INTEGRATEDWATERCYCLE MANAGEMENTEVALUATION STUDY

PREPAREDFOR

ORANGECITYCOUNCIL

MAY2013 INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PREPARED FOR: ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MAY 2013

POSTAL ADDRESS PO BOX 1963 ORANGE NSW 2800 LOCATION 154 PEISLEY STREET ORANGE NSW 2800 TELEPHONE 02 6393 5000 FACSIMILE 02 6393 5050 EMAIL [email protected] WEB SITE WWW.GEOLYSE.COM

Report Title: IWCM EVALUATION STUDY

Project: Orange City Council IWCM

Client: Orange City Council

Report Ref.: OCC_IWCM Evaluation Study_Final.docx

Status: Final

Issued: May 2013

Next review: June 2018

Cover Photos:

Main – Suma Park Reservoir (Source: Kerry Fragar)

Top – Discharge of first harvested stormwater into Suma Park Reservoir (Source: OCC)

Middle – Orange STP Trickling Filter (Source: OCC)

Bottom – Suma Park Dam (Source: Kerry Fragar)

This report has been prepared by Geolyse Pty Ltd for Orange City Council and may only be used and relied on by Orange City Council for the purposes for which it was prepared. The preparation of this report has been in accordance with the project brief provided by the client and has relied upon the information, data and results provided or collected from the sources and under the conditions outlined in the report.

Geolyse otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Orange City Council for liability howsoever arising from or in connection with this report. Geolyse also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally possible.

The opinions, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparing this report. Geolyse has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

Geolyse reserves the right, at any time with or without notice, to amend, modify or retract any part or all of the report including any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations contained therein. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is strictly prohibited.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ...... VI INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 WHAT IS IWCM? ...... 1 1.2 WHAT DOES IWCM INVOLVE? ...... 1 1.3 THE ORANGE IWCM JOURNEY ...... 1 1.4 EVALUATION STUDY STRUCTURE ...... 3 1.5 2007 CONCEPT STUDY APPROVAL ...... 4 1.6 COMMENTS ON FINAL DRAFT ...... 5 IWCM TARGETS ...... 6 2.1 WHAT ARE IWCM TARGETS? ...... 6 2.2 IWCM TARGETS ...... 7 2.3 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ...... 9 2.4 ISSUES REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCIES ...... 11 DATA AND INFORMATION ...... 12 3.1 THE ORANGE CATCHMENT ...... 12 3.1.1 LOCATION ...... 12 3.1.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 15 3.1.2.1 SOILS ...... 15 3.1.2.2 LANDFORM ...... 15 3.1.2.3 VEGETATION ...... 15 3.1.3 CLIMATE ...... 17 3.1.3.1 RAINFALL ...... 17 3.1.3.2 TEMPERATURE ...... 18 3.1.3.3 EVAPORATION ...... 19 3.1.3.4 DROUGHTS ...... 19 3.1.3.5 FLOODS ...... 20 3.1.4 CLIMATE CHANGE...... 20 3.1.5 LAND USES ...... 21 3.1.6 MAIN POPULATION CENTRES ...... 21 3.1.7 MAIN CATCHMENT WATER USES ...... 21 3.1.8 LICENSED ACTIVITIES ...... 22 3.1.9 SENSITIVE AREAS...... 23 3.1.9.1 FLOODING ...... 23 3.1.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY ...... 24 3.1.10 LAND USE PLANNING ...... 25 3.1.11 REGIONAL PLANS ...... 26 3.2 WATER RESOURCES ...... 26 3.2.1 SECURE YIELD ...... 27 3.2.2 EXISTING WATER RESOURCES ...... 28 3.2.2.1 ORANGE ...... 28 3.2.2.2 SPRING HILL AND LUCKNOW ...... 36 3.2.3 FUTURE WATER RESOURCES ...... 36 3.3 URBAN ENVIRONMENT ...... 42 3.3.1 LOCAL COMMUNITY...... 42 3.3.1.1 AREAS SERVICED...... 42 3.3.1.2 POPULATION ...... 42 3.3.1.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS ...... 44 3.3.1.4 TOURISM ...... 45 3.3.1.5 HOUSING ...... 45 3.3.1.6 EMPLOYMENT ...... 47 3.3.1.7 DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE ...... 47

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE I ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.1.8 NUMBER AND TYPE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ...... 48 3.3.1.9 SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES ...... 49 3.3.1.10 WATER SERVICE CUSTOMERS ...... 50 3.3.1.11 BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ...... 52 3.3.2 URBAN WATER SUPPLY ...... 52 3.3.2.1 ORANGE ...... 52 3.3.2.2 SPRING HILL AND LUCKNOW WATER SUPPLY ...... 63 3.3.2.3 RAINWATER TANKS...... 67 3.3.2.4 WATER ASSET MANAGEMENT ...... 68 3.3.2.5 WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...... 69 3.3.3 SEWERAGE ...... 74 3.3.3.1 ORANGE ...... 74 3.3.3.2 SPRING HILL AND LUCKNOW ...... 80 3.3.3.3 SEWERAGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 82 3.3.3.4 SEWERAGE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT...... 83 3.3.4 STORMWATER ...... 85 3.3.4.1 STORMWATER SYSTEMS ...... 85 3.3.4.2 STORMWATER HARVESTING ...... 87 3.3.4.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE STORMWATER VOLUMES ...... 87 3.3.4.4 STORMWATER QUALITY ...... 88 3.3.4.5 FLOODING ...... 90 3.3.4.6 STORMWATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...... 91 3.3.5 WATER SERVICE MANAGEMENT ...... 91 3.3.5.1 BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ...... 91 3.3.5.2 STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN ...... 93 3.3.5.3 PRICING ...... 93 3.3.5.4 DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 95 3.3.5.5 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 95 3.3.5.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 96 3.3.5.7 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS AND ACTION PLANS ...... 96 DATA GAPS AND IWCM ISSUES ...... 97 4.1 DATA GAP STATUS ...... 97 4.2 IWCM ISSUES ...... 102 4.3 COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ...... 107 ADDRESSING IWCM ISSUES ...... 111 5.1 BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO ...... 111 5.1.1 WHAT IS THE BAU SCENARIO? ...... 111 5.1.2 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL BAU ...... 111 5.1.3 2010 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT ...... 113 5.2 DOES THE BAU SCENARIO ADDRESS THE IWCM ISSUES? ...... 114 5.3 WATER SECURITY ...... 117 5.3.1 COMPARING SECURE YIELD WITH DEMAND ...... 117 5.3.2 SENSITIVITY OF PROJECTIONS ...... 119 5.3.2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 119 5.3.2.2 ADDITIONAL DEMAND MANAGEMENT ...... 120 5.4 BUSINESS AS USUAL WATER SECURITY...... 120 5.4.1 TRB ASSESSMENT OF THE BAU ...... 124 5.5 IWCM EVALUATION STUDY CONCLUSION ...... 125 REFERENCES ...... 126

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE II ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

APPENDICES APPENDIX A NOW IWCM Concept Study Approval

APPENDIX B Water Behaviour, Attitude & Knowledge Research

APPENDIX C OCC Adopted Water Supply Management Strategy

APPENDIX D NOW Comments on Final Draft

TECHNICAL NOTES Technical Note 1 IWCM Obligations and Targets

Technical Note 2 Orange Water Resources

Technical Note 3 Potable Water Demand and Effluent Production

Technical Note 4 Typical Residential Bill Analysis

TABLES Table 1.1 – NOW IWCM Concept Study approval ...... 4 Table 2.1 – IWCM Targets ...... 7 Table 2.2 – Community Objectives ...... 9 Table 2.3 – Issues referred to other agencies ...... 11 Table 3.1 – OCC water services catchments ...... 12 Table 3.2 – Soil types within key creek catchments ...... 15 Table 3.3 – Draft water sharing plan entitlements ...... 22 Table 3.4 – Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997 in the Orange LGA ...... 22 Table 3.5 – Environmental Planning Instruments ...... 26 Table 3.6 – Orange town water supply bores ...... 33 Table 3.7 – Long list future water resource options ...... 37 Table 3.8 – Water supply and sewerage service areas in OCC LGA ...... 42 Table 3.9 – Population counts – Orange LGA ...... 42 Table 3.10 – Estimated Resident Population, Orange City Council...... 43 Table 3.11 – Recent published resident population projections ...... 44 Table 3.12 – Housing Tenure type ...... 46 Table 3.13 – Statewide dwelling projections ...... 46 Table 3.14 – Dwelling occupancy rate by year ...... 46 Table 3.15 – Average household size by year ...... 47 Table 3.16 – Number of developments and development value trends...... 47 Table 3.17 – Value of development type in OCC LGA 2003/2004 ...... 48 Table 3.18 – Major Retail floor areas in Orange ...... 49 Table 3.19 – Top 10 employers in Orange ...... 49 Table 3.20 – Major potable water users 2009-2010...... 51 Table 3.21 – Orange water supply system service reservoirs ...... 53 Table 3.22 – Orange water supply system major infrastructure ...... 55 Table 3.23 – Demand management scenario levels ...... 58 Table 3.24 – Orange forecast water demand – BAU demand management ...... 59 Table 3.25 – Suma Park Reservoir water quality issues ...... 62 Table 3.26 – Water quality compliance and complaints ...... 62 Table 3.27 – Spring Hill and Lucknow water supply system major infrastructure ...... 64

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE III ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.28 – Spring Hill and Lucknow forecast water demand – BAU demand management ...... 66 Table 3.29 – Assets covered by the Water AMP ...... 68 Table 3.30 – OCC water supply licences and compliance with key conditions ...... 69 Table 3.31 – Performance summary of OCC water supply system ...... 71 Table 3.32 – Orange sewerage major infrastructure...... 74 Table 3.33 – Annual effluent transfer to CVO ...... 77 Table 3.34 – Trade waste premises ...... 78 Table 3.35 – Spring Hill and Lucknow sewerage major infrastructure ...... 81 Table 3.36 – Spring Hill and Lucknow effluent production forecast ...... 82 Table 3.37 – Assets covered by the Sewerage AMP ...... 83 Table 3.38 – Performance summary of OCC wastewater system ...... 84 Table 3.39 – Summary of harvest volumes from approved stormwater harvesting schemes ...... 87 Table 3.40 – Summary of harvest volumes from stormwater harvesting schemes on 100% trigger .... 88 Table 3.41 – Water quality summary: Ploughmans Creek and Blackmans Swamp Creek ...... 89 Table 3.42 – Blackmans Swamp Creek flood damages ...... 90 Table 3.43 – NOW Best Practice Management criteria ...... 91 Table 3.44 – Orange City Council Best Practice Management compliance ...... 92 Table 3.45 – DWE Pricing Requirements ...... 93 Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps ...... 97 Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets ...... 103 Table 4.3 – Comments on community objectives ...... 108 Table 5.1 – OCC 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy ...... 112 Table 5.2 – BAU actions and remaining IWCM issues ...... 114 Table 5.3 – Water supply management strategy infrastructure options...... 121 Table 5.4 – Calculated TRB – BAU scenario ...... 125

FIGURES Figure 1: Orange LGA and regional water setting ...... 13 Figure 2: Orange LGA and local water setting ...... 14 Figure 3: Rainfall per month (BOM, 2012) ...... 17 Figure 4: Maximum temperatures Orange Ag Station 1976 – 2012 ...... 18 Figure 5: Minimum temperatures Orange Ag Station 1976 - 2012 ...... 18 Figure 6: Mean daily evaporation by month Orange Ag Station 1976 - 2012 ...... 19 Figure 7: Surface water catchments ...... 29 Figure 8: Stormwater harvesting infrastructure ...... 31 Figure 9: Orange water supply bores ...... 34 Figure 10: Orange existing water system schematic ...... 35 Figure 11: Population projections, City of Orange – 2010 to 2060 ...... 45 Figure 12: Area serviced by the Orange water supply system ...... 54 Figure 13: PVNO dual reticulation area ...... 56 Figure 14: Regression analysis – monthly analysis for Orange ...... 57 Figure 15: Observed and climate corrected demand - Orange ...... 58 Figure 16: Forecast total annual potable water demand – city of Orange, medium growth ...... 59 Figure 17: Forecast total annual potable water demand – city of Orange, high growth ...... 60 Figure 18: Forecast peak daily potable water demand for Orange ...... 61 Figure 19: Spring Hill and Lucknow water and sewerage service area ...... 63 Figure 20: Observed and climate corrected demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow ...... 64 Figure 21: Forecast total annual potable water demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow, no growth ...... 66 Figure 22: Forecast total annual potable water demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow, high growth .... 66 Figure 23: Forecast peak daily potable water demand for Spring Hill and Lucknow ...... 67 Figure 24: Annual water demands and population ...... 72 Figure 25: Area serviced by the Orange sewerage system ...... 75 Figure 26: Forecast total annual effluent production – city of Orange, medium growth ...... 79 Figure 27: Forecast total annual effluent production – city of Orange, high growth ...... 79 Figure 28: BAU treated effluent production and availability ...... 80 Figure 29: Stormwater catchments ...... 86 Figure 30: Water security for existing water supply infrastructure – no climate change ...... 118 Figure 31: Water security for existing water supply infrastructure – with climate change ...... 120 Figure 32: Water security with BAU water supply infrastructure – no climate change ...... 123 Figure 33: Water security with BAU water supply infrastructure – with climate change ...... 124

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE IV ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Orange City Council’s Integrated Water Cycle Management

Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) is a 30 year strategic planning tool that enables Orange City Council to manage urban water services in a holistic manner and in accordance with best management practice. It brings together water supply, sewerage and stormwater within a catchment context, identifies current and potential future issues relating to planning and service delivery and examines how these issues can best be addressed.

IWCM Evaluation Study

The IWCM Evaluation Study lists all urban water service targets and identifies all the issues relating to planning and service delivery for urban water supply, sewerage and stormwater over the next 30 years. It examines what issues: • can be addressed by existing or formally adopted actions and capital works – the Business as Usual scenario; or • remain to be addressed in the IWCM Strategy.

Technical Notes

The IWCM Evaluation Study is supported by a number of Technical Notes that provide detailed supporting information and analysis. Findings from the technical work are presented in the relevant sections of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

Technical Note 1: IWCM Targets and Community Objectives

This Technical Note details the relevant targets and community objectives for the delivery of urban water services for Orange City Council.

Technical Note 2: Orange Water Resources

This Technical Note presents details of the various water resources considered by Orange City Council to provide long term water security including: surface water, stormwater, rainwater, groundwater, treated effluent, regional supplies and other solutions. It defines secure yield and how it relates to long term water security. It also includes an analysis of how climate change may impact on the secure yield.

Technical Note 3: Potable Water Demand and Effluent Production

This Technical Note describes the assessment of future potable water needs and effluent production for Orange and the villages of Lucknow and Spring Hill. Demand projections are based on consideration of historical demand, demand drivers and demand management.

Technical Note 4: Typical Residential Bill Analysis

This Technical Note defines what the Typical Residential Bill (TRB) is and details the modelling undertaken to determine the TRB and the impact of current and proposed actions and capital works.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE V ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

ABBREVIATIONS ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

BAU Business as usual CVO Cadia Valley Operations D/S Downstream

DEUS Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability DoP Department of Planning DPWS Department of Public Works and Services

EA Emergency Authorisation issued under Section 22A of the Water Act 1912 ERP Estimated Residential Population GPT Gross Pollutant Trap

GL Gigalitre (1,000 megalitres) ha Hectares IPR Indirect potable reuse IWCM Integrated Water Cycle Management kL Kilolitre (1,000 litres) kWhr Kilowatt hour L Litre (1,000 millilitres) LGA Local Government Area L/s Litres per second LEP Local Environmental Plan mg/L Milligrams per litre m3/hr Cubic metres per hour mL Millilitre ML Megalitre (1 million litres or 1,000 kilolitres) ML/day Megalitres per day m Metre mm Millimetres NOW NSW Office of Water NPV Net Present Value OCC Orange City Council pa Per annum REF Review of Environmental Factors

STP Sewage Treatment Plant (works) TBL Triple bottom line (environmental, social and economic) TRB Typical Residential Bill

µg/L Micrograms per litre U/S Upstream UV Ultraviolet WFP Water Filtration Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant (or STP)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE VI ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Introduction

1.1 WHAT IS IWCM?

Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) is a planning process developed by the NSW Department of Water and Energy (DWE), with defined steps to effectively integrate water supply, sewerage and stormwater to achieve sustainable management of these services. DWE developed the IWCM Guidelines in 2004 and a revised generic Scope of Work in December 2008 to provide guidance on IWCM. The Orange IWCM Evaluation Study has followed these guidelines.

IWCM is a way of managing water in which all components of the water system are integrated so that water is used optimally. For a local water utility such as Orange City Council (OCC), this means that the three main urban water services – water supply, sewerage and stormwater – should be planned and managed in an integrated way to ensure that the maximum value is obtained from the resources and that benefits to the environment and community are realised.

IWCM deals with the complex linkages between the different elements of the water cycle. It addresses issues facing local water utilities as well as the more general issues facing the environment. IWCM considers issues such as: • The future urban water service needs and customer expectations; • The availability of water including water sources such as surface water, groundwater, rainwater, effluent and stormwater; and • The impact of water, sewerage and stormwater on other water users including the environment and future generations.

1.2 WHAT DOES IWCM INVOLVE?

The 2008 DWE guidelines recommend a two-step IWCM process: • IWCM Evaluation Study (this report): lists all urban water service targets and identifies issues relating to planning and service delivery for urban water supply, sewerage and stormwater over the next 30 years. It examines what issues: – Can be addressed by existing or formally adopted actions and capital works (Business as Usual Scenario) – Remain to be addressed, requiring the development of either a Simplified or Detailed IWCM Strategy. • IWCM Strategy: if there are remaining water, sewerage or stormwater issues, an IWCM Strategy is developed. Where significant capital works are not required within ten years, a simplified strategy can be undertaken. Only one solution needs to be developed under a simplified strategy. If significant capital works are required within the next ten years then a detailed strategy is required which involves the development of multiple scenarios.

1.3 THE ORANGE IWCM JOURNEY

The city of Orange is situated approximately 260 kilometres west of Sydney in the Central West of New South Wales. The Orange City Council Local Government Area (LGA) is 287 km2 and extends beyond the city area to the south and south-east. The LGA also includes the satellite villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. Orange City Council provides water, sewerage and stormwater services to the city of Orange and the two satellite villages.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 1 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Orange City Council commenced the IWCM process in 2006 utilising the standard approach as determined by the NSW Office of Water (NOW) at that time, which involved two stages: • Development of a Concept Study, which was a scoping study to look at the existing system and identify urban water cycle issues which needed to be addressed; and • Development of an IWCM Strategy which aimed to establish a long term planning strategy to address urban water cycle needs.

Council completed the Concept Study in December 2007 (MWH, 2007). A key component of IWCM is the need for community engagement in the process, which was achieved by the establishment of a Project Reference Group (PRG). This group was comprised of community members, representatives of government agencies and major water users and Council staff, with their role being to identify key water cycle issues in Orange.

At the time the Concept Study was undertaken (2007) the issue of the city’s long term water security was not the dominant issue it was to become during the drought. The Concept Study however did identify the need to review the city’s secure yield, particularly in relation to future population growth and potential increased environmental flow requirements. The study focussed heavily on water quality and catchment management issues.

The Concept Study was forwarded to NOW for review in December 2007 with a formal response provided to Council in November 2009 indicating that they considered Councils IWCM Concept Study to be satisfactory and therefore approved Council to proceed with development of the Strategy (refer to Appendix A).

In the meantime, in order to keep the IWCM process moving following completion of the Concept Study, Council embarked on the second phase of the IWCM process, to develop the IWCM strategy. Geolyse were commissioned in May 2008 to undertake this work.

Over the same period, in response to the ever worsening water security problem being faced by Orange, a significant body of work was being undertaken by Council to provide improved water management in an integrated, forward thinking and strategic manner. In many aspects the work done during this time was very much in accordance with IWCM principles. This led to the development and adoption of the 2009 water strategy that looked at all aspects of water management including • community engagement and education; • catchment management issues; • demand management and water conservation activities; • water quality issues; • strategic funding issues; • infrastructure options including: – stormwater harvesting – bores – Suma Park Dam safety upgrade – Macquarie River pipeline – Lake Rowlands expansion – Lake Canobolas re-connection – Gosling Creek Dam connection – Managed Aquifer Recharge system – Pipeline from Burrendong and Wyangala Dams – Existing Cadia infrastructure – Effluent re-use schemes.

The strategy adopted a 50 year planning horizon plus the provision of key water supply infrastructure at least 10 years in advance of projected demand.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 2 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

This strategy was adopted by Council in November 2009 and provided a long term comprehensive coverage of the broad range of water management issues and a commitment to learn from the water crisis Council found itself in at the time to ensure this would not be repeated in the future. It was also recognised that this strategy would play a major role in informing Council’s IWCM process.

At the same time the Centroc Water Security Study was also being developed to address water security issues across the Centroc region. In a similar way this study involved extensive community consultation and a strategic approach covering, not just the provision of infrastructure, but also behavioural aspects of water management such as water conservation and demand management actions. The Centroc Study was completed in October 2009 (MWH, 2009) and its recommendations were incorporated into Council’s Water Strategy.

The development of Council’s 2009 water strategy outlined above, plus the task of implementing a number of these key projects, became the key focus for Council’s water and sewerage staff from 2008 through to the middle of 2010. During this period, key projects such as the two stormwater harvesting schemes and a number of new bore supplies were successfully implemented. In addition Council staff implemented a wide range of programs and strategies relating to water conservation and demand management. These activities played a key role in enabling Council to successfully manage its water supply system through the drought until it broke in August 2010.

During this time of rapid development in such a wide range of water management issues, the process of undertaking the IWCM Strategy became very dynamic and ever-changing. While still working under the original NOW framework, the process of developing a future water strategy was being impacted by the urgent need to simultaneously implement key parts of the strategy to address the city’s water supply crisis. In reality over time it became apparent that much of what had been identified in the 2009 water strategy report, and further supported by Council at its meeting of 2 December 2010, effectively formed a key component of an IWCM Strategy for the city.

By early 2011, it was becoming increasingly apparent that the development of an IWCM Strategy to address future water management needs for the next 30 years, as required under the original IWCM framework, was proving difficult given the amount of work undertaken or committed to by Council over the past 2 to 3 years, thus leaving little additional works to be undertaken. These issues were discussed with NOW and it was identified that the most appropriate way forward was to adopt the new IWCM framework, and undertake an IWCM Evaluation Study to determine whether or not the actions undertaken, or committed to, by Council addressed all the key IWCM issues.

1.4 EVALUATION STUDY STRUCTURE

The IWCM Evaluation Study is supported by a number of Technical Notes that provide detailed supporting information and analysis. Findings from the technical work are presented in the relevant sections of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

This report is structured as follows: • Section 2 details the relevant targets and community objectives for the delivery of urban water services for Orange City Council. This section is supported by Technical Note 1. • Section 3 provides a description and assessment of the data relating to the provision of urban water services for the city of Orange and the villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. This section is supported by Technical Notes 2 and 3. • Section 4 lists and examines data gaps identified through the process and suggest means to fill these gaps prior to the next IWCM review. This section also identifies the IWCM issues through a comparison of the IWCM targets and the data provided from Section 3. • Section 5 defines the Business as Usual Scenario and examines how it addresses the identified IWCM issues and if any IWCM issues are remaining. This section is supported by data from Technical Notes 2, 3 and 4.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 3 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

1.5 2007 CONCEPT STUDY APPROVAL

The IWCM Concept Study was forwarded to NOW for review in December 2007 with a formal response provided to Council in November 2009 indicating that they considered Councils IWCM Concept Study to be satisfactory and therefore approved Council to proceed with development of the Strategy (refer to Appendix A). Table 1.1 outlines the approval conditions that were attached by NOW and where they are addressed in this report.

Table 1.1 – NOW IWCM Concept Study approval

Condition Comment Where addressed

1. The IWCM Strategy will need to give Councils Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario Technical Note 2 greater consideration to the need for assessed in this Evaluation Study is a diverse Section 3.2 alternate or diversified water sources and mix of surface water (local catchments and Section 5.1 low dependence on climate change. It is storages), groundwater, stormwater and the Section 5.3 understood that Council has undertaken Macquarie River. These sources are relatively considerable work in this area with the (i.e. independent of each other and through this revised safe yield of the Orange storages) independence and diversity water security is since the completion of its IWCM Concept increased. Study. These initiatives and their outcome should be included in an IWCM Strategy and future IWCM studies

2. The IWCM Strategy will need to more The Evaluation Study outlines the additional Section 4.1 effectively address uncertainties, data information that has been gathered since the gaps and risks including those associated completion of the 2007 Concept Study. Some with climate change, water/hydrological information remains outstanding and is being stress, unaccounted for water/leakage obtained by Council through studies currently from the Orange reticulation and potential being undertaken as part of the BAU Scenario. requirements for environmental flows Additional data will be reviewed in the 6 year downstream of the Suma Park Dam. IWCM Evaluation Study review. Whilst Council has now prepared a draft report on the revised safe yield of the Orange storages; and actively implemented a leakage reduction program; a more comprehensive and rigorous data gathering system should be put in place.

3. The IWCM Strategy should use the results The assessment of climate change on secure Technical Note 2 of climate modelling studies indicating a yield was based on the methodology derived by Section 3.2 likely somewhat hotter and drier future Samra and Cloke (2010). Section 5.1 climate with greater evaporation and less Section 5.3 runoff when investigating the feasibility of alternate water sources.

4. The IWCM strategy will need to more The impact of current and future demand Technical Note 3 effectively identified demand management management options was assessed in the information and options. Council has water demand forecasting. Further work is undertaken work on leakage detection, continuing on sector analysis following on from Council should also collect and analyse the completion of a full water system model. detailed information on customer This will include a review of the billing system to categories (usage behaviour) including better identify customer usage. Additional data industrial, recreational areas, motels, will be reviewed in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation caravan parks, swimming pools, schools, Study review. nursing homes, shopping centres and hospitals

5. Highly water usage was being reported in The higher reported water usage was due to a Section 3.3.3.2 Spring Hill and Lucknow. The IWCM data interpretation error that added the two Technical Note 3 strategy should investigate the cause of supplies as separate sources. However the this and consider options to address this daily flow is recorded for both villages as it issue. leaves the Spring Hill bore field and the daily flow recorded for Spring Hill represents the consumption for both villages.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 4 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

1.6 COMMENTS ON FINAL DRAFT

A Final Draft of this IWCM Evaluation Study was submitted by Orange City Council to NOW in June 2012 with a formal response provided to Council in March 2013 that required some points of clarification and minor modifications.

A report listing NOW’s comments on the final draft and how they were addressed in the final IWCM Evaluation Study is included as Appendix D.

The Final Draft IWCM Evaluation Study reviewed by NOW was dated June 2012 and presents the water cycle setting and information/data as at that date. Some elements have changed since the completion of the final draft as water cycle management in Orange is not static and Council is progressing with many of its business as usual actions.

Some of the comments from NOW required minor changes. These changes have been made as noted in the report in Appendix D.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 5 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

IWCM Targets

2.1 WHAT ARE IWCM TARGETS?

Urban water service utilities have targets which relate to legislation, contracts, standards and agreed levels of service. There are also community objectives which link to the urban water service in a way that reflects what the community would like the urban water service to have or do. These community objectives are often about the things the community values and wishes to support and pay for (e.g. higher levels of environmental protection). These two types of targets, utility and community, are used differently in the IWCM process.

Utility targets are essentially those that must be met - either for legislative, health, level of service or environmental reasons and non-compliances are described as IWCM issues. IWCM targets are defined as: The legislation, licence conditions, contracts and levels of service requirements that the utility or service must comply with or has agreed to achieve (Department of Water and Energy, 2008: p1).

Community objectives relate to what the community considers important. Community objectives are considered when using the Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) process to compare the ways the IWCM Strategy can address any problem areas. Only the community objectives which relate to the provision of the urban water service should be used in the IWCM process. Other community objectives may fall under the responsibility of other agencies or organisations and are referred to the relevant authority (e.g. licencing of bores).

Key points to consider: • If the requirement is a “must do” for the utility - it is an IWCM target. • If the requirement is a “would like” - it is an IWCM community objective. • IWCM issue = non-compliance with an IWCM target.

Technical Note 1 details the relevant IWCM targets for the delivery of urban water services for Orange City Council. The report: • provides a definition of IWCM targets and describes how utility and community targets are used in the IWCM process; • provides an initial list of water utility targets which relate to legislation, contracts, standards and agreed levels of service; • lists the community objectives derived from previous studies including consultation with the Project Reference Group (PRG); and • presents the final list of IWCM targets and community objectives for the IWCM Evaluation Study.

Section 2.2 provides a summary of the key targets relating specifically to the delivery of water, wastewater and stormwater services that are examined through the IWCM Evaluation Study. The IWCM targets were derived through review of: • Regulatory targets; • Level of Service; • Contractual obligations; • Operating rules; • Best Practice Management; • Legislative obligations; • Guidelines, standards and codes; and • Plans.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 6 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

IWCM community objectives derived from this review are presented in Section 2.3 while Section 2.4 summarises those community objectives that should be referred to other agencies.

2.2 IWCM TARGETS

Table 2.1 lists the final IWCM targets – the “must do” targets – for the Orange urban water service. Compliance with these targets derived through assessment of available data is provided in Section 4.

Table 2.1 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service and Obligation Summary of IWCM Target Target Element

Water Supply

Water extraction from Legislative requirement Town water supply licence limit of 100% compliance with licence the Summer Hill Creek 7,800 ML/year conditions system

Environmental flow Legislative requirement Suma Park Dam licence 100% compliance with licence (80SL046857) includes a conditions condition for an environmental flow release

Groundwater extraction Legislative requirement Volume of groundwater extraction 100% compliance with licence limit for Lucknow and Spring Hill is conditions limited to 75 ML/year

Groundwater extraction Legislative requirement Volume of groundwater extraction 100% compliance with licence limit from the showground, depot and conditions Clifton Grove bores is limited to 462 ML/year

Environmental Legislative requirement Environmental protection licence 100% compliance with licence protection regulates water pollution resulting conditions from the application of a copper based algicide at Suma Park and Spring Creek dams

Management of Legislative requirement OCC owns five (5) dams which 100% compliance with DSC prescribed dams are all prescribed dams under the requirements Dams Safety Act, 1978

Security of water LOS Best practice requires sizing water Comply with the 5/10/10 design supply supply headwork systems to standard for imposing water comply with the 5/10/10 rule for restrictions imposing water restrictions

Security of water Council adopted policy OCC’s adopted 2009 water supply Comply with the Council adopted supply management strategy resolved to policy deliver water supply infrastructure up to 10 years prior to the projected demand

Alternative water Legislative requirement New development areas in the Ensure the dual water reticulation supply Ploughmans Valley and north area is provided with an approved Orange area supplied with dual alternative water supply source reticulation to meet BASIX requirements

Water quality Legislative requirement OCC is committed to achieving 100% compliance with ADWG 100% compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for its potable supplies

Water quality sampling Legislative requirement OCC is committed to achieving Meet NSW Health sampling 100% compliance with the frequency requirements (52 per Australian Drinking Water year) Guidelines for its potable supplies through monitoring in accordance with NSW Department of Health’s monitoring requirements

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 7 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 2.1 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service and Obligation Summary of IWCM Target Target Element Nashdale water users Contractual OCC has a contractual Compliance with Nashdale Water requirement requirement to supply water from Users Scheme Agreement Lake Canobolas to the Nashdale water users

WH&S Legislative requirement OCC is required to comply with 100% compliance with statutory Workplace Health and Safety in its requirements water service operations

Unaccounted for water Best Practice Water consumption records < 10% of total water treated analysed in the 2007 IWCM Concept Study indicated that annual unaccounted for water (UFW) is relatively high as the available data indicated it did not go below 20%. The typical amount is about 10% to allow for leakage and unmetered activities

Customer consumption Best Practice The 2007 IWCM Concept Study Implement a metering and billing behaviour found the billing system does not system to categorise accounts categorise accounts according to according to their customer type their customer type making analysis of customer type consumption behaviour difficult to determine

Management of Best Practice Best practice requires compliance Comply with all 6 Best Practice scheme with six criteria: strategic business criteria plan; pricing policy; demand management; drought management; performance reporting and IWCM

Sewerage

Environmental Legislative requirement OCC holds environment protection 100% compliance with EPA protection licences for the operation of the licence conditions Orange and Spring Hill STPs

Effluent reuse Contractual OCC has a water supply Compliance with Cadia Project requirement agreement with Cadia Holdings Water Supply Agreement Pty Ltd to supply treated effluent from the Orange STP for industrial purposes

On-site effluent Legislative requirement OCC is required to implement and Implement and maintain an on-site management maintain an on-site effluent effluent register management system register

WH&S Legislative requirement OCC is required to comply with 100% compliance with statutory Workplace Health and Safety in its requirements sewerage service operations

Inflow and infiltration Best Practice The 2007 IWCM Concept Study Reduce infiltration by 25% reported a high wet weather inflow and infiltration to the sewerage system indicated by large spikes in inflow volumes at the Orange sewage treatment plant

Effluent quantity Best Practice Wastewater flow gauging data Calibrated wastewater flow upstream and inside the Orange measurement STP is not thought to be representative of the wastewater flows

Trade waste policy Best Practice The 2007 IWCM Concept Study Compliant trade waste policy identified that a compliant trade waste policy was not in place

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 8 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 2.1 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service and Obligation Summary of IWCM Target Target Element Management of Best Practice Best practice requires compliance Comply with all 6 Best Practice scheme with six criteria: strategic business criteria plan; pricing policy; demand management; drought management; performance reporting and IWCM

Stormwater

Blackmans Swamp Legislative requirement The Blackmans Swamp Creek 100% compliance with emergency Creek stormwater stormwater harvesting scheme authorisation harvesting has Emergency Approval to operate whenever Suma Park reservoir is less than 50%

Stormwater harvesting Legislative requirement The NSW Office of Water has 100% compliance with water schemes developed a water quality quality approval process approval process for the two stormwater harvesting schemes. Permanent use of the schemes will not be approved until this process is completed

Blackmans Swamp Legislative requirement OCC has made an application to Obtain permanent licence for Creek stormwater operate the Blackmans Swamp operation harvesting Creek harvesting scheme at all times when storage conditions permit. This application is pending NOW determination

Ploughmans Creek Legislative requirement A licence was issued in August 100% compliance with licence stormwater harvesting 2011 for the operation of the conditions Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme subject to operating rules

Stormwater Legislative requirement OCC directed to prepare a 100% compliance with legislative management Stormwater Management Plan requirement under Section 12 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act, 1991

2.3 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

Table 2.2 lists the community objectives which were derived from the issues raised in the 2007 Concept Study and PRG meetings 2 and 3. These are the “would like” IWCM requirements. Council’s performance against each of these requirements is assessed in Section 4.

