretching before them, which Blaxland reported was rich enough to ‘support the stock of the colony for the next thirty years.’ (Blaxland 1823).
4 CRC for Irrigation Futures
3.2 Early irrigation and water supply issues
A serious drought in 1827-1828 stimulated interest in irrigation in the Sydney basin. An article in the Sydney Gazette of September 1, 1828 reported the trial of a pump worked by 2 men to irrigate from the Hawkesbury River at Pitt Town (Blackburn 2004). At Belgenny Farm just outside the southern fringe of South Creek catchment, James and William Macathur are reported to have installed the first irrigation plant in Australia in 1830 (Mylrea 2001), which would have drawn water from the Nepean River. Similar irrigation practices may have been adopted to pump water from South Creek and its tributaries, but the extent is not known. Blackburn (2004) has suggested that the lack of documented reports could possibly be due to the general disregard of market gardeners as irrigators.
After the extensive catchment disturbance which occurred from the 1790s until the 1830s it appears that the following 100 years was a period of greater stability. Agricultural holdings and practices remained relatively unchanged and the South Creek catchment supported only a small urban population which was initially centered in the Blacktown region. In the 1850s original land grants in the area began to be subdivided, by 1860 the Great Western railway line reached “Black Town Road Station” and in 1862 the name Blacktown became official with the opening of the Post Office. The township of Blacktown continued to develop with the opening of a butcher shop (1872), church (1876) school (1877) and bakery (1889) and in 1906 the shire of Blacktown was created (VisitBlacktown 2005).
Up until 1888 the city of Sydney struggled with an insufficient supply of water firstly from Tank stream, then the Lachlan swamps (commenced 1837; now Centennial Park) and Botany swamps (commenced in 1859), with many residents relying on public fountains, water carters and wells (Clark 1978). During this period water for the developing urban centre in Blacktown would have been supplied from local sources such as creeks, dams and bores. Completion of the Nepean scheme in 1888, which diverted water from the Cataract, Cordeaux, Avon and Nepean rivers to Prospect Reservoir via 64 kilometres of tunnels, canals and aqueducts (SCA 2006a) marked the beginning of inter-catchment transfers in the Sydney basin and a changed water balance for South Creek catchment.
3.3 Land use and environmental changes during the 20th Century
During the first half of the 20th Century land use in South Creek catchment remained predominantly rural with a gradually increasing population. The settlement pattern was characterised by ribbon development concentrated along the main transport routes to the south and west. There was further development of agricultural industries including food processing and tanneries and also a munitions factory (Riley 2000, Hughes 2000). Despite the extensive catchment disturbance that had occurred previously, it appears that some sort of equilibrium had been reached with agriculture in relation to water quality (Simmons & Scott 2005). This theory is supported by the first CSIRO water quality study conducted in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river in the 1940s which recorded near to background levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the river just downstream of the confluence of South Creek (Simmons & Scott 2005) and anecdotal reports that the water in South Creek remained clear until around the 1950s (Riley 2000).
From 1950 onwards the region experienced a marked change in the rate of population increase as a result of the post second world war baby boom and migration, particularly
CRC for Irrigation Futures 5 from southern Europe. During this time the first trickling filter sewage treatment plants were established at St Marys and Quakers Hill. Changes in population growth in the area were strongly influenced by the population change in the Blacktown region, which currently represents around 60% of the population in South Creek catchment (Figure 4).This sustained increase in the rate of population growth brought with it a marked reduction in aquatic ecosystem health in South Creek and its tributaries. By the 1960s the creek was increasingly used as a convenient site for disposal of agricultural and sewage wastes with algal blooms being recorded and during the 1970s much native habitat was lost to exotic species (Riley 2000). Government awareness of these degradation problems began to increase and by 1975 the State Pollution Control Commission began water quality sampling within the catchment. The substantial pollution loads in the creek and their contribution to the Hawkesbury-Nepean could no longer be ignored and efforts to reduce nutrient levels being discharged by STPs commenced in 1985 (Simmons & Scott 2005). This initiative marked the beginning of a continuous program of remedial action in South Creek catchment, including a succession of upgrades to sewage treatment plants. However, despite legislative and other government vehicles for change and the tireless efforts of NGOs, communities and individuals, changed practices of recent decades have only been able to slow the pace of degradation (Burgin 2000).
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
Population 100,000
50,000
0 1906 1926 1946 1966 1986 2006 Year
Figure 4. Population growth in the Blacktown local government area over the last 100 years
4. South Creek catchment in the 21st Century
4.1 Demographics and land use
Although traditionally a predominantly agricultural area, recent urban development in South Creek catchment has resulted in urban land use now exceeding agriculture (Table 1). The catchment extends across portions of 8 Local Government Areas (Figure 5) and currently supports a population of around 390,000 with the majority being resident in the old established urban areas in the central belt between Penrith and Blacktown (Table 2). However, the future population of South Creek catchment is expected to approach one million in the next 25-30 years, as 30-40% of new housing in
6 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Sydney will be built in the North West and South West Growth Centres (Figure 6). The currently designated areas for both growth centres fall almost entirely within South Creek catchment with the North West Growth Centre between Quakers Hill and Vineyard on the eastern bank of South Creek and the South West Growth Centre north of Campbelltown flanking both sides of the upper reaches of South Creek. In June 2006 the Minister for Planning announced the rezoning of 23,000 lots in the North West and 16,500 lots in the South West Growth Centres for residential development (GCC 2006). Eventually the Growth Centres are expected to accommodate 181,000 new homes (GCC 2006). Another major development area within South Creek catchment is the former ADI site which currently includes 3,063 zoned lots in Penrith local government area and 1,590 zoned and serviced lots in Blacktown local government area (DoP 2007a).
Table 1. Land use in South Creek catchment in 2000 Land use Area (ha) Area (%) Natural 13,708 22 Cleared 21,298 34 Agriculture 10,428 17 Urban 12,536 20 Other (roads, parks, rural residential) 4,552 7 Source: Summary of data from EPA (2001 b). For detailed landuse categories and areas see Appendix 1.
Table 2. Local government areas and South Creek catchment land areas and demographics Land area in Total Local South Creek Local South Creek Government catchment Government Area catchment Council Area (km2) (km2) population * population ** Baulkham Hills 399 9.3 161,068 3,300 Blacktown 244 187.2 283,458 242,250 Camden 201 74.4 51,367 5,360 Campbelltown 312 3.7 150,216 300 Fairfield 101 25.4 187,790 2,430 Hawkesbury 2793 47.1 63,824 30,000 Liverpool 305 94.2 170,192 7,640 Penrith 407 178.6 177,955 100,750 TOTAL 4762 620 1,245,870 392,030 * ABS estimate June 2005 **estimated from 2001 census data
CRC for Irrigation Futures 7
Figure 5. Local Government Areas within South Creek catchment. Source: Gavin Beveridge, CRC IF 2007.
8 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Figure 6. Location of the North West and South West Growth Centres in relation to South Creek catchment. Base map source: Growth Centres Commission 2006.
4.2 Environmental condition
South Creek catchment is currently regarded as one of the most seriously degraded subcatchments in the Sydney region (DEC 2004, HNCMA 2007). Long term clearing of vegetation, increased proportions of impervious surfaces as a result of urbanisation and high pollution loads have resulted in dramatic alterations to the hydrology, geomorphology and ecology of the watercourses (HNCMA 2007). Water quality is impacted by both point and diffuse sources of pollution. Point sources mainly consist of effluent released from 5 sewage treatment plants in the lower parts of the catchment (Table 3) and around 20 other activities licensed for discharges to waterways, including the Rouse Hill development area, an abattoir, dairies, swimming pools, golf clubs and farm production (EPA 2002). Diffuse sources of pollutants include a wide range of landuses including intensive market gardens, dairy farms, grazing lands and urban stormwater runoff (DEC 2004). A combination of irrigation extractions and licensed inflows have also significantly altered flows in South Creek (DEC 2004). The recovery potential of the streams in the South Creek catchment is considered very low (HNCMA 2007). Prevention of further degradation of the South Creek catchment system is unlikely without the implementation of a range of integrated measures to reduce the current disharmony in the water cycle.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 9 Table 3. Indicative effluent production from sewage treatment plants within South Creek catchment Discharge/ Sewage Discharge Discharge Equivalent person/day treatment plant (ML/day)* (ML/annum) population (L) Quakers Hill 30.6 11169 113,000 271 St Marys 35.0 12775 130,000 269 Riverstone 1.8 657 6,700 269 McGraths Hill 2.7 985 5,565 485 South Windsor 4.2 1533 13,850 303 * Source: Sydney Water website and Hawkesbury City Council
4.3 Agricultural production
Since the establishment of the first European farms on the alluvial river flats of South Creek near the confluence with the Hawkesbury River in 1794, land use in South Creek catchment remained predominantly agricultural until the end of the 20th Century. Agricultural activities have been under pressure in the catchment since the late 1960s when the “rolling wave” phenomenon of extensive, low profit agricultural activities being replaced by more intensive higher return activities was first documented. A detailed evaluation of changing agricultural landuse in the period from 1984-5 to 1993-4 characterised agriculture in the Sydney region as a diverse set of changing industries with a decreasing reliance on soil resources (Johnson et al. 1998). Agriculture in the catchment now includes a continuum of forms ranging from backyard through boutique and agritourism to high technology intensive activities (Mason & Docking 2005 in Mason 2006), and the new front of the rolling wave is housing developments. It has been reported that 10.5% of land available for agriculture has been lost in the Sydney region in the period from 1999 to 2003 (Dick, 2006). Information about the area and value of agricultural production specifically in South Creek catchment is not readily available as data is collated and assessed on a local government basis. However, South Creek catchment makes up a significant proportion of the Sydney Basin and the importance of agriculture in the Sydney Basin has been evaluated as a result of the re- emerging concern with the importance of the farming production located in the peri- urban fringe (Bunker & Houston 2003). Peri-urban regions across Australia have been shown to play a particularly important role in agricultural production, as although they make up only 3% of the total area of agricultural lands, they are responsible for almost 25% of the total gross value of agricultural production (Houston 2005).
Agriculture is very important in the Sydney Basin with the total value of production in 2001 estimated to be in excess of 1 billion dollars per year (Gillespie & Mason 2003). The poultry industry was the largest ($278 million/annum) followed by the vegetable industry ($215 million/annum) which produced around 90% of Sydney’s perishable vegetables (Parker & Suriyabanadara 2000). The average size of agricultural holdings in the Sydney basin was 40ha and the average return per hectare is $5,433 (Gillespie & Mason 2003). In addition to the financial value of products, agriculture is a strategic resource that provides significant benefits to the region through a multitude of factors including tourism, regional identity, social cohesion, food security, recreation, health and well being (Knowd et al. 2006; Mason 2006). Gillespie (2003) reported the number of agricultural holdings, area and number of people employed in each sector by local government area, including the 8 local government areas that fall partly within South Creek catchment (Table 4). However, the total land area of these local government areas is 4,762 km2, of which only 13% falls within South Creek catchment (Table 2).
