Bacteriological Quality 1992/93 Physical/Chemical Quality Average of Results for the Period 1991 to 1993
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
State Government of Victoria Refor~!llg Victoria ''S W ater_.. Ind,;:1stry - ~- . :;~);.;.1.,..,.. ;.~:-:.."'·;+ Working Group Summary Report on Rural Drinking ~te......r .. _ Qua····1· ·1··t·... -y·~~ .,:. Ww ........ ·. .. .. \ •.. ... ~ -·· July 1994 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Department of I-Iealth and Community Services I l I ~- ~ l RURAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY SUMMARY REPORT Working Group on Drinking Water Quality Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Department of Health and Community Services JULY 1994 Foreword In October 1993 the Government announced its overall objectives for reforming Victoria's water industry. Thest; were published in the report entitled Reforming Victoria's Water Industry: a Competitive Future - Water. In that report the Government stated its intention to form three "health and_environment" related working groups, namely • rural drinking water quality; • effluent standards; and • litter in waterways. These working groups were subsequently formed and this report summarises the findings of the working group on rural drinking water quality. A more detailed report containing all of the monitoring results for the individual supplies is being prepared for wide public distribution. While this summary report shows that many supplies still fail to meet the guidelines for bacteriological quality, there does not appear to be any great groundswell of public opinion demanding better bacteriological quality. This is not surprising when one considers that bacteriological contamination is invisible, without any tell-tale smell or taste. Unless the water is tested and the results are published, people have no way of telling if the water they are· receiving is safe to drink. The information in this report, therefore, should provide .a useful benchmark for measuring the performance of water authorities in the critically important area of drinking water quality. The Government is keen to ensure that water authorities provide services that meet community expectations and protect public health. I commend the initiatives proposed in this report by the working group. Geoff Coleman, MP Minister for Natural Resources Acknowledgments This review of Victoria's rural drinking water quality was a joint project between the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (CNR} and the Department of Health and· Cornmunity Services (H&CS). David Heeps ICNRJ and Dr Graham Rouch IH&CS) formed the Reference Panel for the working group and provided valuable advice and ·assistance. The working group wishes to thank the staff of the State Water Laboratory for the collection and collation of the water quality data, water authorities and local government authorities for supplying data on the local water systems, and Stan Ashley (CNR).and Derek Lightbody (H&CS) who analysed ~uch of the data. · Working Group Warren Wealands (team leader), CNR Ross Perry, CNR Martyn Kirk, H&CS Contents 1 . INTRODUCTION . 1 2. OBJECTIVE .......... ,............. .. ............................................. .... .. .... .. .... 1 3 . DATA AVAILABILITY.. .......... ....................................................... ........ 1 4 . WATER SUPPLY AUTHOR ITIES ............................................................... 1 5. CURRENT GUIDELINES ...................................... .... .. .......................... ... 2 6. REGULATIONS .............................................. .................................... 2 7. REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE ... ;.... ............... ... ....................... .......... 3 7. 1 Bacteriological Quality . 3 7.1.1. Overall results ..... :....... ............. .............. ........ ... ........ ... .. 3 7. i .2 Results for large water authorities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 7 .1 .3 Results for other water authorities ... ... .................................. 6 7 .1 .4. Results for RWC towns/supply zones . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 7 .1 .5. Local government supplies . .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 7 .1 .6 Supplies with food processing industries .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 7.2 Physical/Chemical Quality . .. .... .. ....... ............. ... ............... .......... 8 7. 2 .1 Aesthetic parameters ........................... , . .. .. 8 7. 2 . 2 Chemicals of health significance .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 7. 2 .3 Disinfection by-products . 10 .7.2.4 Fluoridation .............. , .. ...... ............. ......... ............. .. .. ..... 10 8. SMALL TOWNS DILEMMA ............... ........ ............................................. 10 8.1 Non-Potable Supplies .. ..................... ........................................... 