Table 2.2 – Community Objectives

Utility Service and Key Issue Desired Target Element

Water Supply

Typical residential bill Best Practice Future level needs to reflect sustainable asset management at minimum (TRB) cost. Required TRB will be an outcome of the need for water security

Availability/reliability of LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets for water pressure, interruptions to supply supply, fire fighting and special customers

Demand management Best Practice Maintain demand < average median for inland Local Water Utilities (LWUs)

Response times for LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets supply failure

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 9 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 2.2 – Community Objectives

Utility Service and Key Issue Desired Target Element Response times for LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets general inquiries

Contamination Water quality Implementation of Water Quality Management Plan

Water supply Governance Regional water supply cooperation

Security of water LOS Diverse water supply solutions supply

Security of water Environmental flow Meet environmental flow requirements supply

Water quality Health and Protection of water supplies environmental protection of water supplies

Security of water LOS Understanding of potential groundwater resources supply

Security of supply LOS Planning for climate change

Security of supply LOS Understanding demand drivers

Security of supply LOS Understanding surface water resources

Security of supply Effluent contracted for Appropriate use of treated effluent as a resource industrial reuse

Sewerage

Typical residential bill Best Practice Future level needs to reflect sustainable asset management at minimum (TRB) cost

System capacity - LOS Less than 20 blockages annually per 100km of sewer main frequency of system blockage

Availability of LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets connection

Average system LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets failures

Response times to LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets system faults

Response times to LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets customer complaints & inquiries of a general nature

Odour LOS Not more than 2 incidents per year that result in complaints

STP interaction LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets

Effluent LOS 100% compliance with LOS targets discharge/biosolids management

Recycled Water Effluent contracted for Appropriate use of treated effluent as a resource industrial reuse

Effluent discharge Environmental impact on Minimise environmental impact of discharge receiving waters

Stormwater

Urban catchment Water quality and Manage urban stormwater quantity and quality management flooding

Urban catchment Stormwater Adoption of WSUD principles management management

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 10 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

2.4 ISSUES REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCIES

Table 2.3 lists those issues raised from the Concept Study and three PRG meetings that should be referred to other agencies.

Table 2.3 – Issues referred to other agencies

Issue Raised in Concept Study Referred to Derived From

• How do we manage groundwater? The Orange basalts have NSW Office of Water 2007 Concept Study been embargoed. • Development application process to govern bores and small holding dams. Establish network of monitoring bores. • Monitor bores located adjacent to watercourses. • Urban water bores to be licensed, metered, monitored and volumetric charge for water extracted. • Establish plan for dealing with stock and domestic bores within residential areas e.g. Albury has recently embargoed the aquifer underlying town for ne bores on land where potable town water supply is available. • Review current bore logs and trends based on rainfall (i.e. hydrographic data from streams). • Regulation process for groundwater use and buildings and educating community.

Waters are not protected for all environmental values under the DEC CMA 2007 Concept Study Water Quality and River Flow Objectives. NSW Office of Water

Lack of a formal community catchment management committee or CMA 2007 Concept Study specific Catchment Management Plan to address the impacts of NSW Office of Water agriculture and urbanisation on creeks in terms of urban impacts and town water supply.

Management of farm dams associated with rural residential NSW Office of Water 2007 Concept Study development potentially impacting on the available water resources PRG 2 for other users including the town.

In-active irrigation licenses becoming active may impact on the NSW Office of Water 2007 Concept Study available water resource.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 11 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Data and Information

3.1 THE ORANGE CATCHMENT

3.1.1 LOCATION

The city of Orange is situated approximately 260 kilometres west of Sydney in the Central West of New South Wales. The Orange City Council Local Government Area (LGA) is 287 km2 and extends beyond the city area to the south and south-east. The LGA also includes the satellite villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. Water, sewerage and stormwater services are provided to these villages. The Cabonne LGA surrounds Orange on all sides except the south-east corner, where the common boundary is with Blayney LGA.

The majority of the Orange LGA lies within the Macquarie River Catchment, with the catchment divide between the Macquarie and Lachlan River systems being approximately along the southern LGA boundary (refer to Figure 1). Sitting at the top of the catchment, the city is isolated from major rivers and as such has had to rely on the network of creeks that traverse the LGA for its water supply.

Orange City Council (OCC) currently sources water from a number of surface water reservoirs, two stormwater harvesting schemes and bores accessing groundwater (refer to Figure 2). There are a number of future water supply schemes that are being investigated or are in the process of being implemented, that will secure the city’s water supply. The amount and regularity of rainfall is the greatest driving force in water supply availability. Increasing population and climatic conditions such as prolonged periods of drought are the key factors that place pressure on the quality and quantity of water resources available.

OCC has two Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs); one servicing the city of Orange, the second the villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. The majority of the treated effluent from the Orange STP is reused under contract by Cadia Holdings Pty Limited in their mining operations in the Cadia Valley. Treated effluent from the Spring Hill STP is reused by irrigation.

Stormwater drainage infrastructure for the OCC LGA comprises conventional drainage systems in the urban areas with grassed roadside verges and swales in non-urban areas. The urban areas include several dry retarding basins and constructed stormwater management wetlands.

The catchments within which Orange City Council operates its water services are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – OCC water services catchments

Catchment Water Type Activity

Macquarie: Surface water • Surface water harvesting/ponding Summer Hill Creek water source • Water treatment and supply Bell River water source • Environmental flows Molong Creek water source Waste water • Waste water treatment • Treated effluent discharge to surface waters • Treated effluent discharge to land

Stormwater • Catchment management • Flooding management • Stormwater harvesting • Non-potable water supply • Discharge to surface waters

Lachlan Waste water • Treated effluent discharge (industrial reuse)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 12 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 1: Orange LGA and regional water setting

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 13 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 2: Orange LGA and local water setting

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 14 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.1.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.2.1 Soils

There are two main soils within the LGA. The southern end of Orange city itself marks a boundary between two distinct large soil groups running from North-west to South-east. To the north of this line, the LGA is dominated by Red Earths described as the North Orange Soil landscape and to the south Krasnozems described as the Towac Soil Landscape.

To the east of the city there is a mix of great soil groups occurring due to the influence of topography and parent geology. Three different soil groups occur around Suma Park Dam. The first are Brown Cracking Clays described as the Byng Soil Landscape, Siliceous Sands described as the Quarry Soil Landscape. Further to the North-east of the city (around Clifton Grove area) the soil types change into a large are of Soloths comprising mainly the Mookerawa Soil Landscape with Mullion Creek Soil Landscape to the North with a patch work of Shallow Soils of the Burrendong Soil Landscape.

The basalt and volcanic based soils in 70% of the catchment area have naturally high phosphorus levels (Al Bakri, 1997). This is particularly true of the soils to the south of the city, where the town water supply catchment is located. When the soils are eroded, they contribute phosphorus to the waterways and high total phosphorus (TP) levels result.

Table 3.2 outlines the distribution and area of soils throughout the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek catchments.

Table 3.2 – Soil types within key creek catchments

Blackmans Swamp Creek Catchment Ploughmans Creek Catchment Soil Types 2 2 Total (Area (km ) (Area km )

Alluvial Soils 0.019 0.00 0.019

Brown Cracking Clays 0.348 0.00 0.348

Krasnozems 17.57 3.36 20.93

Red Earths 16.24 20.17 36.41

Total 34.177 23.53 57.707

Source: OCC extract

3.1.2.2 Landform

The characteristic landform is low hilly to hilly plateau with Canobolas peaks rising above. Numerous volcanic features: plugs, dykes and domes in the Canobolas complex. Karst landscapes at Borenore and Molong.

The Orange area is described as undulating to rolling low hills from 750 metres to 1080 metres in elevation above sea level. Local relief varies from 20 to 60 m with some to 100 m. Slopes are between 6 to 10% but can be up to 20%. The drainage channels are fixed and moderately spaced in the south- west to widely spaced (650 to 1000 m apart) in the north and east. The catchment boundary between the Bell and Macquarie River systems bisects the area (represented by the catchment divide between Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek). The upper reaches of the drainage lines have slopes of 5 to 8% with 1 to 2% in the lower reaches.

3.1.2.3 Vegetation

Vegetation is characterised by Yellow box and Blakely's red gum with red stringybark, white gum and broad-leaved peppermint across most of the plateau. Ribbon gums occur on lower slopes, whilst snow gums are found in cold patches and at high levels of Canobolas, river oaks are found along main streams.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 15 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Orange lies at the northern end of the South East highlands Bioregion under the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia. This Bioregion extends from the Orange-Bathurst area in the north along the Great Dividing Range to near Melbourne in Victoria. The area is about 60% cleared mainly on the plateau for grazing. The vegetation within the Orange area consists of a range of eucalypt forests, woodlands, native grasslands and montane swamps.

The vegetation types that are most threatened includes native grasslands, box woodlands, montane wetlands and riparian vegetation. There are two main vegetation alliances occurring around Orange. The Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) – Black Sally (E. Stellulata) Woodland, occurs in the vicinity of Orange and East Bathurst at higher altitudes, above about 800m. It is prominent on the higher peaks of Mt Canobolas and the plateau East and South of Orange where it forms mosaics and transitional associations with the E. Melliodora – E. Blakelyi alliance. E. Albansate (Black Gum) occurs in rare isolated stands in remnant areas of suitable habitat (swampy creeks, Gosling Creek, Cadia Road) E. Rubida (Candle Bark) and E. Pauciflora are more widespread. The second alliance is the Yellow Box (E. Melliodora) – Blakely’s Red Gum (E. Blakelyi) Woodland, where it is mainly found on the agricultural lands of the western slopes. It can also occur in large patches on the basalt soils of the plateau east of Orange, and in the Bathurst basin on granite soils. This alliance in usually found on well drained, undulating country with fertile, deep soils, and follows drainage lines into steep hilly terrain dominated by drier alliances.

On creek sides on the basalt plateau around Orange, Ribbon Gum (E. Viminalis) and Apple Box (E. Bridgesiana) can be found, whereas on the Orange plateau Ribbon Gum – Apple Box and Candle Bark (E. Rubida) can be found. Remnants of these can be found around town where the larger Ribbon Gums have survived in local parks, golf courses and around the Bloomfield Hospital site. Towards the north and east boundaries of the LGA on the drier hills, some areas are amongst Red Stringy Bark (E. Macrorhyncha) – Inland Scrubby Gum (E. Rossii) alliance and along the lower parts of the rivers and creeks the above alliances may be replaced by the River She-oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) alliance in pure stands. Where willows species have replaced the native vegetation, the OCC have planned or implemented projects to remove these willows and restore the native vegetation. Some of the areas these projects cover include the Gosling Creek Reserve, and certain reaches of the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek.

There are two natural wetlands existing within the town of Orange, a small one at the eastern gateway and one in the upper reaches of Ploughmans Creek. The Ploughmans Creek wetland was once part of a chain of ponds and is surrounded by tall open woodland; however it is difficult to tell what woodland would have existed. Tree species existing around the site include Manna Gum, Snow Gum, Apple Box (E. Bridgesiana), White Box (E. Albans), Yellow Box and Kurrajong (Brachychiton populeneus). The swampy meadow consists mainly of carex swamp which has resisted weed invasion, is surrounded by grassland that is heavily invaded by weeds.

Under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the woodland known as White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland is determined to be an Endangered Ecological Community on Part 3 Schedule 1 of the Act. This woodland has been found within the Orange LGA via a floristic survey undertaken in 2002. It was found in the area of the Gosling Creek Reserve, where a 2.5 hectare area of remnant vegetation that had an overall composition characteristic of the woodland (OCC, 2004).

Under the same act, an endangered community known as the Mt Canobolas Xanthoparmelia Lichen Community is found in the Orange LGA region. The community is a foliose lichen community characterised by the following assemblage of species: Cladia fuliginosa, Xanthoparmelia canobolasensis, Xanthoparmelia digitiformis, Xanthoparmelia meatclystoides, Xanthoparmelia metastrigosa, Xanthoparmelia multipartite, Xanthoparmela neorimalis, Xanthoparmelia sulcifera, and Xanthoparmelia tasmanica. This community occurs at Mt Canobolas, with part of the community occurring within the Mount Canobolas State Conservation Area. The community occurs on rock faces and soils of the Mount Canobolas Tertiary volcanic complex (DECC website, 2011).

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 16 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.1.3 CLIMATE

The city is situated within an elevation range of 850 metres to 900 metres above sea level, with nearby Mount Canobolas at 1397 metres. The elevation has a bearing on climate with the city experiencing relatively high rainfall in comparison to the rest of inland New South Wales, with a current annual average of 929.7 millimetres (BOM website, 2011).

Orange is located within the Orange subregion of the South Eastern Highlands bioregion. This bioregion is dominated by a temperate climate characterised by warm summers and no dry season. Significant areas in the north and south of the bioregion are at higher elevations in a montane climate zone, where summers are much milder.

Climate has a significant impact on water demand, therefore affecting the available water supply. Key parameters affecting climate include rainfall (drought and flood inclusive), temperature and evaporation.

As the Orange LGA does not have a major river system, flooding concerns are predominantly from urban runoff, not floodplain inundation from upstream catchments (MWH, 2007).

The below information has been extracted from the Bureau of Meteorology website and is for the available periods as identified in each figure. The information has been collected at the Orange Agricultural Institute, on the southern side of the city.

3.1.3.1 Rainfall

As stated above the elevation of the city has a bearing on rainfall, with Orange receiving a higher than average rainfall by comparison to the rest of inland NSW. Figure 3 shows rainfall on a month by month basis for the period 1966 - 2012.

350

300

250

200 Mean rainfall (mm) for years 1966 to 2012 150 Millimetres Highest rainfall (mm) for years 1966 to 2012 100 Lowest rainfall (mm) for years 1966 to 2012 50

0

Month

Figure 3: Rainfall per month (BOM, 2012)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 17 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.1.3.2 Temperature

Orange experiences four distinct seasons where the mean temperature in summer ranges from 11.3 to 26.5 degrees Celsius and in winter it ranges from 1.5 to 10.9 degrees Celsius (BOM website, 2011).

45

40 Mean maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1976 to 35 2012 Highest temperature (Degrees 30 C) for years 1976 to 2012

25 Lowest maximum temperature

Value 20 (Degrees C) for years 1976 to 2012 15 Mean number of days >= 30 Degrees C for years 1976 to 10 2012 5 Mean number of days >= 35 Degrees C for years 1976 to 0 2012 Mean number of days >= 40 Degrees C for years 1976 to 2012 Month

Figure 4: Maximum temperatures Orange Ag Station 1976 – 2012

30

25

20

15 Mean minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1976 to 10 2012 Lowest temperature (Degrees

Temperatures 5 C) for years 1976 to 2012 0 Highest minimum -5 temperature (Degrees C) for years 1976 to 2012 -10

Month

Figure 5: Minimum temperatures Orange Ag Station 1976 - 2012

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 18 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.1.3.3 Evaporation

Evaporation varies from site to site as the hours of sunshine, temperature and wind vary. The evaporation in the Orange District is highest (above 152 mm per month) from November to March when the maximum temperatures are usually above 20 C, see Figure 4 and Figure 6.

8

7

6 Mean daily evaporation (mm) for years 1976 to 2012 5

4 Millimetres 3

2

1

0

Month Figure 6: Mean daily evaporation by month Orange Ag Station 1976 - 2012

3.1.3.4 Droughts

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) defines drought as “a prolonged, abnormally dry period, when there is not enough water for users' normal needs”. BOM monitors rainfall deficiencies across Australia. However, the declaration of drought and the provision of drought assistance is the responsibility of the relevant State and Federal Government departments, which consider many factors apart from rainfall.

The NSW Office of Water’s Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines 2007, requires Local Water Utilities (NSW councils that provide water and sewerage services) to have a sound Drought Management Plan in place and be ready to implement their plan when drought conditions arise. This plan has been developed to satisfy this requirement and ensure the community recognises the issues associated with drought management and their role in supporting Council’s actions.

Orange’s location high in the catchment makes it susceptible to drought periods as the system relies on catchment runoff to feed surface water storages. Council strategy to improve water security is to diversify water sources to reduce the reliance on one source.

Orange City Council prepared and adopted a Drought Management Plan in 2008. This plan is currently under review and amendment, with a revised copy prepared in March 2012. This draft document is not yet in the public domain.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 19 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The CSIRO advises that water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia as a result of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation and that the frequency and extent of droughts is projected to increase over most of southern Australia (CSIRO, 2009).

3.1.3.5 Floods

As Orange does not contain a major river system, flooding impacts are from stormwater through urban runoff. The urban catchments are Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek.

Flooding usually occurs in the creeks surrounding the Orange LGA. The creeks rise and fall quickly after heavy rainfalls due to the small upstream catchments. Much of the flooding that does occur is flash flooding due the catchments ability to respond to such rainfall events, and therefore the warning time for the flood event is short. The Suma Park, Spring Creek and Gosling Creek Dams have only minimal flood mitigation capacities.

Floods in 1990 and 1998 inundated low lying areas along the Spring and Summer Hill Creeks. Local roads can be expected to be closed at low points and creek crossings, and during an extreme flood event the Mitchell Highway can also be expected to be closed. Other effects include the need for livestock to be moved to higher ground and the potential for some rural dwellings to be flooded.

3.1.4 CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate impacts on both catchment based water resources as well as water usage. There is growing evidence of climate change which is likely to have social, environmental, and economic impacts. Evidence suggests there will be higher temperatures, less annual rainfall, more frequent and more severe droughts, and more extreme storms are predicted (DEC, 2007). Despite projections toward drier conditions within NSW, predictions also include the potential for increases in seasonal extreme rainfall events (CSIRO, 2007).

The “CSIRO Fact Sheet - Australia is vulnerable to climate change”, last updated 18 Dec 2009, includes drought relevant key findings as shown below: • “Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030 and by 1 to 5 ºC by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia; • Projections indicate that by 2030, southern Australia may receive up to 10 per cent less rainfall. By 2050, southern areas may get up to 20 per cent less rainfall; • Water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia as a result of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation; • The frequency and extent of droughts is projected to increase over most of southern Australia; • It is very likely that extreme fire weather will occur more often in southern Australia, with longer and more intense fire seasons; and • Days with heavy rainfall are projected to become more intense over most areas in summer and autumn.”

Climate change data was sourced for use in the IWCM Evaluation Study. The projected impacts of climate change in 2030 on the average annual rainfall, streamflow and evapotranspiration compared to the historical data sets for Orange are as follows: • Median average annual rainfall is expected to decrease by 2%, with models ranging from a reduction of 7% to an increase of 7%; • Median average annual streamflow is expected to decrease by 15%, with models ranging from a reduction of 31% to an increase of 22%; and • Median evapotranspiration is expected to increase by 2%, with models ranging from no change to an increase of 4%.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 20 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

In addition to these climate and catchment changes, there is likely to be changes to water demand under climate change. The Centroc water security study provided an assessment of the possible impact of climate change on water demand. For Orange this assessment indicated the potable water demand could increase by around 7% or about 400 ML per year in 2050 (MWH, 2009).

Given these potential changes, the following key factors should be included in the water planning process: • Data and climate change assessment methodologies should be regularly reviewed with details provided in each IWCM review; • The water supply system should be based on diversified supply sources to reduce reliance on any particular source; and • Demand management measures should be regularly reviewed.

3.1.5 LAND USES

Land use in the Orange area is dominated by residential, rural residential and agricultural uses. Predominant agriculture types include grazing, oat and lucerne cropping, orchards and, relatively recently, vineyards. Residential development on the urban fringe is pressuring these agricultural operations and the LEP seeks to contain this pressure via the strategic release of appropriate land for residential subdivision. This strategic release seeks to protect the surrounding rural lands from fragmentation. This accords with relevant state planning policies, including the State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008.

As determined by the 2006 census, industry in Orange is dominated by the health care sector, retail trade and manufacturing. Compared with the regional average Orange has above average employment in mining, public administration and safety, financial and insurance services, education and training, manufacturing and retail. The main occupation type in Orange is professionals, accounting for 20% of the workforce, by comparison to 18% in Orange-Cabonne-Blayney, and 16% in regional NSW. This is an increase of 4% on the 2001 census data. 2011 statistics for this topic do not become available until November 2012.

3.1.6 MAIN POPULATION CENTRES

The Orange LGA contains three main population centres. The city of Orange is the largest population centre with two much smaller satellite centres of Spring Hill and Lucknow to the south-east.

Sections 3.3.1.2 set out population statistics for the twenty year period 1991 – 2011 as well as projected growth figures. Section 3.3.1.3 contains projections from various sources with varying growth rates assumed. For the purposes of the IWCM Evaluation Study, medium and high growth rates of 0.8% pa and 1.1% pa have been adopted for Orange. The population growth adopted for Spring Hill and Lucknow is zero to 0.8% pa.

3.1.7 MAIN CATCHMENT WATER USES

The main catchment water use in the Orange LGA is urban water supply. The Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (NSW Office of Water, 2011) identifies the following water entitlements in the three Macquarie River water sources within which OCC water services operate (refer to Table 3.1).

Orange City Council holds an existing surface water entitlement of 7,800 ML/year from the Macquarie system for the purpose of town water supply.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 21 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.3 – Draft water sharing plan entitlements

Access Entitlement, ML/year Total access entitlement Water Source Basic Domestic and Local water domestic and stock access utility access ML/year stock rights licences licences

Summer Hill Creek water source 151 131 7,800 8,082

Bell River water source 237 186 95 518

Molong Dam water source 45 139 400 584

Totals 433 456 8,295 9,184

3.1.8 LICENSED ACTIVITIES

Table 3.4 summarises the Protection of Environment Operations Act, 1997 (POEO Act) licensed industrial and agricultural activities with the Orange LGA in 2011.

Table 3.4 – Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997 in the Orange LGA

Licence Licensed Monitoring Volume/ Last Non- Activity Parameters Number Premises Regime disposal compliance

1646 Phillip St Sewage BOD Once per 1000- 30 June 2011 Orange STP Treatment – Faecal coliforms month 5000 ML Nitrogen concentration small plants Oil & Grease discharge, limit exceeded on one Phosphorus 10000 ML occasion due to Total suspended per year equipment upgrade. solids Faecal coliform limit Cadium exceeded on five Chromium occasions. Lead Every six Mercury months Total residual chlorine Zinc limit exceeded on one Chlorine residual occasion.

3686 Beasely Rd Sewage BOD Yearly or once 20-100 30 June 2011 Spring Hill Treatment – Faecal coliforms per month or ML pH limit exceeded on STP small plants Nitrogen twice per year discharge, one occasion. Oil & grease depending on 10000 ML Phosphorus monitoring per year Volume limit exceeded Total suspended point. on one occasion. solids pH

Cadium Chromium Lead Mercury Zonc Chlorine residual

4988 Boral Crushing, N/A N/A >100000- 7 March 2001 Resources grinding or 500000 T monitoring frequency (Country) P/L separating processed identified as fortnightly, Extractive however there has been activities no discharge from the site in the reporting period.

1351 Electrolux Chemical N/A N/A 0-10000 T No non-compliance Home Processing – produced related to water Products P/L other discharges.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 22 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.4 – Licensed Activities under the POEO Act 1997 in the Orange LGA

Licence Licensed Monitoring Volume/ Last Non- Activity Parameters Number Premises Regime disposal compliance 6089 ERS Australia Waste Waste Quarterly >100-500 No non-compliance P/L generation or classification reporting T related to water storage – Volume discharges. hazardous, industrial or group A

10263 Orange City Town water Blue-green algae Weekly >30000- No non-compliance Council, extraction sampling 50000 T related to water Suma Park obtained discharges. Dam, & Spring Creek Dam

5762 Orange City Land-based Oil & grease Monitoring for >30000- 30 June 2006 total Council, extraction- pH each flow 50000 T suspended solids Phillip St other Total suspended event obtained exceeded discharge quarry solids limit once.

5956 Orange City Composting N/A N/A >5000- 30 June 2008 total Council, and Related 50000 T tonnage disposed of at Resource Reprocessing received premises exceeded recovery limit. Ground water centre monitoring at 2 points were not undertaken on 5 occasions as point dry at sampling time.

12489 Stericorp Waste N/A N/A >100-500 No non-compliance NSW P/L generation or T related to water storage – discharges. hazardous, industrial or group A

10803 Truegrain P/L, Waste N/A N/A >500 T No non-compliance Aust. Waste generation or related to water oil refineries storage – discharges. hazardous, industrial or group A

3.1.9 SENSITIVE AREAS 3.1.9.1 Flooding

As the Orange LGA does not have a major river system, flooding concerns are predominantly from urban runoff, not floodplain inundation from upstream catchments (MWH, 2007).

Localised flooding within the LGA is predominantly identified to occur in urban locations surrounding those local waterways that manage urban runoff – see Section 3.1.3.5. The Orange LEP mapping identifies these areas and seeks to control development in close proximity via a specific clause within the Orange LEP.

As Orange’s catchment relies on runoff from rural areas, much of the LGA is affected by a drinking water catchment area that is the subject of specific local planning mapping.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 23 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.1.9.2 Environmental Sensitivity

Drinking Water Catchment

The majority of the Orange LGA is affected by a drinking water catchment. The objective of the catchment is to protecting drinking water by minimising the adverse impacts of development on the quality and quantity of water entering drinking water storages.

In determining applications within the identified drinking water catchment, the consent authority (typically Orange City Council) must have regard to: (a) the distance between the development and any waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage, and (b) the on-site use, storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land, and (c) the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development.

Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the drinking water catchment unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse impact on water quality and flows, or (b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or (c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

Salinity

There are four key salinity drivers within Orange: • Natural salinity from the rocks and soils in particular when water is in contact with basalts and other crystalline rocks; • Natural salt store in the landscape; • Changes of slope; and • Cropping, horticulture and mixed pastures.

In the Orange region the salinity is dryland salinity, it is not caused by over irrigating.

The Salinity Risk report published in 2000 (DLWC, 2000), classified Summerhill Creek and Macquarie above Burrendong catchments as medium salinity hazards, and Bell River catchment as a very high salinity hazard.

A medium salinity hazard means that there is evidence of salinity in the catchment shown by tree death and vegetation changes. The very high salinity hazard means there are saline discharges, salt scalds, tree death and species change.

Orange LGA has a medium salinity hazard risk, evidenced by tree death and vegetation changes in a limited amount of locations. The salinity hazard is sensitive to agricultural land use and changes in slope in the catchment. The combination of cropping and horticulture with mixed pastures raises the hazard rating. Any proposals involving changes in slope for development, an increase in the agricultural land uses or an increase in irrigation, need to consider the impact on salinity.

The Orange LEP contains a specific provision which seeks to provide for the appropriate management of land that is subject to salinity. Before determining a development application for development on land that is subject to salinity, the consent authority must consider the following: (a) whether or not the development is likely to have any adverse impact on salinity processes on the land,

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 24 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

(b) whether or not salinity is likely to have an impact on the development, (c) appropriate measures to avoid or reduce any adverse effects that may result from the impacts referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The potential for saline discharges to the city’s water resources was not identified as a catchment issue in the Water Quality Risk Assessment Workshop (Water Futures, 2008). Monitoring of surface water quality at the inlet to Suma Park Reservoir showed an average electrical conductivity of 333 µS/cm in 2009 (approximately 220 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS)). This is a relatively low values, with good drinking water quality being less than 500 mg/L TDS.

These results indicate that salinity is not a significant issue in the drinking water catchment.

Groundwater Vulnerability

The Orange LEP mapping identifies areas of groundwater vulnerability within the LGA. Significant proportions of the urban landscape are identified as vulnerable. It is important that this important resource is protected from depletion and contamination as a result of inappropriate development.

Contaminated Sites

The risk of contaminated sites was identified in the Water Quality Risk Assessment Workshop (Water Futures, 2008). Control of these sites is provided under various legislation (Contaminated Land Management Act, 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997) and Council maintains a register of known sites. Given the low number and large volume system (catchment and dam) and end water filtration system contaminated site were assigned a low risk (Water Futures, 2008). The water quality management plan includes ongoing monitoring for chemical of concern.

3.1.10 LAND USE PLANNING

The EP&A Act 1979 provides a framework for the preparation of environmental planning instruments that may directly or indirectly impose requirements and obligations on the OCC water utility businesses. A list of relevant environmental planning instruments is presented in Table 3.5.

At a local level Orange is primarily regulated by the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP), an Environmental Planning Instrument gazetted on 24 February 2012. The specific aims of the LEP are (bold added for emphasis): (a) to encourage development that complements and enhances the unique character of Orange as a major regional centre boasting a diverse economy and offering an attractive regional lifestyle, (b) to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows the needs of present and future generations to be met by implementing the principles of ecologically sustainable development, (c) to conserve and enhance the water resources on which Orange depends, particularly water supply catchments, (d) to manage rural land as an environmental resource that provides economic and social benefits for Orange, (e) to provide a range of housing choices in planned urban and rural locations to meet population growth, (f) to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and scenic features of Orange.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 25 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.5 – Environmental Planning Instruments

Environmental Planning Related Requirements Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) OCC must ensure contaminated land owned by the utility undergoes remediation before it is developed through the application of land remediation guidelines.

Koala Habitat (SEPP 44) OCC must ensure that any development proposed does not impact upon Koala habitat

Building Sustainability Index • All new residential development, as well as residential alterations and addition, are (BASIX) 2004 required to meet targets for water and energy efficiency. • The target for water is 40%. This SEPP operates in conjunction with the EP&A Amendment (BASIX) Regulation 2004. • BASIX was mandatory for regional NSW from 2005/06 and has had a direct impact on the management of water demand among residential customers.

Housing for Seniors or People The implementation of this SEPP may potentially increase the system demand in with a Disability 2004 existing water and sewerage service areas as a result of higher density development.

Infrastructure 2007 • This SEPP specifies the type of water supply and sewerage systems related works undertaken in prescribed land use zones that are permitted with or without consent or that are exempt of development approval. • Enables infrastructure development to be undertaken with or without consent. Consultation with Council as the water authority may or may not be required. • Some of the maintenance work as well as new capital works projects to be undertaken by OCC triggers this SEPP.

Local Environmental Plans (LEPs)

Orange LEP 2011 • Gazetted in February 2012 • The LEP ensures that development does not exceed the servicing capacity of the land on which the development is carried out and conforms to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. • The LEP sets aside land required for water and sewerage infrastructure and appropriate development control measures along the waterways.

Development Control Plans (DCP)s

Orange DCP 2004 DCPs indicate to developers what level of detail is required with certain types of applications and what standards are sought with the design of certain developments. It ensures standards related to water and sewerage infrastructure are applied.

3.1.11 REGIONAL PLANS

There are a number of regional plans that dictate OCCs management of water. The plans include: • Bathurst, Orange, Dubbo Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 2008 (REP); • Central NSW Councils Regional Water Security; • Central West Catchment Action Plan; • Central West Macro Water Sharing Plan; • Central West Councils Salinity and Water Quality Alliance Stormwater to Smartwater: A Water Sensitive Design Plan for adoption into a Development Control Plan; and • Councils of Blayney, Cabonne and Orange City Sub-Regional Rural and Industrial Land Use Strategy (April 2008),

3.2 WATER RESOURCES

The following sections provide a summary of all water resources that are or may be available for urban or human use within Council’s operational area.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 26 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Technical Note 2 presents details of the various existing and possible future water sources including: surface water, stormwater, rainwater, groundwater, treated effluent, regional supplies, other emergency solutions and demand management. For each viable water source option, the Technical Note provides an assessment of: • how it would work; • the potential increase in secure yield based on the 5/10/10 rule; • the effectiveness of the option; • capital and annual operating cost and Net Present Value (NPV); • how the option would impact on the Typical Residential Bill (TRB); • potential operational greenhouse gas emissions; and • approvals and licencing requirements, possible issues and likely approvals timeframes.

Details from this Technical Note are summarised in the following sections and are used to set the context of water availability for urban use. Discussion includes the impact of changing climate, amended legislation and the role of droughts on existing and alternative water sources for urban use.