10 CRC for Irrigation Futures
R o riainFtrs 11 CRC for IrrigationFutures Table 4. Total number of agricultural holdings, area and number of people employed in each sector by local government area and the number of holdings for vegetable, cut flowers, nurseries, lucerne and crop pastures and dairy. Local Total agriculture Number of holdings
Government Area Number of Lucerne and Area (ha) Employment Vegetables Cut flowers Nurseries Dairy holdings crop pastures
Baulkham Hills 224 2259 615 54 43 57 179 0
Blacktown 68 1940 718 22 4 6 2 3
Camden 89 6831 379 20 2 6 3 5
Campbelltown 29 3498 238 0 0 1 0 1
Fairfield 48 125 230 22 14 3 0 0
Hawkesbury 327 15417 1045 61 17 40 230 2
Liverpool 114 2153 516 46 6 7 16 3
Penrith 111 3275 660 32 0 10 8 3
TOTAL 1010 35498 4401 257 86 130 438 17 Source: Extracted from Gillespie (2003). Data are from the ABS agricultural census 2001. ABS agricultural censuses only include those properties with an estimated farm gate value of production of more than $5,000 per annum. ABS advises that some areas have a relative standard error between 25-50% and should be used with caution and that some data has been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
5. Legislative framework and institutional arrangements
5.1 Paradigm shift from waste disposal facility to degraded resource
As South Creek and its tributaries were increasingly used as a convenient site to discharge waste from the 1970s onwards (Riley 2000), community and government awareness of the poor condition of the waterways was heightened. This corresponded with increased scientific evidence of the rapid environmental degradation of waterways across Australia and an increased level of interest and community aspiration in the management of waterways and their surrounding environments. Government concern over water resource management, and the view that an important part of the solution to environmental problems lay in policy and institutional change was raised by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution in the 1970s (McKay 2002). This concern has been a major driving force behind a range of reforms including agreements, policies and legislation across all levels of governance that have played a critical role in shaping natural resource management. In South Creek catchment a significant turning point in the approach to planning in the region was marked by the initiation of the concept of total catchment management by the Department of Land and Water Conservation in 1984. This was formalised with the Catchment Management Act 1989 which sought to achieve ‘coordinated and sustainable use and management of land, water, vegetation and other natural resources on a water catchment basis so as to balance resource utilisation and conservation’ (section 4), through the establishment of catchment management committees and catchment management trusts.
Under the Catchment Management Act 1989 the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust (HNCMT) was formed in 1993. Within the trust there were 9 Catchment Management Committee partners including the South Creek Catchment Management Committee (SCCMC). The major focus of the Catchment Management Committees was to provide a strategic framework for natural resource and environmental management and to raise environmental consciousness through provision of advice and support to their community on key issues and coordination of projects to protect and restore their local catchment. In South Creek this was achieved by the SCCMC through a range of initiatives including the development of a strategic plan identifying significant environmental issues and actions needed to address them, identification of environmental initiatives and opportunities in the South Creek environmental opportunities study, development of a recovery plan for Cumberland vegetation, support of community organisations and school environmental education initiatives through the production of environmental education resources and a quarterly community newsletter “Wianammatta Message” (Burgin 2000).
5.2 First round of Australian Government reform of state laws
The NSW government Water Reform Agenda of 1995, which was developed in response to the massive changes to water governance required by the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) reforms of 1994, has had a significant impact on water management and regulatory practices in South Creek catchment. This agenda resulted in a range of initiatives including the completion of a Healthy Rivers Commission for the entire Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, including the South Creek sub-catchment, a moratorium on new water extraction licenses and conversion of existing licenses to a volumetric system, reducing the level of unlicensed water extraction, investigation of water quality problems and links with agricultural impacts,
12 CRC for Irrigation Futures
investigation of salinity impacts and establishment of a communication strategy to tailor water reform messages to people from non-English speaking backgrounds (Dekel 2000). In response to the Healthy Rivers Commission Independent Inquiry findings the NSW government issued a Statement of Joint Intent (SOJI) for sustainable management of the Hawkesbury Nepean river system in March 2001 (NSW Government 2001). The SOJI identified 25 critical strategies through which improved management of the system could be achieved and assigned responsibility for implementing these strategies. The HNCMT was assigned responsibility for developing a strategic plan for the lower catchment and maintaining an inventory of data pertaining to the health of the HN river system. However, the HNCMT was abolished without warning in April 2001 removing both the opportunity for implementation of its assigned strategies and the structures that had developed between community and the government to enhance efforts towards coordinated resource management. An audit of the SOJI conducted in 2003 found that although a sustainable water management strategy was under development, overall progress was disappointing with continuing policy and program conflict between agencies. Much of what had been achieved was attributed to the concerted efforts of the Hawkesbury Nepean River Management Forum (HNRMF) and the Hawkesbury Nepean Expert panel (HRC 2003) and in 2004 the final report of the Forum included 69 recommendations to the NSW Government for restoration of the long term health of Sydney’s major rivers (HNRMF 2004). It also outlined the cost of implementing these recommendations (HNRMF 2004, p100).
Also during this wave of water reform, 5 separate acts were replaced in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 allowing the establishment of a single coordinated licensing arrangement through the EPA for air, water and noise pollution and waste management. The new regulatory system, which involves a load-based licensing (LBL) approach, was implemented in July 1999. The LBL system focuses on the total amount of pollution emitted each year, rather than the concentration of pollutants. This “polluter pays” system calculates licence fees on the potential environmental impact of the discharged pollution, thus offering a financial incentive to initiatives that reduce pollution (EPA 2001). Around 25 activities are now licensed for discharge to waterways in South Creek catchment under the LBL system. The act also allows public access to relevant and meaningful information about pollution, which is provided through a public register (EPA 2006a).
The culmination of the NSW government’s 1995 water reform program was the introduction of the Water Management Act 2000 (Parker & Oczkowski 2003). The objective of the act is to protect rivers and groundwater systems, integrate water management with other natural resources, share water responsibilities between government and the community, and consider environmental, social, cultural, heritage and economics in all water management and planning decisions (DLWC 2002). The act is being brought into operation through progressive development and implementation of water sharing plans and the separation of water access from land titles to allow water trading. The process of drafting the water sharing plans commenced across the state (except for the Sydney region, ACT and far west) in 2002 with 36 plans gazetted by 2004 and 31 of those taking effect on the 1st July 2004 (DNR 2007). Although most stakeholders agree that water sharing plans are a historic opportunity to improve water management, considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed in the process which often involved committees that were not fully representative of local community, economic and production interests. Outcomes have also been unable to satisfy all interests with farmers and irrigators concerned that the environment had been prioritised to the detriment of production, employment and regional development (Parker & Oczkowski 2003) while environmental groups have indicated that the needs of the environment have been largely ignored (Nature Conservation Council of NSW 2007). The Hawkesbury-Nepean Water Sharing Plan, which includes South Creek
CRC for Irrigation Futures 13 catchment, remains outstanding and is not expected for public comment until late 2007. DNR (2006) report that in the development of the second round of water sharing plans (also known as macro water plans) to cover most of the remaining water sources in the state, knowledge gained from community consultation during the first round of water sharing plans is being used to achieve a more practical approach by linking catchment and other land use plans. However, macro water plans do not include the greater Sydney metropolitan area where other planning processes will be used (DNR 2006). Publicly available information about the processes involved in the development of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Water Sharing Plan appears to be minimal, with the complexity of the situation undoubtedly being mirrored in the length of time required to complete the plan.
5.3 Second round of Australian Government reform of state laws
The second phase of the Australian Government’s national water reforms commenced in 2004 with the CoAGs agreeing to a National Water Initiative (NWI) and was formalised with the establishment of the National Water Commission (NWC) under the National Water Commission Act 2004 to provide advice on actions and assess progress in implementing the NWI. The Australian Government Water Fund was established to support practical on-ground water projects to help achieve the objectives, outcomes and actions of the NWI (NWC 2005). This phase of reform extended the 1994 CoAG reforms but is much more prescriptive and sets out 80 goals that water supply businesses and state governments must encourage rural and urban communities to achieve (McKay 2006). The NWI is also much more specific in its requirements on each state, with the NSW implementation plan setting out a total of 34 actions under 8 elements (NWC 2006). Major deliverables of the NSW implementation plan include the Metropolitan Water Plan and the Water Savings Fund. Other deliverables that have particular relevance to the growth sectors in South Creek catchment include the incorporation of the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX), Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) and recycled water systems into new urban developments (NWC 2006). A deliverable of relevance to agriculture in the catchment is the continuation of the Waterwise on the Farm education campaign, which has been achieved, but at a much lower intensity that during the early 2000s. A deliverable relating to the business sector was a review of the incentives to stimulate innovation by public and private sectors. Actions to improve business incentives or remove impediments include the Water Saving Fund, the Water Savings Action Plan and implementation of the Water Industry Competition Act 2006.
The Water Policy Initiatives final report released by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on 5th December 2006 expressed concern about the slow pace of implementation of the NWI, with NSW being noted as a particularly poor performer in the area of water planning (SSCRRAT 2006). One issue that gained particular attention in the recommendations of the report was the need to improve accessibility of water data, new research, online information and registers of water entitlements. In relation to water data, recommendation 3 stated “The committee recommends that the National Water Commission assume responsibility for making all the data currently available about water nationally accessible through integrated databases linked to its website.” Effective water and environmental management decisions must be underpinned by sound data but lack of access to data has been an ongoing issue in the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment. As mentioned previously the SOJI assigned the HNCMT responsibility for maintaining an inventory of data pertaining to the health of the HN river system, but this was obviously not achieved because of the disbanding of the HNCMT. The SOJI also recommended that that the Sydney Catchment Authority and Sydney Water Corporation make their unpublished
14 CRC for Irrigation Futures
data in relation to river health publicly available (in accordance with Government policies about access to information). The Hawkesbury-Nepean Integrated Data Management System project led by the Department of Land and Water Conservation with funding from Community Access to Natural Resources Information (CANRI) attempted to provide open access to water quality data collected by all State and Local government agencies in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment using a number of reporting formats (CANRI 2006). While a Web interface was created, access to the data held by the major agencies was not achieved. It is encouraging to note that the Bureau of Resource Sciences have undertaken a new initiative to develop an interactive website that will be integrated with a national water database maintained by State and Commonwealth agencies and dynamically updated to ensure the most current data are available (DAFF 2007).
In addition to water reform, the NSW Government has also recently overhauled the legislative regime for the management and conservation of natural resources through the enactment of the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003, the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 and the Native Vegetation Act 2003. The first 2 of these key pieces of legislation and actions flowing from them have the potential to have significant impacts on South Creek catchment. The native vegetation act has much less influence as the majority of the catchment includes land within urban-type zonings which is excluded from the act. Riparian land (Category B) continues to be managed as state protected lands. Remnants of endangered vegetation communities are protected under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The major roles of the 13 Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) established across the state include preparation of Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) in consultation with regional communities, management of Property Vegetation Plans (PVPs) under the Native Vegetation Act and management of associated funding and investment strategies. The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) was established to recommend natural resource management standards and targets and to audit CAPs (CMA 2005). The Hawkesbury Nepean CMA commenced operation in 2004 and by September formally commenced the development of the CAP. Using a highly consultative and inclusive process involving 110 organisations, close to 400 participants in meetings, forums and workshops, and 150 people in technical reference groups and assessment panels, a draft CAP was published in October 2006 and has been submitted to the NRC for review (HNCMA 2006a, p57).
The Hawkesbury Nepean CAP will become fully operational after approval by the Minister for Natural Resources and will guide the CMA's investment and programs (HNCMA 2006b). However, as the CAP is a non-regulatory statutory plan and its contents are not legally binding or enforceable, the potential for CAP targets to influence land use and water planning outcomes is not currently known. As part of a larger metropolitan planning framework, the CAP outlines the complex interactions between the HNCMA and other state and local government agencies and their differing areas of operation and clearly points out the need for changed attitudes and practices and for all managers of the catchment resources to work together to reduce the current threats to sustainability. The operation of the CAP will depend on interactions with a range of plans for the Sydney metropolitan area including the SOJI, City of Cities — a Plan for Sydney’s Future, 2006 Metropolitan Water Plan, Sustaining the Catchments: regional plan for the drinking water catchment of Sydney and adjacent regional centres as well as the plans under development for water sharing and the Sydney Canberra corridor (HNCMA 2006b). Existing NRM strategies and plans were also considered in the development of the CAP. Targets of the CAP fall under the 4 key themes of community and partnerships, river health, biodiversity, and soil and land. Under these themes the current state of the resources and influences pressuring them have been analysed and targets for resource condition change developed based on priority and
CRC for Irrigation Futures 15 the expected level of funding available. Pressures identified in South Creek catchment include artificially high flow levels in some tributaries due to STP inflows, clearing for agriculture and urban development in Western Sydney and high nutrient loads in creeks due to STP inflows and nutrient rich runoff from intensive agriculture. Major actions planned in South Creek catchment target riparian vegetation rehabilitation, restoration of in-stream habitat and rehabilitation of priority corridor habitats to connect important remnants and reserved lands. Actions will be carried out under a number of projects including the South Creek River Recovery Project in partnership with Greening Australia and the Cumberland Plain Incentives Project.