11 8.2 Special Funding Program for Small Towns ................................. ......... 12 9. ACCOUNTABILITY -· ········ ·· ····............................................................... 13 10. GUIDELINES OR STANDARDS .. ................................ .. .......................... .. 14 10.1 Community Involvement . 15 11 . RECOMMENDATIONS............ ............. .. ............... .. ........... ................. .. 16 1 . .Guidelines . 1 6 2. Targeted Improvements .... ................................. ... ....................... 16 3. Non-Potable Supplies.................... ............................................. 17 4. Accountability . 17 Appendix 1: Bacteriological Quality, Victorian Non-Metropolitan Water Supplies. ............ A 1 Appendix 2: Bacteriological Results 1992/93, Fully Treated Water Supplies . .. .. .. A9 Appendix 3: Town/Supply Zones Not Tested 1992/93 ........................ ............ ....... A 12 Appendix 4: New Disinfection and Treatment Works Commissioned July 1989 to June 1993 .......................... .................. A 13 Appendix 5: Towns Supplied by Rural Water Corporation 1992/93 ..................... ....... A 14 Appendix 6: Water Supplies Controlled Under Local Government Act . A 16 Appendix 7: Water Authorities Supplying Food Processing Industries .............. .. ......... A 17 Append ix 8: Sele.cted Physical/Chemical Results - Aesthetic Parameters 1991 - 93 . .. A 1 8 Appendix 9: Selected Phys/Chern Results • Parameters of Health Significance 1991 - 93 .............. .. ................ ... .. ...... ... ........... A 19 Appendix 10 : Wate_r Supplies with an average Aluminium Concentration exceeding Twice the Guideline Value (0.2 mg/L) in l991-93 ............. .. ................. A20 Appendix 11: Comparison of Water Quality Guidelines - WHO and NHMRC ................. A21 1. INTRODUCTION The Government recently reviewed Victoria's water authorities and was very concerned at the poor quality of water supplied to rural consumers. In its report Reforming Victoria's Water Industry: a Competitive Future - Water the Government announced that it would establish a working group to report on rural drinking water quality (as well as sewage effluent disposal and litter) by early 1 S94. This report sets out the findings o·f the review of rural drinking water quality. 2. OBJECTIVE The overall objective was to "... review current performance and develop a strategy for upgrading the quality of rural drinking water supplies". A small working group from the Catchment and Land Management Division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (CNR) and the Public Health Branch of the Department of Health and Community Services fH&CS) undertook the review. It is proposed that subsequent studies will cover metropolitan supplies and address other aspects of the strategy including guidelines for assessing statewide performance. 3. DATA AVAILABILITY Little information Oi'l water quality was available from rural water authority annual reports. Apart from being incomplete the information was not in a format which allowed ready ar.alysis and comparison. Comprehensive data on monitoring results for 1988/89 to 1992/93 were obtained from the State Water Laboratory. This was supplemented with data obtained by questionnaire directly from the water authorities, including information on sources of water, potential for catchment contamination, water treatment, peak holiday population (tourist towns), major water users (industries), uses of water, and steps being taken to improve Quality. All information is now stored in a database at CNR. In this report the data used are as follows: Bacteriological Quality 1992/93 Physical/Chemical Quality Average of results for the period 1991 to 1993. 4. WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITIES Under the Water Act 1989 reticulated water is supplied to 1,061,545 persons in rural Victoria by 102 authorities through 419 towns/supply zones {see Table 1). Authority Type Number of Towns/ Population Population Authoritie.s Supply Zones Served Served % Water Boards 58 207 436,060 41.1 " Municipal Councils 37 108 236,790 22.3 Rural Water Corp. Regions 4 56 21,240 2.0 Large Water Authorities 3 48 367,455 34.6 Totals 102 419 1,061,545 100 Table 1. Number and size of Victorian urban drinking water supply authorities (1992/93} It should be noted that mergers since 1992/93 have slightly reduced the number of authorities now existing. The large water authorities group is made up of the three authorities supplying the Ballarat, ( Bendigo and Geelong areas and include towns merged under their management as at 30 June 1993. They account for 34.6% of rural consumers. Fifty-eight water boards (separate authorities) and 37 municipal councils constituted under the Water Act supply 63.4% of the population. The remaining 2% are supplied by four Rural Water Corporation Regions. Most of the water