3.2.1 SECURE YIELD

Orange City Council is using secure yield as a quantitative measure for comparing various water supply options. The secure yield assessments are undertaken by NSW Water Solutions and the following description of this method is provided by Cloke (undated).

The procedure for sizing water supply systems on a security of supply basis (secure yield) arose from experiences during the severe 1979 to 1983 drought. Previous methods of sizing did not reflect the performance of the system as perceived by the consumer who tends to view the system’s performance in terms of annual water charges and the frequency, duration and severity of restrictions on the use of water.

The key considerations for the procedure were that: • it is neither practical, economic nor environmentally responsible to provide “restriction free” water supply systems; • a trade-off is necessary between the security of supply provided (i.e. the relative lack of restrictions) and the associated capital and operating costs; • they should allow comparison of alternative water supply schemes which are operationally satisfactory (i.e. restrictions are not of excessive frequency, duration or severity); and • adequate storage should be available to allow the operating authority to manage the scheme during drought periods.

The procedures result in a defined term called “Secure Yield”. The secure yield is considered to be the annual demand that can be supplied from the system while satisfying the following conditions: a) Duration of restrictions does not exceed 5% of the time; b) Frequency of restrictions does not exceed 10% of years (i.e. 1 year in 10 on average); and c) Severity of restrictions does not exceed 10%. Systems must be able to meet 90% of the unrestricted water demand (i.e. 10% average reduction in consumption due to water restrictions) through a repetition of the worst recorded drought, commencing with the storage drawn down to the level at which restrictions need to be imposed to satisfy a) and b) above.

Secure yield is defined as the highest annual water demand that can be supplied from a water supply system while meeting the above 5/10/10 rule.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 27 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The above guidelines for sizing of water supply systems on a security of supply basis were developed to enable sizing and comparison of alternative water supply schemes that should be satisfactory from an operational point of view. The guidelines seek to provide schemes that are operationally satisfactory so that: • restrictions are neither of excessive duration nor too frequent; and • adequate capacity is available to allow the operating authority to manage the scheme during drought periods.

Previously, secure yield was based on a ‘5/10/20 rule’. This meant that a 20% reduction in consumption would be required through a repetition of the worst recorded drought. State Government performance monitoring data shows that the overall water consumption has fallen and it is considered that it would be much more difficult to achieve a 20% reduction in consumption than it was 20 years ago. Accordingly, in February 2009 the NSW Office of Water agreed to base future planning in non- metropolitan NSW on being able to achieve an average of a 10% reduction in consumption through a repetition of the worst drought commencing with the storage already drawn down to satisfy the restriction duration and frequency criteria in a) and b) above. Thus the NSW ‘5/10/20 rule’ has been superseded by a ‘5/10/10 rule’.

The level of security that is appropriate for sizing of headworks for country water supplies may vary with the size of the town, the nature of its industries and the cost of providing that security. The duration, frequency and level of restrictions implied by the 5/10/10 rule are considered to be a reasonable basis for sizing of water supply headworks on a security of supply basis.

Orange City Council has adopted the 5/10/10 rule as the required standard in the water supply level of service (LOS).

3.2.2 EXISTING WATER RESOURCES

Orange City Council’s water supply comes from surface water, stormwater and groundwater. The following sections provide a summary of the existing approved water supply sources. More detailed descriptions are provided in Technical Note 2.

3.2.2.1 Orange

Orange City Council has been expanding its water sources to include a range of independent supplies. This expansion has been driven by the need to increase the system secure yield. The Orange water supply now includes surface water, stormwater and groundwater.

Surface Water

Surface water is the primary source of town water supply for Orange. The Orange LGA has six major creek catchments: • Blackmans Swamp Creek; • Ploughmans Creek; • Spring Creek/Brandy Creek; • Gosling Creek; • Upper Summer Hill Creek; and • Lower Summer Hill Creek.

These catchments are shown in Figure 7. All of the catchments, except for Ploughmans Creek, run into the lower Summer Hill Creek catchment and onto Lewis Ponds Creek which joins the Macquarie River. Ploughmans Creek joins with Broken Shaft Creek and then becomes the Bell River. The Bell River joins the Macquarie River at Wellington.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 28 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 7: Surface water catchments

Surface water is collected in a system of three reservoirs (refer to Figure 7): • Gosling Creek Reservoir is formed by Gosling Creek Dam located to the south of the city. Gosling Creek Dam was constructed in 1890 specifically for the purpose of providing Orange’s first water supply reservoir. It provides a reservoir with a capacity of 524 ML and has a catchment area of 18.82 km2; • Spring Creek Reservoir is formed by Spring Creek Dam located near the junction of Spring Creek and Gosling creek to the southeast of the city. Spring Creek Dam was constructed in 1931 along with the Spring Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and became the main water supply for Orange at the time. The dam provides a reservoir with a capacity of 4,449 ML and

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 29 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

has a catchment area of 65.57 km2. Spring Creek Reservoir was drawn down in March 2000 to allow safety upgrade works to be undertaken on the main embankment and spillway. These works were completed in March 2007. The Spring Creek WTP was decommissioned in 2000 as it was unable to access water from the storage during the dam upgrade works. This plant is unlikely to be used again; and • Suma Park Reservoir is formed by Suma Park Dam located on Summer Hill Creek to the north- east of the city. This dam was completed in 1962 and provides a reservoir with a capacity of 17,290 ML. The dam has a catchment area of 178.49 km2 of which 112.92 km2 (63%) is downstream of the Spring Creek Dam catchment. The reservoir provides the raw water source for the Icely Road WTP which has a capacity of 38 ML/day and is the main water treatment plant for the city’s water supply system.

The three reservoirs are operated to provide storage with the final raw water supply being drawn from Suma Park Reservoir. Prudent water management maintains stored water higher in the system as it requires energy to move water uphill. Gosling Creek Dam forms the upper most storage in the system and therefore fills first in response to catchment runoff before spilling to Spring Creek Reservoir. Stored water from Gosling Creek Reservoir is used when the city’s main storages are drawn down. Spring Creek Reservoir is used for water storage with water being transferred to Suma Park Reservoir when the downstream storage falls to less than 25%.

These operating rules are not “locked in” and can be modified in response to prevailing conditions. For example, moving water from an upstream storage may occur following rainfall when the creek system is wet to minimise transfer loss.

Lake Canobolas, previously known as Meadow Creek Water Supply, was constructed in 1918 and is fed by Molong Creek. This lake was constructed to supplement supplies from Gosling Creek Reservoir with water pumped to Orange via the 2 ML service reservoir on Cargo Road.

Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Reservoir are now predominantly used for recreation and irrigation purposes. Water is used from Lake Canobolas to supply the Nashdale water users. Nashdale is a small village within the neighbouring Cabonne Council and about 40 ML/year is supplied under this agreement.

Town Water Supply Entitlement

Orange City Council has an existing surface water entitlement under the Water Act, 1912 to extract up to 7,800 ML/year from the Macquarie system for the purpose of town water supply (Licence 80SL046857). The full town water entitlement was included in Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (Clause 23(x)) in the Summer Hill Creek water source (NSW Office of Water, 2011). This entitlement is accounted for as the volume of raw water removed to meet town water demand.

Surface Water System Secure Yield

The existing surface water system secure yield is 3,400 ML/year under the 5/10/10 secure yield rule.

Orange City Council was one of the utilities used in the pilot study to define the methodology for the assessment of climate changed secure yield (Samra and Cloke, 2010). Results from this pilot study indicate that a climate change reduction factor of 26% applies to the existing catchment and storage system (i.e. the existing catchment and storages without additional sources). Therefore the climate changed secure yield for the existing surface water system is around 2,520 ML/year.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 30 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Approved Stormwater Harvesting

Orange City Council implemented ground-breaking stormwater harvesting schemes in 2009 and 2010. These are located on Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek (refer to Figure 8). The objective of the stormwater harvesting schemes is to augment the city’s potable water supply in a manner that protects both public health and the downstream environment. This is achieved by: • harvesting a portion of high flows from the creek; • having adequate risk management systems in place to meet water quality objectives; and • adaptively managing the scheme so that its impact is not significant and that the needs of downstream users and the aquatic environment are not compromised.

Figure 8: Stormwater harvesting infrastructure

The schemes make use of the additional runoff generated by development in the catchment. The basic concept involves capturing a portion of the high flows in the creeks during storm events, then treating and transferring these into Suma Park Reservoir to augment the city’s bulk water supply.

The Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSHS) was approved under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in October 2008. The NSW Office of Water issued Emergency Authorisation (EA) under Section 22A of the Water Act 1912 in August 2008 which allowed the construction and operation of specific components of the scheme, subject to conditions.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 31 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The original EA lasted for 12 months (to August 2009) and was extended by six months (to February 2010) and then a further six months to August 2010.

The EA only applies for an emergency period. The end of the emergency period, as nominated by Council, is when the storage in Suma Park Reservoir goes above 50%.

The water storage reached 50% in early August 2010 following good late winter rainfall and reached 100% in late August 2010. As a result, the EA is no longer active for the scheme and it cannot be used to harvest stormwater unless the volume in Suma Park Reservoir falls below 50% and a new EA is issued by the NSW Office of Water.

Orange City Council made application under Section 10 of the Water Act 1912 for a licence to use the BSCSHS on a permanent basis. This would allow stormwater harvesting at all times when Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100%, subject to the scheme’s operating rules and any licence conditions. The BSCSHS would be licensed under two separate licences: one for the harvest weir and pumps located on Blackmans Swamp Creek; and one for the 230 ML holding pond and pumps located on an unnamed drainage line that is a tributary to Blackmans Swamp creek.

Objections were raised to the permanent licence application and these objections are currently the subject of a Local Land Board (LLB) hearing. The matter before the LLB relates to both licences. The BSCSHS therefore cannot be used while Suma Park Reservoir is above 50% until the licence application is determined.

The Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (PCSHS) obtained consent under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in January 2010. An EA for the scheme was granted under Section 22A of the Water Act 1912 in early 2010. The EA included the same condition in that it only applied for the emergency period which ended in August 2010.

A licence was granted under Section 10 of the Water Act 1912 (Licence 80SL96331) for the permanent operation of the scheme in August 2011. The scheme operation is subject to operating rules attached to the licence.

The PCSHS transfers harvested stormwater to the 230 ML holding pond which acts as a balancing point before the stormwater is treated. As the holding pond licence has not been granted as it is tied in with the BSCSHS licence (see above), it cannot currently be used for this purpose. Therefore, the PCSHS can only be used if the harvested water is delivered directly to the batch ponds, rather than the 230 ML holding pond.

Council is investigating the feasibility of a pipe to bypass the holding pond so that harvested stormwater is transferred directly to the batch ponds. This would allow operation of the PCSHS independent of the holding pond. However it reduces the schemes operational flexibility and removes one component of the treatment train for the harvested stormwater. This latter issue is being considered through a risk assessment process.

In summary, the PCSHS is licenced to harvest stormwater whenever Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100% however it cannot be used until either: • The licence for the 230 ML holding pond is granted; or • A bypass system is developed to isolate the holding pond.

Therefore, the current approved stormwater harvesting schemes are: • Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting operating on a 50% Suma Park Reservoir trigger – this is referred to as Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 1a; and • Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting operating on a 100% Suma Park Reservoir trigger.

The Suma Park Reservoir trigger described above refers to the volume in the reservoir below which the schemes can be operated.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 32 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Water Quality Approval Process for Stormwater Harvesting

The NSW Office of Water (NOW) in consultation with the NSW Department of Health (now Ministry of Health (MoH)) and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now Environment Protection Authority (EPA)) has documented an approval framework for the transfer of treated stormwater to Suma Park Reservoir.

The process is represented as a series of gates, with the requirement of getting through the first gate and complying with its conditions before attempting the second gate. The three gates in the process are as follows: • Gate 1 – Extracting water from Blackmans Swamp Creek: compliance with NOW Section 22A approval (the Emergency Approval). Current status: comply; • Gate 2 – Storing water in the holding dam: compliance with NSW Dams Safety Committee conditions. Current status: comply; and • Gate 3 – Transferring water to Suma Park Dam (town water supply - water quality condition). Current status: in progress.

Further details of this process, which applies to both stormwater harvesting schemes, are provided in Technical Note 2. The impact of this approval process (and quite separate to the licensing) is that full use of the harvesting schemes is likely to be some 3 to 5 years away.

Approved Stormwater Harvesting Secure Yield

Adding input from the two approved stormwater harvesting schemes (BSCSHS on 50% trigger, PCSHS on 100% trigger) is estimated to increase the secure yield of the water supply system by 900 ML/year.

Groundwater

Table 3.6 lists existing groundwater bores that form part of the Orange water supply. The location of each bore is shown on Figure 9.

Table 3.6 – Orange town water supply bores

Licensed Annual Volume for Bore Licence Location Town Water Supply

80BL245947 Works Depot Total 280 ML/year

80BL245074 Showground

80BL245800 Clifton Grove - Shearing Shed Total 182 ML/year

80BL245805 Clifton Grove - Bore 5

Total 462 ML/year

Initially Council held a licence to extract only 75 ML/year from the Showground bore. As part of Council’s BAU scenario, bore impact management plans (BIMPs) were prepared for the bore system and licence applications lodged. These were favourably determined in March 2012 and together these bores are now licensed to extract 462 ML/year.

The Clifton Grove and Showground bores are currently connected to Suma Park Reservoir. Works are required to deliver water from the Depot bore to the water supply system. This work will be undertaken.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 33 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 9: Orange water supply bores

Groundwater Secure Yield

The constant daily supply from bores equates to a direct increase in secure yield. Therefore the increased licensed extraction increases the secure yield from the bore system by 350 ML/year (i.e. from 100 to 450 ML/year).

Summary

The existing Orange water supply system consists of the following elements (Figure 10): • Surface water catchments and the main reservoirs formed by Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams; • The Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme – currently approved to operate whenever the level in Suma Park reservoir is below 50%; • The Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme – currently approved to operate whenever the level in Suma Park reservoir is below 100%; and • Groundwater bores at the Showground, Council works depot and Clifton Grove.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 34 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 10: Orange existing water system schematic

Secure yield modelling has determined that the secure yield of the current system is 4,750 ML/year (based on the 5/10/10 rule) made up of: • Surface water catchments (Gosling, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dam) 3,400 ML/year; • Harvesting schemes (Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek) 900 ML/year; and • Bores (Licensed for 462 ML/year) 450 ML/year.

Based on climate change modelling of the existing surface water system and the BAU components, the climate change reduction factor for the existing system (surface water, bores and stormwater) would lie somewhere between 6% and 26%. For the purposes of this assessment, a climate change reduction factor of 10% was adopted for the existing system.

Therefore the estimated climate changed secure yield for the existing water supply system is 4,275 ML/year.

Limitations with the existing water resources are: • The system secure yield of 4,750 ML/year is less than the unrestricted 2010 water demand for Orange (5,400 ML/year); • Licensing of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme is unresolved; and • The water quality approval process for the stormwater harvesting schemes will take 3 to 5 years to work through which will delay the full implementation of these components.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 35 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.2.2.2 Spring Hill and Lucknow

The water supply for Spring Hill and Lucknow is obtained from groundwater through a system of four licensed boreholes. The water is chlorinated and pumped to storage tanks from where it is distributed to the villages. From Spring Hill reservoir (capacity 0.33 ML), the village of Spring Hill is serviced and a portion of the water is gravity fed to Lucknow reservoir (capacity 0.2 ML). Both reservoirs service their reticulation systems through gravity feed.

The four bores have a combined capacity of 6.7 L/s or 0.58 ML/day. Some peak day flow above this capacity could be provided by the service reservoirs.

The volume of water extracted from the bore system for town water supply in any one year is limited by licence to 75 ML/year (licence 80BL025285). Current annual demand is within this limit.

It is considered that groundwater availability should not be greatly altered through climate change and NSW Office of Water licensing should prevent over allocation or competing uses. Water quality is monitored and a water quality risk management plan is in place.

It is considered that the existing bore and supply system provides a secure supply for the villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow.

3.2.3 FUTURE WATER RESOURCES

As noted above, the secure yield of the existing water supply system is less than the unrestricted 2010 water demand for Orange. Council has therefore considered a range of additional water sources that could be used to boost the system secure yield to meet current and future demand. This included: • surface water (SW); • stormwater (SH); • rainwater tanks (RW); • groundwater (GW); • effluent (E); • regional water sources (R); • other options including mines and water carting (O); and • demand management (D).

Details of each option investigated are provided in Technical Note 2.

Table 3.7 provides the long list of options derived from the review of potential future water resource options. The long list was screened at a high level by the IWCM steering committee and short-listed based on consideration of the secure yield, the cost effectiveness of the option and issues associated with gaining approval. Items that were already part of Council’s BAU scenario were not short listed as options as these options have already been committed to by resolution of Council.

Considerations for not short-listing are summarised in Table 3.7. The long list and short list was reviewed at PRG Meeting 3.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 36 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.7 – Long list future water resource options

Potential $ per ML Impact on Increase Short ID Option Secure in Considerations for not Short-listing listed? Yield Secure ML/year Yield SW1 Raising Suma Park Dam 100 - 200 $1,202 to No Included in BAU scenario $2,404

SW2 Lake Canobolas 100 $2,474 No • Marginal secure yield increase (~100 ML/year). • Impact on recreational lake. • Licencing and approval issues. • Considered not to be a permanent solution, but available as an emergency supply with connection via Cargo Road Reservoir.

SW3 Macquarie River to 2,800 $1,190 No Included in BAU scenario Orange pipeline ($396 with grants)

SW4 Burrendong pipeline 2,800 $2,017 Yes ($1,681 with grant)

SW5 Mulyan Creek Dam 430 $5,588 Yes

SW6 Cadia Valley Operations unknown n/a No • Acknowledged as a long term option. water infrastructure • Other options available at the end of the mine life (i.e. treated effluent).

SW7 Manage evaporation ~ 800 $14,494 No • Very high cost per ML of secure yield from surface water increase storage • Better options available. • Risk of floating structure to dam integrity.

SW8 De-silting Spring Creek < 100 n/a No • Estimated only to increase the available Dam storage by 148 ML. • No significant impact on the secure yield. • High costs and challenging logistics.

SH0 Blackmans Swamp 200 $428 No Included in BAU scenario Creek SHS Stage 1b

SH1 Blackmans Swamp 900 $812 No Included in BAU scenario Creek SHS Stage 2

SH2 Blackmans Swamp 1,000 $1,061 Yes Creek SHS Stage 3

SH3 Maximum Blackmans 700 $514 No • Extremely unlikely to gain Swamp Creek SHS approval/licensing due to large extraction volume in the Summer Hill Creek water source. • Issues related to the difficult in getting approval for Stage 3. • Non-diversification of water sources.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 37 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.7 – Long list future water resource options

Potential $ per ML Impact on Increase Short ID Option Secure in Considerations for not Short-listing listed? Yield Secure ML/year Yield

SH4 Upstream stormwater 200 - 400 $1,419 to No • Modelling indicated these systems could harvesting $2,752 realise a secure yield increase in the (Blackmans/Rifle Range order of 200 to 400 ML/year once the Creeks south of railway) catchment areas are fully developed. • The runoff from these catchments contributes to the downstream harvesting system. • Better considered as a longer term option that could tap into the additional runoff created when these areas are developed. • Systems could be combined as stormwater management devices at that time to help manage stormwater. • Disadvantage is that upstream harvesting would require de-centralised water treatment systems to deliver treated harvested stormwater to Spring Creek dam.

SH5 Beer Road stormwater 100 $2,805 No • Modelling indicated this system could harvesting realise a secure yield increase in the order of 100 ML/year once the catchment areas are fully developed. • Better considered as a longer term option that could tap into the additional runoff created when these areas are developed. • Systems could be combined as stormwater management devices at that time to help manage stormwater. • Small system that does not meet current secure yield deficit.

RW1 Rainwater tanks 300 $11,044 Yes

GW1 Increasing bore licence 350 $876 No Included in BAU scenario by 387 ML/year to a total of 462 ML/year

GW2 New bores in Orange Unknown n/a No • Orange basalt is a good aquifer, but basalt zone difficult to predict yields and hard to control impacts. • Potential impact on existing users. • Groundwater option best used in conjunction with surface water resources through a Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme (see GW3).

GW3 Managed Aquifer Depends on n/a No • Trial MAR investigation included in the Recharge inputs BAU scenario. • Information gained from the trial will be used to further assess MAR options. • MAR on its own does not increase secure yield – additional inputs are required from other sources i.e. stormwater harvesting, Macquarie River pipeline.

GW4 New bores in north Unknown n/a No • Low yielding groundwater system. Orange • Potential impact on existing users. • Groundwater option best used in conjunction with surface water resources through a Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme (see GW3).

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 38 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.7 – Long list future water resource options

Potential $ per ML Impact on Increase Short ID Option Secure in Considerations for not Short-listing listed? Yield Secure ML/year Yield

E1 IPR 1: Non-membrane 3,400 $1,832 No • NSW Office of Water very unlikely to system treating 10 support an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) ML/day scheme without membrane technology as a barrier for public health reasons. Note: IPR = Indirect • Sufficient effluent not available until at Potable Reuse least 2030 (current estimated mine life).

E2 IPR 2: Membrane 3,300 $2,168 Yes • Option for beyond 2030 as sufficient system treating effluent available to existing effluent 10 ML/day supply agreement.

E3 Using treated effluent to n/a n/a No • Insufficient information available at this supplement flow and stage on the impact of using effluent to increase harvesting on supplement creek flows. Blackmans Swamp • Draft Water Sharing Plan prohibits Creek construction of Stage 3 weir. • Environmental flow requirements in Blackmans Swamp Creek and Summer Hill Creek are subject to investigation. • Potential impact on effluent availability for the CVO agreement. • Incurs load based licence fees.

E4 Third pipe system to < 100 n/a No • Very high reticulation costs into already parks and gardens developed areas. • Public health risk requires high level of treatment. • Not large volumes of potable water saved.

E5 Wet weather flow < 100 $2,886 No • Only captures around 80 to 150 ML/year capture at STP of effluent. • Low secure yield potential. • Moderate cost per ML. • Need to treat effluent before reuse.

E6 Decentralised STPs with Unknown n/a No • The existing STP has sufficient capacity local reuse to meet forecast loads through to 2040. • Would represent an underutilisation of assets. • Water quality risk issues.

E7 Greywater reuse ~ 300 n/a No • Would require decentralised/individual treatment systems. • The existing STP has sufficient capacity to meet forecast loads through to 2040.

R1 Lake Rowlands 970 $5,597 Yes

R2 Molong Creek Dam Nil n/a No • Secure yield of Molong Dam approximately equal to the existing baseline demand. Therefore no spare capacity to provide a supply to Orange.

O1 Lucknow Mine < 100 n/a No • Low yield – estimated at 2 ML/week (~100 ML/year). • Risk of shaft collapse due to de- watering. • Possible impact on surrounding groundwater tables. • Would require comprehensive hydrogeological and geotechnical investigation prior to an abstraction licence being granted.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 39 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.7 – Long list future water resource options

Potential $ per ML Impact on Increase Short ID Option Secure in Considerations for not Short-listing listed? Yield Secure ML/year Yield

O2 Browns Creek Mine 1,000 $3,009 No • Estimated to provide up to 2 ML/day, which would equate to an approximated secure yield increase of 1,000 ML/year. • Expensive option per ML due to treatment and transfer costs > $6,000/ML increase in secure yield. • Possible impacts on surrounding groundwater tables and existing licence holders.

O3 Water carting n/a – short n/a No • Very expensive option with cost ranging term option between $35,000 to $108,000 per ML only for a 3 month supply. • Considered to be a “last resort” option.

D1 Longer and more 300 n/a Yes • This option was short listed but it is frequent restriction noted that it does not meet NSW Office periods i.e. 10/5/10 rule of Water best practice guideline of adopting the 5/10/10 rule for water security planning. • Does not meet Council’s LOS.

D2 More frequent restriction 100 n/a No • Does not meet NSW Office of Water periods i.e. 5/5/10 rule best practice guideline of adopting the 5/10/10 rule for water security planning. • Does not meet Council’s LOS.

D3 Much longer and more 800 n/a No • Does not meet NSW Office of Water frequent restriction best practice guideline of adopting the periods i.e. 20/2/10 rule 5/10/10 rule for water security planning. • Does not meet Council’s LOS.

D4 Conservation water 200 - 250 n/a No • Not supported in the Centroc Water pricing Security Study • Better options available • Needs link to regional demand management plan (Centroc)

The more significant issues relating to the consideration of these options are summarised below: • Raising Suma Park Dam in conjunction with the dam safety upgrade works provides only a marginal increase in secure yield (100 to 200 ML/year). This however maybe “lost” if the environmental flow rules are changed through the approval and licensing process. This issue of required environmental flow in the Summer Hill Creek system is the subject of a current study, with results expected by the end of 2012; • Revised modelling of the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline project has increased the estimated secure yield from this project from 1,600 ML/year to 2,800 ML/year. The Environmental Assessment for this project is in progress and expected to be lodged with the State Government in the third quarter of 2012; • Sections of the NSW Office of Water have stated in various discussions that they consider stormwater harvesting not to be a long term option. This concern is based on water quality considerations. It was these concerns that lead to the development of the water quality approval process. This process must be completed before consideration would be given to scheme expansion; • Licensing of the Blackmans Swamp Creek scheme has been a protracted process and is still not resolved. Concerns relate to the flow regime in the Sumer Hill Creek system and while it has been demonstrated that the harvesting scheme does not impact on low flows, there is still concern from downstream licence holders relating to the ability to access their water

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 40 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

entitlement. There is also an environmental concern relating to changes in the flow regime associated not only with harvesting, but with the removal of treated effluent from the system and the impact of Suma Park Dam. All of these aspects are related and Council has commissioned a detailed environmental flow study to determine the most appropriate management strategy for the Summer Hill Creek system. This study will help identify the level to which stormwater harvesting can occur; • Informal discussions with the NSW Office of Water licensing section indicate that it may be possible to gain approval for Stage 2 however Stage 3 (and more) is very unlikely to get licensed. Concerns are based on the potential impact on the creek system (Stage 3 harvesting increases the extraction from Blackmans Swamp Creek to 27%) and the large proportion that stormwater harvesting would make up in terms of raw water supply (an average of 55% of the unrestricted water demand); • The Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (NSW Office of Water, 2011) applies to the Summer Hill Creek water source. Clause 54(2) states:

A water supply work approval must not be granted or amended to authorise a new in-river dam in the following water sources:

(v) Summerhill Creek Water Source

This means that the proposed larger harvesting weir for BSCSHS Stage 3 could not be approved unless Ministerial approval was obtained. Other advice is that it would require an amendment to the Water Sharing Plan. This would make the approval process for Stage 3 extremely difficult and confirms the conclusion above that it is very unlikely to get licensed; • Treated effluent from the Orange STP is supplied under contract to Cadia Holdings Pty Limited. The Water Supply Agreement commenced in December 1997 and was set to continue for the life of the mine. A recently approved expansion of mining operations has extended the life of the mine, and the need for the supply of treated effluent, until at least 2030. OCC and Cadia Holdings are currently negotiating a new water supply agreement including possibly placing a financial value on the recycled water; • The Orange community is using less water (which is a good thing) which in turn means there is less treated effluent being produced. This, coupled with the existing water supply agreement (see above), means that there is unlikely to be any consistent quantities of spare treated effluent until about 2025 under a medium population growth rate and 2020 under a high population growth rate. This limits opportunities for using treated effluent as a water source; • Recent (November 2011) modelling for Lake Rowlands shows the secure yield of the augmented dam under a climate change scenario is 3,150 ML/year, which is lower than the previous estimate of 4,600 ML/year. This revised assessment indicates that there is unlikely to be significant “spare” secure yield to supply Orange, particularly when climate change is considered. Furthermore, the Draft Water Sharing Plan for Lachlan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources places limitations on water access entitlements. These two factors indicate there is likely to be limited opportunity for Lake Rowlands to provide a water resource for Orange; and • Demand management options that rely on changes to the frequency and duration of water restriction periods do not meet the NSW Office of Water’s best practice guideline of adopting the 5/10/10 rule for water security planning, or Council’s agreed level of service.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 41 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3 URBAN ENVIRONMENT

3.3.1 LOCAL COMMUNITY 3.3.1.1 Areas Serviced

Orange City Council currently does not supply water and sewerage services to the entire population in the LGA. Analysis completed in the Concept Study provided the following results (MWH, 2007): • 94% of the population served with water; and • 88% of the population served with sewerage.

Table 3.8 outlines the non-serviced areas within OCC (WorleyParsons, 2009).

Table 3.8 – Water supply and sewerage service areas in OCC LGA

Locality Water Supply Sewerage Comment

Existing services are Orange   satisfactory

Existing services are Lucknow   satisfactory

Existing services are Spring Hill   satisfactory

Existing services are Clifton Grove   satisfactory – no plans for future sewer

Existing services are Ammerdown   satisfactory – no plans for future sewer

Existing services are Rural   satisfactory – no plans for future water and sewer

Source: WorleyParsons, 2009c

The rural population within the OCC LGA obtain their water from rainwater tanks and boreholes. Council has no plans to provide a reticulated water supply in these areas, and this seems to meet the affected populations’ expectations. Clifton Grove, Ammerdown and Orange rural areas rely on on-site systems for wastewater treatment and disposal, as OCC has no current plans to provide wastewater services, again this seems to satisfy the affected populations’ expectations.

3.3.1.2 Population

The current population of the three main urban areas of the Orange LGA are shown in the table below. It is evident that the vast proportion of the population lives within the Orange town area.

Table 3.9 – Population counts – Orange LGA

Town 1996 2001 2006 2011

Orange 33,964 35,521 34,969 35,990

Lucknow * * 145 386

Spring Hill * 282 276 282

Source: ABS 2006 Community Profile Series, Time Series Profile (2007) *Not available

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 42 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The Estimated Resident Population (ERP) for the City of Orange as produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is provided in Table 3.10. The annual change in population has varied, with low to negative growth from 2001 to 2006 followed by high growth from 2007. The average annual growth over the ten year period is 0.8% pa.

Table 3.10 – Estimated Resident Population, Orange City Council

Year Estimated Residential Annual Population % Change (ending 30 June) Population Change

2001 36,999 -- -- 2002 37,066 67 0.2% 2003 37,126 60 0.2% 2004 36,956 -170 -0.5% 2005 36,970 14 0% 2006 37,108 138 0.4% 2007 37,525 417 1.1% 2008 38,158 633 1.7% 2009 38,646 488 1.3% 2010 39,261 615 1.6% 2011 40,062 801 2.0%

Source: http://profile.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=262&pg=210&gid=10&type=enum

What is Estimated Resident Population (ERP)?

Populations are counted and estimated in various ways. The most comprehensive population count available in Australia is derived from the Population and Household Census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics every 5 years. This population figure includes overseas visitors but excludes Australians overseas.

However the Census count is not the official population of an area. To provide a more accurate population figure which is updated more frequently than every 5 years, the Australian Bureau of Statistics also produces "Estimated Resident Population" (ERP) numbers.

Based on population estimates as at 30 June, ERPs take into account: • people who missed the count on Census night, including people who were temporarily overseas; • plus an undercount adjustment for those who did not complete a Census form; and • an overcount adjustment for anyone who was double counted.

Estimated Resident Population figures are updated annually taking into account births, deaths, internal and overseas migration. In addition, after every Census, ERP figures for the 5 previous years are "backcast", using information from the current Census, to ensure the most accurate figures are available.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 43 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.1.3 Population Projections

Orange

The DoP have developed population projections for the town of Orange; these are provided below alongside projections developed by others (Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 – Recent published resident population projections

Source 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

ERP (ABS – refer Table 3.10) 37,108

Parsons Brinkerhoff (2004) – High Projection 39,079 41,276 43,597 46,048

Parsons Brinkerhoff (2004) – Medium Projection 38,503 40,068 41,696 43,391

Leyshon (2005) – 2021 to 2031 extrapolated 38,350 39,515 40,593 41,763 42,967 42,206

CENTROC – High - 39,749 45,138 49,576 50,552 51,108

CENTROC – Medium - 38,786 41,992 44,539 45,352 45,880

CENTROC – Low - 38,015 39,349 40,508 41,189 41,690

Department of Planning (2005 update) - 39,040 40,240 41,570 42,910 44,150

Department of Planning (2008 update) - 38,200 39,200 40,200 41,000 41,600

Newplan (2009) – High Projection - 39,259 41,466 43,797 46,260 48,860

Newplan (2009) – Medium Projection - 38,910 40,492 42,137 43,850 45,632

Average all sources 38,260 39,282 41,376 43,353 44,260 45,141

Minimum all sources 37,108 38,015 39,200 40,200 41,000 41,600

Maximum all sources 39,079 41,276 45,138 49,576 50,552 51,108

Based on the projections derived in the previous studies, Orange City Council has adopted the following long term population growth assumptions for the IWCM Evaluation Study: • Medium growth rate – 0.8% pa; and • High growth rate – 1.1% pa.

These growth rates are consistent with the Orange Sustainable Settlement Strategy Update (Newplan, 2010). Updated population projections based on these growth rates using the ERP figure for 2009 as a starting point are illustrated in Figure 11.

Spring Hill and Lucknow

Population data for Spring Hill and Lucknow show the village populations remained steady between 2001 and 2011 (Table 3.9).

Council has adopted a lower limit of zero and upper of 0.8% pa growth for Spring Hill and Lucknow villages.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 44 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Estimated Resident Population (ABS) Medium growth (0.8% pa) High growth (1.1% pa)

70,000

65,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

45,000 No. Persons No.