In addition to its core functions relating to planning and investment, native vegetation, water, on-ground works and community engagement, the HNCMA was also required to prepare a river health strategy. A draft of this strategy has been prepared and submitted to the Minister for Natural Resources and is currently under consideration by the NSW Government (HNCMA 2006c). In developing the strategy over 200 river reaches and 3600 kilometres of waterways were assessed in terms of the values, threats and issues affecting them. The assessment of South Creek catchment indicates that it is probably one of the most degraded sub-catchments in the Hawkesbury Nepean and the recovery potential of streams is very low (HNCMA 2006d). Management recommendations developed for 9 priority reaches in 3 of the major streams, namely South, Eastern and Ropes creeks, fall into 12 categories. Most reaches require high levels of intervention with management of aquatic weeds being recommended in all 9 reaches and water quantity and flow management and water quality and nutrient management recommended in 7 reaches (Table 5). Having established the priority areas, the HNCMA intends to focus on the changes it can lead through on-ground action. However, the HNCMA recognise that significant improvements in the catchment require more than on-ground action (HNCMA 2006b).
5.4 The planning system and environmental management
Planning and development in South Creek catchment is mainly regulated at State and Local Government levels through the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Environmental planning instruments involved are State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) at the state level and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and their complimentary more detailed Development Control Plans (DCPs) at the local level. In 1989, the Western Sydney Recreation Area was gazetted under SEPP No 29, and these corridors provided lands for some of the 2000 Olympic Games events (DoP 2007b). Recently gazetted SEPPs of relevance to South Creek catchment include BASIX (2004) and Sydney Region Growth Centres (2006) (DoP 2007c). REPs provide the framework for detailed planning by local councils and a number of REPs apply to the catchment including REP No. 19, 20, 25, 30 and 31 (Rouse Hill Development, Hawkesbury-Nepean River, Orchard Hills, St Marys and Regional Parklands respectively) (DoP 2007d). At the local government level LEPs and DCPs are developed within each Local Government Area in consultation with the local community, resulting in differing levels of focus on environmental management across the catchment. However, greater alignment between councils is expected in the future as a result of the development of a Standard Instrument for LEPs which was gazetted in 2006. Local Councils are now required to use the standard instrument to prepare a new principal LEP for their local government area within the next five years. Replacement of existing LEPs in the catchment, some of which date from the late 1980s, will provide councils the opportunity to incorporate the most recent advances in water and environmental management into their planning.
16 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Despite the complexities surrounding landuse planning at the local government level, councils within South Creek catchment have coordinated efforts on a range of environmental management issues when funding has been made available. A detailed stormwater management plan was developed by Penrith, Blacktown, Hawkesbury, Liverpool and Camden City Councils in 1999 with the aim of coordinating the management of stormwater and improving water quality within South Creek catchment (PCC & BCC 1999). This study reviewed the existing catchment conditions, identified management objectives, analysed management issues and causes and identified potential management options and implementation strategies. However, implementation of the plan was limited by range of factors including limited funding and senior management commitment (Morison & Hunter 2001). Blacktown, Camden, Hawkesbury, Liverpool and Penrith City Councils participated in the “Keep the Soil on the Site” project to reduce erosion and sedimentation in stormwater drains and improve water quality in Greenfield development sites (EPA 2005). The project led to the development of “Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control on Building Sites” (DLWC 2001) and “Best practice guidelines for greener subdivisions: Western Sydney” (DLWC 2002).
Other collaborative projects have not been successful in delivering practical outcomes. Hawkesbury City Council in collaboration with the University of Western Sydney led an initiative funded by the Federal Government through the Local Government Incentive Grants Scheme to demonstrate the benefits of using Web based technologies to maintain and share an integrated database of spatial information between councils and government organisations (HCC 2001). Despite the establishment of a consortium of 14 councils and the demonstration that the GWSspatial system had the potential to overcome major limitations to regional planning and decision making that arise from difficulties with access to timely, accurate and freely available spatial information, the initiative was not adopted. In 2005 all 8 local councils in South Creek catchment, in partnership with the Local Government Advisory Group and the HNCMA developed an extensive proposal to address the key issues of water quality, reuse and efficiency in South Creek catchment. This recovery plan for Sydney’s most degraded waterway was submitted to the Commonwealth Government’s National Water Initiative in June 2005 (HNCMA 2005) but the proposal was not funded. In 2006 funding for environmental management was awarded to some councils within South Creek catchment under the HNCMA local government partnership program, but this was for localised projects within individual councils (HNCMA 2006e).
CRC for Irrigation Futures 17
18 18 Table 5. Summary of the Hawkesbury Nepean River Health Strategy management recommendations for priority reaches of streams in South Creek sub-catchment Creek South Eastern Ropes REACH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION* Reach number 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
Management of aquatic weeds x x x x x x x x x Water quantity and flow management x x x x x x x Water quality and nutrient management x x x x x x x Removal/replacement of exotic riparian vegetation x x x x x x Increase community capacity for environmental restoration x x x x x x Revegetation with indigenous riparian vegetation x x x x x Manage human impacts at public recreation river access points and along foreshores x x x x x Aquatic habitat condition and connectivity improvement x x x x x Management of stock impact on waterways x x x Encourage adoption of sustainable land management practices in riparian lands x x x Riparian wetland management x x Maintain existing community based environment activity x
Total number of recommendations for each reach 9 10 7 2 10 8 2 7 4 * Information extracted from HNCMA (2006b)
CRC forIrrigation Futures X – required
6. Major environmental issues
South Creek catchment, or South Creek Valley as it was referred to in early reports, has been the subject of many research and environmental impact studies since the NSW Government announced a proposal to investigate the development of the area for housing, research and technology industries and the proposed Badgery’s Creek Airport in 1989 (DEP 1991, Rahman & Salbe 1995). A recently conducted research needs analysis identified that studies have been previously carried out in the majority of categories that are considered as being of high priority by a range of stakeholders (Appendix 2). Three major environmental issues that have attracted particular research attention and subsequent efforts towards remedial action are water quality, salinity and loss of vegetation. However, despite the recent focus on the importance of groundwater as a component of the total water cycle and the need for conjunctive water management approaches that take both surface and groundwater components and the interactions between them into consideration, little is known about groundwater in South Creek catchment.
6.1 Water quality
Extensive water quality sampling has been conducted in South Creek catchment by a range of NSW government departments including the EPA and DLWC, Sydney Water Corporation, Sydney Catchment Authority, and local governments including Blacktown, Camden, Hawkesbury and Penrith City Councils. The earliest water quality sampling program to be initiated appears to be that commenced in 1975 by the State Pollution Control Commission (Riley 2000). The most extensive study conducted is part of a detailed surface water quality assessment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment that was commissioned by the Department of Land and Water Conservation under the NSW Government 1995 Water Reform Agenda. Data collected by 19 different agencies were collated and analysed and results were presented on a sub-catchment basis for each of the 33 sub-catchments, including South Creek catchment (DLWC 2001). Although data was available from a total of 45 sites in South Creek catchment over the 1995 to 1999 study period, data gaps resulted in major conclusions being drawn from 11 sites. The study found that water quality throughout the catchment was very poor due to runoff from urban and agricultural areas, point source inputs and discharges from STPs. Compliance with irrigation water supplies, farmstead water supplies and aquatic ecosystems were very poor with generally less than 25% of samples meeting the criteria for protection (DLWC 2001; Figure 7).
The major water quality issues in South Creek are related to high nutrient concentrations derived from both point and diffuse pollution sources and subsequent algal and aquatic weed growth. In the mid 1990s it was estimated that St Marys, Quakers Hill and Riverstone sewage treatment plants (STPs) contributed around 60 per cent of the phosphorus load and around 75 per cent of the nitrogen load in the section of the Hawkesbury River at Wilberforce Reach, downstream of the junction with South Creek (James 1997). In consultation with Sydney Water the EPA introduced a small, self-contained, emissions trading scheme called a bubble licence in 1996, which set a total nitrogen and phosphorus load for these 3 sewage treatment systems to adjust individual discharges, provided the total pollutant load limit for the scheme was not exceeded (EPA 2003). In July 1999 the EPA implemented a new pollution regulation system across NSW with a polluter pays approach. Under this system the fee for each different type of pollutant depends on the potential of the pollutant to impact on the environment, in order to encourage industry to invest in pollution reduction in those areas where it will most reduce fees (EPA 2001). By 2000, Sydney
CRC for Irrigation Futures 19
Water had invested approximately $40 M in upgrades to St Mary’s and Quakers Hill STPs and reported that the total levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in typical quality effluent had been considerably reduced (Karsen 2000; Table 6), although modelling demonstrated that even the highest level of nutrient removal from the STPs would not reduce nutrient levels sufficiently to meet ANZECC guidelines for a substantial proportion of the time (Rahman & Salbe 1995). A “Phoswatch” public education program undertaken in the Hawkesbury-Nepean basin between 1995 and 1996 may have contributed to reduced phosphorus levels, although survey results indicated that there was little change in environmental awareness of respondents after the campaign (Howard & McGregor 2000).
Diffuse pollution sources are often more difficult to quantify and manage than point sources, but in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment it has been established that diffuse sources such as urban and agricultural runoff have just as great if not greater affect on water quality (Markich & Brown 1998). Nutrient loads from diffuse sources of pollution are strongly influenced by land use and vegetation cover with increased levels of land disturbance and modification resulting in higher nutrient loads. Although in 1997 STPs were considered to be the greatest contributor to nutrient loads (James 1997) more recent estimates derived after STP upgrades indicate that around 56% of the pollutant load of total nitrogen and 64% of total phosphorus in South Creek catchment was contributed by agriculture compared to 27% and 9% from STPs (EPA 2002). A more detailed breakdown of the estimated sources of phosphorus in South Creek catchment indicate that 44% was derived from agricultural runoff, 28% from urban runoff, 18% from unused or cleared land, 9% from STPs and 1% from natural runoff (EPA 2003b). As urban development replaces agricultural land in the catchment, urban runoff is likely to become the dominant degrading factor in the future (DEC 2004). Monitoring (Hollinger et al. 2001, Erskine et al. 2000) and modelling of nutrient and sediment losses from different land uses in or near South Creek catchment have allowed nutrient exports to be assessed (McNamara & Cornish 2002) and rural and urban abatement action priorities to be developed that take both cost effectiveness and potential catchment impact into consideration (Cornish 2003, McNamara & Cornish 2004).
A range of initiatives have been used to facilitate the implementation of high priority nutrient abatement actions in South Creek catchment in order to improve water quality. These include the “Keep the Soil on the Site” project and the publication of “Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control on Building Sites” (DLWC 2001) and “Best practice guidelines for greener subdivisions: Western Sydney” (DLWC 2002) as discussed previously. South Creek catchment also became the site of the first pollution offset scheme to be trialled in NSW (EPA 2005). In this project Sydney Water and Landcom have been able to offset nutrient loads by reducing pollution at locations outside (but within the catchment) of their sites. Agreements have been signed with 6 landholders of field market and hydroponics gardens for the “offsetters” to fund mitigation measures including retention and filtration of nutrient rich runoff water for reuse on site, soil improvement using compost, and fencing to provide erosion protection and prevent nutrient laden soil entering South Creek. The landholders provided a commitment to maintain the measures and to allow access for monitoring. The scheme had delivered cumulative reductions of 360 kg of nitrogen and 40 kg of phosphorus by June 2005 (DEC 2006). A permanent scheme has been suggested but this will depend on the evaluation of the pilot project which is currently being undertaken by the Department of Environment and Conservation.