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Figure 11: Population projections, City of Orange – 2010 to 2060

3.3.1.4 Tourism

At the time of the 2011 census, 6.5% of the Orange population was made up of visitors to the area.

In 2009 it was estimated that a total of 530 guest rooms are available in Orange hotels, motels and guest houses. In the same period average room occupancy in hotels, motels and serviced apartments with more than five rooms was 65%. The main reasons identified for visiting Orange are holiday and leisure purposes (43%), visiting friends and relatives (30%) and business/conferences (27%). The average length of stay is 3.8 nights and the main activities undertaken while in Orange are shopping, eating out and sightseeing (OCC, 2009).

The 2010/11 Orange City Council Annual Report reflects that total site nights for the Orange Caravan Park were up 14.7% on 2009/10 figures (OCC, 2011).

3.3.1.5 Housing

Housing Stock

The town of Orange consists of 14,435 dwellings of which 91% are occupied, reflecting a very low proportion of holiday homes in the town. 86% are detached dwellings which is 16% above the state average. The remaining 14% of housing types are made up of 7% semi-detached, town or terrace houses and 6% flats, units or apartments. The current trend is a move towards detached housing with the 2011 census data revealing a 16% increase in this housing type since 2006. Despite this increase housing tenure has not significantly changed with owner-occupation rates steady at 63% over the last five years (ABS, 2011).

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 45 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.12 – Housing Tenure type

2006 2011

Owner occupied 63% 63%

Rented 28% 33.5%

Other 9% 3.5%

Source: ABS

Growth in Housing Stock

For the state as a whole, housing stock is projected to grow by approximately 41% for the period 2006 – 2036, as per Table 3.13 below.

Table 3.13 – Statewide dwelling projections

2006 2016 2026 2036

Households 2645.6 3024.2 3380.9 3723.5

Persons in households 6816.1 7559.6 8322.8 9066.1

Average household size 2.53 2.45 2.41 2.38

Source: DoP New South Wales Household and Dwelling Projections, 2006–2036: 2008 release

The 2004 Orange Settlement Strategy (OSS) identified 2,595 developable residential lots were available in Orange, based on an average approval rate of 226 new urban residential lots per annum. The 2010 update of the OSS by Newplan (the Newplan report) identified figures in the intervening years that had resulted in an increase of this average figure to 331 lots per annum. This was reflected in the overall number of developable residential lots which had also increased to 3390, an increase of 30% over the 2004 figure.

Based on a projected growth rate of 1.1% per annum the Newplan report identified that this would provide sufficient residential lots to supply demand until 2023.

Section 3.3.1.7 sets out number and value of development applications approved by Orange City Council in the period 2005 – 2011. This provides a useful barometer for predications in housing stock growth.

Occupancy

Dwelling occupancy rates within Orange have stayed steady with negligible change – see Table 3.14 below.

Table 3.14 – Dwelling occupancy rate by year

1996 2001 2006 2011

Occupied * 92% 90% 91%

Unoccupied * 8% 10% 9%

Source: ABS (* unavailable)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 46 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figures for averages persons per tenement between 1991 and 2011 reflect a gradual decrease in household occupancy rates in Orange – see Table 3.15 below.

Table 3.15 – Average household size by year

1996 2001 2006 2011

Occupancy 2.87 2.83 2.76 2.5

Source: ABS

3.3.1.6 Employment

The 2001 census revealed that the predominant employment categories within Orange were the retail sector with 16% of the workforce, manufacturing with 14% of the workforce, and the health care sector with 13% of the workforce.

As at the 2006 census, the predominant employment categories within Orange were the health care sector (17% of the workforce), retail trade (13%) and manufacturing (9%).

At the time of writing, this information has not yet been released from the 2011 census data (expected November 2012) and as such it is difficult to identify trends of change. An obvious shift has occurred between 2001 and 2006 however it is unclear without the 2011 information as to whether this is statistically significant.

3.3.1.7 Development in Orange

With increasing populations, development is sure to be affected. Development in Orange has increased significantly from the 1999/2000 financial year to the 2003/2004 financial year. Table 3.16 outlines the number of development applications determined and the value of the development.

Table 3.16 – Number of developments and development value trends

No of Total No of No of Industrial Commercial/retail/office Financial Development Development Value of Development Year Applications Applications Development ($M) Applications Determined Determined Determined 2005/2006 609 * * 95.6

2006/2007 553 * * 86.6

2007/2008 482 59 22 146.2

2008/2009 451 29 20 107.9

2009/2010 427 37 16 80.9

2010/2011 380 38 26 154.9

Source: DoP Performance Monitoring Report

Developments in the year 2003/2004 have been divided into the type of development and the total economic value that development type has on the economy, see Table 3.17.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 47 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.17 – Value of development type in OCC LGA 2003/2004

Number Development Development Type Value in $ (% of Total Value) Applications Determined

Commercial 52 $ 8 178 150 (18.6%)

Industrial 31 $ 6 305 000 (14.4%)

Residential 50 $19 835 129 (45.2%)

Other 109 $ 9 595 716 (21.8%)

Total 242 $43 913 995 (100%)

Source: OCC, 2004

It can be seen that the residential development had a major economic input when comparing the percentage of value (45.2%) to the number of developments determined (50). In the 2003/2004 year, OCC approved the registration of 365 lots, 19 industrial lots and 14 rural lots, and was a 62.2% increase from the previous financial year (OCC, 2004).

From 2008 to 2009 the OCC approved development with an approximate value of $98.8 million. The residential dwellings approved showed an increase of 26% from the previous year with the average value per dwelling increasing by 6%. Between the 2005/2006 and 2008/2009 financial years, the average value of the industrial approvals increased by 121% (Evocities website, 2011).

Major Developments

Major developments currently either in development or underway include: • Cadia East Mine Development ($2b) (due for completion August 2012); • Union Square (formerly Summer Centre) redevelopment (work commenced April 2012); • Continuation of the Northern Distributor link road (due for completion in August 2012); • New private hospital (concept approval issued Nov 2008, commencement date unknown); • New Medi-hotel (concept approval issued Nov 2008, commencement date unknown); • Additional stormwater harvesting project; • Student accommodation at Charles Sturt University (100 beds); • Department of Primary Industry subdivision of the Orange Agricultural Research Station (560 dwellings); and • Calare Nursing Home (120 beds, $22m); • 130 lot residential subdivision in North Orange; • Swimming pool development with lap-pool, baby pool and kids facilities; • Waste management facilities to be open by 2013 including comprehensive compost and food waste management program for the region; and • NSW Department of Housing creating an additional 143 dwellings.

3.3.1.8 Number and Type of Commercial Buildings

The Business Centre Strategy Review Study, undertaken by Leyshon Consulting Pty Ltd in 2005, (the Leyshon Report) undertook an analysis of current and future retail and business uses within Orange. The report did not provide a detailed review of the number or type of commercial buildings, but does provide some information about retail floor space in the city, summarised in Table 3.18 below. Since the Leyshon report was prepared in 2005, the Franklins supermarket has closed to make way for the Union Square redevelopment, and the North Orange Woolworths and central Orange Aldi supermarkets have opened (shown in italics).

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 48 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.18 – Major Retail floor areas in Orange

Trader Gross Floor Area (sq m)

Big W 7,221

Kmart 6,000

Myer department store 6,858

Coles Supermarket 2,737

Woolworths Supermarket (central) 2,700

Franklins supermarket (now closed) 2,599

Woolworths supermarket (North Orange) 3,200

Aldi supermarket (approx based on aerial photography) 1,600

TOTAL 30,316*

Source: Business Centre Strategy Review Study (* excludes Franklins)

3.3.1.9 Significant Industries

The most significant industrial water user in the LGA is the Cadia Valley Operations (CVO), who has a contractual agreement with Orange City Council that allows CVO to use treated effluent from the Orange STP for the foreseeable future.

Agricultural activity in the Orange region includes cereal and legume crops, apples, stone fruits, cattle, sheep, and livestock. The agricultural sector in the region has also diversified now including viticulture, aquaculture, olive groves and mushroom farms (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2004).

Tourism has begun to play a significant role in the economy with more tourists checking in to the accommodation while visiting the area, enjoying the city and visiting the local attractions such as the local wineries, natural features and heritage buildings (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2004).

Businesses with a large number of employees significantly attributes to the economy, not only by providing the opportunity, but by also supplying flow-on effects in other areas of the LGA. Key employment within the Orange LGA includes the NSW Department of Education and Training, NSW Department of Industry and Investment, Newcrest Mining, Electrolux and the Orange Health Service. These businesses account for over 30% of the employment within the region (Evocities website, 2011). Table 3.19 shows the companies in the Orange LGA with significant employee numbers as at 2009.

Table 3.19 – Top 10 employers in Orange Employer No of Employees (FTE) Newcrest Mining 1250 Orange Health Service 1110 Department of Education and Training 825 Electrolux 600 Industry and Investment NSW 546 Orange City Council 340 Jeff Hort Engineering 135 Health Support Linen Services 130 Pybar Mining 111 Charles Sturt University 87 TOTAL 5134

Source: OCC 2009

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 49 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The above table also provides a helpful indication of the large industries within the Orange LGA. The above 10 employers account for 31% of the Orange workforce.

Cadia Valley Operations

The region has consolidated its position as a nationally significant metallurgical mining centre with the development of Cadia and Ridgeway Gold and Copper mining projects employing over 1000 people. Newcrest is Australia’s largest gold producer (Orange Business website, 2011).

The Cadia Valley Operations runs two gold and copper mines, one being the open cut Cadia Hill mine and the other being the underground Ridgeway mine. According to the Orange Business Regional Business Prospectus, the economic impact of these mining operations has had a significant regional impact. It is estimated that the cumulative economic impact of the two mines is estimated to be $581 million in annual regional output, $371 million in annual value added, and $64 million in annual household income. It is also estimated that 960 people with have long-term employment provided over the life of the mines. CVO also distributes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, in the community supporting local organisations, some including CareFlight, Orange Base Hospital, Orange Community Transport, Red Cross, the Rural Fire Service, the Salvation Army, and the Smith Family (Orange Business, 2011).

In January 2010, an expansion to the Cadia Valley gold and copper mine was approved by the Minister for Planning. The NSW premier announced the project and has expected the mine to inject more than $1 billion in the local and regional economies. The mine is expected to extend mining operations until at least 2030. The continuation of the mine will also assist in maintaining the demand for housing and services in the surrounding region particularly Orange, to meet the needs of workers and their families.

A survey undertaken of local businesses indicated that 93% of businesses surveyed considered that the CVO benefits the local economy, with 97% of these considering that the benefit is of a medium to high degree. A benefit cost analysis was undertaken and indicated that approximately a net production benefit of $1,210 million due to the CVO, and approximately 1,889 direct and indirect jobs would be available (Newplan, 2010).

From exploration and feasibility studies on the mines, it is expected that the projects contributing to the region will continue for some time to come (Orange Business, 2011).

3.3.1.10 Water Service Customers

The town of Orange is served with potable water by Orange City Council. The towns of Spring Hill and Lucknow supply their own water independently via bores.

The Orange City Council Integrated Water Cycle Management Concept Study (MWH, 2007) outlined the major industries in Orange included factories for Electrolux (electronic appliances), Appledale (apple juice producers), and Health Support Linen Services. Commercial areas contain typical regional city retail and business services.

The top 20 water users for 2009-2010 are listed in Table 3.20 along with their consumption and ranking for 2004-2005 if they were in the top 20 at that time. In 2009-2010 the top 20 users accounted for 371 ML or 9.6% of the annual water consumption. It is noted that the total annual water consumption in 2009-2010 was low due to water restrictions (3,872 ML).

In 2004-2005 the top 20 water users consumed 519 ML (MWH, 2007) or about 9.7% of the annual water consumption (5,363 ML). The 2009-2010 data shows a 28% reduction with the largest reductions coming from: • Central West Linen Service (Health Support Linen Service) – 113.6 ML down to 68.6 ML (40% reduction); • Electrolux – 47.4 ML down to 9.6 ML (80% reduction);

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 50 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

• Orange City Council (Cook Park) – 35 ML down to 9.6 ML (73% reduction) through the introduction of water recycling; and • TAFE – 14 ML down to 7.5 ML (46% reduction).

This data highlights the effectiveness of the water saving programs implemented by these customers.

Cadia Holdings Pty Limited undertake mining operations in or around Cadia (Cadia Valley Operations – CVO). Cadia Holdings is under contract with Orange City Council to receive recycled water from the Orange STP. This agreement commenced in 1997 and gives CVO access to a minimum 10 ML/day with the ability to take up to 13 ML/day (the capacity of the transfer system) if the excess above 10 ML/day is not required by Council. The agreement provides CVO with access to at least 3,650 ML/year of treated effluent.

Council and Cadia Holdings Pty Limited are currently negotiating a new water supply agreement given that the mine has recently gained approval to operate through to 2030. Cadia Holdings Pty Limited is viewed by Council as a customer using one of the available water sources.

Construction and operation of the effluent transfer system has not cost the Orange community anything as these costs are fully met by Cadia Holdings under the terms of the agreement. The water supply agreement benefits Council by saving an average of around $50,000 per year in load based licence fees that would be incurred if the effluent was discharged to Blackmans Swamp Creek.

Table 3.20 – Major potable water users 2009-2010

Consumption 2004-2005 (1)

Rank Customer 2009-2010 Consumption Rank kL kL

1 Health Support Linen Services 68,575 113,639 1

2 Bloomfield Hospital 55,632 65,034 2

3 Charles Sturt University 41,919 27,024 6

4 Greater Western Area Health Service 37,323 19,287 9

5 Appledale Processors Co-Operative Limited 23,786 25,190 8

6 The Uniting Church of Australia – Kinross School 14,856 17,620 10

7 Kinross School Trust 13,297 12,986 14

8 Orange Ex-Services Club Limited 11,916 - -

9 Styrotec Pty Limited 11,490 - -

10 Electrolux Home Products Pty Limited 9,627 47,403 3

11 Orange City Council – Cook Park 9,589 34,971 4

12 Wontama Retirement Village 9,146 13,355 13

13 Fitness Perfection 8,693 - -

14 Orange City Council - Showground 8,454 - -

15 Canobolas Caravan Park Pty Limited 8,440 - -

16 Reg Prop SP 31035,57250,75426 8,370 - -

17 Registered Proprietor SP 67170 8,213 8,689 20

18 Department of TAFE 7,546 13,963 11

19 Perpetual Limited 7,412 8,723 19

20 Orange City Council – Botanic Gardens 7,119 - -

Source: (1) MWH (2007) Table 0-4

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 51 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.1.11 Business and Commercial Activity

The above information indicates that the Orange business and commercial sector has taken steps to significantly reduce water consumption over the past five years. Consistent drivers remain for continued business and commercial development in Orange in line with the projected population growth.

3.3.2 URBAN WATER SUPPLY 3.3.2.1 Orange

Process: from catchment to the tap

As described in Section 3.2.2.1, the existing Orange water supply system consists of the following elements (Figure 10): • Surface water catchments and the main reservoirs formed by Gosling Creek, Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams; • The Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme – currently approved to operate whenever the level in Suma Park reservoir is below 50%; • The Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme – currently approved to operate whenever the level in Suma Park reservoir is below 100%; and • Groundwater bores at the Showground, Council works depot and Clifton Grove.

Suma Park Reservoir serves as a collection point for all surface water, stormwater and groundwater, with the latter two sources being pumped into the reservoir.

Raw water is drawn from Suma Park Reservoir via the Suma Park pump station located immediately downstream of the main dam wall. The inlet structure to the raw water pump station has a variable depth offtake that can draw water from different depths in the water body.

The raw water is treated at the Icely Road Water Filtration Plant (WFP). The Icely Road WFP was originally constructed in 1959 (with a 10 ML/day capacity). It was augmented in 1966, 1985 and again in 2001 with Biological Activated Carbon (BAC) filters and an ozone dosing plant, primarily to remove taste and odour from the water supply during algal blooms. It currently has a capacity of 38 ML/day.

The raw water is dosed with potassium permanganate at the raw water pump station to promote oxidation of manganese. Following pre-ozonation, a flocculant (aluminum chlorohydrate) is dosed in the inlet pipe. The raw water enters the flash mixing tank via the raw water inlet valve. Polymer is dosed at the flash mixing tank via a diffuser. The water then flows through the flocculation tank to the inlet channel that feeds the four horizontal clarifiers. After clarification the water is distributed to eight gravity filters. The water passes through the filters into a common filtered water channel to the clear water cellar tank. Soda ash is added for pH correction and fluoride for dental health. The filtered water is then pumped to the primary ozonation tank where it is dosed with ozone with a minimum contact time of 16 minutes. It is filtered through three biologically activated carbon (BAC) filters. The water is then chlorinated at the inlet to the 20 ML storage reservoir.

The treated water from the filtration plant is stored nine service reservoirs (Table 3.21) placed throughout the city which have total clear water storage of 84.8 ML and then gravity fed through 450 km of water reticulation pipes.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 52 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The area serviced by the Orange water supply system is shown on Figure 12.

Table 3.21 – Orange water supply system service reservoirs

Capacity Top Water Level Reservoir Supplied From ML m AHD

Icely Road 20 932 Icely Rd WTP

Icely Road 9.1 925 Icely Rd Reservoir

Clifton Grove 1.8 872-929 Icely Rd Reservoir

Cargo Road 2.3 925 Icely Rd Reservoir

Beech Crescent 9.1 925 Icely Rd Reservoir

Sharpes Road 9 926 Icely Rd Reservoir

Rosewood 9 925 Icely Rd Reservoir

Rosewood 20 925 Icely Rd Reservoir

Spring Creek 4.5 925 Spring Creek WTP

Total 84.8

Source: MWH (2007) Table 2-12 The Spring Creek WFP was built in 1931 and had a capacity of 10 ML/day. This WFP sourced its raw water from Spring Creek Reservoir and was used mainly to meet peak summer demand and to supply the southern parts of the city. This WFP was decommissioned when repairs where being made to the Spring Creek Dam which required the level of the storage to be drawn down. It is unlikely that the plant will be used in the future.

Dual Reticulation Area

Orange City Council has a dual water supply system for the Ploughmans Valley and North Orange (PVNO) development areas; a scheme that will ultimately supply non-potable water to 4,500 homes in the north and west of the city (refer to Figure 13). The original intent of the system was to supply treated municipal sewage effluent to residential properties for toilet flushing and outdoor use. The system has been partially constructed and, by the start of 2011, around 1,000 properties had been connected. Connection to the non-potable alternate water supply for toilet and outdoor use was deemed by the Department of Planning (DoP) to satisfy the criteria as a reticulated alternative water supply under BASIX.

The system is currently is charged with potable water as treated effluent is not available due to the water supply agreement with Cadia Holdings.

Council undertook a review of this system in early 2011 and considered a range of alternate water sources for the dual water system to ensure ongoing compliance with BASIX requirements in the PVNO area (Geolyse, 2011). It was recommended from this study that the system be supplied with harvested stormwater. This was given provisional recognition by the DoP and the required capital works are underway and scheduled for completion in the last quarter of 2012.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 53 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 12: Area serviced by the Orange water supply system

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 54 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Nashdale Water Users

The Nashdale Water users have access to a supply of water from Lake Canobolas. The terms of this agreement are defined in the Nashdale Water Users Scheme Agreement. Under the agreement water can be used by Nashdale Public School, the Nashdale Hall and eight property owners. The water is strictly a non-potable domestic water supply and is not to be used for domestic purposes other than for the purpose of flushing toilets, watering gardens and such like activities. About 40 ML/year of non- potable water is supplied under this agreement.

Major Infrastructure

Major water supply infrastructure is listed in Table 3.22.

Table 3.22 – Orange water supply system major infrastructure

Water Component Quantity

Raw Water

Dams(1) 4

Weirs 1

Constructed stormwater wetlands 4

Holding pond 1

Bores 4

Pump stations 8

Treated Water

Water filtration plants(2) 2

Service reservoirs 9

Water pump stations 13

Water pipes (km) 449

(1) Includes Lake Canobolas (2) Includes Spring Creek WFP

The four dams listed as major water supply infrastructure are prescribed dams under the Dams Safety Act, 1978. The Dams Safety Committee (DSC) can require owners of prescribed dams to do things to ensure the safety of their dams.

Orange City Council continually works with the DSC to ensure compliance with its requirements and the Dams Safety Act, 1978. Surveillance reporting is completed as required and investigation and design works for Suma Park Dam safety upgrade works is in progress. Further investigation, documentation and reporting are in progress as required by the DSC based on an agreed 5 year plan.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 55 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 13: PVNO dual reticulation area

Historical Demand Analysis

The DEUS Water Demand Trend Tracking and Climate Correction software (v10) (DEUS, 2002) was used to assess historical water production data for Orange. Results of this assessment were used to estimate the current unrestricted water demand. Full details of this assessment including input data and model assumptions are provided in Technical Note 3.

The monthly water tracking model developed for the concept study (MWH, 2007) was updated with production and climate data to the end of December 2010. The climate corrected 12 month trend is shown in Figure 14 along with the observed and predicted monthly demand. The water restriction regime since January 2003 and implementation of user pay water pricing are also indicated.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 56 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The climate corrected 12 month trend clearly shows the impact of the user pay pricing system and water restrictions on demand. Seasonal variation in water demand is still evident under Level 1 to 3 water restrictions, but is much less with Level 5 restrictions under which outdoor use is not permitted. The observed increase in monthly demand in the warmer months is much less since the introduction of user pay pricing.

Observed Predicted Residual Climate-corrected 12 Month Trend

1,200

1,000 PaysStage 1 PaysStage 3 PaysStage 2 User User

800 User

600

400

200

0 Water Production Per Capita (L/p/d) Capita Per Production Water

-200

-400 Water Restrictions

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 -600 Month Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- Nov- 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 14: Regression analysis – monthly analysis for Orange

The daily water tracking model developed for the concept study (MWH, 2007) was updated with production and climate data to the end of December 2010. The observed and climate corrected daily production from January 1993 to December 2010 is shown in Figure 15. The water restriction regime since January 2003 and implementation of user pay water pricing are also indicated.

Analysis of the daily per capita water consumption was undertaken to determine a baseline unrestricted water demand. This analysis took into account water savings that resulted from a major leak reduction program completed in 2009. The adopted baseline per capita water demand was set at 404 L/p/d in 2010 which equates to an annual demand of 5,403 ML/year (refer to Technical Note 3).

This was adopted in the IWCM Evaluation Study as the unrestricted demand in 2010 and formed the basis for all water demand projections. As noted in Technical Note 3, a total unrestricted demand of 5,400 ML/year equates to a daily residential demand of 259 L/p/d. This is slightly less than the Level 1 restriction target of 260 L/p/d. Therefore the unrestricted starting water demand assumes the community will use less water than it has in the past.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 57 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Observed Climate Corrected

700

600

500 PayStage 3 PayStage 2 User User 400 PayStage 1 User 300

Total Per Per Total (L/p/d) Capita Demand 200

100 Water Restrictions

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 0 01/01/1993 01/01/1994 01/01/1995 01/01/1996 01/01/1997 01/01/1998 01/01/1999 01/01/2000 01/01/2001 01/01/2002 01/01/2003 01/01/2004 01/01/2005 01/01/2006 01/01/2007 01/01/2008 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 365 Days Ending Figure 15: Observed and climate corrected demand - Orange

Future Water Demand

The DEUS Demand Management Decision Support System (DSS) version S1.1 (DEUS, 2006) was used to provide a water production demand forecast and evaluation of demand management measures. A number of demand management measures built into the DSS model were evaluated to assess their impact on total and peak water demand. Full details of this assessment are provided in Technical Note 3.

Water demand forecasts were derived for the baseline case and for three levels of demand management. The baseline demand forecast assumes no demand side management measures are in place and therefore provides a worse case demand scenario. The three combinations of demand management measures assessed are summarised in Table 3.23. Each combination builds on the previous level. The assumptions for each level of demand management are summarised in Table 2.3 of Technical Note 3.

Table 3.23 – Demand management scenario levels

Level Description Options included in the DSS model

1 Low level demand management Baseline(1) plus: • National water efficient labelling scheme (WELS) • Community education programs • Residential showerhead retrofit program • Fixture code – taps and showers on all new developments; this represents the fixture efficiency component required by BASIX • Non-residential water audits

2 Medium level demand management Level 1 plus: = Business as Usual • Alternative water supply to dual reticulation area • Permanent water conservation measures

3 High level demand management Level 2 plus: • Conservation pricing for residential users

(1) The adopted baseline per capita water demand accounts for water savings achieved through Council’s leak and pressure reduction program completed in 2009. Therefore no demand management scenario included the loss management option available in DSS.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 58 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Potable water demand forecasts were derived for the period 2010 to 2060 to fit with Council’s adopted 50 year strategy for water security. Results presented for the IWCM Evaluation Study cover the period 2010 to 2040. Forecast water demands were determined for medium and high population growth rates of 0.8% and 1.1% pa respectively (refer to Section 3.3.1).

Forecast trends in annual potable water demand under medium and high growth rates are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 respectively for the baseline and three demand management cases. Forecast water production for the BAU demand management at 10 year intervals is summarised in Table 3.24.

Historical Climate Corrected Baseline Forecast

Low Level Demand Management Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management 9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 TotalWater Demand (ML/year) 3,000

2,000

1,000

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 16: Forecast total annual potable water demand – city of Orange, medium growth

Table 3.24 – Orange forecast water demand – BAU demand management

Demand Growth 2010 2020 2030 2040

Per Capita Water Demand (L/p/d) na 404 370 362 357

Average Annual (ML/a) Medium: 0.8%pa 5,403 5,349 5,681 6,058

High: 1.1%pa 5,403 5,515 6,045 6,655

Peak Day Water Demand (ML/d) Medium: 0.8%pa 32.5 32.7 35.5 38.0

High: 1.1%pa 32.5 33.9 37.9 42.0

The total per capita water demand includes non-residential use (i.e. commercial, industrial, public and open space water)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 59 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Historical Climate Corrected Baseline Forecast

Low Demand Management Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management 10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 TotalWater Demand (ML/year)

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 17: Forecast total annual potable water demand – city of Orange, high growth

Ability to Supply Present and Future Demand

The ability to supply present and future demand is considered for two measures: annual demand and peak daily demand.

In terms of annual demand, the forecasts for the BAU demand management show a current annual demand of 5,403 ML/year increasing to between 6,058 and 6,655 ML/year in 2040. As noted in Section 3.2.1.1 the existing system secure yield of 4,750 ML/year is less than the current unrestricted demand. The gap between secure yield and demand therefore grows over time. It is concluded from this assessment that the existing system secure yield does not meet current or future annual water demand.

Figure 18 shows the forecast peak daily water production for the BAU scenario. Peak day water demand remains within the capacity of the existing Icely Road WFP for the medium growth rate until about 2040. Under the high population growth the peak day water demand reaches 38 ML/day in around 2030 and is forecast to be 42 ML/day by 2040 (refer to Table 3.24).

The potable water distribution system in Orange includes nine service reservoirs throughout the city which have total clear water storage of around 85 ML. This means that short terms periods of peak water demand above the plant capacity can be tolerated by the system storage.

Experience in Orange is that peak days do not usually last for more than four or five days. At a peak demand of 42 ML/day, the system has storage capacity of around 20 days. It is therefore considered that the existing WTP and distribution system has sufficient capacity to meet the forecast peak day demand under the high growth rate for the next 30 years.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 60 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Forecast Water Demand Medium Growth (lower bound) High growth (upper bound) Icely Road WTP Capacity

45

40

35

30

25 ML/day 20

15

10

5

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 18: Forecast peak daily potable water demand for Orange

Water Quality

There have been water quality issues in the past in the Orange town water supply and they are shown in Table 3.25. The table also has the actions that were taken to mitigate the impacts of the water quality issues.

Spring Creek Reservoir is not as deep as Suma Park Reservoir, at approximately 13 m deep. Though it experiences some impacts of stratification and algal blooms, the impacts are not as significant as at Suma Park Reservoir.

A copper based algicide can be used to control algal blooms. The use of algicide is controlled by Environment Protection Licence 10263 which regulates water pollution resulting from the application of a copper based algicide at Suma Park and Spring Creek reservoirs. Algicide has not been required in the last 10 years at either reservoir.

Over the past few years, and triggered by the development of stormwater harvesting schemes as part of the water supply system, Orange City Council has been developing a risk based Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) through the implementation of the Framework for the Management of Drinking Water Quality. This process involves systematically assessing where and how contaminants may arise, how they may reach the consumer and how to protect the consumer from such contamination. The WQMP covers the three integrated water components: drinking water, stormwater and effluent. Further details are provided in Section 3.3.2.5.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 61 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.25 – Suma Park Reservoir water quality issues

Issue Cause Impact Actions

Stratification • Depth of dam (>30m) • Dissolution of iron and • WEARS destratification manganese from system was installed sediments, production of October 2002. ammonia and sulphides and • On-line monitoring of release of phosphorus. temperature and DO to help guide destratification system operation. • Operational experience shows this is no longer an issue.

Algal blooms • Dam stratification • Blue-green algae create • Ozone/ BAC system was • Phosphorus from tastes and odours in the commissioned in May 2001. streambank erosion of water. • WEARS destratification naturally P-rich basalt system was installed subsoil October 2002. • Nitrogen from fertilisers, manure and decomposition of organic matter

High manganese • Dam stratification - during • After re-oxidation through During the first incident: levels the commissioning period contact with chlorine it • An alternative off-take was for WEARS the dam precipitates into a fine used, became stratified again particulate which discolours • the backwash time was leading to soluble the water, stains and adds extended to ensure manganese reaching the metallic taste to the water precipitation in the BAC WTP filter, and • recommended purchase of dosing equipment for future occurrences was organised.

Source: MWH (2007); Water Futures (2009)

The water supply is regularly monitored against Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004, (ADWG) in accordance with the requirements for the NSW Ministry of Health. The NSW Office of Water produce a yearly Utilities Performance Monitoring Report that provides data on matters relating to water quality compliance and water quality complaints. These are summarised in Table 3.26 below. This shows compliance with chemical and microbiological indicators for both the Orange and Spring Hill/Lucknow water supplies.

Table 3.26 – Water quality compliance and complaints

Measure 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Chemical (% compliance) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Zones 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 E. coli (% compliance) 100 100 100 100 100 100

(2004 (2004 Zones 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 2 Guidelines) Compliance Water Quality

NHMRC/NRMMC % Population with E. coli 100 100 100 100 100 100 Compliance Water Quality Complaints (per 1000 properties) * 2 1 2 1.7 2.2

Source: NSW water supply and sewerage performance monitoring reports 2005 - 2011

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 62 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.2.2 Spring Hill and Lucknow Water Supply

Process: from catchment to the tap

The villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow servicing approximately 450 people have a water supply system independent to Orange city. The villages are supplied with water from four bores. The water is chlorinated and pumped to storage tanks from where it is distributed to the villages. From Spring Hill reservoir (capacity 0.33 ML), the village of Spring Hill is serviced and a portion of the water is gravity fed to Lucknow reservoir (capacity 0.2 ML). Both reservoirs service their reticulation systems through gravity feed.

The four bores have a combined capacity of 6.7 L/s or 0.58 ML/day. Some peak day flow above this capacity could be provided by the service reservoirs.

The area serviced by the Spring Hill and Lucknow water supply system is shown on Figure 19.

Figure 19: Spring Hill and Lucknow water and sewerage service area

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 63 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Major Infrastructure

Major water supply infrastructure is listed in Table 3.27.

Table 3.27 – Spring Hill and Lucknow water supply system major infrastructure

Water Component Quantity

Raw Water

Bores 4

Pump stations 1

Treated Water

Water chlorination 1

Service reservoirs 2

Water pipes (km) 100

Historical Demand Analysis

The DEUS Water Demand Trend Tracking and Climate Correction software (v10) (DEUS, 2002) was used to assess historical water production data for Spring Hill and Lucknow. Results of this assessment were used to estimate the current unrestricted water demand. Full details of this assessment including input data and model assumptions are provided in Technical Note 3.

Climate correction was carried out for the Spring Hill and Lucknow production data to correct the production record for the influence of climate using the DEUS Water Demand Trend Tracking and Climate Correction software (v10). The observed and climate corrected daily production from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010 is shown in Figure 20. The water restriction regime since January 2003 and implementation of user pay water pricing are also indicated.

Observed Climate Corrected

700

600

500 Pay Stage 3 User

400 Pay Stage 1 Pay Stage 2 300 User User

200 Water Production Per Capita (L/p/d) Capita Per Production Water

100 Water Restrictions

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 0 01/01/2000 01/01/2001 01/01/2002 01/01/2003 01/01/2004 01/01/2005 01/01/2006 01/01/2007 01/01/2008 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 365 Days Ending Figure 20: Observed and climate corrected demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 64 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Analysis of the daily per capita water consumption was undertaken to determine a baseline unrestricted water demand. The adopted baseline per capita water demand was set at 432 L/p/d in 2010 which equates to an annual demand of 67 ML/year (refer to Technical Note 3). This is about 7% higher than the baseline per capita water demand adopted for the city of Orange.

It is noted that much higher water consumption was reported in the IWCM concept study. This was due to a data interpretation error that added the two supplies as separate sources. However the daily flow is recorded for both villages as it leave the Spring Hill bore field and the daily flow recorded for Spring Hill represents the consumption for both villages.

Future Water Demand

The DEUS Demand Management Decision Support System (DSS) version S1.1 (DEUS, 2006) was used to provide a water production demand forecast and evaluation of demand management measures. A number of demand management measures built into the DSS model were evaluated to assess their impact on total and peak water demand. Full details of this assessment are provided in Technical Note 3.

Water demand forecasts were derived for the baseline case and for three levels of demand management. The baseline demand forecast assumes no demand side management measures are in place and therefore provides a worse case demand scenario. The three combinations of demand management measures assessed are summarised in Table 3.23. Each combination builds on the previous level. The alternative water supply to dual reticulation areas did not apply for the Spring Hill and Lucknow analysis. The assumptions for each level of demand management are summarised in Table 2.3 of Technical Note 3.

Potable water demand forecasts were derived for the period 2010 to 2060 to fit with Council’s adopted 50 year strategy for water security. Results presented for the IWCM Evaluation Study cover the period 2010 to 2040. Forecast water demands were determined for population growth rates of zero and 0.8% pa (refer to Section 3.3.1).

Forecast trends in annual potable water demand under medium and high growth rates are shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 respectively for the baseline and three demand management cases. Forecast water production for the BAU demand management at 10 year intervals is summarised in Table 3.28.

Historical Climate Corrected Baseline Forecast

Low Level Demand Management Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management 100

90

80

70

60

50

40 TotalWater Demand (ML/year)

30

20

10

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 65 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 21: Forecast total annual potable water demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow, no growth

Historical Climate Corrected Baseline Forecast

Low Level Demand Management Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management 100

90

80

70

60

50

40 TotalWater Demand (ML/year)

30

20

10

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 22: Forecast total annual potable water demand – Spring Hill and Lucknow, high growth

Table 3.28 – Spring Hill and Lucknow forecast water demand – BAU demand management

Demand Growth 2010 2020 2030 2040

Per Capita Water Demand (L/p/d) na 432 392 389 388

Average Annual (ML/a) zero 67 61 60 60

0.8% pa 67 66 71 76

Peak Day Water Demand (ML/d) zero 0.39 0.35 0.36 0.36

0.8% pa 0.39 0.38 0.42 0.46

The total per capita water demand includes non-residential use (i.e. commercial, industrial, public and open space water)

Ability to Supply Present and Future Demand

The ability to supply present and future demand is considered for two measures: annual demand and peak daily demand.

In terms of annual demand, the forecasts for the BAU demand management show a current annual demand of 67 ML/year which could be between 60 and 76 ML/year in 2040. The current licence groundwater extraction limit is 75 ML/year. The forecast water demand for the high growth scenario shows that the groundwater extraction licence limit could be exceeded by around 2038.

Figure 23 shows the forecast peak daily water production for the BAU scenario. Peak day water demand remains within the capacity of the existing bores.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 66 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Forecast Water Demand No growth (lower bound) High growth (upper bound) WTP Capacity

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40 ML/day 0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 23: Forecast peak daily potable water demand for Spring Hill and Lucknow Water Quality

The water supply is regularly monitored against Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004, (ADWG) in accordance with the requirements for the NSW Ministry of Health. The NSW Office of Water produce a yearly Utilities Performance Monitoring Report that provides data on matters relating to water quality compliance and water quality complaints. These are summarised in Table 3.26 and show compliance with chemical and microbiological indicators for both the Orange and Spring Hill/Lucknow water supplies.

3.3.2.3 Rainwater Tanks

Rainwater tanks provide a potential alternative water source and can reduce the demand on the mains water supply. Orange City Council has a rainwater tank rebate policy in place (ST061) that has had a good take-up rate and provided many local residents extra financial incentives to install a rainwater tank. This rebate is the largest financial water saving incentive Council offers.

There are a number of constraints which need to be considered to ensure that the most appropriate sized rainwater tank is installed. These include things such as rainfall, lot size, purpose of use and cost. Although larger rainwater tanks provide a greater capacity for storage and increased potential to reduce the demand on mains water, they are more expensive and may be restricted by planning controls and space. The effectiveness of larger rainwater tanks also becomes limited by the roof catchment area.

An analysis of rainwater tank systems was undertaken to:  Assess the impact of a range of rainwater tank sizes on mains water consumption for a number of different water uses for an average household; and  Estimate the annual water supply that could be provided by rainwater tanks.

The analysis was carried out using the spread sheet based Rainwater Tank Model (Version RTM 2.1) developed by DEUS (July, 2006). Full details of this assessment are included in Technical Note 2.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 67 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

A benefit of rainwater tanks may be an increase in secure yield (through reduced demand) and possibly the postponing of major water security works. The assessment found that if 70% of households (10,179 households) installed a 10,000 L rainwater tank connected for outdoor and toilet use, the annual supply from all the tanks in an average year would be in the order of 874 ML (refer to Technical Note 2). However this figure is not a secure yield as it is likely to be significantly lower in dry years – which are the years that impact the most on the secure yield.

As rainwater tank systems would require potable top-up, they would be subject to water restrictions as the city’s water storages are drawn down. In these periods rainwater tanks would mainly supply internal uses with an associated reduction in potable water saving. This would further reduce the benefit of rainwater tanks system on secure yield.

Given the above, it is considered that the secure yield from 10,179 rainwater tanks would be in the order of 200 to 300 ML/year. While beneficial, it is unlikely to impact on the need for and timing of other major water security works.

The installation of rainwater tanks would reduce catchment runoff and, potentially, the yield from the two stormwater harvesting schemes. As input from the harvesting schemes is used to boost the system secure yield, a reduction in capacity of the harvesting schemes would reduce the secure yield. However, on the demand side, rainwater tanks would reduce the total water demand, so a lower secure yield may be acceptable. Without undertaking detailed modelling of this interaction, it is assumed that the potential reduction in secure yield from the harvesting schemes would be minor and the reduction in demand achieved by the rainwater tanks would represent an increase in secure yield.

3.3.2.4 Water Asset Management

Orange City Council developed a Water Asset Management Plan (Water AMP) as a flow-on from Council’s overall Asset Management Policy and Strategy which details the need for Council to prioritise the development of Asset Management Plans for all of its asset classes (IPWEA, 2011a). The assets covered by the Water AMP are listed in Table 3.29.

Table 3.29 – Assets covered by the Water AMP

Water Component Quantity Fair Value

Treatment Plant (includes Spring Creek WFP) 2 $40,923,000 Water Pump Stations 16 $7,072,000 Reservoirs 11 $21,572,000 Dams 4 $75,500,000 Water Pipes (km) 549 $75,577,000 Water Services 15,869 $9,695,000 Water Meters 15,869 $5,074,000 Total $235,413,000

Source: IPWEA (2011a) Table 1.1

The Water AMP contains the initial analysis based on broad assumptions and best available knowledge to date. Key elements of the Water AMP are (IPWEA, 2011a): • Levels of service – specifies the standard to which services are provided by Council; • Future demand – how this will impact on future service delivery and how it will be addressed; • Life cycle management – how Council will manage its existing and future assets to provide the required services; • Financial summary – what funds are required to provide the required services; • Asset management practices; • Monitoring – how the plan will be monitored to ensure it is meeting Council’s objectives; and • Asset management improvement plan.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 68 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The Water AMP identified that Council’s water services are generally provided to meet applicable design standards and that the system is in working condition and it is maintained to this high level of service (IPWEA, 2011a).

The Water AMP proposes to maintain sewerage assets at a Condition 3 threshold and it was identified that a higher annual renewal budget would be required for this purpose. The higher renewal budget has been adopted in Council’s management plan. It was identified that if asset renewal was delayed until a Condition 4 threshold is reached, annual renewal costs will decrease, however the risk of asset failure may lead to a reduction in the level of service provided. This strategy could lead to higher maintenance costs in the short term.

Work is underway on importing detailed asset data into the corporate asset system and it is intended that the Water AMP be reviewed during annual budget preparation and amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services as a result of the budget decision process (IPWEA, 2011a).

3.3.2.5 Water System Management

Licence Conditions and Compliance

Relevant surface water and groundwater licences issued to Orange City Council under Section 12 of the Water Act, 1912 for the extraction of water for town water supply are listed in Table 3.30. Comments on compliance with key conditions of these licences are also provided. These licences are included in Technical Note 1.

Table 3.30 – OCC water supply licences and compliance with key conditions

Licence Infrastructure Key Condition(s) Comment

80SL046857 Suma Park Dam Condition (6) Condition (6) The licence see shall release into the There is an upstream gauge which is watercourse downstream of the dam a continuous monitored to measure inflow flow of water equivalent to 12 litres per to the dam. There is a small V-notch second or to the flow entering the downstream to measure and permit storage of the dam for the time being, adjustment of discharge; however this is whichever if the lesser. not continuously recorded. OCC intends to upgrade the downstream V-notch weir to include monitoring and continuous data recording and will maintain records of environmental flow release.

Condition (13) A Condition (13) A and B and Condition Subject to any access or flow condition (14) contained in the licence, the holder in The highest peak annual water demand any one year commencing 1 July divert in recent times occurred in 2002 when up to the licensed volume of 7800 7,120 ML was consumed. OCC has megalitres of water for town water implemented a comprehensive demand supply use. management strategy that has successfully reduced water consumption Condition (13) B despite a growing population. The Notwithstanding paragraph (A), the current estimated unrestricted demand is holder may divert up to twice the 5,400 ML/year which is well below the licenced volume in any one year current town water licence limit. Forecast provided diversions do not exceed three water demand under high population times the licenced volume in any three growth assumptions remain below the year period. 7,800 ML/year limit over the 30 year IWCM planning period. Condition (14) The volumetric entitlement described in condition (13) is the collective volume allocated to this licence and licences 80SL034224 and 80SL034214.

80SL034224 Raw water pumps See licence conditions (13) and (14) for See comments above for Conditions at Suma Park 80SL046857 (above) relating to (13) A and B and Condition (14) for Dam volumetric entitlement. 80SL046857

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 69 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.30 – OCC water supply licences and compliance with key conditions

Licence Infrastructure Key Condition(s) Comment 80SL034214 Spring Creek Dam See licence conditions (13) and (14) for See comments above for Conditions and pumps 80SL046857 (above) relating to (13) A and B and Condition (14) for volumetric entitlement. 80SL046857

80BL143163 Bore Condition (9) Condition (9) The volume of groundwater extracted Analysis of current and future demand from the works authorised by this licence indicates extraction for Lucknow and and by the licence(s) 80BL143160, Spring Hill should remain below 75 80BL142256 & 80BL025285 shall not ML/year for next 25 years. exceed 75 megalitres in any 12 month period commencing 1st July.

80BL025285 Bore See Condition (9) for 80BL143163. See comments above for Conditions (9) for 80BL143163

80BL142256 Bore See Condition (9) for 80BL143163. See comments above for Conditions (9) for 80BL143163

80BL143160 Bore See Condition (9) for 80BL143163. See comments above for Conditions (9) for 80BL143163

80SL96331 Ploughmans Condition (3) Condition (3) stormwater The Ploughmans Creek stormwater The Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme harvesting scheme will operate in harvesting scheme has not operated accordance with those operating rules since it is commissioning due to proposed by the associated Review of adequate storage levels in Suma Park Environmental Factors dated November Reservoir. 2009.

Condition (4) Condition (4) Any stormwater harvested from the As the stormwater holding pond cannot Ploughmans Creek scheme will be be used until the licence application of transferred directly to the batch ponds the Blackmans Swamp Creek for treatment until such time as the stormwater harvesting scheme is licence application (80SL96298) for the resolved, OCC is investigating a piping 200 megalitre holding dam subject of the system that will enable the Ploughmans Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater scheme to be used without the holding harvesting scheme is approved. pond.

80BL245947 Depot bore Condition (7) Condition (7) The volume of groundwater extracted Revised licence granted in March 2012 from the works authorised by this licence and to date has not been used. and by licence(s) 80BL245074 shall not exceed 280 megalitres in any 12 month period commencing 1st July.

80BL245074 Showground bore See Condition (7) for 80BL245947. See comment for Condition (7) for 80BL245074.

80BL245800 Shearing Shed Condition (7) Condition (7) bore The volume of groundwater extracted Revised licence granted in March 2012 from the works authorised by this licence and to date has not been used. and by licence(s) 80BL245805 shall not exceed 162 megalitres in any 12 month period commencing 1st July.

80BL245805 Bore 5 See Condition (7) for 80BL245800. See comment for Condition (7) for 80BL245800.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 70 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Performance Summary

Table 3.31 provides a summary of the performance monitoring results for Council’s water supply services over the past seven reporting years. A comparison to the State median for 2010/11 is provided. This data demonstrates that the OCC water services compare favourably to the state median values.

Table 3.31 – Performance summary of OCC water supply system

10/11 Water Supply System 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 State Median

Number of assessments * 15,210 15,600 16,080 15,890 16,130 16,330 -

Residential consumption 221 230 323 177 259 148 158 159 (kL/property)

Typical residential bill 393 427 558 375 502 345 423 450 ($ per property)

Number of mains breaks * * * 30 28 11 6 9 (per 100km)

Water quality complaints 2 2 2 1 2 1.7 2.2 4 (per 1000 properties)

Chemical water quality * 100 100 100 100 100 100 93 compliance (%)

Microbiological (E. coli) * 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 water quality compliance (%)

Operating cost 103 90 52 62 63 65 114 134 ($ per property)

Source: NOW Performance Monitoring Report 2005 – 2011 (* Data not recorded)

Management Initiatives

Management initiatives being undertaken by Orange City Council relating to water services are summarised below.

Water Quality Management Plan

As a result of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme, Council chose to implement the Framework for the Management of Drinking Water Quality (the framework). The framework is the core component of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004 (ADWG) and requires consideration of the whole water supply system including the rural drinking water catchments. Implementation of the framework required assessment of risks and critical control points throughout the drinking water system. This process involved Council operators and managers involved with water quality, Council staff involved in the management of pollution in the catchment, specialist consultants and a number of representatives from state government departments including NSW Office of Water, Ministry of Health and the Environment Protection Authority.

The initial risk assessment covered the drinking water supply with the addition of stormwater harvesting from the Blackmans Swamp Creek system. It has been expanded to include all stormwater harvesting, the supply of stormwater to the dual reticulation area and effluent reuse.

Through the water quality risk assessment process Council has identified 202 actions relating to drinking water, stormwater and final effluent, and developed an action plan that will address these actions over the next two years. Some actions are ongoing such as water quality monitoring and review of potential impacts due to variable water quality.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 71 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Water System Model

A full water system model has been developed for the water reticulation system. This model will be used to identify any areas of the system that do not meet the agreed level of service, assess capital works required for system expansions to cater for new developments and will guide the development and installation of additional system meters to improve water consumption monitoring.

Environmental Flow Study

Orange City Council is considering the option of raising Suma Park Dam in conjunction with the planned dam safety upgrade works. This may trigger changes to the existing environmental flow rules. Furthermore, the concept of changing the environmental flow patterns was raised during the negotiations regarding the full licence for the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme. Orange City Council has commissioned an Environmental Flow study that will examine the environmental flow requirements of the Summer Hill Creek system and make recommendations regarding the preferred environmental flow release volume and pattern. This study involves physical creek assessment, consideration of the various previous and proposed interventions and consultation with stakeholders. It is due for completion in 2012.

Historical Drought and Water demand Figure 24 shows the annual water consumption from 1992 through to 2011 and compares this to the estimated resident population over the same period. From 1992 through to 2002 there was a steady increase in annual water consumption, at a rate slightly less than the population growth. The highest annual water consumption over this period was 7,120 ML/year in 2002.

Stage 1 of user pay pricing was introduced in July 2002. This involved consumer paying an access charge and a per kilolitre excess water charge if more than 150 kL was used per year. Water restrictions were introduced soon after Stage 1 user pay pricing which reduced the annual demand further.

Historical Water Demand Estimated Demand without Restrictions Estimated Resident Population (ERP)

8000 42000

7000 40000

6000

38000 5000

4000 36000 ML/year ERP, Number ERP,

3000 Stage 1 User Pays Stage 2 User Pays Stage 3 User Pays 34000

2000

32000 1000

0 30000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Figure 24: Annual water demands and population

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 72 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The dashed blue line represents the estimated annual water consumption without water restrictions. This shows that despite the population continuing to grow, there has been a continued downward trend in annual water consumption following user pays. Through this period Council has implemented other demand management initiatives including: • Further stages of use pay pricing; • Leak management – audited to show than annual saving of 500 ML/year; • Community education/public awareness campaigns to eliminate water wastage; • National Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme to encourage purchase of more water efficient appliances; • A showerhead exchange program to make water usage more efficient; • Residential and non-residential water audits to help consumer identify ways to reduce water consumption; and • Permanent water conservation measures to prevent excessive outdoor water use.

These actions have been successful in reducing per capita water consumption.

Water behaviour, attitude and knowledge research

In May 2010, ORIMA Research was commissioned by Orange City Council to conduct a community survey regarding water knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. The survey was conducted from 13 to 18 July 2010. At the time, the city was on Level 5A water restrictions and overall water storage was around 25%. This study provides an indication of the current satisfaction levels within the community on the service being provided and their opinion on a range of matters including: • Water restrictions; • Water usage; • Water supply infrastructure; • Security of supply; and • Stormwater harvesting.

A report was presented to Council’s Infrastructure Policy Committee Meeting of 21 October 2010. A copy of this report, the questionnaire and results is included in Appendix B. Some findings from this survey are: • There was a high level of awareness of water being supplied from Suma Park Reservoir. There is also high awareness of water coming from Spring Creek Reservoir, Gosling Creek Reservoir and via stormwater run-off. There was a low awareness of groundwater as a water source but this could be related to the lack of promotion of this water source; • There was a reasonably high level of awareness of current water restriction level, but some confusion over exactly what was permitted (i.e. correct day and times when watering was permitted); • Respondent demonstrated support for permanent water conservation measures; • Almost all respondents said they tried to save water around the house; • 90 precent of respondents were concerned about water supply issues in Orange; • Respondents were also asked if they supported an allocation of water being made available for the environment. Neither strong agreement nor disagreement can be said to imply conditions around their support either way; • Respondents were generally willing to use recycled water for outside purposes such as watering the garden and washing the car, but as water use moved to internal purposes respondents’ willingness to use recycled water dropped; and • The current pricing structure was preferred compared to scarcity pricing.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 73 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

A further survey is currently being drafted as part of the development of Council’s 10 year Community Strategic Plan. This survey will incorporate questions relevant to the delivery of water services and can be used to inform future IWCM updates.

3.3.3 SEWERAGE 3.3.3.1 Orange

Process: from use to reuse

Orange City Council provides reticulated sewerage services to about 14,640 assessments (2009/10). The area serviced is shown on Figure 25. Sewage is collected from this area through approximately 400 km of sewer mains and 11 major pump stations.

Sewage is collected and delivered to the Orange Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) which is located to the north-east of the city (Figure 25). The plant processes approximately 3,000 to 4,000 ML annually and has a capacity to service up to 60,000 equivalent population (EP) with capacity to provide full treatment up to approximately 43.2 ML/day (500 L/s). The treatment plant has been in operation since 1919 with major upgrades undertaken in 1933, 1963, 1987 and 1988, and a refurbishment of the digester taking place in 2004.

Water is tertiary treated and includes biological nutrient removal, chemical dosing for phosphorous removal, and chlorination for disinfection of effluent. The process units utilised include: 2 step screens; an aerated grit chamber and classifier; 4 primary tanks; 4 trickling filters; anoxic tank and aeration tank (with surface aerators), 7 secondary clarifiers, chlorine tank and cascade, 2 storage tanks, dissolved air flotation (DAF) plant and sludge digester. Some aspects of the plant have been designed to provide for the ultimate capacity of Orange (120,000 EP) including the inlet works, control building, chlorination facilities and the trunk mains (WorleyParsons, 2009).

The majority of the treated effluent from the Orange STP is reused under an existing water supply agreement by Cadia Holdings Pty Limited for mineral processing. The agreement commenced in 1997 and is set to continue for the life of the mine. Data for the period 2001 to 2011 shows an average of 72% of the effluent produced over this period was transferred to Cadia Holdings Pty Limited. The annual transfer ranged from 28% to 94% and averaged 8.2 ML/day over this period.

The balance of the treated effluent is discharged under licence to Blackmans Swamp Creek.

Major Infrastructure

Major sewerage infrastructure is listed in Table 3.32.

Table 3.32 – Orange sewerage major infrastructure

Water Component Quantity Treatment plant 1

Pump stations 25

Pipes (km) 404

Access chambers 7,503

Source: IPWEA (2011b)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 74 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Figure 25: Area serviced by the Orange sewerage system

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 75 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Licence Conditions and Compliance

The Orange STP operates under Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 1646. This licence permits the scheduled activity of sewage treatment to be carried out at the Orange STP. The licensed premise also includes the sewerage reticulation system owned and operated by OCC and the reticulation system used to transfer treated effluent to Cadia Valley Operations (CVO), extending to the dissipation pit on Mining lease 1405.

The objectives of this licence are to: • prevent as far as practicable sewage overflows and bypasses; • require proper and efficient management of the system to minimise harm to the environment and public health; and • require practical measures to protect the environment and public health from sewage overflow and treated effluent.

Treated effluent from the Orange STP is either transferred to CVO for reuse or discharged to Blackmans Swamp Creek. Wet weather bypass also discharges to Blackmans Swamp Creek. The minimum treatment prior to discharge is screening for wet weather bypass and screening, degritting, sedimentation and disinfection for dry weather flows.

The EPL includes: • load, concentration and volume limits; • operational conditions; • monitoring (quantity and quality) and recording conditions; • reporting conditions including reporting incidents of sewage bypass and overflow, and preparation of an annual system performance report; and • general conditions.

There are no pollution reduction programs attached to EPL 1646.

The Orange STP 2010-2011 annual return indicated the following non-compliances with licence conditions: • Exceedance of the concentration limit (Condition L3.1) for Faecal Coliforms at EPL Point 2 on five occasions with the highest recorded result being 1,100 CFU/100mL; • Exceedance of the concentration limit (Condition L3.1) for Chlorine (total residual) at EPL Point 2 on one occasion with the highest recorded result being 0.54 mg/L; and • Exceedance of the concentration limit (Condition L3.1) for Nitrogen (total) at EPL Point 2 on one occasion with the highest recorded result being 20 mg/L. OCC indicated that this occurred as a result of an equipment upgrade.

EPL Point 2 is the discharge to Blackmans Swamp Creek after the chlorination tank.

With regards to the Faecal coliform and chlorine Exceedance, Council advised the Environment Protection Authority that the two contaminants are interrelated and that it is difficult to balance the two without a de-chlorination facility. Council has commenced a feasibility assessment of installing a de- chlorination facility and is continuing to implement recommendations in consultation with the EPA.

Effluent Reuse

Cadia Holdings Pty Limited undertake mining operations in or around Cadia (Cadia Valley Operations – CVO). Cadia Holdings is under contract with Orange City Council to receive recycled water from the Orange STP. This agreement gives CVO access to a minimum 10 ML/day with the ability to take up to 13 ML/day (the capacity of the transfer system) if the excess above 10 ML/day is not required by Council. The agreement provides CVO with access to at least 3,650 ML/year of treated effluent.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 76 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The water supply agreement started in December 1997 and was set to continue for the life of the mine. A recently approved expansion of mining operations has extended the life of the mine, and the need for the supply of treated effluent, until at least 2030. OCC and Cadia Holdings are currently negotiating a new water supply agreement including possibly placing a financial value on the recycled water.

This agreement reuses the majority of the treated effluent produced at the Orange STP. Data for the period 2001 to 2011 is provided in Table 3.33 and shows an average of 72% of the effluent produced over this period was transferred to CVO. The annual transfer ranged from 28% to 94% and averaged 8.2 ML/day over this period. The low transfer year corresponded with a very high rainfall period and on site water sources for the mine were at or near capacity which reduced the need for effluent.

During large wet weather flows to the Orange STP the transfer to CVO is closed down, because effluent that bypasses the primary and secondary treatment contaminates the treated effluent in the chlorination tank (MWH, 2007). The only other time the transfer to CVO is closed down is when the mine has a shutdown period or the effluent cannot be utilised. Shutdown happens every six months for a few days.

Table 3.33 – Annual effluent transfer to CVO

STP Inflow Export to CVO Year % Reuse ML/year ML/year

2001-2002 4,866 3,104 64%

2002-2003 4,011 3,033 76%

2003-2004 4,652 3,362 72%

2004-2005 4,445 3,360 76%

2005-2006 4,197 3,121 74%

2006-2007 2,847 2,665 94%

2007-2008 3,629 3,367 93%

2008-2009 3,565 3,063 86%

2009-2010 3,310 3,026 91%

2010-2011 5,924 1,674 28%

Ten year totals 41,446 29,775 72%

Treated effluent being discharged into Blackmans Swamp Creek can be considered a point source of surface water pollution and would be subject to load based licence fees. The CVO reuse scheme results in a considerable reduction in the amount of pollutants being discharged to the local watercourse and benefits Council by saving an average of around $50,000 per year in load based licence fees that would be incurred if the effluent was discharged to Blackmans Swamp Creek.

On-site Systems

The urban area is nearly entirely serviced by the sewerage reticulation system. Only 0.1% of urban properties are not connected. The majority of rural residential and rural properties are not connected to the sewerage system and so have on-site disposal systems. OCC has no plans to provide wastewater services to rural residential areas (MWH, 2007).

Since the 2007 IWCM Concept Study, Orange City Council has developed and implemented an on- site effluent management system policy and register. Audits of the systems are currently underway.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 77 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Trade Waste Policy

A new Trade Waste Policy was issued in March 2011. The businesses that have received approvals have agreed to pre-treat their wastewater before they discharge to the sewer system. If the businesses do not meet the requirements of their licence they have to pay significantly higher usage charges. The requirements involve clean management practices and maintenance of treatment equipment.

The trade waste approvals decrease the pressure on the STP and other services.

As at June 2012, there are 304 trade waste premises a breakdown of which is provided in Table 3.34.

Table 3.34 – Trade waste premises

Type Number

Mechanical 88

Food retail 164

Miscellaneous 17

Minimum category 29

Category 3 6

Total 304

Future Sewage Volumes

Technical Note 3 presents an assessment of future water demands for Orange which were derived using the DEUS Demand Management Decision Support System (DSS) version S1.1 (DEUS, 2006). The DSS model includes an estimate of the forecast effluent production based on the potable water demand and data relating to the split between internal and external water use. The DSS model calculates the: • STP annual inflow; • Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF); and • Wet Weather Flow (WWF).

Results from this modelling are discussed below for the Orange STP.

The forecast water demand and effluent generation for Orange was based on two growth projections: a medium rate of 0.8% pa; and a high rate of 1.1% pa. Forecast trends in annual effluent production under medium and high growth rates for the BAU scenario are shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27 respectively.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 78 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Baseline Forecast Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management

6000

5000

4000

3000 STP STP Inflow ((ML/year)

2000

1000

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 26: Forecast total annual effluent production – city of Orange, medium growth

Baseline Forecast Medium Demand Management = BAU High Demand Management

6000

5000

4000

3000 STP STP Inflow ((ML/year)

2000

1000

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 27: Forecast total annual effluent production – city of Orange, high growth

Effluent Availability

The majority of the treated effluent from the Orange STP is reused under agreement by Cadia Holdings Pty limited. Data presented above (see Table 3.33) shows an average of 72% of the effluent produced over the 2001 to 2010 period was transferred to CVO.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 79 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The annual STP inflow from an annual water production of 5,400 ML/year is 3,481 ML/year (refer to Technical Note 3). This indicates that with the reduced water production there is less effluent available and it is unlikely that CVO will transfer 10 ML/day. Modelling was used to estimate the average transfer over the next 20 years (to 2030) based on the forecast water production for the BAU scenario. This assessment determined an average transfer of 9.5 ML/day (3,467 ML/year).

The availability of spare treated effluent after meeting an average supply of 9.5 ML/day is indicated on Figure 28 for the BAU scenario. It should be noted that there are some treated effluent discharges above the volumes shown due to bypass events or mine shutdown that are not accounted for in the modelling. However, the modelling indicates that there is unlikely to be any consistent quantities of spare treated effluent until about 2025 under the medium growth rate and 2020 under the high growth rate.

BAU effluent production medium growth BAU effluent production high growth

Spare effluent medium growth Spare effluent high growth

6000

5000

4000

3000 STP STP Inflow ((ML/year)

2000

1000

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year

Figure 28: BAU treated effluent production and availability

Ability of System to Meet Future Demand

The Orange STP has a capacity of 60,000 EP or an approximate ADWF of 14 ML/day. The STP has capacity to provide full treatment up to approximately 43.2 ML/day (500 L/s). The existing STP therefore has sufficient capacity to meet the forecast effluent production over the next 30 years under the BAU scenario.

3.3.3.2 Spring Hill and Lucknow

Process: from use to reuse

Orange City Council provides reticulated sewerage services to the villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. The area serviced is shown on Figure 19. Sewage is collected from this area through approximately 40 km of sewer mains and four sewage pump stations.

Sewage is collected and delivered to the Spring Hill STP which is located to the north of the Spring Hill (Figure 19). The plant has a capacity to service up to 1,000 equivalent population (EP) or an approximate Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of 0.28 ML/day. The STP has capacity to provide full treatment up to approximately 2.3 ML/day

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 80 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The Spring Hill STP provides secondary treatment by means of extended aeration. The treated effluent from the STP is reused across an 11 hectare irrigation area.

Major Infrastructure

Major sewerage infrastructure is listed in Table 3.35.

Table 3.35 – Spring Hill and Lucknow sewerage major infrastructure

Water Component Quantity Treatment plant 1

Pump stations 4

Pipes (km) 40

Licence Conditions and Compliance

The Spring Hill STP operates under Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 3686. This licence regulates water pollution resulting from the activity of sewage treatment carried out at the Spring Hill STP.

The objectives of this licence are to: • require practical measures to protect the environment and public health from sewage treatment plant effluent; and • minimise the frequency and volume of sewage treatment plant bypasses.

The Spring Hill STP is a small plant licensed to treat sewage with greater than 20 and up to 100 ML discharged. Treated effluent is reused as irrigation water.

The EPL includes: • concentration and volume limits; • operational conditions; • monitoring (quantity and quality) and recording conditions; • reporting conditions; and • general conditions.

There are no pollution reduction programs attached to EPL 3686.

The Spring Hill STP 2010-2011 annual return indicated the following non-compliances with licence conditions: • Exceedance of the concentration limit (Condition L3.1) for pH at EPL Point 1 on one occasion with the highest recorded result being 9.8 pH units (limit 6.5 – 9.5 pH units). This was potentially due to temperature increases and reductions in total nitrogen; and • Exceedance of the volume limit (Condition L4.1) for discharge to the irrigation area at EPL Point 3 on one occasion with the highest recorded result being 490 kL/day (limit 200 kL/day).

The high discharge was due to a build-up of duck weed causing ponding. When this was cleared a flush moved through the system causing a spike in the daily irrigation volume. Vegetation growth is now regularly monitored during inspections. Council also installed a continuous flow meter and logger on the exported flows.

Effluent Reuse

Treated effluent is reused across 11 ha of irrigated pasture on land adjacent to the Spring Hill STP and on part of the Orange airport (which is operated by Council).

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 81 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Environmental monitoring at the Spring Hill STP is required to be undertaken according to EPL 3686 conditions. Groundwater samples from each of the two irrigation areas are collected and analysed twice per year. There continues to be no discernible impact on the groundwater quality from effluent irrigation.

Future Sewage Volumes

Technical Note 3 presents an assessment of future water demands for Spring Hill and Lucknow which were derived using the DEUS Demand Management Decision Support System (DSS) version S1.1 (DEUS, 2006). The DSS model includes an estimate of the forecast effluent production based on the potable water demand and data relating to the split between internal and external water use. The DSS model calculates the: • STP annual inflow; • Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF); and • Wet Weather Flow (WWF).

Results from this modelling are discussed below for the Spring Hill STP.

The forecast water demand and effluent generation for Spring Hill was based on two growth projections: a zero growth rate; and a high rate of 0.8% pa. Effluent production results for the BAU demand management scenario at 10 year intervals are summarised in Table 3.36.

The DSS model results show that annual effluent production is forecast to range between 28 and 35 ML/year with ADWF ranging between 0.06 to 0.08 ML/day for the BAU scenario.

Table 3.36 – Spring Hill and Lucknow effluent production forecast Scenario Measure Growth 2010 2020 2030 2040 BAU Annual inflow Zero 34 30 28 28 (ML/year) 0.8% 34 32 33 35 ADWF (ML/day) Zero 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.8% 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 WWF (ML/day) Zero 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.8% 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27

Ability of System to Meet Future Demand

The Spring Hill STP has a capacity of 1,000 EP or an approximate ADWF of 0.28 ML/day. The STP has capacity to provide full treatment up to approximately 2.3 ML/day. The existing STP therefore has sufficient capacity to meet the forecast effluent production over the next 50 years.

Treated effluent from the Spring Hill STP is reused across an 11 hectare irrigation area. The average annual application rate remains less than 4 ML/ha/year which is low and considered to be sustainable. The STP produces only a modest amount of treated effluent and the current management is considered to be the most appropriate use of the treated effluent.