Ongoing water quality monitoring is being conducted in South Creek catchment by Sydney Water as part of their performance assessment required to satisfy environmental protection licences. The Sydney Water monitoring program includes 7 sites consisting of one upstream and one downstream site for Riverstone and Quakers
20 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Hill STPs and two upstream and one downstream site for St Marys STP and samples are collected monthly. Plotted trends in the mean yearly water quality parameters at these 7 sites over the last 10 years show that at upstream locations there has been little change in conductivity, pH, phosphorus, nitrogen and bacterial quality (SW 2006a). However, at all downstream sites and the Riverstone upstream site there has been a gradual decline in phosphorus concentrations. Despite decreasing total nitrogen loads from the STPs over the 10 year period there has been little change in total nitrogen concentrations, except for a slight decline downstream of St Marys STP (SW 2005). The ANZECC default trigger value of total nitrogen is 0.35 mg/L (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) and the Healthy Rivers Commission set a limit of 1.0 mg/L for urban tributaries (HRC 1998). Corresponding figures for total phosphorus are 0.025 mg/L (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) and 0.05 mg/L for urban tributaries (HRC 1998). In 2005-6 only around 20% of median nitrogen and phosphorus values reported from 7 sites were below the less stringent Healthy Rivers conditions limits. Aquatic ecosystem health is also monitored at these sites using stream macroinvertebrates as per ANZECC 2000 guidelines. The overall level of ecosystem health at all sites is classified as moderately or severely disturbed with only effluent discharges from St Marys STP having a detectable negative impact on macroinvertebrate communities (SW 2005).
Monitoring of the volumes of water and pollutant loads being discharged from licensed premises within South Creek catchment is conducted by NSW EPA in order to determine pollutant fees under the load based licensing system (DEC 2005b). Load based licence data and details about non-compliance are provided on the NSW EPA Public Register under section 308 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (EPA 2006a). In addition to the 5 STPs licensed to discharge to waterways in South Creek catchment, there are around 20 other activities, but these are usually only licensed for wet weather discharge (EPA 2002). As up to 95% of base flow in the lower reaches of South Creek during ambient dry weather comes from STP discharges (DEC 2004) the quality of water in the streams is heavily influenced by discharges from STPs. In the year from July 2004 to June 2005, total metered discharge from the 5 STPs in South Creek catchment was 28,243 ML (Table 7). Except for phosphorous in the bubble licence (Figure 8) total annual loads of nitrogen, biological oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids and oil and grease were all well below the limit set by the EPA (Figures 9-12). Using the total discharge volume from the 5 STPs, the average concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus were calculated to be 5.477 mg/L and 0.152 mg/L, which exceed the Healthy Rivers Commission limits of 1.0 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L.
Although each of the remedial actions that have been undertaken in South Creek catchment in relation to water quality have been able to demonstrate improvements, it seems that collectively these actions have not been able to keep pace with continuing population growth and urbanisation. The net effect of water quality in South Creek catchment can be clearly seen in the impacts that inflows have on the water quality in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River downstream of the confluence. Sydney Catchment Authority monitors water quality monthly at 9 sites along the Hawkesbury-Nepean River from Maldon Weir to Wisemans Ferry. In the last 3 water quality monitoring reports covering the periods 2003-4, 2004-5 and 2005-6, sites in the tidal zone of the Hawkesbury River below South Creek tributary were among those that showed regular and significant non-compliances with the guidelines for total nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll-a. Although the number of samples exceeding the guidelines for phosphorus were lower in the 2005-6 reporting period, cyanobacteria levels continued to increase each year and in 2005-6 more than half of the samples in the tidal zone exceeded the toxigenic cyanobacteria guidelines (SCA 2004, 2005, 2006b).
CRC for Irrigation Futures 21
Table 6. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in typical effluent discharged from St Marys and Quakers Hill sewage treatment plants during the periods 1995-1996 and 1999-2000.
St Marys STP Quakers Hill STP Pollutant 1995-1996 1999-2000 1995-1996 1999-2000 Total 19.9 mg/L 7.4 mg/L 6.7 mg/L 5.4 mg/L nitrogen Total 0.68 mg/L 0.06 mg/L 0.25 mg/L 0.06 mg/L phosphorus Data extracted from Tables 2 & 3, Karsen 2000.
Table 7. Annual discharge and pollutant loads for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005. Discharge Total annual load (kg) STP volume Suspended Oil & Nitrogen Phosphorus BOD (ML) solids grease Quakers 12405 56608 801 7603 6631 917 Hill St Marys 12873 71947 3192 50089 59164 9440 Riverstone 675 6054 17 105 2.7 0.4 McGraths 908 951 153 1921 22807 1115 Hill South 1384 19136 121 18006 4951 2605 Windsor TOTAL 28243 154696 4285 77724 93556 14077 Source: NSW EPA Public Register
22 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Figure 7. Surface water quality assessment for South Creek catchment for the period 1995-1999. Data source: DLWC 2001.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 23
4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 Limit 2000 Load 1500 1000
Total Phosphorus (kg) Phosphorus Total 500 0
ill e H ble sor s d in ker Bub St Marys W ua Riverston th Q McGraths Hill Sou
Figure 8. Annual phosphorus load and limit for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005. (NB: Bubble licence load information provided on the NSW EPA Public Register is not consistent with Sydney Water reports)
250000
200000
150000 Limit
100000 Load
50000 Total Nitrogen (kg) Nitrogen Total
0
l ne ble il H sto ub s B th St Marys iver R th Windsor Quakers Hill cGra M ou S
Figure 9. Annual nitrogen load and limit for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005.
24 CRC for Irrigation Futures
200000
160000
120000 Limit
80000 Load BOD (kg)
40000
0
l il ill r ys H H ar dso s rstone M hs in St rat W Rive G h Quaker c M Sout
Figure 10. Annual biological oxygen demand load and limit for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005.
200000
150000
Limit 100000 Load
50000
0 Total Suspended Solids Suspended Total (kg)
ill r H Hill s th St Marys ra Windso Riverstone th Quakers McG Sou
Figure 11. Annual total suspended solids load and limit for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 25
60000
50000
40000 Limit 30000 Load 20000
10000 Oil and Grease (kg)
0
e ill n H rys a to rs M e ths Hill St ra Riv th Windsor Quakers McG Sou
Figure 12. Annual oil and grease load and limit for STPs in South Creek catchment for the period from July 2004 to June 2005.
6.2 Salinity
Salinity can arise as a result of environmental change brought about by natural processes or human impacts. In Western Sydney salinity is an existing process that has been exacerbated by the dramatic changes that have occurred in the way water is cycled through the environment (Sinclair et al. 2004). The serious nature of the emerging problem of salinity in South Creek catchment was first established in 1997 (Dias & Thomas, 1997) when 7% of the catchment was found to show signs of being affected by soil salinity and 30% was found to have the potential to become salt affected. The work of Dias & Thomas (1997) highlighted the need for good planning decisions to minimise or eliminate the impact of rising watertable and salinity and the need to adopt a catchment approach to the issue. Further research has resulted in a more detailed assessment of soil salinity in the region, and this has been summarised in a map of “Salinity Potential in Western Sydney” (DIPNR 2002, 2003a; Figure 13). Outbreaks of salinity are generally found in the lower parts of the landscape in association with Wianamatta group shales (DIPNR 2002, 2003a). A number of factors result in more than 10 of the soil landscapes present in South Creek catchment having widespread or localised salinity hazards. These include shale and topographic influences, tertiary aged gravels and groundwater influences and the processes involved will be explained in a 2nd edition of the Penrith 1:100 000 soil landscape map which is currently being produced.
Salinity issues including the dryland and urban salinity that are present in South Creek catchment have been recognised as significant and worsening problems across much of Australia. This has resulted in a range of government initiatives aimed at developing prevention and remediation strategies. The NSW Salinity Strategy (NSW Government 2000) highlighted a number of actions that can slow down salinity including protection and management of native vegetation and more effective and efficient use of water so that less water goes into the watertable. Under the salinity strategy, efforts have been made to improve the provision of government advice about salinity management, and one such program that is particularly relevant to South Creek catchment is the Local Government Salinity Initiative (LGSI). The LGSI provides training, education and technical support to local government on urban salinity issues. As a part of the LGSI, a
26 CRC for Irrigation Futures
series of booklets have been produced to address urban salinity. Topics covered include the identification of indicators of urban salinity (Collings 2002), an outline of resources available for undertaking a salinity hazard investigation (O'Flaherty 2002), assessment and quantification of the impact of salinity on a proposed housing development and subsequent salinity management (Lillicrap & McGhie 2002), building structures less susceptible to salt damage in saline environments (McGhie 2003), the interrelationship between roads and salinity (O'Flaherty 2003) and the design, implementation and maintenance of water efficient parks and gardens to aid in salinity management (McGhie & Ryan 2004).
The urban development currently being undertaken in South Creek catchment and the trend towards intensification of agricultural industries that remain, increases the risk of exacerbating existing salinity problems and creating new salinity outbreaks. Further removal of vegetation, changing drainage patterns and increased levels of agricultural irrigation are key factors that heighten the risks. Use of recycled municipal effluent for urban or agricultural irrigation could also increase risks if not appropriately managed because salinity levels of reclaimed water can be higher than traditional sources of water, and can lead to changes in soil chemical and physical properties (Hamilton et al. 2005). Dimitriadis (2005) noted that one of the disadvantages of the use of recycled water is the costly management of salinity, and that high salinity levels in raw sewerage have affected schemes in Bolivar, SA and at the Western Treatment Plant in Melbourne.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 27
Figure 13. Salinity potential in the South Creek catchment region of Western Sydney. Base map source: DIPNR (2002). Salinity potential in Western Sydney 2002.
28 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Salinity Potential Key Mapping category Associated soil landscapes Landform - Geology
KNOWN SALINITY * Salinity outbreaks occur in Blacktown * Break of slope, lower slope and Areas where there is a known occurrence of (bt), Luddenham (lu) and Richmond (ri) drainage lines of Wianamatta Shales saline soil, or where air photo interpretation Soil Landscapes – common at breaks of (Rwb, Rwa and Rwm). and field observations have confirmed one of slope, lower slopes and drainage lines. * Localised salinity also occurs at the these: * Berkshire Park (bp) and Upper geological boundary between a – scalding Castlereagh (up) Soil Landscapes have Tertiary Gravels (Tl, Tr) and b – salt efflorescence localised salinity due to the impermeable underlaying Wianamatta Shales c – vegetation dieback nature of the clay parent material. (Rwb, Rwa/Quaternary Alluvials d – salt tolerant plant species * South Creek (sc), Monkey Creek (mk), (Qpd, Qpa, Qpl, Qal). e – waterlogging Freemans Reach (fr) and Theresa Park * Localised salinity occurs in A high relative wetness index occurs in these (tp) Soil Landscapes have common Quaternary Alluvium (Qal, Qpn, Qpd) areas saline outbreaks due to high run-on and which underlies many of the drainage low local relief. systems and wetland margins. * Soils in the above landscapes have high clay content in subsoils and are imperfectly to poorly drained.