3.3.3.3 Sewerage Asset Management Plan

Orange City Council developed a Sewerage Asset Management Plan (Sewerage AMP) as a flow-on from Council’s overall Asset Management Policy and Strategy which details the need for Council to prioritise the development of Asset Management Plans for all of its asset classes (IPWEA, 2011b). The assets covered by the Sewerage AMP are listed in Table 3.37.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 82 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.37 – Assets covered by the Sewerage AMP

Water Component Quantity Fair Value

Treatment Plants 2 45,499,083

Pump Stations 16 7,209,452

Pipes (km) 11 106,724,741

Access chambers 4 15,914,985

Total $175,348,261

Source: IPWEA (2011b) Table 1.1

Key elements of the Sewerage AMP are (IPWEA, 2011b): • Levels of service – specifies the standard to which services are provided by Council; • Future demand – how this will impact on future service delivery and how it will be addressed; • Life cycle management – how Council will manage its existing and future assets to provide the required services; • Financial summary – what funds are required to provide the required services; • Asset management practices; • Monitoring – how the plan will be monitored to ensure it is meeting Council’s objectives; and • Asset management improvement plan.

The Sewerage AMP identified that Council’s sewerage services are generally provided to meet applicable design standards and that the system is in working condition and it is maintained to this high level of service (IPWEA, 2011b).

The Sewerage AMP proposes to maintain sewerage assets at a Condition 3 threshold and it was identified that a higher annual renewal budget would be required for this purpose. The higher renewal budget has been adopted in Council’s management plan. It was identified that if asset renewal was delayed until a Condition 4 threshold is reached, annual renewal costs will decrease, however the risk of asset failure may lead to non-compliance (e.g. environmental overflows) and as a result a reduced level of service. This strategy could lead to higher maintenance costs in the short term.

Work is underway on importing detailed asset data into the corporate asset system and it is intended that the Sewerage AMP be reviewed during annual budget preparation and amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services as a result of the budget decision process (IPWEA, 2011b).

3.3.3.4 Sewerage System Management

Performance Summary

Table 3.38 provides a summary of the performance monitoring results for Council’s water supply services over the past seven reporting years. A comparison to the State median for 2010/11 is provided. This data demonstrates that the OCC sewerage services compare favourably to the state median values. Reported sewer overflows are higher than the state median. It is considered that this is due to Council’s diligent reporting.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 83 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.38 – Performance summary of OCC wastewater system

10/11 Sewerage System 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 State Median

Number of connected * 14,400 15,500 14,899 15,125 15,642 15,812 - properties

Volume of sewage treated * 294 202 * * * * * (kL per property)

Average residential bill 260 338 NR NR NR NR NR NR ($ per property)

Typical residential bill 273 273 273 283 292 292 334 570 ($ per property)

Operating cost 83 86 128 128 112 137 102 140 ($ per property)

Management cost ~90 ~100 ~120 ~145 ~140 ~140 ~210 232 ($ per property)

Sewer choke/collapse * 126 111 * * * * 41 (per 100km of main)

Sewer overflows * * 20 13 66 82 56 14 (per 100km of main)

Odour complaints (per 1000 * 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 properties)

Service complaints * * * * * * * * (per 1000 properties)

Source: NOW Performance Monitoring Reports 2005 – 2011 (* Data not collected or not available)

Management Initiatives

Management initiatives being undertaken by Orange City Council relating to sewerage services are summarised below.

Water Quality Management Plan

The water quality management plan described in Section 3.3.2.5 has recently been expanded to include effluent. This is due to the fact that Cadia Holdings Pty Limited receives treated effluent from the Orange STP and is therefore viewed as a customer. The plan ensures the quality of the treated effluent delivered is fit for purpose.

Sewerage System Model

A full system model has been developed for the sewerage system. The development of this model was supported through the installation of a number of new sewage gauging stations throughout the system.

This model will be used to identify any areas of the system that do not meet the agreed level of service, assess capital works required for system expansions to cater for new developments and will assist with the identification of significant inflow and infiltration areas in the system.

The system model is also used to inform the incident notification protocol by identifying overflow locations.

Incident Notification Protocol

Orange City Council has revised the Incident Notification Protocol in consultation with the EPA. The aim was to clearly define size and potential impact of overflow events to avoid over reporting.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 84 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.4 STORMWATER 3.3.4.1 Stormwater Systems

The Orange LGA is covers 287 km2 of which about 69% (198 km2) is rural. The urbanised part represents about 31% (88 km2) of the total LGA which includes the city of Orange and the villages of Spring Hill and Lucknow. Stormwater drainage infrastructure for the OCC LGA comprises conventional drainage systems in the urban areas with grassed roadside verges and swales in non-urban areas. The urban areas include several dry retarding basins and constructed stormwater management wetlands. All urban areas are serviced with some form of stormwater management system to management the movement of stormwater.

The Orange LGA has six major creek catchments: • Blackmans Swamp Creek; • Ploughmans Creek; • Spring Creek/Brandy Creek; • Gosling Creek; • Upper Summer Hill Creek; and • Lower Summer Hill Creek.

These catchments are shown in Figure 7. All of the catchments, except for Ploughmans Creek, run into the lower Summer Hill Creek catchment and onto Lewis Ponds Creek which joins the Macquarie River. Ploughmans Creek joins with Broken Shaft Creek and then becomes the Bell River. The Bell River joins the Macquarie River at Wellington.

Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek drain the urban catchment area of Orange city, as shown in Figure 29. Typically the upper reaches of these systems have little or no man made influences and are characterised by irregular sections with pools, springs and trickles associated with flat slopes (OCC, 2008). These upper catchment areas generally support rural residential or rural development, with drainage infrastructure typically associated with roads (i.e. table drains, culverts and causeways).

Within the urban areas, stormwater is managed through a system of natural channels, lined and unlined constructed channels, open drains and closed conduits. There are several dry retarding basins and constructed stormwater management wetlands throughout the system.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 85 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Holding Pond

Figure 29: Stormwater catchments

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 86 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

3.3.4.2 Stormwater Harvesting

Urbanisation increases the impervious surfaces in the catchment which increases the runoff volume and peak flow of stormwater. The runoff volume created by small rainfall events on urbanised areas makes stormwater a relatively reliable water source.

Orange City Council implemented ground-breaking stormwater harvesting schemes in the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek catchments in 2009 and 2010. The schemes make use of the additional runoff generated by development in the catchment. The basic concept involves capturing a portion of the high flows in the creeks during storm events, then treating and transferring these into Suma Park Reservoir to augment the city’s bulk water supply.

The approved stormwater harvesting schemes that contribute to Orange’s raw water supply system are: • Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting operating on a 50% Suma Park Reservoir trigger – this is referred to as Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 1a; and • Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting operating on a 100% Suma Park Reservoir trigger.

The Suma Park Reservoir trigger described above refers to the volume in the reservoir below which the schemes can be operated.

Details of these systems are provided in Technical Note 2.

3.3.4.3 Existing and Future Stormwater Volumes

Catchment modelling has been undertaken during the design, development and commissioning of the two stormwater harvesting schemes. This modelling has estimated existing and future stormwater volumes and has been used to assess a range of stormwater harvesting options. Table 3.39 provides a summary of the potential stormwater volumes available from each catchment and the average annual harvest volume using the approved schemes. Further details are provided in Technical Note 2.

Table 3.39 – Summary of harvest volumes from approved stormwater harvesting schemes

Average Annual Average Volume Proportion of Catchment Streamflow Harvested Streamflow Harvested ML/year ML/year

Blackmans Swamp Creek 9,479 193 2%

Holding Pond 209 156 75%

Ploughmans Creek 3,057 509 17%

Total – Blackmans system 9,688 349 4%

Total – Ploughmans system 3,057 509 17%

Total – both schemes 12,745 858 7%

The current approval for the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme does not allow its use whenever Suma Park Reservoir is above 50%. Orange City Council has made application under Section 10 of the Water Act 1912 for a licence to use the scheme on a permanent basis; however this licence application is yet to be determined.

Obtaining a licence to use the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme at times when Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100% increases the system harvest capacity. Table 3.40 provides a summary of the potential stormwater volumes available from each catchment and the average annual harvest volume using if a licence is granted to operate the schemes whenever Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100%. This could increase the average annual harvest volume by around 490 ML/year.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 87 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.40 – Summary of harvest volumes from stormwater harvesting schemes on 100% trigger

Average Annual Average Volume Proportion of Catchment Streamflow Harvested Streamflow Harvested ML/year ML/year

Blackmans Swamp Creek 9,479 762 8%

Holding Pond 209 86 41%

Ploughmans Creek 3,057 499 16%

Total – Blackmans system 9,688 848 9%

Total – Ploughmans system 3,057 499 16%

Total – both schemes 12,745 1,347 11%

Development within the current urbanised sections of the Blackmans Swamp Creek catchment is unlikely to significantly alter the average annual runoff volume and potential harvest volume. Currently undeveloped areas to the north and south of Orange are zoned for future residential and rural residential development. Development in these areas will increase runoff volumes. Harvesting options were investigated in these catchments as potential future water sources (refer to Table 3.7 and Technical Note 2). Modelling demonstrated that together these three systems could realise a secure yield increase in the order of 300 to 500 ML/year once the catchment areas are fully developed.

Orange City Council has identified the need for a number of retarding basins in the Blackmans Swamp Creek system (see discussion below on flooding). These will benefit stormwater harvesting by extending the runoff hydrograph which will provide longer harvesting times.

The Ploughmans Creek system will generate more runoff as the catchment is developed. Modelling of the Ploughmans Creek harvesting scheme indicated the average annual harvest volume could increase by 100 ML/year once the catchment is fully developed (Geolyse, 2009).

3.3.4.4 Stormwater Quality

Water quality is a critical factor in the success of the city’s stormwater harvesting scheme. Urban stormwater can include a range of pollutants that left untreated or unmanaged, would pose a threat to the city’s raw water supplies. The source of stormwater pollutants in an urban setting can range from atmospheric deposition to direct discharge.

A summary of stormwater quality data for Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek is provided in Table 3.41. Physical parameters monitored in both creek systems (suspended solids and turbidity) show that the stormwater in the Ploughmans Creek system is markedly better compared to the Blackmans Swamp Creek system. This reflects the different land use in the Ploughmans Creek Catchment. Likewise the nutrient content of the stormwater is lower.

Monitoring in the Blackmans Swamp Creek system shows there is a strong relationship between suspended solids and most metals. The Ploughmans Creek data indicates a similar relationship with most metals being lower when compared to the Blackmans Swamp Creek data.

Indicators of microbiological contamination (E Coli, Clostridium perfringens and somatic coliphages) are also much lower in the Ploughmans Creek data.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 88 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.41 – Water quality summary: Ploughmans Creek and Blackmans Swamp Creek

Ploughmans Creek Blackmans Swamp Creek

Number Number Analyte Unit of of Mean 95%ile Mean 95%ile Samples Samples (n) (n)

Total suspended solids mg/L 20 91 214 72 184 386

Turbidity NTU 20 92 191 72 152 283

pH pH units Range Range 20 7.33 7.03- 72 7.24 6.06- 8.17 8.14

Biochemical oxygen demand mg/L 20 3.1 8.1 72 5.8 14.7

Total phosphorus mg/L 20 0.13 0.211 72 0.29 0.705

Total nitrogen mg/L 20 0.77 1.21 72 1.55 3.44

Nitrate mgN/L 20 0.128 0.273 68 0.375 0.740

Chloride mg/L 3 4.96 5.91 25 4.45 10.00

Fluoride mg/L 3 0.053 0.067 19 0.056 0.090

Sulfate mg/L 3 2.62 3.42 25 6.00 13.96

Calcium mg/L 3 9.00 10.70 25 10.56 19.80

Magnesium mg/L 3 3.67 4.80 25 4.56 11.20

Sodium mg/L 3 4.67 5.80 25 4.64 10.60

Potassium mg/L 3 2.00 2.00 25 2.08 2.80

Iron mg/L 20 3.13 6.51 72 4.85 12.81

Manganese mg/L 20 0.20 0.511 72 0.23 0.600

Lead mg/L 20 0.004 0.007 72 0.015 0.037

Aluminium mg/L 3 1.61 2.23 25 4.77 10.32

Mercury mg/L 20 <0.0001 <0.0001 70 <0.0001 <0.0001

Oil and grease mg/L 20 <10 <10 72 4.10 5

E. coli CFU/100mL 20 1226 2605 72 11238 32450

Somatic coliphages pfu/100mL 17 220 430 60 1855 5335

Clostridium perfringens CFU/100mL 17 2430 4900 60 3505 6960

4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid µg/L 20 <10 <10 72 <3.267 5

Mecoprop µg/L 20 <10 <10 72 <3.27 5

MCPA µg/L 20 <4.27 <5.000 72 <3.34 5

2.4-D µg/L 20 <4.25 <5.000 72 <3.29 5

Triclopyr µg/L 20 <10 <10 72 <3.27 5

Glyphosate µg/L 20 <10 <10 72 5.99 9.5

TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <10 <10 72 <20 <20

TPH C10-C14 µg/L 20 <25 <25 72 25.76 25

TPH C15-C28 µg/L 20 <58 <58 72 126.25 300

TPH C29-C36 µg/L 20 <28 <28 72 72.22 214.5

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 3 <0.5 <0.5 25 0.289 0.580

Source: Geolyse (2009)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 89 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The stormwater harvesting schemes have been designed with an integrated suite of catchment, system and operational barriers to manage water quality and the risk associated with using stormwater to supplement the water supply. These barriers include: • Catchment level – implementation of plans and policies to protect stormwater quality. The scheme provides an opportunity for community education regarding stormwater and catchment management; • System level – a “treatment train” approach incorporating a series of system components (e.g. GPTs, wetlands and ponds) designed to remove pollutants in the stormwater; and • Operational level – operation of the system in a manner that optimises the quality of the stormwater (while retaining base creek flow) and does not allow discharge into Suma Park Reservoir storage until quality targets have been met.

Water quality risks are formalised through the implementation of the Framework for the Management of Drinking Water Quality which involves systematically assessing where and how contaminants may arise, how they may reach the consumer and how to protect the consumer from such contamination. A key component for water quality management is the development of treated stormwater quality targets. Currently targets are set for 152 parameters and the scheme has successfully met these targets during its initial operation.

3.3.4.5 Flooding

Blackmans Swamp Creek and its tributaries, Rifle Range Creek and East Orange Creek, pass through the urban area in various channels, from its natural state to concrete lined channels and piped sections. The Flood Study for Blackmans Swamp Creek found these structures were not large enough to convey a range of design flood events (DHI, 2005). This means, for a range of design flood events, many of the roads in the centre of Orange are inundated. The flooding is not sustained for an extended period of time.

Following the flood study, Council commissioned the preparation of a floodplain risk management study and plan. The objectives of this study were to (Lyall & Associates, 2007): • review existing Council policies as they relate to the development of land in flood liable land bordering Blackmans Swamp Creek and its tributaries; • consider options for management of flood liable land; and • develop a Floodplain Risk Management Plan (FRMP).

This study included an assessment of the flood damages which are shown in Table 3.42.

Table 3.42 – Blackmans Swamp Creek flood damages

Number of properties affected and flood damages ($ million) Total Flood Flood Event (1) Damage % AEP Residential Commercial/Industrial Public Buildings $ million

5 26 1.2 68 16.5 6 0.5 18.2

2 31 1.5 83 19.9 6 0.7 22.1

1 38 1.8 104 27.0 8 1.2 30.0

0.5 48 2.2 121 34.5 13 1.6 38.3

PMF(2) 918 71.5 451 563.1 23 87.2 721.8

Source: Lyall & Associates, 2007. (1) AEP = Annual Exceedance Probability; (2) PMF = Probable Maximum Flood

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 90 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The FRMP developed from this study is based on (Lyall & Associates, 2007): • The continuation of Council’s detention basin strategy for flood mitigation by the construction of additional basins on Blackmans Swamp Creek and Rifle Range Creek; • Improvements in the hydraulic capacity of East Orange Creek; • Planning and development controls for future development in flood prone areas; • Improvements to existing flood preparedness and awareness in the Blackmans Swamp Creek community; and • Upgrading of flood warning and response procedures by the development of a Flash Flood Warning System.

Hydraulic modelling of the Ploughmans Creek system has been completed (DHI, 2005) and an earlier floodplain risk management study and plan (Lyall & Associates, 1999). This system does not exhibit the same flooding pressures at the Blackmans Swamp Creek system as the main drainage line is a relatively creek system with adequate buffers to developed areas.

3.3.4.6 Stormwater System Management

Management initiatives being undertaken by Orange City Council relating to stormwater services are summarised below.

Water Quality Management Plan

The water quality management plan described in Section 3.3.2.5 includes the stormwater harvesting systems as they are an integral component of the water supply system.

Many of the actions from the Stormwater Management Plan are being incorporated in to the Water Quality Management Plan (e.g. wetland systems and management for water quality control).

3.3.5 WATER SERVICE MANAGEMENT 3.3.5.1 Best Practice Management

The NSW Office of Water (NOW) provides guidelines on best practice management of water supply and sewerage services. The guidelines identify 6 criteria for best practice management, summarised in Table 3.43 below including details of the Orange response.

Table 3.43 – NOW Best Practice Management criteria

Criteria Status

Strategic Business Planning Orange City Council Strategic Business Plans for Water Supply and Sewerage Services 2009; prepared and adopted by Council.

Pricing (including Developer Charges, Liquid Developer charges (headwork’s) are determined on the basis of the Trade Waste Policy and Approval) OCC Development Servicing Plans for Sewerage and OCC Development Servicing Plans for Water Supply (adopted)

Council has developed and adopted the Policy for Discharge of Liquid Trade Waste to the Sewerage System

Approvals process managed through section 68 of the Local Government Act

Water Conservation Water Savings Action Plans Orange City Council Demand Management Plan 2007 (adopted)

Drought Management Orange City Council Drought Management Plan (2008) (adopted and currently being updated via a draft released March 2012) Centroc Regional Drought Management Plan

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 91 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.43 – NOW Best Practice Management criteria

Criteria Status Performance Reporting Orange Annual Report NSW Office of Water NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Performance Monitoring Report 2010-11, see Table 1.2 below.

Integrated Water Cycle Management In progress (this document)

NOW produce a yearly Utilities Performance Monitoring Report that reports on the success of a water authority in meeting the above criteria. Table 3.44 sets out Orange’s results for the period 2005-2011.

Table 3.44 – Orange City Council Best Practice Management compliance

Measure 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11

Water Supply and Sewerage Revenue ($M) 21.0 20.0 20.9 26.2 17.0 18.5

(1) Strategic Business Plan Complete Current 20 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 30-year SBP & FP (Yes/No)

(2a) Full cost recovery, minimal cross Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Subsidies

(2b) Complying Residential Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2c) Revenue from Residential Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Usage Charges >=75%

(2d) Complying Non-Residential Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Charges Yes/No (2e) DSP with Commercial Developer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) Pricing(1) and Developer Charges

(3) Sound Water Conservation Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implemented (Yes/No) Water Supply (4) Sound Drought Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implemented (Yes/No)

(5) Complete performance Reporting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes by 15 September each year (Yes/No)

(6) Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Commenced (Yes/No)

Overall compliance with all 10 required Criteria (%) 90 100 100 100 100 90

Proposed Dividend from Surplus $'000 ------

(1) Strategic Business Plan Complete Current 20 to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 30-year SBP & FP (Yes/No)

(2a) Full cost recovery, minimal cross Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Subsidies

(2b) Complying Residential Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(2c) Revenue from Residential Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Usage Charges >=75%

(2d) Complying Non-Residential Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sewerage (2e) DSP with Commercial Developer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) Pricing (1) Developer and Charges Yes/No Charges

(3) Sound Water Conservation Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implemented (Yes/No)

(4) Sound Drought Management Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implemented (Yes/No)

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 92 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.44 – Orange City Council Best Practice Management compliance

Measure 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 (5) Complete performance Reporting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes by 15 September each year (Yes/No)

(6) Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Commenced (Yes/No)

Overall compliance with all 10 required Criteria (%) 90 100 100 100 100 100

Proposed Dividend from Surplus $'000 ------

Source: NSW water supply and sewerage performance monitoring reports 2005 - 2011

Overall OCC has a generally strong record of compliance with the Best Practice Management guidelines with only two years in the last six at less than 100% compliance.

3.3.5.2 Strategic Business Plan

OCC has a Strategic Business Plan (SBP) that addresses the development and operation of the water and sewerage businesses (WorleyParson, 2009). The SBP identifies key objectives under the following headings: • Customer service; • Environment; • Asset management; • Human resources; and • Financial planning.

Technical Note 1 summarises the key objectives and targets for each of these areas.

3.3.5.3 Pricing

Orange City Council is required to comply with the DWE Pricing requirements. Table 3.45 outlines the requirements and Council’s compliance to these requirements.

Table 3.45 – DWE Pricing Requirements

DWE Requirement OCC Compliance

Water Supply Tariff

Appropriate water usage charge/kL based on the long run  marginal cost of water supply.

Access charge relative to a customer’s capacity  requirements.

No land value based charges (i.e. rates) and no ‘free’ or  ‘prepaid’ water allowance.

Any large increases in non-residential customer bills phased  in over 5 years.

To encourage water conservation, high water consuming residential customers should be subjected to a step price increase of at least 50% for incremental usage above a  specified threshold. This threshold should not exceed 450 OCC step price increase is 50% for incremental usage kL/a per household, except for LWU’s outside the DWE above 450 kL/a per household. Coastal and Tablelands Zone with a high incidence of evaporative air coolers, where a threshold of up to 600 KL/a per household may be used.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 93 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.45 – DWE Pricing Requirements

DWE Requirement OCC Compliance LWUs with 4 000 or more connected properties to have at  least 75% of residential revenue generated through usage Only 57% of residential revenue was generated through charges by June 2008 (at least 50% required by June 2006 usage charges in 06/07. It is currently around 60% (W Beatty and at least 60% required by June 2007). pers com) Low revenue from usage charges was attributed to reduced water sales as a result of the high level of water restrictions imposed during this period.

Sewerage Tariff

Appropriate residential tariff. 

No land value based charges (i.e. rates). 

Non-residential two-part tariff. 

Non-residential tariff with appropriate sewer usage  charge/kL.

Non-residential tariff with access charge that is reflective of  the cost of providing theses sewerage services.

Any large increases in non-residential customer bills phased  in over 5 years.

Liquid Trade Waste Fees, Charges and Approvals

Annual trade waste fee for all LTW discharges. 

Trade waste usage charge for dischargers with prescribed  pre-treatment.

Excess mass charges for large dischargers and industrial  waste.

LTW approvals issued in accordance with the LTW Management Guidelines, Department of Energy, Utilities and  Sustainability, NSW, March 2005

Developer Charges

Water and sewerage DSP in accordance with the Developer Charges Guidelines for Water Supply, Sewerage and  Stormwater, Department of Land and Water Conservation, NSW 2002, with commercial developer charges.

Complying Tariffs for Dual Water Supplies

The potable water supply tariff in dual water supplies to N/A comply with all water supply tariff requirements, except that New developments (west and northwest of the city) have step pricing is not a requirement. dual reticulation supply however currently there is no effluent available for reuse in the system. 365 houses were connected to the dual pipe system at 30 June 2008.

For the non-potable component of dual water supplies:

LWUs are encouraged to install a non-potable water meter  for each customer served where practical. 100% of new residential developments have individual non- potable water meter

Appropriate non-potable water usage charge/kL based on N/A long-running marginal cost. At October 2008 there has not been non-potable water available for the dual water supply system. The system currently runs with town water.

Access charge relative to a customer’s capacity N/A requirements. At October 2008 there has not been non-potable water available for the dual water supply system. The system currently runs with town water.

No land value based charges (i.e. rates) and no ‘free’ or  ‘prepaid’ non-potable water allowance.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 94 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 3.45 – DWE Pricing Requirements

DWE Requirement OCC Compliance At least 50% of residential revenue generated through usage At October 2008 there has not been non-potable water charges. available for the dual water supply system. The system currently runs with town water.

Source: WorleyParsons, 2009

3.3.5.4 Demand Management Plan

Demand management is ultimately the reduction of wasting water and improvements to environmental health. This leads to, the reduction in water consumption will maintain higher levels for longer, which may have added benefit of alternative sources of water not required as soon as otherwise would have been the case and this can have implications on capital works. Demand management frees up water resources for city growth purposes, it may alleviate the need for costly upgrades to water supply infrastructure, and the domestic water saved may benefit the environment if the savings are committed to environmental purposes.

The OCC Demand Management Plan has outlined areas where demand will impact on current water sources and assets. Demand management would be more cost-effective to the Council and community than new capital works to increase supplies. The Council have numerous strategies already implemented for the city of Orange. These include education, user-pays, Water Loss Reduction Strategy, water efficient devices, and water re-use of grey-water on site of properties. A reduction in consumption has occurred within the Orange LGA (refer to Figure 24).

In the future some further behavioural change could come through: • Increasing opportunities for communication with consumers; • Staying up-to-date with efficient water use measures; • Implementing permanent water saving rules; • Other economic incentives (e.g. dual flush toilets, and efficient washing machines); and • Developing a Council Water Efficiency plan and installing infrastructure.

The provision of stormwater to the dual water system will reduce potable water demand.

Centroc is developing a regional demand management plan and Council will finalise the Orange city demand management plan to be consistent with the regional plan as required.

3.3.5.5 Drought Management Plan

Orange relies solely on rainfall in its relatively small catchment, a year with almost no rainfall (as seen in 2006) can have detrimental effect on the city’s water supply. It is therefore important to develop a Drought Management Plan for the Orange City Council LGA.

The objectives of the Drought Management Plan are to provide both permanent water conservation measures as well as timely and effective response to water shortages due to insufficient rainfall. The aim being to ensure a continuous supply of water (drinking and other use) of a quality and quantity that meets community expectations and minimises, as much as practical, the social, environmental and economic impacts of drought conditions. It ensures that even with minimal annual water yield from the dams, water will still continue to be available on a restricted basis to meet water demands.

On top of the permanent water demand strategies and the use of trigger storage levels to implement water restrictions and consumption targets, OCC has been developing alternative water sources. These water sources are contingency plans for when the current water supply systems will not be able to meet the minimum town water demands.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 95 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The current Orange City Drought Management plan was adopted in 2008. This plan is currently being updated via a draft released in March 2012 (not yet in the public domain).

Centroc is developing a regional drought management plan and Council will finalise the Orange city drought management plan to be consistent with the regional plan as required.

3.3.5.6 Stormwater Management Plan

Orange City Council was directed to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan under Section 12 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act, 1991. Council has complied with this directive and has implemented a Stormwater Management Plan which was last updated in 2008.

Many of the actions from the Stormwater Management Plan are being incorporated in to the Water Quality Management Plan (e.g. wetland systems and management for water quality control, monitoring).

3.3.5.7 Annual Performance Reports and Action Plans

Orange City Council complies with the annual reporting requirements and incorporates actions into the management plan as required.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 96 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Data Gaps and IWCM Issues

4.1 DATA GAP STATUS

A number of data gaps have been identified in the IWCM Concept Study (MWH (2007), in NOW’s review of the 2007 IWCM Concept Study (refer to Appendix A) and in the preparation of this IWCM Evaluation Study. Table 4.1 lists all the data gaps, where they were derived and cites the location of the discussion of their context. For those identified remaining data gaps there is are suggested actions to address the gaps.

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

1 Population growth since IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.1.2 No - (1) 2003 Study • Technical Note 3

2 Level of saline discharges IWCM Concept • Section 3.1.9.2 No - into waterways from high Study(1) salinity hazard areas

3 Impact of DEC licensed IWCM Concept • Section 3.1.8 No - activities on water quality Study(1)

4 Impact of contaminated IWCM Concept • Section 3.1.9.2 No - sites on water quality Study(1)

5 Average annual flow IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.4 No - volumes for town catchment Study(1) creeks

6 Surface water extraction IWCM Concept • Section 3.1.7 No - licences – number, Study(1) allocations and utilisation of licences

7 Licensed groundwater IWCM Concept • Section 3.2.2 No - (1) extraction allocations and Study • Technical Note 2 utilisation

8 Reliability of groundwater IWCM Concept • Section 3.2.2 No - (1) supply Study • Technical Note 2

9 Water quality and impact of IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Water quality in the urbanisation and rural land Study(1) catchment is being use directly downstream of monitored and is Orange LGA being managed under the Water Quality Management Plan • Environmental flow study being undertaken in Summer Hill Creek system – due for completion at end of 2012 • Considered to be a low importance data gap • Review monitoring data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 97 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

10 Recent assessment of IWCM Concept • Section 3.2.2 No - (1) reliability of water yield Study • Technical Note 2

11 Drought Management Plan IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5.5 No - Study(1)

12 Status of implementation of IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 No - proposed management Study(1) strategies for town water supply system, sewerage system and stormwater system

13 On-site disposal systems IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.3.1 No - locations, types, Study(1) performance and register

14 Proportion of urban area IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.4 No - serviced with stormwater Study(1) system

15 Flooding impacts on IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.4.5 No - property and water and Study(1) sewer services

16 Spring Hill and Lucknow IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.2.2 No - bore water quality Study(1)

17 Impact of extended Cadia IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.1.2 No - (1) Valley Operations life on Study • Technical Note 3 population growth

18 Water quality data for the IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Water quality in the town water supply dams to Study(1) reservoirs is being determine the protection of monitored and is the DEC’s environmental being managed criteria for reservoirs in town under the Water water supply catchments Quality Management Plan • Considered to be a low importance data gap • Review monitoring data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

19 Water quality of creeks and IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Water quality in the stormwater in town water Study(1) catchment is being supply catchments to monitored and is determine the protection of being managed DEC’s environmental criteria under the Water Quality Management Plan • Considered to be a low importance data gap • Review monitoring data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 98 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

20 Impact of old mine sites IWCM Concept • Section 3.1.9.2 Yes • Water quality in the (1) (manganese and iron) on Study catchment is being water quality monitored and is being managed under the Water Quality Management Plan • Considered to be a low importance data gap • Review monitoring data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

21 Groundwater interactions IWCM Concept • Section 3.2.2 No - (1) Study • Technical Note 2

22 Demand management IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 No - (1) initiatives framework Study • Technical Note 3

23 Production data – the IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Unaccounted for (1) outflow from both WTPs are Study • Technical Note 3 water (UFW) is an not directly gauged important measure of efficiency and Council is undertaking actions to accurately quantify this measure. Actions include the installation of additional meters and the development of a system wide water model. This work is currently ongoing. • At the time of the modelling for the IWCM, the best available information indicates UFW of around 10%. This is based on the estimated 20% UFW derived in the Concept Study (MWH, 2007) and the 500 ML/year saving achieved in the leak reduction program completed in 2009. • Review water data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 99 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

24 Consumption data – the IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Considered to be a (1) billing system does not Study • Technical Note 3 low importance data categorise accounts gap that has not according to their customer impacted on the type making analysis of ability to determine customer type consumption forecast water behaviour difficult to demands determine • Council recently completed water system model that is being used to identify where additional flow monitoring is required • Council is considering revisions to its billing system • Review water data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

25 Customer consumption IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Considered to be a (1) behaviour – insufficient data Study • Technical Note 3 low importance data to assess behaviour of gap that has not different customer impacted on the categories due to lack of ability to determine directly gauged production forecast water data that is reservoir demands corrected, and lack of • Council recently consumption data according completed water to the customer category system model that is being used to identify where additional flow monitoring is required • Review water data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

26 System losses – there is IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Considered to be a (1) currently insufficient data to Study • Technical Note 3 low importance data assess system losses. The gap that has not method of monitoring impacted on the production and consumption ability to determine means unaccounted for forecast water water (UFW) represents demands more than system losses • Council’s leak and unmetered usage alone reduction program has saved 500 ML/year • Council recently completed water system model that is being used to identify where additional flow monitoring is required • Review water data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 100 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

27 The wastewater flow IWCM Concept • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Considered to be a (1) gauging data upstream and Study • Technical Note 3 low importance data inside Orange STP is not gap thought to be representative • Council recently of the wastewater flows, the completed sewerage gauges require further system model that is calibration being used to system flows. Additional system gauges were installed and are monitored for this model • Review sewerage data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

28 IWCM Strategy will need to NOW concept • Section 3.2 No - give greater consideration to study approval • Section 5.1 (2) the need for alternate or letter • Technical Note 2 diversified water sources and low dependence on climate change

29 Need to address NOW concept • Section 3.2 No - uncertainties, data gaps and study approval • Section 5.1 (2) risks including those letter • Technical Note 2 associated with climate change

30 Should address the results NOW concept • Section 3.2 No - of climate change modelling study approval • Section 5.3.2 (2) letter • Technical Note 2

31 Need to more effectively NOW concept • Section 3.2 No - identify demand study approval • Section 3.3.5 (2) management information letter • Technical Note 3 and options

32 High water usage in Spring NOW concept • Section 3.3.2.2 No - Hill and Lucknow study approval • Technical Note 3 letter(2)

33 Environmental flow IWCM • Section 3.3.5 Yes • Environmental flow requirements for Summer Evaluation • Technical Note 2 study being Hill Creek system Study undertaken in Summer Hill Creek system – due for completion at end of 2012 • This study linked to raising Suma Park Dam and stormwater harvesting • Considered to be a low importance data gap • Review findings data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 101 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.1 – IWCM data gaps

Strategy to address Derived Remaining Item Data Gap Reference the From Data Gap? gap/recommendation

34 Finalisation of Cadia IWCM • Section 3.3.3.1 Yes • Considered to be a Holdings Pty Limited water Evaluation • Technical Note 2 low importance data supply agreement Study gap at present as it is assumed as per the existing arrangement that the majority of treated effluent is not available • Review outcomes and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

35 Full licence for Blackmans IWCM • Section 3.3.4 Yes • Considered to be a Swamp Creek Stage 1 Evaluation • Technical Note 2 low importance data stormwater harvesting Study gap at present as the current approved system provide a reasonable secure yield increase • Review outcomes and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

36 Suma Park Dam IWCM • Section 5.2 Yes • Considered to be a environmental flow release Evaluation low importance data records Study gap at present as the current approved system provide a reasonable secure yield increase • Review outcomes and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review

Source: (1) MWH (2007); (2) see Appendix A

4.2 IWCM ISSUES

The IWCM process is about addressing urban water service related problems. Table 2.1 lists the final IWCM targets – the “must do” targets – for the Orange urban water service. These targets are reproduced below in Table 4.2 and a comment is provided as a summary of the data relevant to the assessment of each target which leads to the conclusion of compliance or non-compliance. Non- compliance is used to define IWCM issues. This assessment has identified: • Six (6) water supply IWCM issues; • Five (5) sewerage IWCM issues; and • Two (2) stormwater IWCM issues.

These are the IWCM issues that remain before consideration of the Business as Usual Scenario.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 102 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service IWCM Obligation Target Comments and Element Issue?

Water Supply

Water extraction Legislative 100% compliance Water extraction for town water supply: No from the Summer requirement with licence • Up to 7,800 ML in any one year. Hill Creek system conditions • Up to 15,600 ML in one year provided diversion does not exceed 23,400 ML in any three (3) year period. • Applies to water extracted from Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams for town water supply purposes. • Forecast water demand in 2040 ~ 6,660 ML/year under high population growth.

Environmental flow Legislative 100% compliance • Suma Park Dam licence (80SL046857) Yes requirement with licence includes a condition for an environmental conditions flow release of 12 L/s (equivalent to 1 ML/day), or the flow entering the dam, whichever is the lesser, into Summer Hill Creek downstream whenever there is flow entering the storage. • There is an upstream gauge which is continuous monitored to measure inflow to the dam. • There is a small V-notch downstream to measure and permit adjustment of discharge; however this is not continuously recorded. • Generally complied with, although no records are available to quantify compliance.

Groundwater Legislative 100% compliance Spring Hill and Lucknow water supply: No extraction limit requirement with licence • Licence extraction limit for town water conditions supply is 75 ML/year (licence 80BL025285). • Current extraction for Lucknow and Spring Hill < 70 ML/year. • Forecast water demand expected to remain < 75 ML/year for next 25 years.

Groundwater Legislative 100% compliance Orange water supply bores: No extraction limit requirement with licence • Licence extraction limit for town water conditions supply is 462ML/year (refer to Table 3.28). • Licences granted in March 2012, not yet used.

Environmental Legislative 100% compliance • Licence regulates water pollution resulting No protection requirement with licence from the application of a copper based conditions algicide at Suma Park and Spring Creek dams. • Algicide application has not been required in the last 10 years.

Management of Legislative 100% compliance • OCC owns five (5) dams which are all No prescribed dams requirement with DSC prescribed dams under the Dams Safety requirements Act, 1978. • Surveillance reporting completed as required. • Dam upgrade works complete for Spring Creek Dam. • Investigation and design works for Suma Park Dam safety upgrade works in progress. Funds included in Capital Works Program (CWP) for safety upgrade. • Further investigation, documentation and reporting in progress as required by the Dams Safety Committee (DSC) based on an agreed 5 year plan.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 103 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service IWCM Obligation Target Comments and Element Issue?

Security of water LOS Comply with the • Secure yield under 5/10/10 design Yes supply 5/10/10 design standard for the existing approved water standard for supply system is 4,750 ML/year. imposing water • Existing (2010) unrestricted demand is restrictions 5,400 ML/year. • Current “shortfall” in secure yield is 650 ML/year. • Forecast water demand in 2040 is 6,655 ML/year under high population growth. • Climate change could increase the water demand by around 460 ML/year above this.

Security of water Council adopted Comply with the • Council’s adopted strategy aims to deliver Yes supply policy Council adopted water supply infrastructure up to 10 years policy prior to the projected demand. • Current system secure yield is less than current (2010) unrestricted demand (see above). • Minimum secure yield required now (2010) is 5,350 to 5,520 ML/year (to meet forecast demand in 2020).

Alternative water Legislative Ensure the dual • Council had intended to supply treated No supply requirement water reticulation effluent to the dual water reticulation area is provided system. This was approved as an with an approved alternative water supply under BASIX. alternative water • The continued operation of Cadia mine supply source beyond 2012 means that sufficient treated effluent will not be available to adequately supply the scheme. • The DoP has granted approval to use harvested stormwater in the dual water supply system. This will be recognised as an alternative water supply in the online BASIX tool. • Council has resolved to construct the required infrastructure in 2012.

Water quality Legislative 100% compliance • Risk based drinking water quality plan in No requirement with ADWG place. • 100% physical water quality compliance. • 100% chemical water quality compliance. • All water supply zones comply. • 100% microbiological (E. coli) compliance. • 100% population with microbiological compliance

Water quality Legislative Meet NSW Health • Monitoring undertaken in accordance with No sampling requirement sampling frequency requirements. requirements (52 • No breaches identified in 2010/11 per year)

Nashdale water Contractual Compliance with • No breaches identified. No users requirement Nashdale Water • Current agreement is in place. Users Scheme • Update status at 6 year review. Agreement

WH&S Legislative 100% compliance • Appropriate plans are in place and no No requirement with statutory breaches have been identified. requirements

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 104 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service IWCM Obligation Target Comments and Element Issue?

Unaccounted for Best Practice < 10% of total • 2007 concept study found that annual Yes water water treated unaccounted for water (UFW) is relatively high as the available data indicated it did not go below 20%. The typical amount is about 10% to allow for leakage and unmetered activities. • It was noted that the data may have been under estimating water consumption and over estimating water production which could have contributed to this result. Further investigation into Unaccounted for Water (UFW) was recommended. • Orange City Council undertook a major leak and pressure reduction program in 2009 that has saved 500 ML/year; this would have been a component of the UFW. This would reduce the UFW to around 10%. • Update status at 6 year review.

Customer Best Practice Implement a • 2007 concept study found the billing Yes consumption metering and billing system does not categorise accounts behaviour system to according to their customer type making categorise analysis of customer type consumption accounts according behaviour difficult to determine. to their customer type

Management of Best Practice Comply with all 6 • Strategic Business Plan in place; will Yes scheme Best Practice require revision following completion of the criteria IWCM Strategy. • Pricing policy (including Developer Charges, Liquid Trade Waste policy and Approvals) in place. • Draft Demand Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Demand Management Plan which is in progress. • Draft Drought Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Drought Management Plan which is in progress. • Compliance with performance reporting. • IWCM in progress. • Update status at 6 year review.

Sewerage

Environmental Legislative 100% compliance • OCC hold Environment Protection Yes protection requirement with EPA licence Licences for the Orange Sewage conditions Treatment Plant (STP) and the Spring Hill STP. • Exceedance of discharge limits for Faecal coliforms (5 occasions), total residual chlorine (1 occasion) and total nitrogen (1 occasion) for last reporting period (2010- 2011) at the Orange STP. • Exceedance of discharge limits for pH and volume (1 occasion) for last reporting period (2010-2011) at the Spring Hill STP.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 105 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service IWCM Obligation Target Comments and Element Issue?

Effluent reuse Contractual Compliance with • This agreement commenced in December Yes requirement Cadia Project 1997 and requires the supply of treated Water Supply effluent from the Orange STP to Cadia Agreement Holdings according to the following conditions: - the initial 10 ML/day of treated effluent - thereafter any remaining treated effluent up to a maximum of 3 ML/day - thereafter any residual • Average volume supplied over the ten year period 2001-2011 is 8.2 ML/day; 72% of effluent. • Percentage of treated effluent supplied to Cadia Holdings over the past five years: - 2006/07 94% - 2007/08 93% - 2008/09 86% - 2009/10 91% - 2010/11 28% • The agreement was set to continue for the life of the mine.

On-site effluent Legislative Implement and • On-site effluent management system No management requirement maintain an on-site policy developed and implemented. effluent register • Audits of register underway. • Update status at 6 year review.

WH&S Legislative 100% compliance • Appropriate plans are in place and no No requirement with statutory breaches have been identified. requirements

Inflow and Best Practice Reduce infiltration • Large spikes in inflow volumes at the Yes infiltration by 25% Orange STP during storms. • Possible effect on effluent discharge quality.

Effluent quantity Best Practice Calibrated • Wastewater flow gauging data upstream Yes wastewater flow and inside the Orange STP is not thought measurement to be representative of the wastewater flows. • Calibration of sewage flow gauges required.

Trade waste policy Best Practice Compliant trade • A liquid trade waste policy that fully No waste policy satisfies DEUS requirements has been adopted by Council.

Management of Best Practice Comply with all 6 • Strategic Business Plan in place; will Yes scheme Best Practice require revision following completion of the criteria IWCM Strategy. • Pricing policy (including Developer Charges, Liquid Trade Waste policy and Approvals) in place. • Draft Demand Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Demand Management Plan which is in progress. • Draft Drought Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Drought Management Plan which is in progress. • Compliance with performance reporting. • IWCM in progress. • Update status at 6 year review.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 106 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.2 – IWCM Targets

Utility Service IWCM Obligation Target Comments and Element Issue?

Stormwater

Blackmans Swamp Legislative 100% compliance • Emergency Authorisation permits use of No Creek stormwater requirement with emergency the harvesting scheme when combined harvesting authorisation water storage <50%.

Stormwater Legislative 100% compliance • Water quality approval process developed Yes harvesting requirement with water quality by NSW Office of Water (NOW). schemes approval process • Need approval from NOW, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Ministry of Health. • Cannot permanently use the harvesting schemes until approval.

Blackmans Swamp Legislative Obtain permanent • Application to operate the harvesting Yes Creek stormwater requirement licence for scheme at all times when storage harvesting operation conditions permit has been lodged and is pending NOW determination (licence application 80SL96298). • Council needs to resolve permanent licensing through participation in the Land Board hearing.

Ploughmans Creek Legislative 100% compliance • Licence 80SL96331 issued August 2011. No stormwater requirement with licence • Scheme operation to comply with harvesting conditions operating rules listed in the licence. • To date (November 2011) the scheme has not been operated due to adequate storage levels. • Holding pond cannot be used until licence application 80SL96298 is granted (see above). • Council is investigating a piping system that will enable the Ploughmans scheme to be used without the holding pond.

Stormwater Legislative 100% compliance • OCC has complied with this directive and No management requirement with legislative has implemented a Stormwater requirement Management Plan which was last updated in 2008.

4.3 COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

The IWCM process has identified community objectives that reflect what the community would like the urban water service to have or do. Only the community objectives which relate to the provision of the urban water service are used in the IWCM process. A summary of the community objectives derived in the IWCM process that relate to the urban water service is provided in Table 4.3 along with relevant comments. Community objectives are considered when comparing ways to address any IWCM issues. The community objectives defined through the IWCM Evaluation Study will be used in the six year revisions.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 107 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.3 – Comments on community objectives

Utility Service Key Issue Issues Raised/Comments and Element

Water Supply Typical Best Practice • Future level needs to reflect sustainable asset management at minimum cost. residential bill Required TRB will be an outcome of the need for water security. (TRB) • Water TRB in 2010/11 $423 per assessment < state wide median of $450 per assessment Availability/reliab Level of • 100% compliance with LOS targets for water pressure, interruptions to supply, fire ility of supply Service (LOS) fighting and special customers • Council advised all system meet this standard Demand Best Practice • Maintain demand < average median for inland Local Water Utilities (LWUs) management • 158 per household in 2010/11 < state wide median of 159 per household Response times LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets for supply failure Response times LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets for general inquiries Contamination Health and • Protection of water supplies environmental • Perceived risk of contamination of water supplies (accidental or sabotage). • Risk based drinking water quality plan in place • Implementation of Water Quality Management Plan • Development of Business Continuity Plan Water supply Governance • Regional water supply cooperation • Regional water supply should be based on catchments. • Inter catchment transfers should be avoided. • Amalgamation of LWUs on a catchment basis. • Need for cooperation between LGAs to facilitate management of the water cycle (Blayney and Cabonne). • Should Council trade excess water on the water market? • Water and sewer utilities being overtaken by State Government/Federal/private – impacted by political and regulatory change. Security of water Agreed LOS • Diverse water supply solutions supply • Lake Canobolas should remain in the mix of options being considered. • Raising the FSL of Suma Park Dam should remain in the mix of options being considered. • More knowledge required on groundwater resources. Security of water Environmental High Priority Issues raised in Concept Study: supply flow • Potential environmental flow requirements, under the macro water sharing plan, may impact on water supply system reliability. Summer Hill creek downstream of the dam is subject to erosion and reduced flow. • Need to return effluent to the environment as some creek systems require environmental water. • Need to ensure that natural flow regimes are maintained and that effluent is not used to alter these flows. • Need to understand the relationship between natural resources available and the demands of the urban area. Comments: • The draft Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources does not contain environmental flow requirements that will impact on Orange’s secure yield. • Environmental flow requirements will be investigated as part of the planned raising of Suma Park Dam. These will consider the proposed environmental flow rules negotiated as part of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 108 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.3 – Comments on community objectives

Utility Service Key Issue Issues Raised/Comments and Element Water quality Health and High Priority Issues raised in Concept Study: environmental, • Salinity hazard is low and not thought to impact on waterways. protection of • Soil degradation (development) leads to high TN and TP levels that lead to algal water supplies blooms. • Manganese and iron dissolution in dam waters, however downstream treatment means that these are presently being managed. • Urbanisation (also occurring in our water supply catchment including rural residential development) and agricultural land use increases pollutants loads. • Failure of on-site disposal systems could potentially increase pollutant loads on creeks. There is a lack of records of on-site systems and lack of resources to monitor and audit systems. • Loss of biodiversity leading to monodiversity (permanent ecological change) – willows and other exotics species in Orange compromise the natural riparian ecosystems and change channel morphology. • Lack of recognition of environmental/ecological services. Comments: • OCC has developed a Water Quality Management Plan that specifically addresses water quality risks in the entire system (catchment to tap). • Extensive water quality monitoring program. • Urban catchment audit to highlight water quality pressures being undertaken. Security of water Understanding High Priority Issues raised in Concept Study: supply of potential • The need to value groundwater as a resource, what role does it have in the future groundwater (what resource is available and what is being used already), what is the quality? resources • Groundwater study within pipeable distance of Orange. Comments: • Use of Showground, depot and Clifton Grove bores as part of water supply (licensed March 2012). • Initial groundwater studies and MAR business case complete. Security of Planning for Issue raised in Concept Study: supply climate • Defining our stance on climate change in terms of our strategic planning. change Comment: • Climate change modelling undertaken as Part of the Evaluation Study. Security of Understanding Issue raised in Concept Study: supply demand • Future population, lifestyle changes and climate changes – these demand drivers drivers are expected to increase the total water demands and wastewater flow production over time, potentially increasing the demand above the reliable water system yield. Comments: • Demand projections have been reviewed as part of the IWCM Evaluation Study. • Climate change modelling of the Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario completed. Security of Understanding Issue raised in Concept Study: supply surface water • Understanding surface water resources available within transferable/pipeable resources distance from towns. Source of supply outside the immediate area. Comment: • Investigation of technically feasible surface water options has been undertaken as part of the IWCM Evaluation Study. Security of Appropriate Issue raised in Concept Study: supply use of treated • Effluent is not available for reuse in Orange City, as it is currently pumped to Cadia effluent as a Gold Mine, and the life of the mine is undetermined at this stage. resource Comments: • The agreement is currently under negotiation and needs to be resolved. • Mine has current approval through to 2030. Sewerage Typical Best Practice • Future level needs to reflect sustainable asset management at minimum cost residential bill • Sewerage TRB in 2010/11 $334 per assessment < state wide median of $570 per (TRB) assessment System capacity LOS • Performance target less than 20 blockages annually per 100km of sewer main - frequency of • Currently exceed this system blockage • Council completed sewerage model to identify hot spots and prioritise remedial works as required Availability of LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets connection

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 109 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 4.3 – Comments on community objectives

Utility Service Key Issue Issues Raised/Comments and Element Average system LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets failures Response times LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets to system faults Response times LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets to customer complaints & inquiries of a general nature Odour LOS • Not more than 2 incidents per year that result in complaints • Currently comply STP interaction LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets Effluent LOS • 100% compliance with LOS targets discharge/biosoli ds management Recycled Water Appropriate Issue raised in Concept Study: use of treated • Effluent is not available for reuse in Orange City, as it is currently pumped to Cadia effluent as a gold mine, and the life of the mine is undetermined at this stage. resource Comments: • The agreement is currently under negotiation and needs to be resolved. • Mine has current approval through to 2030. • LOS target for effluent reuse is 75%. • Average over past 5 years is 72%, ranging from 28% to 94%. Effluent Minimise Issue raised in Concept Study: discharge environmental • Effluent discharged into Summer Hill Creek from the Orange STP can be of poor impact of quality under storm conditions (under by pass). discharge Comments: • Subject to EPA licence conditions. • Options study complete for storm flow capture. • OCC continuing to work with EPA to implement recommendations. Stormwater Urban Manage urban High Priority Issues and possible solutions raised in Concept Study: catchment stormwater • Urbanisation has increased impervious areas, causing increased stormwater management quantity and runoff/rainfall intensity and decreased stormwater quality. Stormwater quality structures/natural creek system cannot convey larger floods effectively, causing nuisance flooding. • The financial and social impact of stormwater inundation has not been assessed, but the draft Floodplain Risk Management Study is underway. • Appropriate storages to use stormwater for industrial and domestic supply (pumping to dams) • Feasibility study into stormwater harvesting (within pipeable distance of Orange). • Audit current levels of surface water/storm water harvesting to investigate new more efficient methods of collecting stormwater. • Increase water harvesting and reuse to minimise degradation to infrastructure and natural drainage systems e.g. retention basins. Comments: • Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan complete. • Stormwater harvesting options examined and now a key part of the Orange water cycle. Urban Adoption of High Priority Issues raised in Concept Study: catchment WSUD • Appropriate level of service for new development (infill and greenfield) in terms of management principles stormwater is required. • Incorporate water management principles into new developments and examine ways to do this retrospectively for established areas. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). • Develop a Development Control Plan (DCP) to maximise the use of Greywater in new subdivisions.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 110 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Addressing IWCM Issues

5.1 BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO

5.1.1 WHAT IS THE BAU SCENARIO?

The Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario identifies the council actions that have been put in place to address IWCM issues over the next 30 years. The BAU Scenario is made up of actions that are firm commitments, that is, formally adopted by the council. Formal adoption means the pre-project phase of the works has been completed and includes: • Determining the need for the project; • Obtaining regulator requirements; • Preparing draft options report; • Copy of report to DWE for review and concurrence; • Determining the adequacy and suitability of the option; • Arranging preliminary community consultation; and • Formally passing a resolution by council to adopt the action.

5.1.2 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL BAU

Orange City Council formally adopted a comprehensive Strategic Water Supply Strategy at its meeting of 19 November 2009 (refer to Appendix C). The strategic objective of the strategy is:

To establish a broad based water supply strategy for the next 50 years and beyond which focuses on ongoing water conservation, quality and demand management and the provision of key water supply infrastructure at least 10 years in advance of projected demand.

The strategy outlined a number of actions aimed at meeting its strategic objective. These actions addressed the following elements: • Water conservation and quality and demand management; • Provision of infrastructure – priority local options, priority regional options and alternative options; • Management, promotion and lobbying; and • Funding.

A key element of the strategy is that it is based on delivering water supply infrastructure up to 10 years prior to the projected demand. This responsible strategic approach to water supply planning avoids short term and often costly decisions made under emergency conditions.

The ultimate aim of the strategy is to see fewer restrictions, improved security, and capacity for ongoing growth. The 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy forms the basis of the BAU Scenario for Orange. Key elements are summarised in Table 5.1.

Other elements of the BAU Scenario, although not specifically listed in the 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy, include: • Ongoing studies and investigations into various infrastructure components such as modelling of the water reticulation and sewerage systems and studies to inform decision making (i.e. the environmental flow study currently underway); • Development of a Water Quality Management Plan that covers all water elements; • Minor works to improve data collection and recording;

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 111 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

• Continued management of projects including efforts to obtain licence and approvals; • Investigation of technically feasible water security options including demand management, surface water, groundwater, effluent reuse and regional solutions; • Participation in the regional water alliance and Centroc; • General program and administrative functions to support ongoing water business activities; and • Documenting and reporting to the State Government in accordance with Best Practice requirements.

Table 5.1 – OCC 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy

Element Actions

Water Conservation • Ongoing effective demand management, community education, and policy direction aimed at and Demand ensuring efficient water usage across the city. Management • Continuing investigation into, and implementation of, high level water efficiency measures within the water supply system, such as leak prevention and re-use. • Working with key water users to assist in the implementation of water efficient processes to reduce consumption, including assistance in the development of Water Saving Action Plans. • Continuation of general efficiency programs such as Waterwise, the promotion and provision of appropriate water efficiency devices and rainwater tank rebates. • Ongoing supply and demand modelling identifying actions undertaken to date and enabling more refined modelling and analysis to inform development and timing of augmentations. • Development of permanent low level restrictions on outdoor water use. • Adoption of the following trigger levels for water restrictions: - 70% of Full Supply Level - Level 1 - 60% of Full Supply Level - Level 2 - 50% of Full Supply Level - Level 3 - 40% of Full Supply Level - Level 4 - 35% of Full Supply Level - Level 5 - 25% of Full Supply Level - Access up to 50% of water from Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam - 15% of Full Supply Level - Level 6 • Review of the conditions and implementation of water restrictions, in particular levels 5 & 6 and proposed exit strategy, be undertaken and reported back to Council. • Commitment to a “Whole of Catchment” approach to the integrated management of all aspects of quality and quantity relating to stormwater, drinking water, groundwater and wastewater. • Allocation of appropriate resources within the water and sewerage funds to implement an effective Water Conservation and Quality and Demand Management Program.

Provision of • Fast tracking the development and construction of the Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Infrastructure – Harvesting scheme as an emergency water supply project, subject to compliance with Priority Local appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements, for completion in the first half of 2010. Options • Commissioning of bores at the Orange Showground, Clifton Grove and Endeavour Field (following agreement with existing users) as an emergency water supply project, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements, for connection to the water supply system in the first half of 2010. • Completion of safety upgrading works at Suma Park Dam including the adoption of operational rules which do not require the dam to be raised above its existing full supply level but enable the existing storage to be utilised more efficiently through the development of additional points of supply, such as stormwater harvesting.

Provision of • Undertake a detailed feasibility analysis immediately into the establishment of an emergency Infrastructure – water supply pipeline connection from the Macquarie River downstream of Bathurst to Orange, Priority Regional and as a secondary option, from Lake Rowlands to Orange (subject to the availability of suitable Options water volumes and agreement on business arrangements with Central Tablelands Water(CTW)), to confirm concepts and, if suitable, undertake the necessary statutory assessments to prepare for construction in order to optimise delivery of project/s, ideally within 2 years. • Pursue State and Federal Government funding for regional pipelines in the priority order of both the Macquarie River and Lake Rowlands pipeline (subject to agreement with CTW) firstly, failing which, the Macquarie River pipeline only. • Failing State and Federal Government funding of the Macquarie/Rowlands pipeline options, the Macquarie River pipeline be targeted to be secured in the medium term and the CTW connection in the medium/long-term (again subject to agreement with CTW on suitable volumes and business arrangements). • Support the outcomes of the Centroc Water Security Study including promotion of the expansion of Lake Rowlands and associated pipelines in principle for the pursuit of State and Federal funding and for the negotiation of suitable access, volume, water charges and business arrangements and for full feasibility analysis.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 112 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 5.1 – OCC 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy

Element Actions

Provision of • Connection of Lake Canobolas into the city’s water supply network, subject to compliance with Infrastructure – appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements including the establishment of Alternative Options appropriate operating rules to regulate operation of this system. (to be pursued • Direct connection from Gosling Creek Dam into the city’s water reticulation network, including following the above provision of appropriate water treatment infrastructure, subject to compliance with appropriate options or in lieu of environmental and regulatory requirements including the establishment of appropriate operating the priority options if rules to regulate operation of this system. they cannot be • Development of the second stage of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting achieved in the short Scheme generally as outlined in the original approval for this project. term • Investigation into the feasibility of developing a Managed Aquifer Recharge system in conjunction with the Federal Government.

Management, • Seek to normalise emergency supplies over the medium term up to full supply capacity on the promotion and regional pipelines and stormwater harvesting and at 25% of full system supply for Lake lobbying Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam. • Continue to seek reform through the Department of Local Government and NSW Office of Water for the aggregation of Water Fund and Sewer Fund under IWCM principles. • Continue to monitor opportunities for the construction of pipelines to either Burrendong or Wyangala Dams. • Acknowledge longer-term options such as the acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements upon the wind up of operations at the Cadia Valley Operations (CVO) site, including Cadiangullong Dam, Rodds Creek Dam, groundwater, surface water and associated pipelines and pumping stations. • Include the concept of first option for acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements at the Cadia site within the current Effluent Agreement negotiations with CVO. • Investigate the winding up or deferral of the current effluent re-use scheme due to an absence of available effluent (should Council continue to provide it to CVO in the medium/long term) and considering in more detail the much more beneficial outcome of stormwater harvesting and, over time, potentially more advantageous options such as indirect potable re-use or contribution to environmental flows balanced by maximisation of stormwater harvesting and effective operation of storages. • Promote this strategy to groups such as the local Catchment Management Authorities (CMA’s) to seek support for grant funding approaches. • Use this interim strategy to inform the Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy.

Funding • Utilise existing NSW State Government emergency funding to complete Priority Local Projects at Ploughman’s Creek and bores and undertake investigations into Priority Regional Pipelines, and seek additional emergency funding and approval to alter existing emergency program from NSW Office of Water (NOW). • Note that up to $10M of additional funding may be needed in Water Fund from internal or external sources as Council’s contribution towards regional pipelines or alternative water supply projects as outlined above. • Note options to cushion such additional funding demands including: - the raising of water charges; - reform to Water and Sewer Fund creating a single fund; and - potential General Fund sources such as sale of assets and the outcome of the Effluent Agreement negotiations with Cadia Valley Operations. Such increases in funding would significantly reduce the debt service ratio. • Examine all relevant water related programs from the State and Federal Governments to secure additional funds to deliver this strategy, including submissions to the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns Program and Stormwater Harvesting & Reuse Projects Program Round 2

5.1.3 2010 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT

Orange City Council was provided with an update to the 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy at its meeting of 2 December 2010. This report presented an update on the delivery of a number of the infrastructure initiatives including: • The Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme; • Bore licensing; • Suma Park Dam safety works;

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 113 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

• The results of the Macquarie pipeline feasibility study, including a commitment to progress through to a concept study, confirmation that the Federal Government committed $20 million to the project, and the NSW State Government $18.2 million leaving Council to provide $8.8 million and a recommendation that Council apply to the NSW Minister of Planning for the project to be assessed under Part 3A of the NSW EP&A Act. • Activities associated with the Centroc Water Security Study; and • Funding to undertake a detailed investigation into the development of a Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) scheme for Orange.

The recommendations of the 2010 update report were adopted by Council.

5.2 DOES THE BAU SCENARIO ADDRESS THE IWCM ISSUES?

The next step in the IWCM process is to assess how the BAU Scenario addresses the IWCM issues listed in Table 4.2. A summary is provided in Table 5.2 and shows that the BAU Scenario is considered to solve all of the IWCM issues as far as practical.

Table 5.2 – BAU actions and remaining IWCM issues

Remaining Utility Service Obligation Target BAU Action IWCM and Element Issue?

Water Supply

Environmental flow Legislative 100% compliance • There is an upstream gauge which is No requirement with licence continuous monitored to measure conditions inflow to the dam. There is a small V- notch downstream to measure and permit adjustment of discharge; however this is not continuously recorded. OCC intends to upgrade the downstream V-notch weir to include monitoring and continuous data recording and will maintain records of environmental flow release.

Security of water LOS Comply with the • The current 5/10/10 secure yield for No supply 5/10/10 design the existing approved water supply standard for system is 4,750 ML/year. This is short imposing water of the 2010 estimated unrestricted restrictions water demand of 5,400 ML/year for Orange, and under high growth assumptions the water demand in 2040 is estimated to be 6,655 ML/year. OCC’s BAU Scenario includes the following water supply infrastructure options: - Raising Suma Park Dam - Full approval of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme - Stage 2 of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme - Connection of bores (achieved in March 2012) - The Macquarie River to Orange pipeline The addition of these components would increase the system secure yield to 8,800 ML/year.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 114 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 5.2 – BAU actions and remaining IWCM issues

Remaining Utility Service Obligation Target BAU Action IWCM and Element Issue?

Security of water Council adopted Comply with the • Current system secure yield is less No supply policy Council adopted than current (2010) unrestricted policy demand (see above). Proposed BAU water supply infrastructure options can be implemented (subject to gaining requisite approvals) to ensure secure yield is at least 10 years in front of the projected demand.

Unaccounted for Best Practice < 10% of total • Orange City Council undertook a No water water treated major leak and pressure reduction program in 2009 that has saved 500 ML/year; this would have been a component of the UFW. This would reduce the UFW to around 10%. A system wide water system model is being developed that will include additional metering and monitoring that will make UFW accounting more accurate.

Customer Best Practice Implement a • A system wide water model is being No consumption metering and developed that will include additional behaviour billing system to metering and monitoring across categorise customer type. accounts according to their customer type

Management of Best Practice Comply with all 6 OCC current status compared to the best No scheme Best Practice practice criteria is: criteria • Strategic Business Plan in place; will require revision following completion of the IWCM Evaluation Study. • Pricing policy (including Developer Charges, Liquid Trade Waste policy and Approvals) in place. • Draft Demand Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Demand Management Plan which is in progress. • Draft Drought Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Drought Management Plan which is in progress. • Compliance with performance reporting. • IWCM in progress.

Sewerage

Environmental Legislative 100% compliance • OCC is undertaking a feasibility No protection requirement with EPA licence assessment of using a de-chlorination conditions unit for Orange STP and is continuing to implement recommendations in consultation with the EPA. A new flow meter is being installed at the Spring Hill plant.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 115 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 5.2 – BAU actions and remaining IWCM issues

Remaining Utility Service Obligation Target BAU Action IWCM and Element Issue?

Effluent reuse Contractual Compliance with • This agreement commenced in No requirement Cadia Project December 1997 and is set to continue Water Supply for the life of the mine. The Cadia East Agreement project was recently approved and is expected to extend the life of the Cadia Valley Operations to approximately 2030. OCC is currently negotiating the terms of the existing water supply agreement.

Inflow and Best Practice Reduce infiltration • OCC has installed additional flow No infiltration by 25% gauges throughout the system and has completed the development of a system wide model that can be used to identify problem areas which can then be targeted for rectification as required.

Effluent quantity Best Practice Calibrated • OCC has installed additional flow No wastewater flow gauges throughout the system and measurement has completed the development of a system wide model that can be used to identify problem areas which can then be targeted for rectification as required.

Management of Best Practice Comply with all 6 OCC current status compared to the best No scheme Best Practice practice criteria is: criteria • Strategic Business Plan in place; will require revision following completion of the IWCM Evaluation Study. • Pricing policy (including Developer Charges, Liquid Trade Waste policy and Approvals) in place. • Draft Demand Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Demand Management Plan which is in progress. • Draft Drought Management Plan developed. Needs to be updated and linked to the Centroc Drought Management Plan which is in progress. • Compliance with performance reporting. • IWCM in progress.

Stormwater

Stormwater Legislative 100% compliance • OCC is working through the water No harvesting requirement with water quality quality approval process, collecting schemes approval process and reporting on operational data as required in each stage of this process.

Blackmans Swamp Legislative Obtain permanent • OCC is continuing to resolve No Creek stormwater requirement licence for permanent licensing through harvesting operation participation in a Local Land Board hearing.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 116 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

5.3 WATER SECURITY

5.3.1 COMPARING SECURE YIELD WITH DEMAND

The secure yield of the existing water supply system based on the 5/10/10 rule is 4,750 ML/year (Section 3.2.2). The current unrestricted annual water demand in 2010 is 5,400 ML/year (Section 3.3.2.1). Therefore, the existing secure yield of 4,750 ML/year is 650 ML/year short of the current unrestricted demand. As the community grows, so too will the gap between demand and supply. This is illustrated in Figure 30.

This mismatch between demand and supply will not be evident in average or wet conditions; only in prolonged drought. Best practice water supply design requires the system to be designed and built now to get Orange through such a drought.

Orange City Council has adopted a 50 year planning horizon to ensure long-term water supply security the city (refer to BAU Scenario). In addition, the strategy adopts the approach of having a water supply scheme capable of meeting projected water demands at least 10 years in advance. This is a prudent measure to provide sufficient lead time should the gap between secure yield and demand be smaller than forecast and further system augmentation is required sooner than expected.

This is illustrated in Figure 30 where the solid dark blue line represents the medium growth in water demand and the dotted dark blue line a high water demand growth. The red dotted line represents the secure yield which needs to be provided in each year if the supply system to meet high demand projections is available 10 years in advance and the solid red line if medium demand is to be met 10 years in advance.

The gap between the red lines and the horizontal blue band that represents the total existing secure yield shows the increment in secure yield which is required to be in place in any year to meet the target of being able to match demand 10 years in advance. Using Council's 50 year adopted planning horizon, Figure 30 shows that in increment of 2,700 ML is needed to meet projected medium demand growth or 4,300 ML/year to meet the high demand growth.