HIGH SALINITY POTENTIAL * Soil Landscapes include Birrong (bi), * Salinity is most likely to occur in Areas where soil, geology, topography and Blacktown (bt), Berkshire Park (bp), lower slopes, foot-slopes, floodplains groundwater conditions predispose a site to Freemans Reach (fr), South Creek (sc), and creek lines on Quaternary salinity. These conditions are similar to areas Theresa Park (tp), Richmond (ri) and Sediments (Qal, Qpn, Qpd, Qpc, of known salinity (see above). These areas Luddenham (lu). Drainage systems and Qpp, Qha)/Wianamatta Shales (Rwb, are most common in lower slopes and convergent slopes are areas of highest Rwm, Rwa) where run-on is high , drainage systems where water accumulation risk. resulting in seasonally high water is high (ie. high relative wetness index). * Soils in these landscapes have high clay tables and soil saturation. content in the subsoils, low permeability and high run-on. * Soil profiles may display signs of high salt concentrations at depth (i.e. >0.5m).
MODERATE SALINITY POTENTIAL * Areas of Agnes Banks (ab), Berkshire * Hill-slopes and hill-crests on Areas on Wianamatta Group Shales and Park (bp), Blacktown (bt), Luddenham Wianamatta Shales (Rwb, Rwm, Tertiary Alluvial Terraces. Scattered areas of (lu) and Lucas Heights (lh). Rwa). scalding and indicator vegetation have been * Steeper areas with moderate to high * Raised abandoned alluvial terraces noted but no concentrations have been local relief and well drained subsoils and drainage lines on Quaternary mapped. Saline areas may occur in this such as Picton (pn), West Pennant Hills Alluvium (Qal, Qpn, Qpd, Qpc, Qpp) zone, which have not yet been identified or (wp) and Glenorie (gn) are at a lower from Richmond and Camden and may occur if risk factors change adversely. risk of developing salinity. east to Rookwood. Localised areas * Soils are moderate to well-drained due of elevated, well-drained Tertiary to their elevated position in the Gravels (Ta, Tl, Tr). landscape.
VERY LOW SALINITY POTENTIAL * Rapidly drained soil landscapes with * Occurring on Hawkesbury and Areas where salinity processes do not shallow soils include Warragamba (wb) Narrabeen Sandstone (Rh, Rno). operate or are of minor significance. Soils and Hawkesbury (ha). * Groundwater is relatively fresh in are rapidly drained and underlying strata * Gymea (gy) and Faulconbridge (fb) Soil these areas due to the sandstone’s (Hawkesbury/Narrabeen Sandstone) are Landscapes consist of highly permeable elevated position in the landscape highly permeable, resulting in continual sands with well-drained subsoils. and highly permeable nature, flushing and removal of salts in the * Soils are well to rapidly drained. resulting in continuous flushing of the landscape. No salinity has been observed in * Soils have high sand content. system (removal of any accumulated these areas and is not expected to occur. salts).
6.3 Vegetation conservation and restoration
South Creek catchment falls entirely within the Cumberland sub-region of the Sydney Basin bioregion (NSW NPWS, 2003). Within the Cumberland Plain clearing for agriculture and subsequent urbanisation has resulted in an estimated 9% (Davies & Christie 2001) to 12% of the land area remaining as intact bushland (Tozer 2003). The stream banks have also been severely degraded through the loss of native riparian vegetation and invasion with exotic species. Poor native vegetation cover and low integrity riparian zones contribute to poor water quality in catchment streams through increased erosion and reduced infiltration during wet weather events, resulting in high
CRC for Irrigation Futures 29
nutrient concentrations. Loss of deep-rooted native vegetation also exacerbates salinity problems through increased volumes of water entering the groundwater system and raising the underground watertable. Salts from rock and soils are then dissolved and taken to the surface (DEC 2005a). Key recommendations for the prevention and control of salinity is effective water use in the catchment through the re-establishment of at least 30% cover of trees on hillsides and ensuring a green community is established along the lower slopes and riparian areas (DEC 2005a).
In the early 1990s, Greening Australia were engaged by the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) to advise on the management of the landscapes of South Creek catchment, which typically contain small, rare patches of semi-degraded native vegetation. It was identified that the Western Sydney Open Space Corridors provided a valuable opportunity to more actively manage important areas of parkland environment and to rehabilitate land and vegetation with the broader perspective of improving catchment health and making an important contribution to the conservation of biodiversity (Davies & Christie 2001). These corridors had originally been planned in the late 1960’s for utility easements, recreation and agriculture, and were subsequently added to through land acquisition by successive NSW governments. Since the launch of the Greening Western Sydney project in 1992 (Davies 2000), Greening Australia, in partnership with the pertinent state government planning agency (currently the Department of Planning (DoP)), has carried out restoration work that has resulted in more than 700,000 native plants being established in the Western Sydney Parklands, more than 100,000 in the South Creek Regional Open Space Corridor and assisted revegetation carried out in South and Ropes Creek Regional Open Space Corridors (DoP 2006). The Greening Western Sydney corridors have also expanded to take in local government areas at Blacktown, Liverpool, Fairfield and Penrith. Western Sydney Parklands is the largest of the corridors stretching 27 kilometres from Blacktown to Liverpool on the eastern perimeter of South Creek catchment (Figure 14).
Greening Western Sydney is now the largest on-going urban restoration project in Australia and its success has been attributed to a long-term vision to create healthy, diverse and productive ecosystems for Western Sydney along with an educational focus and community involvement (GWS, 2005). Around 10% of the Greening Western Sydney project budget is contributed from in-kind contributions of volunteers. Regular volunteer activities include tree planting, seed collection, bushland regeneration and nursery work. Community awareness of the Greening Western Sydney project is also enhanced through arranged activities for community and school groups, and participation in larger events such as Clean Up Australia Day, Western Sydney Environment Month, National Tree Day and the Annual Bush Seed Harvest. Restoration efforts have also been underpinned by the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 through the listing of 12 vegetation communities on the Cumberland Plain as endangered. Principles and practices developed as part of Greening Western Sydney have made important contributions to the knowledge base of ecological restoration, particularly through contributions to the publications “Bringing the bush back to Western Sydney: Best practice guidelines for bush regeneration on the Cumberland Plain” (DIPNR 2003b) and “Recovering bushland on the Cumberland Plain: Best practice guidelines for the management and restoration of bushland” (DEC 2005a).
Greening Australia continues to build on previous activities in South Creek catchment and is currently focusing on restoring riparian vegetation under the River Recovery Project. The Hawkesbury-Nepean is one of 9 rivers that were selected to be involved in pilot projects for River Recovery (Cribb 2006), and because of its highly degraded state, South Creek was identified as a priority area. Work on revegetation of banks, removal of invasive water and land plants, clearing of rubbish and erosion control on 5
30 CRC for Irrigation Futures
tributaries of South Creek is being supported by the HNCMA, local councils, private industry and volunteers (GA 2007; HNCMA 2006). Of the 5 tributaries, Little Creek, Bungarribee Creek and Breakfast Creek are in the Blacktown Local Government Area, while Werrington and Claremont creeks are in the Penrith Local Government Area. While Greening Australia acknowledge that it will never be possible to bring South Creek back to its original pristine condition, the planting of native vegetation along its tributaries will contribute greatly to restoring the health to these waterways, making the landscape more resilient and creating much needed corridors for native fauna.
In addition to the tangible benefits of the on ground work that has been conducted in South Creek catchment, and many other catchments across Australia, the vegetation conservation program provides an exemplary model for environmental restoration. Key components of the model are the establishment and maintenance of long term partnerships between government agencies and non-government organisations and the development of a shared vision in order to achieve a common objective. Also of critical importance is the active involvement of the community allowing the development of a greater sense of ownership and a change in their perception of native vegetation as an integral and value enhancing component of the environment. Perhaps the most important message of all is the power of continual and sustained efforts, often involving subtle and gradual processes, to bring about results that may only emerge into full view after long periods.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 31
Figure 14. Location of Western Sydney Parklands and South and Ropes Creek Corridors in relation to the Growth Centres. Source: Gavin Beveridge, CRC IF 2007.
32 CRC for Irrigation Futures
6.4 Groundwater
The dominant geological formation of the Cumberland Plain Basin and the South Creek catchment is the Triassic Wianamatta Group, which is comprised mainly of shales. A historical study conducted on the Wianamatta shale waters in 1942 concluded that the salt content was so high that the waters were of limited use for stock and quite useless for irrigation purposes (Old 1942). In the most recently published geological study of the area Jones and Clark (1991) reported that although there are not many groundwater bores in the Wianamatta Group, most of them yielded water that was saline and also hard. The salts were reported as connate in nature, and characteristic of the shales associated with the geological formation that was formed under brackish to marine conditions. In addition to these fossil salts, approximately 10 to 20 kg/ha/yr are added to the Western Sydney environs, primarily by rainfall due to coastal proximity that may accumulate and percolate into subsurface waters (Mitchell 2000). The recorded saline content for aquifers associated with the Wianamatta Group have ranged up to 31750 mg/L of Total Dissolved Salts (Jones & Clark 1991). A study conducted in Badgerys Creek as part of the proposed airport reported groundwater between 3.0 and 9.6 metres below ground level with saline content of approximately 900-9800 mg/L (PPK Environment and Infrastructure 1997).
The lack of comprehensive studies of groundwater conditions within Western Sydney (DIPNR 2002) is unlikely to change in the near future as none of the 7 natural groundwater priority areas identified as part of the strategy to achieve a sustainable and secure water system for Sydney fall within South Creek catchment (SCA 2006c). The groundwater resources of South Creek form part of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Alluvium aquifer, which has been identified as being at medium risk of devaluation of the beneficial uses through over-exploitation or contamination (DLWC 1998). The major risks to the aquifer were identified as groundwater dependent ecosystems and landuse threats. Groundwater dependent ecosystems include threatened ecological communities, significant wetlands, and associated flora and fauna (Beveridge 2006). Other identified risks included licensed entitlements compared to sustainable yields, local interference effects, system flows, vulnerability to pollution, poor water quality adjacent to the aquifer and salinity. Availability of information on groundwater quality and contamination by pollutants is extremely limited across the whole of NSW (EPA 2003c).
The NSW government maintains a database on groundwater works (NSW Government 2002) and information extracted from this spatial database under a licence agreement showed that total of 89 active licences registered in South Creek catchment. Of these, 31 were listed as monitoring bores and 4 as test bores. The remaining licences included entitlements under the Water Act to extract water for 1 (n=25), 2 (n=25) or 3 (n=3) purposes. The most commonly listed purposes were for domestic and stock use, and extractions for these purposes were estimated at 1 and 2 ML/year respectively. There were 6 entitlements listed with the purpose of irrigation, but no information was available on the volume of these entitlements. The total estimated volume of property entitlement extractions in the catchment was 103 ML/year. In addition 8 billable licences to extract were listed, of which 7 were for industrial purposes. The total estimated volume extracted for these 8 licences was 104 ML/year.
.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 33
7. Water use in the catchment
7.1 Urban water use
Sydney Water services all the urban areas of the catchment with potable water. For the one year period from July 2004 to June 2005, urban demand for potable water was highest in January and lowest in June (Table 8). These variations are most likely due to increased outdoor use of potable water in summer. Total annual metered water use for the catchment was 33,162 ML (Table 9). There are also a number of unmetered uses including unmetered customer properties where water consumption was estimated to be around 50 ML (Table 9), water use on Sydney Water properties (consumption is metered but the detail is not available at this time), a number of community properties that are not metered or billed, fire hydrants and system leaks (Sydney Water pers. com.). After use of this water the total discharge from the 5 STPs in the catchment was 28,243 ML.
34 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Table 8. Monthly metered potable water use in South Creek catchment (KL) during 2004-2005 Local Government Area Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Baulkham Hills 3169 3081 2985 3346 3312 3421 3603 3359 3717 3126 2937 2849 Blacktown 1597131 1582751 1527771 1576866 1576794 1651374 1659727 1478101 1596400 1527423 1528371 1438780 Camden 89574 80216 76820 79918 84973 95964 96086 84276 90428 86244 78744 68626 Campbelltown 79 79 76 80 75 73 73 69 86 83 79 57 Fairfield 64611 62829 61524 74788 76940 77353 74181 67158 74088 59322 56127 56413 Hawkesbury 168131 168287 170701 177679 172466 181372 183923 166256 177352 163624 167325 155790 Liverpool 157019 160688 156409 171263 213805 229909 223213 175434 194180 175881 141076 136815 Penrith 696090 691506 665544 688669 688927 746405 757340 679059 719814 696918 700504 644261 TOTAL 2,775,804 2,749,437 2,661,830 2,772,609 2,817,292 2,985,871 2,998,146 2,653,712 2,856,065 2,712,621 2,675,163 2,503,591
Source: Sydney Water data provided under licence
Table 9. Annual metered and estimated potable water use in South Creek catchment (ML) during 2004-2005 No. Estimated Water No. Local Property properties unmetered consumption Unmetered Government count not consumption (ML/year) properties Area sewered (ML/year) Baulkham Hills 49 49 39 1 0.25 Blacktown 64745 1790 18741 94 23.5 Camden 1292 1279 1012 4 1 Campbelltown 3 3 1 0 Fairfield 810 758 805 14 3.5 Hawkesbury 6337 5564 2053 14 3.5 Liverpool 2098 2087 2136 8 2 Penrith 29566 1817 8375 67 16.75 TOTAL 104,900 13347 33162 202 50.5
Source: Sydney Water data provided under licence
CRC for Irrigation Futures 35
7.2 Agricultural water use
As with agricultural production, accurate data on the number of irrigators, area irrigated and value of irrigated production specifically within South Creek catchment is lacking. A comprehensive review of irrigation in the Sydney region shows that up to date information is also lacking for the Sydney Metropolitan Area (Moxon 2004). An irrigation profile developed for the Sydney and South Coast Region reported the number of irrigators and area irrigated by local government area, including those falling within South Creek catchment for the period 1994-1997 (Table 10). The value of irrigated agriculture in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley (which extends from Gosford to Nowra and Lithgow to Liverpool) was estimated at $108,540,000 in 2000-1 (NSW Irrigators Council 2002). Annual water use in agriculture in South Creek catchment has been estimated to be around 18,000 ML with more than 50% of this being potable water (Table 11). Other sources of water for agriculture include farm dams and surface and groundwater extractions. The total annual volume of licensed surface water extractions from waterways in South Creek catchment is 8,729 ML (Table 12). South Creek has the highest volume of entitlements and number of extractors, with three- quarters of the entitlements being less than 100 ML each year (Figure 15). A more accurate picture of agricultural water use in the catchment will be possible when the 2006 Agricultural Census data becomes available late in 2007, as the census included questions on the volume and sources of water used in each category of agricultural production.
Table 10. Number of irrigators and area irrigated in each Local Government Area falling within the South Creek catchment Local 1994 1996 1997 Government Area Area Area Respondents Respondents Respondents Area (ha) (ha) (ha)
Baulkham Hills 130 641 64 323 99 435
Blacktown 27 266 8 19 20 145
Camden 37 1735 24 1950 33 1748
Campbelltown 13 289 9 251 8 235
Fairfield 14 39 6 24 14 40
Hawkesbury 165 2193 75 959 130 2277
Liverpool 25 146 11 99 25 277
Penrith 39 852 20 421 30 513
TOTAL 450 6161 217 4046 359 5670 Source: Extracted from Hope & O’Connor (2001).
36 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Table 11. Annual estimated water use in agriculture in South Creek catchment Estimated Estimated Total proportion Non Estimated average estimated of non potable Potable irrigation annual average potable water water use Agricultural area * irrigation irrigation water use use industry volume ** volume *** per year per ML per hectares % ML ML ha year Market 1,117.6 11 12,294 35% 4,303 7,991 gardens Hydroponics 39.8 2 60 5% 3 57 Greenhouse 194.4 3 583 10% 58 525 crops Nurseries & 42.1 20 842 25% 211 632 cutflowers Mushroom 1.1 2 2 0% 0 2
Turf 25.8 11 284 100% 284 0 Plantations/ 43.4 6 260 95% 247 13 fruit trees Vines 29.7 5 134 50% 67 67 Dairy and 350 10 3,500 100% 3,500 0 pastures
Totals 1,844 17,959 8,673 9,286 * based on EPA GIS 2001 except for dairy/pastures (NSW DPI estimate - v. conservative) ** based on volumetric conversion rates where possible *** NSW DPI estimate Source: Yiasoumi, B. (2006). DPI NSW, unpublished report.
Table 12. Licensed extraction entitlements from South Creek catchment watercourses Watercourse description Volume (ML/yr) Number of licences Badgerys Creek 213 3 Bells Creek 40 3 Eastern Creek 618 13 First Ponds Creek 19.5 2 Kemps Creek 479 15 Killarney Chain of Ponds 3 1 McKenzies Creek 72.5 4 Rileys Creek 193 2 Ropes Creek 130 2 South Creek 5402 74 Thompsons Creek 159 1 Unnamed watercourse 1400.3 78 TOTAL 8729.3 198 Source: DNR provided under FOI.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 37
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number of entitlements 0
0 -49 74 0-24 0- -149 25 5 75-99 >20 100-124 125 150-174 175-199 Entitlement volume (ML/year)
Figure 15. Licensed extraction entitlements from South Creek. Source: DNR provided under FOI
7.3 Recycled water use
The current level of direct reuse of municipal effluent within South Creek catchment is estimated to be around 80 ML per year at the McGraths Hill integrated reuse and wetland site. Other direct reuse schemes just outside the catchment area include the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Plant which provides around 1,900 ML per year to local residences for toilet flushing, watering gardens and other outdoor uses (SW 2007) and the Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme which supplies around 600 ML treated municipal effluent as well as 250 ML harvested stormwater per year for irrigation of a golf course, racecourse and agricultural land. The volume of municipal waste generated within South Creek catchment and then treated for direct reuse will increase dramatically when planned water recycling projects are implemented by Sydney Water (SW 2006b). However, redirection of this effluent away from the waterways will influence the availability of water which is currently indirectly reused through extraction from the waterways. As previously mentioned there are 198 licensed entitlements to extract a total of 8,729 ML for the waterways in South Creek catchment each year.
The first of the planned projects to come on line will be the Sydney Water Replacement Flows Project. The contract for construction and operation of the advanced treatment plant at St Marys and connecting pipelines between St Marys, Quakers Hill and Penrith STPs was signed in August. When implemented the Replacement Flows Project is likely to result in the annual diversion of around 16,000 ML of effluent from St Marys and Quakers Hill sewage treatment plants for advanced water treatment at St Marys (SW 2006c). Recycled water is intended to be used for residential, industrial, agricultural and environmental purposes, but the allocation of water to each of these uses is likely to be dependent on the requirements of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Water Sharing Plan. However, a major objective of the Sydney Water Replacement Flows Project is to reduce the amount of potable water released from dams to maintain the minimum required flow of 50 ML/day over the Penrith Weir into the Hawkesbury- Nepean river, by substituting flows with treated effluent piped from the advanced treatment plant (SW 2006c).
38 CRC for Irrigation Futures
7.4 Stormwater
In urban landuse situations stormwater discharge is the largest contributor to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems but recent studies have shown that reducing the degree of direct connection between stormwater systems and streams can reduce the extent of degradation (DEC 2004). Under the Stormwater Trust Program a stormwater management plan for South Creek catchment was prepared in 1999. A number of projects were subsequently undertaken in South Creek catchment in order to improve stormwater quality management. These included the “Keep the Soil on the Site” project discussed previously, installation of pollutant traps at St Marys, Plumpton and Werrington Creek, development of a series of sites demonstrating grassed swales, rainwater tanks, and other best practice features in Blacktown to test their performance and capacity enhancement in water sensitive urban design through training and production of technical guidelines (EPA 2006b). Recent water restrictions have resulted in Councils investigating opportunities to implement stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes. However, as urban stormwater harvesting and reuse is a relatively new field of water management most of the projects constructed to date have been pilot projects (EPA 2005c). In a recent publication “Managing urban stormwater: Harvesting and reuse” (DEC 2006b) a number of case studies are profiled including the Hawkesbury Recycling Scheme, but none fall within South Creek catchment.
Within established urban areas infrastructure costs of stormwater reuse schemes are generally higher than for municipal effluent reuse schemes because of the much higher variability of supply resulting in the need for greater storage capacity. Opportunities to minimise costs of establishing stormwater schemes exist in Greenfield developments, but the level of adoption will depend largely on the Department of Planning and developers. Use of captured stormwater to recharge groundwater is another potential use (Dillon et al. 2006), but little is currently known about groundwater in the catchment, except that it is relatively saline. There could also be considerable opportunity for innovative use of existing infrastructure to better utilise stormwater. For example the City of Sydney Council has recently undertaken a project to utilise stormwater collected by St Vincent’s Hospital retention tank in the adjacent Barcom Avenue Park by retrofitting the retention tank with submersible transfer pumps and installing an irrigation tank in an adjacent park to receive the stormwater during storm events (CoSC 2006). Water is being used for park irrigation.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 39
8. Closing comments
South Creek catchment is currently considered to be a highly degraded system with a low potential for recovery. The state of the catchment is a function of a long period of gradual degradation from the 1800s until the 1950s followed by more rapid deterioration over the last 50 years. Modified practices of recent decades have slowed the rate of degradation, but have not been able to keep pace with the rapid rate of urbanisation and intensification of agriculture. Improvements in the environmental condition of the catchment will only be possible as a result of sustained commitment to an integrated range of measures and long-term action on the ground. The ongoing vegetation conservation and restoration program being conducted in the catchment provides an excellent working model of the kind of long term partnerships, community engagement and on ground action that is necessary to bring about change.
South Creek catchment is characterised by a mosaic of diverse land uses. While this mosaic adds to complexity of planning, particularly when overlayed with a system involving 8 local government areas and both state and federal agencies, it also provides a diverse range of opportunities for more effective use and reuse of water. Considering that water is bulky, making its movement and storage expensive, the most profitable business opportunities for water will occur when the distance water needs to be transported is minimised and the rate of supply best matches the demand. Innovative approaches need to be taken to identify alternative sources of water and match them to water consumers in both space and time.
Traditional expectations of water as a product have been that water is suitable for a whole suite of purposes. Increasing community acceptance of different quality streams of water for different purposes is opening the way for a range of water products that are fit for purpose. In December 2006 the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport recommended that: (Recommendation 16) “…federal government should commit to the construction of one or more advanced water recycling plants to produce water for a range of both potable and non-potable uses in order to raise public awareness about the safety of recycled water.” This approach can be further expanded to utilise certain streams of water as a resource, rather than a pollutant source. Water streams in which nutrient levels are high but other pollutants and salts are low could be considered as having added value when used for agricultural irrigation. Opportunities also exist for the blending of different water streams, such as stormwater and municipal effluent in order to reduce salts to levels that do not increase the risk of soil salinity.
As management of water is linked to all parts of the environment the long term success of any new water resource management initiative depends on it being considered in the context of the whole catchment and being informed by accurate and up to date information. There is considerable unpublished knowledge and data in existence, and increasing amounts of data becoming more freely accessible, but integration of existing knowledge is still impeded by the high number of different players and the lack of a framework through which information can be easily accessed. The need for greater accessibility to data and information at all levels of planning is well recognised, but despite directives to maintain inventories of data and projects that have attempted to create web interfaces to allow more open access to data, none have been successful to date. Greater commitment is needed from all organisations involved in natural resource management to more openly share information. More open access to information will also assist in the development of a common vision for water resource
40 CRC for Irrigation Futures
planning and future development of more complementary policies across the different sectors of water management.
Despite considerable opportunities for better management of water in South Creek catchment through involvement of the public and private sectors in water reuse and continuing legislative reform to stimulate innovation by creating incentives and removing impediments, some critical impediments still remain. The most important of these is the outstanding Water Sharing Plan for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. The development of other trading instruments such as the piloted nutrient trading scheme is also being hampered by the slow pace of implementation of instruments. Another serious impediment to water innovation in the agricultural sector is the absence of a clear government commitment to maintaining agriculture in the catchment. Removal of these impediments, provision of greater access to information and the innovative use of mapping tools to identify and match opportunities will greatly facilitate involvement of all stakeholders to ensure that environmental, social and economic requirements of the region are met.
The complexity of the situation in South Creek catchment highlights the need for an innovative new approach to achieve effective management of water resources. The systems harmonisation approach offers a framework for improvement of cross- organisational communication and system-wide management. Information provided in this document is intended to inform the first component of the systems harmonisation process by providing a summary of existing information about the hydrological system, the economic, social and environmental landscape and existing institutional frameworks.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 41
9. References
*All links were correct as of 25 May 2007.
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). National Water Quality Management Strategy. Chapter 3. Aquatic ecosystems. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
Bannerman, S.M. & Hazelton, P.A. (1990). Soil landscapes of the Penrith 1:100000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, Sydney.
Beveridge, G.J. (2006). Groundwater Monitoring System for Effluent Irrigated Areas - A Case Study of Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme. M.Sc.(Hons.) Thesis, University of Western Sydney.
Blackburn, G. (2004). Pioneering irrigation in Australia to 1920. Australian Scholarly Publishing; Melbourne.
Blacktown City Council (BCC) 2006. South Creek. http://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/environment/educational- resources/wetlands/south-creek.cfm
Blaxland, G. (1823). Journal Of A Tour Of Discovery Across The Blue Mountains. Cited in “Crossing the Blue Mountains” atmitchell.com http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/history/exploration/crossing.cfm
Bunker, R. & Houston, P. (2003). Prospects of the rural-urban fringe in Australia: Observations from a brief history of the landscapes around Sydney and Adelaide. Australian Geographical Studies, 41(3), 303-323.
Burgin, S. (2000). Changes in South Creek from a perspective of 20 years from today. 6 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd- 23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) (2005). Catchment Management Authorities: An overview. http://www.cma.nsw.gov.au/
City of Sydney Council (CoSC) (2006). 2006 Sustainable Water Challenge Project Entry Report: Barcom Avenue Park Upgrade – Water transfer & Bioretention. http://www.wsud.org/downloads/2006_SWC_Projects/2006_SWC_City_Sydney_Re trofit.pdf
Clark, D. (1978). ‘Worse than physic’: Sydney’s water supply 1788-1888. In: Nineteenth-Century Sydney: Essays in urban history. Edited by Max Kelly pp54-65. Sydney University Press.
Clark, NR. & Jones, DC. (1991). Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Sheet 9030. NSW Geological Survey, Sydney. (Available on line from http://digsopen.minerals.nsw.gov.au/ by entering R00027949 in the Report Identification Number field, performing the search, clicking the link: 1. Map (R00027949) and selecting View)
42 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Collings, A. (2002). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Indicators of urban salinity. Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/booklet1.pdf
Community Access to Natural Resources Information (CANRI) (2006). CANRI Project Proposals 2002-2003. http://www.canri.nsw.gov.au/activities/projects/2002/proposal/016_hawkesbury- nepean_integrated_data_management_system_-_extension.html
Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures (CRC IF) (2007). System Harmonisation. http://www.irrigationfutures.org.au/programs.asp?ID=6
Cornish, P.S. (2003). Prioritising locations, industries and abatement actions for environmental improvement in a heterogeneous catchment: the Sydney Basin Australia. Bruen, M. (Editor) Diffuse Pollution and Basin Management. Proc 7th International Specialised IWA Conference. Dublin, Ireland. ISBN 1902277767, I (2) 7-12. http://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme02/theme02_02.PDF
Cribb, J. (2006). Rivers reborn. Ecos, 130 (Apr-May), 16-19. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC130p16.pdf
Davies, R. & Christie, J. (2001). Rehabilitation Western Sydney’s bushland: Processes needed for sustained recovery. Ecological Management & Restoration, 2(3), 167- 178.
Davies, R. (2000). Greening Western Sydney – Deep processes for sustained recovery. 8 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
Dekel, D. (2000). NSW Water reform agenda – Implications for South Creek and the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. 5 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2007). Water 2010. http://www.daffa.gov.au/brs/climate-impact/water-2010
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2004). The potential impacts of Sydney’s urban growth on the water quality and aquatic ecosystem health of South Creek. Department of Environment and Conservation unpublished report.
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2005a). Recovering bushland on the Cumberland Plain: Best practice guidelines for the management and restoration of bushland. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Sydney. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/Recovering_Cumberland_Plain.pdf
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2005b). Load Calculation Protocol. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/loadcalcprotfeb05.pdf
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2006a). NSW State of the Environment 2006. Appendix 3. Trends in economic analysis and the costs and benefits of environmental protection. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2006/index.htm
CRC for Irrigation Futures 43
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2006b). Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/managestormwatera06137.pdf
Department of Environment and Planning (DEP) NSW (1991). South Creek Valley, South Western Sydney: Regional Environmental Study.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (2002). Guidelines to accompany the map of salinity potential in Western Sydney. http://www.naturalresources.nsw.gov.au/salinity/science/pdf/western_sydney_guide lines.pdf
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (2003a). Salinity potential in Western Sydney 2002. Map.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (2003b). Bringing the bush back to Western Sydney: Best practice guidelines for bush regeneration on the Cumberland Plain. http://www.aabr.org.au/images/stories/resources/manuals/bringing_the_bush_back. pdf
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) (undated). NSW Natural Resource Atlas. http://nratlas.nsw.gov.au/
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (1998). Aquifer Risk Assessment Report. Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (2001). Erosion & Sediment Control on Building Sites (Guidelines for…). Available from: http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/care/soil/soil_pubs/index.html
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (2001). Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment 1995-1999. Prepared by Australian Water Technologies.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (2002). Best practice guidelines for greener subdivisions: Western Sydney. Sydney South Coast Region, NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Windsor.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC). (2002), Water Management Act 2000 - What it means for NSW. DLWC: Sydney.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2006). Overview of macro water plans. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/water/macro_overview.shtml
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (2007). Water Sharing Plans. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/water/ind_sharing_plans.shtml
Department of Planning (DoP) (2006). Western Sydney Parklands. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/westernsydneypark/snapshot.asp
44 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Department of Planning (DoP) (2007a). Metropolitan Development Program 2007 Update. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/programservices/pdf/mdp_2007_update_bod.pdf
Department of Planning (DoP) (2007b). Western Sydney Parklands. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/westernsydneypark/context.asp
Department of Planning (DoP) (2007c). State Environmental Planning Policies. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/sepp.asp
Department of Planning (DoP) (2007d). Regional Environmental Plans. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/rep1.asp
Dias, A. & Thomas, D. (1997). Salinity in the South Creek catchment. Land and Water Conservation. Goulburn, NSW.
Dick, A. (2006). Sydney’s food bowl under threat. The Land. Thursday 7 December 2006.
Dillon, P., Pavelic, P., Toze, S., Rinck-Pfeiffer, S. Martin, R., Knapton, A. & Pidsley, D. (2006). Role of aquifer storage in water reuse. Desalination 188, 123-134.
Dimitriadis, S. (2005). Issues encountered in advancing Australia's water recycling schemes. Parliamentary Library Research Brief no. 2 2005–06. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2005-06/06rb02.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2001). Load-based licensing: A fairer system that rewards cleaner industry. http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/lblbooklet.pdf
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2002). Green offsets for sustainable development. Concept paper. http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/greenoffsets.pdf
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2003a). South Creek Bubble Licencing Scheme. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licensing/bubble.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2003b). NSW State of the Environment. Chapter 5 Water. 5.3 Surface water quality. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2003/chapter5/chp_5.3.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2003c). NSW State of the Environment. Chapter 5 Water. 5.5 Groundwater water quality. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2003/chapter5/chp_5.4.htm#5.4.25
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2005a). South Creek project – keep the soil on the site. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/stormwater/casestudies/keepsoil.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2005b). The South Creek Nutrient Offset Pilot http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/greenoffsets/epapilots.htm
CRC for Irrigation Futures 45
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2005c). Case studies: Effective stormwater education http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/stormwater/casestudies/index.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2006a). About the public register (POEO). http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeo/index.htm
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2006b). Stormwater Trust Program. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/stormwater/usp/index.htm
Gillespie, P.D. & Mason, D. (2003). The value of agriculture in the Sydney region: February 2003. NSW Agriculture.
Gillespie, P.D. (2003). Agricultural trends in the Sydney region 1996-2001: Census comparisons. March 2003. NSW Agriculture.
Greening Australia (GA) (2007). Hawkesbury Nepean – The work We’re Doing. http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/ourwork/rivers/hawkesbury-nepean.html
Greening Western Sydney (GWS) (2005). GWS Annual Report 2004-5. Department of Planning and Greening Australia.
Growth Centres Commission (GCC) (2006). About the Growth Centres. http://www.gcc.nsw.gov.au/the-growth-centres.aspx
Hamilton, AJ. Boland, AM. Stevens, D. Kelly, J. Radcliffe, J. Ziehrl, A. Dillon, P. and Paulin, B. (2005). Position of the Australian horticultural industry with respect to the use of reclaimed water. Agricultural Water Management. 71, pp181-209.
Hawkesbury City Council (HCC) (2001). GWSspatial. http://council.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/gwsSpatial/gws/gwsspatial.htm
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2005). Recovery plan for Sydney’s most degraded waterway. Media Release 11 July 2005. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/news/2441.html
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006a). HNCMA Annual Report 2005/06. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/multiattachments/2935.html
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006b). Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Action Plan 2007-2016. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/multiattachments/3075.html
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006c). River Health Strategy. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/topics/2201.html
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006d). South Creek subcatchment river health summary. River Health Strategy extract for the South Creek Subcatchment. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/multiattachments/2383.html
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006e) Minister announces $1.9 million environmental funding for local Councils. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/news/2401.html
46 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2006f). Case Study: South Creek River Recovery Project. p29 In HNCMA Annual Report 2005- 06.http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/multiversions/2296/FileName/South%20Creek% 20River%20Recovery%20Case%20Study%200506.pdf
Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (HNCMA) (2007). South Creek Subcatchment. http://www.hn.cma.nsw.gov.au/topics/2051.html
Hawkesbury Nepean River Management Forum (HNRMF) (2004). Water and Sydney’s future: Balancing the values of our rivers and economy. DIPNR, Sydney.
Healthy Rivers Commission (1998). Independent inquiry into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system. Healthy Rivers Commission of NSW, Sydney.
Healthy Rivers Commission (HRC) (2003). Hawkesbury Nepean & Shoalhaven River Systems: Independent audit of the Statements of Intent. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/programservices/pdf/hawkesburysh-audit.pdf
Hollinger, E., Cornish, P.S., Baginska, B., Mann, R. & Kuczera, G. (2001). Farm-scale stormwater losses of sediment and nutrients from a market garden near Sydney, Australia. Agricultural Water Management, 47, 227-241.
Hope, M. & O'Connor, J. (2001). Sydney - South Coast Region irrigation profile. Water Use Efficiency Advisory Unit, NSW Agriculture.
Houston, P. (2005). Re-valuing the fringe: Some findings on the value of agricultural production in Australia’s peri-urban regions. Geographical Research 43(2), 209– 223.
Howard, J. & McGregor, D. (2000). Reducing nutrient enrichment of waterways through public education: a tale of two cities. Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 351-358.
Hughes, M. (2000). Is the planning system helping to improve South Creek? 9 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
James, D. (1997). Environmental Incentives: Australian Experience with Economic Instruments for Environmental Management. Section 10. Tradeable discharge rights. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/economics/incentives/index.html
Johnson, N.L., Kelleher, F.M. & Chant, J.J. (1998). The future of agriculture in the peri- urban fringe of Sydney. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Agronomy Conference, Wagga Wagga, July 1998, 613-616. http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/1998/7/069johnson.htm
Jones, DC. & Clark, NR. (1991). Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet 9030. NSW Geological Survey, Sydney.
Karsen, O.J. (2000). Implementation of Sydney Water’s waste water strategy at its three South Creek sewage treatment plants. 6 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 47
Khan, S., Malano, H. & Davidson, B. (in press). System Harmonisation: A framework for Applied Regional Irrigation Business Planning. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 13X, XXX-XXX.
Knowd, I., Mason, D. & Docking, A. (2006). Urban Agriculture: The New Frontier. Paper presented to Planning for Food Seminar: Vancouver 21 June 2006. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/plan_food/Presentations/8_Mason.pdf
Kohen, J.L. (1993). The Darug and their neighbours. The traditional Aboriginal owners of the Sydney region. Durag Link in association with Blacktown and District Historical Society, Blacktown.
Lillicrap, A. and McGhie S. (2002). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Site Investigations for Urban Salinity, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/site_investigations.pdf
Markich, S.J. & Brown, P.L. (1998). Relative importance of natural and anthropogenic influences on the fresh surface water chemistry of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, south-eastern Australia. The Science of the Total Environment, 217, 201-230.
Marks, J.S. & Boon, K.F. (2005). A social appraisal of the South Australian Virginia Pipeline Scheme: Five year’s experience. Report to Land & Water and Horticulture Australia Ltd, 20th May, Flinders University, Adelaide. http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/publications_pdf/ER050961_report.pdf
Mason, D. (2006). Urban Agriculture. A report of an overseas study trip by DAVID MASON 2006 Churchill Fellow: To identify how sustainable urban agriculture can benefit the quality of life of Australian communities. http://www.urbanagricultureworldwide.com/content/churchill/churchill_dwmason_no v2006.pdf
McGhie, S. & Ryan, M. (2004). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Waterwise parks and gardens, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/salinity7.pdf
McGhie, S. (2003). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Building in a Saline Environment. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/booklet6.pdf
McKay, J. (2002). Legal issues in water resources planning regimes – Lessons from Australia. In D. Brennan (Ed.) “Water policy reform, lessons from Asia and Australia.” Proceedings of an International workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, 8-9 June 2001. ACIAR Proceedings No 106, pp 48-61.
McKay, J. (2006). Issues for CEOs of Water Utilities with the Implementation of Australian Water Laws. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 135, 115-130. (http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/135/14.pdf)
McNamara, L. & Cornish, P. (2002). Prioritising remediation measures that address diffuse nutrient pollution. Coast to Coast Conference, Tweed Heads, NSW. 4-8 November 2002. 286-289. http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/coast2coast2002/proceedings/Theme4/Prioritising- remediation-measures.pdf
48 CRC for Irrigation Futures
McNamara, L. & Cornish, P. (2004). Participative decision-making to identify nutrient pollution sources and potential abatement actions. International Journal of River Basin Management, 2(1), 71-80.
Mitchell, P.B. (2000). Salinity Hazard Mapping and Concept Modelling on the Cumberland Plain. Internal Report to DLWC.
Morison, P. 2000. Source control of stormwater pollution: an attractive option. 9 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
Morison, PJ. & Hunter, GJ. (2001). Implementation of stormwater management plans – “It costs a lot to build bad products”. Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia. Conference paper; State Conference 2001 – Port Macquarie. http://www.ipwea.org.au/papers/download/Peter%20Morrison.doc
Moxon, B. (2004). Water use and reuse in urban catchments for irrigation purposes – a case study of the Sydney metropolitan area. http://www.irrigationfutures.org.au/imagesDB/news/UrbanwaterreuseSydneycasest udy.pdf
Mylrea, P. (2001). Belgenny Farm 1805-1835: the early years of the Macarthurs at Camden. Belgenny Farm Trust & Camden Historical Society.
National Heritage Trust (NHT) (2004). Integrated ecological restoration of Western Sydney corridors ‘Greening Western Sydney’. http://www.nht.gov.au/nht1/programs/bushcare/nswproj.html
National Water Commission (NWC) (2005). Australian Government Water Fund. http://www.nwc.gov.au/agwf/index.cfm
National Water Commission (NWC) (2006). NSW Implementation Plan for the National Water Initiative. http://www.nwc.gov.au/nwi/docs/NSW%20NWI%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf
Nature Conservation Council of NSW (2007). Water sharing plans - coming to a river near you. http://www.nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1398&Ite mid=664
NSW Government (2000). NSW Salinity Strategy. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/government/pdf/foreword_exec_summary.pdf
NSW Government (2001). Statement of Joint Intent for the Hawkesbury Nepean River System. http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/programservices/pdf/hawkesbury_soji.pdf
NSW Government (2002). NSW Water Information - Groundwater Works. http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/gw/index.html
NSW Irrigators Council (2002). Fact Sheet: Hawkesbury Nepean Valley. http://www.nswirrigators.org.au/pdf/catchment_profiles/Hawkesbury%20Nepean%2 0Valley.pdf
CRC for Irrigation Futures 49
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) (2003). The Bioregions of New South Wales: their biodiversity, conservation and history NSW. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/bioregions_printable
NSW SoE (2003). Chapter 5. Water. Section 5.3 Surface water quality.
O'Flaherty, K. (2002). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Broad Scale Resources for Urban Salinity Assessment, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/broad_scale_assessment.pdf
O'Flaherty, K. (2003). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Roads and Salinity, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/booklet4.pdf
Old, A. N. (1942). The Wianamatta Shale Waters of the Sydney District. Their Salinity and a Suggested Geological Explanation. The Agricultural Gazette, 53(5), 215-221.
Parker, F. & Suriyabanadara, K. (2000). The safe use of farm chemicals by market gardeners of non-english speaking background: Developing an effective extension strategy for the Sydney Basin. RIRDC Publication No 00/180. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/00-180.pdf
Parker, K & Oczkowski, E. (2003). Water reform and co-operation. Australian Centre for Co-operative Research and Development (ACCORD) Paper No. 9. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst. http://www.business.uts.edu.au/cacom/publications/ACCORD_Paper_9_WaterRefo rm.pdf
Penrith City Council and Blacktown City Council (PCC & BCC) (1999). South Creek stormwater management plan 1999-2000.
PPK Environment and Infrastructure (1997). Technical paper 7: Geology, soils and water. Proposal for a Second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek or Holsworthy Military Area prepared for the Department of Transport and Regional Development.
Queensland Natural Resources and Mines (QNR&M) (2007). The SILO data drill. http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/silo/datadrill/index.html
Rahman, M. & Salbe, I. (1995). Modelling impacts of diffuse and point source nutrients on the water quality of South Creek catchment. Environment International, 21(5) 597-603.
Riley, S. South Creek catchment – a delight or a drain: a personal perspective over 30 years. 8 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
Rosen, S. (1995). Losing ground: An environmental history of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. Hale & Iremonger Pty Ltd, Sydney.
Ryan, M. (2003). Local Government Salinity Initiative – Introduction to urban salinity, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney, NSW. http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/pdf/booklet5.pdf
50 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (SSCRRAT) (2006). Water Policy Initiatives – Final Report. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/rural_water/report/report.pdf
Simmons, B. & Scott, J. (2005). “The River has Recorded the Story: Living with the Hawkesbury River, NSW, Australia”. In: History of Water, Volume 1, Part 11 River Biographie. Edited by T. Tvedt and E. Jakobsson. I B Tauris & Co. LTD. pp. 253- 276.
Sinclair, I., Docking, A., Jarecki, S., Parker, F. & Saville, L. (2004) From the Outside Looking in. The future of Sydney’s Rural Land, University of Western Sydney, Penrith. Available from: http://www.uws.edu.au/about/adminorg/devint/ord/community/uws_reg_comm_gran t/reports
Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) (2004). Water Quality Monitoring Report 2003- 2004. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/files/awqmrpart1.pdf
Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) (2005). Water Quality Monitoring Report 2004- 2005. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/files/WebReportMain.pdf
Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) (2006a). History of Sydney’s water supply system. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams/history.html
Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) (2006b). Water Quality Monitoring Report 2005- 2006. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/files/AWQMRFinalReport101106.pdf
Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) (2006c). Groundwater investigations – Severe drought water supply sources for Sydney June 2006. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/publications/files/GW027-06- 06V1GroundwaterTechnicalReport.pdf
Sydney Water (SW) (2005). Environmental Indicators Compliance Report 2005. Vol 1. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Publications/Reports/AnnualReport2005/pdf/EI_Co mpliance_Report_Vol1_2005.pdf#Page=1
Sydney Water (SW) (2006a). Performance assessment monitoring program data report 2005-6. Hawkesbury-Nepean River receiving water quality http://www.sydneywater.com.au/AnnualReport/map/receivingwaters/PAMDataRepo rt2006.pdf
Sydney Water (SW) (2006b). Future Recycled Water Projects. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/RecyclingandReuse/RecyclingAndRe useInAction/FutureProjects.cfm
Sydney Water (SW) (2006c). Replacement Flows Project. Environmental Assessment. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/MajorProjects/ReplacementFlowsProject/
Sydney Water (SW) (2007). Rouse Hill recycled water scheme. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/RecyclingandReuse/RecyclingAndRe useInAction/RouseHill.cfm
CRC for Irrigation Futures 51
Tozer, M. (2003). The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney: systematic classification and field identification of communities. Cunninghamia, 8(1), 1-75.
VisitBlacktown (2005). History: Blacktown - the region. http://www.visitblacktown.com.au/area_history.asp
Wright, D., Druce, M. & Pang, J. (2000). The environment of South Creek catchment – changes from 1997 to 2000. 14 pp. In South Creek back from the brink? Conference Proceedings (on CD), 22nd-23rd June 2000, University of Western Sydney, Penrith.
52 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Appendix 1. Land use and land cover categories in the South Creek catchment (from 2/02/2000 Landsat images)
Diffuse source Land Use Area (ha) Area (%) NATURAL National Park 761.2 1.22 Bushland 11853.9 18.96 Water 1092.6 1.75
UNUSED/CLEARED Pasture - unimproved 20407.9 32.64 Bare land 890.1 1.42
AGRICULTURE Pasture - improved 8065.1 12.9 Dairy 282.8 0.45 Agriculture - other 473.3 0.76 Market gardens 1098.1 1.76 Greenhouse 192.6 0.31 Hydroponics 39.3 0.06 Turf farm 3.5 0.01 Mushroom farm 1 0 Nursery 41.7 0.07 Orchard 24.5 0.04 Vineyard 28.8 0.05 Tree plantation 18.4 0.03 Poultry farms 159.3 0.25
URBAN Urban - low density 1652.9 2.64 Urban - medium density 2874.6 4.6 Urban - high density 375.2 0.6 Industrial/commercial 1348.1 2.16 Landfill/Sewage treatment 130.8 0.21 Transport 6154.4 9.84
OTHER Park 659.3 1.05 Golf course 78.5 0.13 Horse agistment 58.4 0.09 Dog kennel 8.4 0.01 Bushland - urban 1849.9 2.96 Defence/Research facility 1521.8 2.43 Quarries 147.3 0.24 Brickworks 69.2 0.11 Unclassified 158.7 0.25 Source: EPA (2001 b). Assessment of diffuse sources of pollution in the South Creek catchment - a GIS approach. EPA Unpublished Report.
CRC for Irrigation Futures 53
Appendix 2. Research needs analysis
This is available as an Excel spreadsheet for download from the CRC for Irrigation Futures website under Publications/Technical Reports or http://www.irrigationfutures.org.au/news.asp?catID=9
54 CRC for Irrigation Futures
Partner Organisations
PO Box 56, Darling Heights Qld 4350 | Phone: 07 4631 2046 | Fax: 07 4631 1870 | Web: www.irrigationfutures.org.au