To provide water security over the 30 year IWCM planning period the secure yield targets are 6,480 ML/year and 7,350 ML/year for the medium and high growth respectively (these values represent the forecast demand in 2050). Over this period an increment of 1,700 ML/year is needed to meet projected medium demand growth or 2,600 ML/year to meet the high demand growth.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 117 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Natural Catchment Secure Yield Bores @ 462 ML/year Secure Yield Approved Stormwater Harvesting Secure Yield Water Demand Medium Growth (BAU) Water Demand High Growth (BAU) High growth secure yield target Medium growth secure yield target 10000

9000

Shortfall high growth 8000 = 4,300 ML

7000 Shortfall medium growth = 2,700 ML 6000 ML/year

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

Figure 30: Water security for existing water supply infrastructure – no climate change

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 118 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

5.3.2 SENSITIVITY OF PROJECTIONS 5.3.2.1 Climate Change

The NSW Government has undertaken a pilot study to see how changes in climate might affect water supply secure yield and provided a guideline on how changes in secure yield by 2030 can be assessed (Samra and Cloke, 2010). The intention of the guideline is to strike a balance between prudent provision of water supply infrastructure which can accommodate a potential reduction in yield over the next 20 years without over investing in assets which may not be required.

Orange City Council was one of the utilities used in the pilot study to define the methodology for the assessment of climate changed secure yield (Samra and Cloke, 2010). Results from this pilot study indicate that a climate change reduction factor of 26% applies to the existing catchment and storage system (i.e. the existing catchment and storages without additional sources).

Climate changed secure yield was assessed using the procedures described by Samra and Cloke (2010) for the BAU water supply components (excluding Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 2 harvesting). This assessment included the addition of input from the stormwater harvesting schemes, bores and the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline operating on the proposed 12/34 operating rule.

Technical Note 2 details this assessment and shows a reduction factor of 6% to 8% can be applied to the best estimate of secure yield. This indicates that by diversifying and augmenting the water sources, the water supply system has become more resilient to the potential impacts of climate change (i.e. the climate change reduction factor has reduced from 26% to 6%).

The current secure yield is made up of three water sources: existing catchments; approved harvesting; and bores. Therefore the climate change reduction factor for the existing system would lie somewhere between 6% and 26%. For the purposes of this assessment, a climate change reduction factor of 10% was adopted for the existing system. The method assumes that secure yield is reduced by 10% by 2030 and there is a linear reduction between now and then.

Such changes in climate might not only result in a reduction in yield but a hotter or drier climate or more variable rainfall may also result in an increase in demand. The Centroc water security study provided an assessment of the possible impact of climate change on water demand. For Orange this assessment indicated the potable water demand could increase by around 7% or about 400 ML per year in 2050 (MWH, 2009).

As shown in Figure 31, the gap between current supply and future demand will widen in this climate change scenario with the shortfall for the 50 year planning horizon being between about 3,900 to 5,500 ML/year.

To provide water security over the 30 year IWCM planning period the secure yield targets are 6,950 ML/year and 7,880 ML/year for the medium and high growth respectively (these values represent the forecast demand in 2050). Over this period an increment of 2,670 ML/year is needed to meet projected medium demand growth or 3,600 ML/year to meet the high demand growth.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 119 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Natural Catchment Secure Yield Bores @ 462 ML/year Secure Yield Approved Stormwater Harvesting Secure Yield Water Demand Medium Growth (BAU) Water Demand High Growth (BAU) High growth secure yield target Medium growth secure yield target 10000

Shortfall high 9000 growth= 5,500 ML

8000 Shortfall medium growth = 3,900 ML

7000

6000 ML/year

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

Figure 31: Water security for existing water supply infrastructure – with climate change

5.3.2.2 Additional Demand Management

As detailed in Technical Note 3 there are limited options for further demand management in addition to those which are already adopted as part of the BAU Scenario. With the introduction of conservation pricing, it might be possible to reduce medium growth water demand to 5,474 ML/year by 2030 and 5,824 ML/year in the same year should growth rates be high, a reduction of between 210 and 220 ML/year.

This does not significantly change the shortfall. It is evident that additional water sources are required to provide long term water security.

5.4 BUSINESS AS USUAL WATER SECURITY

The 2009 Strategic Water Supply Strategy forms the basis of Orange City Council’s BAU Scenario. The water demand elements of the BAU Scenario have been incorporated into the water demand forecasting that is presented in Technical Note 3 and shown on Figures 29 and 30.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 120 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

The local and regional water supply infrastructure components identified in the BAU scenario and their current status are summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 – Water supply management strategy infrastructure options

Component Comment Status

Priority local options

Fast tracking the development and construction Construction of the Ploughmans Creek Complete of the Ploughmans Creek Stormwater stormwater harvesting scheme was completed Harvesting scheme as an emergency water in mid-2011. A licence was granted under supply project, subject to compliance with Section 10 of the Water Act 1912 (Licence appropriate environmental and regulatory 80SL96331) for the permanent operation of the requirements, for completion in the first half of scheme in August 2011. The scheme has not 2010 been operated to date due to adequate water storages levels.

Commissioning of bores at the Orange Licensing grated in March 2012 for the Complete Showground, Clifton Grove and Endeavour extraction of a combined 462 ML/year from the Field (following agreement with existing users) Showground, OCC depot and Clifton Grove as an emergency water supply project, subject bores. The Endeavour Field bore will no longer to compliance with appropriate environmental be considered as part of the water supply and regulatory requirements, for connection to system. the water supply system in the first half of 2010.

Completion of safety upgrading works at Suma Investigation and design work in progress. This In progress Park Dam including the adoption of operational works is including examining the option of rules which do not require the dam to be raised raising the dam. Environmental flow studies are above its existing full supply level but enable also being undertaken. the existing storage to be utilised more efficiently through the development of additional points of supply, such as stormwater harvesting.

Priority regional options

Undertake a detailed feasibility analysis Macquarie Pipeline: In progress immediately into the establishment of an • Feasibility study completed May 2010. emergency water supply pipeline connection • Concept study completed January 2011. from the Macquarie River downstream of • Statutory approval process commenced Bathurst to Orange, and as a secondary option, March 2011. from Lake Rowlands to Orange (subject to the availability of suitable water volumes and Lake Rowlands Pipeline: agreement on business arrangements with • Lake Rowlands yield study completed Central Tablelands Water(CTW)), to confirm November 2011. concepts and, if suitable, undertake the • Secure yield results indicate that there is necessary statutory assessments to prepare for unlikely to be significant “spare” secure construction in order to optimise delivery of yield to supply Orange, particularly when project/s, ideally within 2 years. climate change is considered.

Pursue State and Federal Government funding State and Federal Government funding totalling Complete for regional pipelines in the priority order of both $38.2 million approved in March 2011 for the the Macquarie River and Lake Rowlands Macquarie pipeline project. pipeline (subject to agreement with CTW) firstly, failing which, the Macquarie River pipeline only.

Failing State and Federal Government funding State and Federal Government funding totalling Complete of the Macquarie/Rowlands pipeline options, $38.2 million approved in March 2011 for the the Macquarie River pipeline be targeted to be Macquarie pipeline project. secured in the medium term and the CTW connection in the medium/long-term (again subject to agreement with CTW on suitable volumes and business arrangements).

Support the outcomes of the Centroc Water Council has continued to work with Centroc to In progress Security Study including promotion of the progress this strategy. expansion of Lake Rowlands and associated pipelines in principle for the pursuit of State and Federal funding and for the negotiation of suitable access, volume, water charges and business arrangements and for full feasibility analysis

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 121 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 5.3 – Water supply management strategy infrastructure options

Component Comment Status

Alternative options (to be pursued following the above options or in lieu of the priority options if they cannot be achieved in the short term

Connection of Lake Canobolas into the city’s • Investigations completed in March 2011. Investigation complete water supply network, subject to compliance • Recommended as emergency connection with appropriate environmental and regulatory to be used when main storage levels fall to requirements including the establishment of less than 25%. appropriate operating rules to regulate operation of this system.

Direct connection from Gosling Creek Dam into • Maintaining storage levels and using stored Investigation complete the city’s water reticulation network, including water when the main storage levels fall to provision of appropriate water treatment less than 25% by transfer through to Spring infrastructure, subject to compliance with Creek Reservoir now considered to be appropriate environmental and regulatory more appropriate than direct connection. requirements including the establishment of appropriate operating rules to regulate operation of this system.

Development of the second stage of the • Council is participating in a process to Waiting outcome of Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater resolve objections to the licensing of Stage Blackmans Swamp Harvesting Scheme generally as outlined in the 1. Until this is resolved, Stage 2 will not be Creek Stormwater original approval for this project. pursued. Harvesting Scheme • Further, Council needs to comply with a Stage 1 licence water quality approval process before application. expansion of the stormwater harvesting schemes will be considered.

Investigation into the feasibility of developing a • Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) In progress Managed Aquifer Recharge system in business case prepared June 2011. conjunction with the Federal Government. • Recommended MAR trial to establish operational information relating to aquifer storage and reuse.

Source: Orange City Council (2009)

In summary the BAU water supply components include the existing system of catchments and dams plus: • bores adding 462 ML/year; • Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme operating on a 100% trigger; • full licensing of Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 1 (i.e. operating on a 100% trigger); • raising Suma Park Dam by 1.0 m in conjunction with dam safety upgrade works; • the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline; and • Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 2 stormwater harvesting.

The water security provided by the BAU Scenario is demonstrated in Figure 32. This shows that the proposed BAU water supply infrastructure components provide water security for 50 years.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 122 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Water Demand (BAU) Water Demand High Growth (BAU) Water Demand Medium Growth (BAU) Secure Yield Historical Water Demand Estimated Water Demand Without Restrictions 10000

BSC Stage 2 9000

Macquarie River 12/34 8000

7000

6000

ML/year Blackmans Swamp Ck harvesting fully licenced + raise Suma Park Dam 5000

4000 Approved stormwater harvesting + bores @ 462 ML/yr 3000 Natural Catchment

2000 Existing water supply components

1000 Water supply components (subject to approval)

0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

Figure 32: Water security with BAU water supply infrastructure – no climate change

As detailed above, climate changed secure yield was assessed using the procedures described by Samra and Cloke (2010) for the BAU water supply components (excluding Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 2 harvesting). This assessment showed a climate change reduction factor of 6% to 8% can be applied to the best estimate of secure yield (refer to Technical Note 2).

The water security picture adopting an 8% reduction in secure yield through to 2030 due to climate change and a 7% increase in demand is illustrated on Figure 33. If these changes eventuate, the construction/commissioning of Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 2 stormwater harvesting would need to be brought forward by about 10 years. Further water supply options would be required beyond about 2043 to remain 10 years in front of the high demand. Medium growth water demand can be met for the next 50 years.

Figure 33 demonstrates that even under climate change assumptions, the BAU water supply components provide water security for at least the next 30 years. It is therefore concluded that the BAU actions will address the IWCM target of providing water security in accordance with the 5/10/10 secure yield rule.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 123 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Water Demand (BAU) Water Demand High Growth (BAU) Water Demand Medium Growth (BAU) Secure Yield Historical Water Demand Estimated Water Demand Without Restrictions 10000

9000 BSC Stage 2 Macquarie River 12/34 8000

7000

6000

ML/year Blackmans Swamp Ck harvesting fully licenced + raise Suma Park Dam 5000

4000 Approved stormwater harvesting + bores @ 462 ML/yr 3000 Natural Catchment

2000 Existing water supply components

1000 Water supply components (subject to approval)

0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

Figure 33: Water security with BAU water supply infrastructure – with climate change

5.4.1 TRB ASSESSMENT OF THE BAU

Technical Note 4 presents an assessment of the typical residential bill (TRB) for the BAU Scenario.

Progressively adding infrastructure components of the BAU scenario increases the TRB as shown in Table 5.4. This assessment is for the no climate change case and takes into account the timing of each component (e.g. Stage 2 Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting does not occur until 2044/2045).

There are no changes in the sewerage services capital works program; therefore the sewerage component of the TRB remains constant.

Figure 32 demonstrates that the combination of stormwater harvesting, raising Suma Park Dam, the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline and Stage 2 Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting can increase the secure yield to a level that would meet the projected water demand for at least the next 50 years (without climate change). The cost of this security is $65 per residential assessment.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 124 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

Table 5.4 – Calculated TRB – BAU scenario

$ per assessment Increase Step Water Services CWP Inclusions above Water Sewerage TRB Change existing in TRB TRB

Run 1: Current program including Suma Park dam $570 $334 $904 - - safety upgrade, existing approved harvesting schemes and bores

Run 2: Run 1 PLUS full approval of Blackmans Swamp $573 $334 $907 $3 $3 Creek stormwater harvesting

Run 3: Run 2 PLUS Raise Suma Park Dam by 1.0 m $582 $334 $916 $9 $12

Run 4: Run 3 PLUS Macquarie River to Orange pipeline $632 $334 $966 $50 $62 project

Run 5: Run 4 PLUS Blackmans Swamp Creek Stage 2 $635 $334 $969 $3 $65 stormwater harvesting

5.5 IWCM EVALUATION STUDY CONCLUSION

It is concluded from the IWCM Evaluation Study that the BAU Scenario is considered to solve all of the IWCM issues as far as practical.

The development of an IWCM Strategy is not required as there are no IWCM issues needing new actions or works. This conclusion will be reviewed in six years.

The community objectives defined through the IWCM Evaluation Study will be used in the six yearly revisions to inform the development of an IWCM Strategy if required.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 125 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

References

Al Bakri D and Chowdury M (1997) Water quality of the Orange water supply catchment. Report presented at the workshop on water quality.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011a) Basic Community Profile, Orange Statistical Local Area (SLA), www.abs.gov.au

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011b) Expanded Community Profile, Orange Statistical Local Area (SLA), www.abs.gov.au

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006a) Basic Community Profile, Orange Statistical Local Area (SLA), www.abs.gov.au

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006b) Expanded Community Profile, Orange Statistical Local Area (SLA), www.abs.gov.au

Bureau of Meteorology (2011) http://www.bom.gov.au last accessed 25 March 2011.

Cloke P (undated) Notes on secure yield. Unpublished paper.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (2009) Australia is Vulnerable to Climate Change, www.csiro.au

Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (2002) Integrated Water Cycle Management Water Demand Trend Tracking and Climate Correction (Version 10). New South Wales Government.

Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (2006) Integrated Water Cycle Management Demand Side Management Decision Support System - Simplified (Version S1.1). New South Wales Government.

Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (2006) Integrated Water Cycle Management Rainwater Tank Model (Version RTM 2.1) Manual. New South Wales Government.

Department of Planning (2010) New South Wales Local Area Population Projections (April 2010), Sydney, 2000.

Department of Planning (2008a) New South Wales State and Regional Population Projections 2006-2036, Sydney, 2000.

Department of Planning (2008b) New South Wales Household and Dwelling Projections 2006-2036, Sydney, 2000.

DECC - Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011) http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10546 last accessed 24 March 2011.

DECC – Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011) http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/searchregister.aspx last accessed 15 March 2011.

Department of Water and Energy (2008) Integrated Water Cycle Management Generic Scope of Work for Evaluation and Strategy: A guide for local water utilities and consultants

DHI (2005) Ploughmans Creek Flood Study – Volume 1

Evocities (2011) http://www.evocities.com.au last accessed 23 March 2011.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2008) Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme – Revised Harvesting Weir Operational Plan. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2009) Review of Environmental Factors Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2011) Technical Note 5 - Options for Reticulated Alternative Water Supply in the PVNO Area. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

IBL Solutions (2009) Orange City Council Report on Development of Alternative Water Supplies.

The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (2012) Drainage Asset Management Plan 2012-2022

The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (2011a) Water Asset Management Plan 2012-2022

The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (2011b) Sewer Asset Management Plan 2012-2022

John McMullan (1996) Cadia Project Water Supply Agreement.

Leyshon Consulting Pty Ltd (2005) Business Centre Strategy Review Study - City of Orange. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Lyall & Associates (2007) Blackmans Swamp Creek flood and floodplain risk management study and plan.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 126 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX

MWH (2007) Orange Integrated Water Cycle Management Concept Study (Final Draft Version 2).

MWH (2009) Centroc water security study component 2: Options paper

Newplan Urban Planning Services, 2010. Orange Sustainable Settlement Strategy Update, Newplan Urban Planning Solutions, Sydney, 2000

NSW Government (2010) http://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/information/about.jsp last accessed 10 January 2011.

NSW Office of Water (2010) Information Sheet 6: Evaluation of IWCM Scenarios.

NSW Office of Water (2011) Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Macquarie Bogan Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources.

NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee (1993) NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential Use of Reclaimed Water.

Orange Business (2011) Orange Cabonne Blayney Regional Business Prospectus – A Range of Businesses.

Orange Business (2011) Orange Business website http://www.orangebusiness,com.au last access 23 March 2011.

Orange City Council (2004) 2004 Comprehensive SoE Report (City of Orange). Extract provided by Orange City Council.

Orange City Council (post 2005) Extract of document provided by Orange City Council – no title, author or date provided.

Orange City Council (2011) Orange City Council website http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au last accessed 25 March 2011.

Orange City Council (2004) Comprehensive State of the Environment Report, Orange, 2800

Orange City Council (2007) Orange City Council Demand Management Plan, Orange, 2800

Orange City Council (2008) Orange City Council Drought Management Plan, Orange, 2800

Orange City Council (2008) Stormwater management plan for the City of Orange. April 2008.

Orange City Council (2009) Orange Economic Profile, Orange, 2800

Orange City Council (2011) Orange City Council Annual Report 2010/11, Orange, 2800

Orange City Council (2012) Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011, Orange, 2800.

Orange City Council, nd. History of Orange Water Supply, www.orange.nsw.gov.au.

Parsons Brinkerhoff (2004) Orange Sustainable Settlement Strategy and Local environmental Study.

Samra S and Cloke P (2010) “NSW Response for Addressing the Impact of Climate Change on the Water Supply Security of Country Towns.” Proceedings of Practical Responses to Climate Change, National Conference 2010, 29 September - 1 October 2010 Melbourne. Institution of Engineers, Australia.

SMEC (2003) Suma Park Dam Augmentation Environmental Impact Statement. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Terra Consulting (2002) Water supply investigation Ploughmans Valley area. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Water Futures (2008) Water quality risk assessment workshop. Workshop summary paper prepared for Orange City Council.

Western Research Institute (2008) Centroc Population Projections, Bathurst, 2795

Worley Parsons (2009a) Orange City Council Development Servicing Plans for Sewerage, Sydney, 2000

Worley Parsons (2009b) Orange City Council Development Servicing Plans for Water Supply, Sydney, 2000

Worley Parsons (2009c) Orange City Council Strategic Business Plans for Water Supply and Sewerage Services, Sydney, 2000.

IWCM EVALUATION STUDY PAGE 127 ORANGE CITY COUNCIL OCC_IWCM EVALUATION STUDY_FINAL.DOCX AppendixA NOWIWCMConceptStudyApproval

AppendixB WaterBehaviour,Attitude&Knowledge Research 2010/1031 REPORT TO GENERAL MANAGER INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING – 21 OCTOBER 2010

FROM WATER SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT OFFICER

DATE 12 OCTOBER 2010

ON WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 106/441/501/1/1

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES In May 2010, ORIMA Research was commissioned by Orange City Council to conduct a community survey regarding water knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.

The survey was conducted from 13 to 18 July 2010. At the time, the City was on Level 5A water restrictions and overall water storages were around 25 per cent.

KEY FINDINGS

1 Awareness levels 1.1 Awareness of water supply sources

This section of the survey gauged awareness levels of where our water supply comes from. Over recent years the City’s water supply has diversified from a reliance on a single surface water supply from Suma and Spring Dams, to sources including stormwater run-off and groundwater.

Figure 1 indicates respondents show a high level of awareness of water being supplied from Suma Park Dam, where our water supply is stored. There is also high awareness of water coming from Spring Creek Dam, Gosling Dam and via stormwater run-off. The low awareness of groundwater as a water source could be said to be related to the lack of promotion of this water source.

Figure 1: Do you know some of the sources where your household’s supply of water comes from? (n=100)

Suma Park Dam 77%

Storm water run-off 25%

Spring Creek Dam 22%

Gosling Creek Dam 19%

Council maintained bore water 3%

Private bore 3%

Private tank 2%

Don't know / can't think of any 15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

1.2 Awareness of water restrictions

Survey respondents were asked ‘what stage of mandatory water restrictions are currently in place in the Orange City Council area?’ This was an unprompted question.

The results, illustrated in Figure 2 show a reasonably high level of awareness of level 5 water restrictions. Level 5 water restrictions were introduced in May 2008; level 5A restrictions were introduced in January 2010.

Respondents were aware that extreme water restrictions were in place; however responses varied when asked about the consequences of these restrictions.

When asked when they were able to water their garden, only 23 per cent of respondents were aware of the correct day and times they were permitted to water their garden.

This demonstrates the need to be consistent in setting watering times for water restrictions and limit variations to restriction levels criteria. Council may also consider reducing the number of water restriction levels to allow greater understanding of their individual consequences.

Figure 2: What stage of mandatory water restrictions are currently in place in the Orange City Council area? (n=100)

Level 2 - Moderate 1%

Level 3 - High 1%

Level 4 - Very High 5%

Level 5 - Extreme 39%

Level 5A - Extreme 38%

Level 6 - Critical 9%

Don't know / can't say 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Respondents also demonstrated support for permanent water conservation measures to be implemented (see Figure 3), including: • Allowing cars to be washed only on lawns or at car washes that have recycling measures in place • Allowing plants and lawns to be watered only in the mornings and/or evenings • Requiring all hoses to be fitted with a trigger nozzle • Allowing hard surfaces to only be washed down in the case of health risks.

3

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

Figure 3: Even if more water is available, would you support Orange City Council implementing any of the following permanent water conservation measures? (n=100)

Allowing cars to be washed only on lawns or at car washes that have water recycling measures in place

Allowing plants and lawns to be watered only in the mornings and/or evenings

Requiring all hoses to be fitted with a trigger nose

Allowing hard surfaces (e.g. paths and driveways) to only be washed down in the case of health risks

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Support Don't know Not support

2 Water use characteristics 98 per cent of respondents said they tried to save water around their house.

A large majority of respondents also track their water use. Seventy two percent of respondents keep track of how much water they use. The majority of people do this by checking their water usage on their water bills.

2.1 Saving water

Fifty five per cent of respondents who try to save water do so by using grey water on their garden. As demonstrated in Figure 4, four out of ten people limit the time they spend in the shower and one in five people have installed a water tank.

All of these most popular activities have a reasonably low cost for residents and therefore are reasonably easy to implement.

4

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

Figure 4: What do you do to try and save water around the house? Respondents who try to save water around the house (n=98)

Use grey water on the garden 55%

Limiting time taken showering 40%

Have installed water tank 20%

Have water limiting shower head/s 16%

Have dual flush toilet/s 13%

Use grey water in toilet 9%

Water-efficient appliances 9%

I/We turn off the tap when brushing teeth 8%

I/We check the house for leaks 8%

Limiting the number of showers or baths 8%

Limiting garden/lawn watering 7%

Limited dishwashing 3%

I/We don't wash down the driveway and/or paths 1%

Take car to carwash 1%

Other 3%

Don't know / can't think of any / refused 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2.1 Water situation

At the time the survey was undertaken, 90 per cent of respondents were concerned about water supply issues in Orange (see Figure 5).

One in ten respondents however were not concerned that supply levels would remain below 25 per cent.

This highlights two things: • recognition of current water supply situation • a positive attitude, increased confidence and optimism for the future

Respondents were also asked if they supported an allocation of water being made available for the environment. Neither strong agreement nor disagreement can be said to imply conditions around their support either way.

5

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

Figure 5: Agreement with statements about water supply in Orange

I am concerned about water supply issues in the Orange City Council area. (n=99)

I support an allocation of water being made available for the environment. (n=96)

I don't think we will ever get water supply levels in the Orange City Council area back over 25%. (n=97)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

4 Future considerations In recent years, Orange’s water supply has diversified to include surface water, ground water and stormwater run off. In the survey respondents were asked their willingness to use recycled water.

Generally respondents support to the use of recycled water, particularly for outdoor use (see Figure 6).

64 per cent of respondents were either willing or willing with some qualifications to use recycled water for drinking.

Respondents were generally willing to use recycled water for outside purposes such as watering the garden and washing the car, but as water use moved to internal purposes respondents’ willingness to use recycled water dropped.

6

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

Figure 6: If recycled water that was subject to international safety and health standards, became available to your household, how willing would you be to use this water for:

Garden irrigation (n=99)

Hand watering (n=99)

Car washing (n=95)

Toilet flushing (n=100)

Washing machine (n=99)

Hand washing (n=100)

Drinking (n=99)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Willing without hesitation Willing with some qualifications Not willing

4.3 Water pricing There are several pricing approaches that can be taken to manage demand for water.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of support for Council’s current pricing approach where you have an annual fixed access charge and a usage charge that rises by 50% for usage over 450kL, and also scarcity pricing where water prices would increase once dam and other water supply sources fall below critical levels (but water prices would decrease once dam and other water supply sources rise above critical levels).

Overall results indicated preferred support for Council’s current pricing approach (see Figure 7).

7

WATER BEHAVIOUR, ATTITUDE AND KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH 12 October 2010

Figure 7: Please rate your level of support for each of the following pricing mechanisms:

The current pricing approach where you have an annual fixed access charge and a usage charge that rises by 50% for usage over 450 kilolitres (n=91)

Scarcity pricing where water prices would increase once dam and other water supply sources fall below critical levels-but water prices would decrease once dam and other water supply sources rise above critical levels. (n=94)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Definitely support Probably support Possibly support Probably not support Definitely not support

RECOMMENDATION 1 That the survey information be utilised in the further development of Council’s water planning including the Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Plan.

2 That a review of the current water restriction criteria be undertaken, including: a number of levels to ensure clear differences between levels b consideration of including permanent water conservation measures c the strategy of entering and exiting restrictions to decrease confusion.

Emma Gosper WATER SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT OFFICER

AppendixC OCCAdoptedWaterSupplyManagement Strategy 2009/1066 REPORT TO GENERAL MANAGER COUNCIL MEETING – 19 NOVEMBER 2009

FROM DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES

DATE 12 NOVEMBER 2009

ON WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 106/441/600/1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background In response to a very dry period over several years, Orange City Council has been progressing a significant body of strategic analysis to ultimately formulate an Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Plan and more particularly a 30 year Water Infrastructure and Management Strategy. This report provides the basis for the management of Orange’s water resources that will underpin the sustainable growth of the City to 2040 and beyond.

Recent Advances Over recent years Council, as well as progressing the above analyses, has undertaken numerous initiatives to drive the City’s water supply further. During this period, the water users of Orange have experienced heavy restrictions, spending a long period on Level 5 restrictions. Currently the water storage level is around 30% of full supply. The ultimate outcome of the actions of this report and the studies behind it will be to see fewer restrictions, improved security, and capacity for ongoing growth.

Actions to date include: • Efficiency programs and measures such as Waterwise and the provision and promotion of water saving devices to householders and businesses and programs to assist large water users to reduce consumption. A good example of this is the Regional Linen Service which is now implementing a program to save 30 % of its previous demand; • Significant demand management and education, seeing the residents of Orange City sensibly meet the objectives of all water restrictions set by Council to date. In 2008/09, Orange City used 4200 ML of water, compared to the 7100 ML peak annual consumption in 2002 (when the Orange population served with water was around 35,250). This was also well down on estimated current annual demand (without restriction) of 5838 ML; • Release of an interim 10 year detailed program and 30 year concept program for infrastructure in 2009; • Providing further water sources and lifting efficiency through the construction of Stage 1 of the Stormwater Harvesting Project on Blackmans Swamp Creek (BSC). This stage of this project is estimated to add an average of 800 ML/a to the system and more in wetter years, as well as contribute a buffer to the secure yield of the system through the accrual of harvested water in wetter years; • Improving efficiency through leak prevention saving an estimated 300-500 ML annually and other measures such as recycling of process water at the Water Treatment Plant, also saving an additional estimated 200 ML per year; • Successful application to the State Government for 50:50 funding for stormwater harvesting (including further stages beyond BSC Stage 1), bores and the connection of Lake Canobolas as an additional emergency supply; and 2 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• Successful negotiations with the State Government to stage safety works at Suma Park Dam freeing up the Water Fund to a certain extent to undertake short-term supply works.

Key Findings from Further Analysis This report represents a major milestone in Council’s interim strategy program. The strategy and associated works program are informed by the following analyses, actions and outcomes which have crystallised since the initial release of the interim strategy:

• The Centroc Regional Study - which was funded by the Rees State Government. The Study identifies a large number of “at stress” urban water supplies across the Central West including Orange, and a number of options for regional water supply which would meet the needs of Orange and the region in the future including confirmation of the medium-term potential of Lake Rowlands (around 10 years plus timeframe if immediately commenced). The study also identifies some short-term options for Orange including connection to the Macquarie River and connection into the Lake Rowlands system prior to the construction of an expanded dam given some spare capacity within that scheme now. The analysis however indicates a very significant cost for the Rowlands scheme, which will necessarily involve grant funding;

The Centroc Study has also recommended significant demand management and efficiency measures including permanent low level restrictions on outdoor water use (hosing of footpaths, wash car on lawn, water gardens during cooler parts of the day etc). The study also provides a useful summary of ensuring the best use of water and is reproduced below.

Ensuring the Best Use of Water At a State and Commonwealth level, the development and expansion of water markets and trading across and between catchments and states has been encouraged to improve the management of water. This has involved developing: • Clear rules for trading; • Water accounting arrangements; • Pricing based on the recovery of full cost; • Mechanisms for the provision of environmental flows; and • Mechanisms for returning allocation to sustainable levels.

Water trading allows the available water resource to move to the highest value uses. Full cost recovery pricing ensures that clear price signals are sent to all water users to make sure they are efficient.

Over the past 10 years, water sharing plans have been developed by the States to improve the use of water. These plans set an access regime for bulk water sources. For those waterways within the Murray Darling Basin, these plans are now being reconsidered in the light of the overall Basin Plan and the need to address over- allocation issues across the Basin.

The right to access and use water, and to construct water management works, is granted by the State Government as a licence or approval. A water access licence defines a limited property right to access a share of the bulk water available in a particular water source.

3 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

To implement this strategy, Local Water Utilities and other water users such as the mining sector will need to obtain relevant licences and approvals for water access and use.

To be compliant with NSW government best-practice management guidelines for water utilities, which are designed to ensure the efficient and effective management of urban water services, full-cost recovery tariffs will need to be put in place to recoup the costs associated with the provision of this strategy.

Best-practice management emphases the importance on usage based pricing. This pricing sends clear messages to customers who can choose to consume less in order to save money on their water bills. Best-practice water supply pricing requires that the usage charge recover those costs that vary with demand in the long-term through a usage charge. These costs should include licence and extraction fees from external regulatory agencies as well as treatment and transfer costs. In NSW, it is a requirement that residential water usage charges be set to recover at least 75% of residential revenue to encourage efficient use of environmental and financial resources.

From the 2007-08 NSW Water Utility Performance Summary the Centroc group of utilities had a mean average water revenue per connection of $574 compared with all of the NSW utilities of $535. If the Centroc average were increased by the 25% expected increases in water revenues required to fund the strategy, it would imply water revenues per connection of $717, a number well within the range for NSW utilities from $1,250 to $273.

It would not be appropriate to place too much weight on this comparison as it is not related to any performance benchmarks or the structure of charges. Similarly, the 25% is a scheme-wide average. Actual bills would need to capture user-pays principles which ensure those benefiting from the services pay for the service improvement. Detailed financial modelling and assessment would be required to determine the typical residential bills to be paid by customer.

The costs per kL represented in this report are not usage charges to customers, but rather, the costs associated with the capital investment and operation of each individual infrastructure option or scheme.

• Mining Implications - The Centroc Regional Study also looked at regional water sources to serve the mining sector including the potential of a pipeline to Wyangala or an even further expanded Rowlands (the latter subject to further analysis). The mining demand was estimated at potentially 40 – 58 ML/day and should the projects arise, the potential exists for regional pipelines to the larger storages.

• Regional pipelines - The potential for regional pipelines to Burrendong or Wyangala did not arise as a higher priority than Rowlands within the Centroc study as a source of town water, principally due to concerns about security and also comparative costs in regard to pumping. The Centroc study did not look at water sharing plans for the major State controlled dams. With the current over-allocation situation and uncertainty about progress on reforms to deliver a viable and robust water sharing environment, it is difficult to establish a satisfactory security for these impoundments. Upon suitable reform, this perspective may change. It is anticipated that through such a reform process consultation would occur between Councils, State Water and the local CMA’s.

4 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Nonetheless, should the appropriate level of mining demand arise as mooted, the potential for regional pipelines (particularly to Wyangala) may require further analysis. In these circumstances, it may be possible to source further water for the Orange City supply;

• Connecting to the Macquarie River and Lake Rowlands - pre-feasibility analysis of the connection to the Macquarie and Rowlands (pre-expansion of dam) options shows a potential yield for the Macquarie of 3-5 ML/day. Yield (pre dam) at Rowlands is yet to be finalised. The estimated preliminary costs of the two pipelines are $22M for the Macquarie Pipeline and $30M for a pipeline from Orange to Blayney. The projects provide Council with further options on top of additional stages of stormwater harvesting, bores and connection of Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam. The projects provide a good opportunity to seek State and Federal Funds in the current funding environment;

• Groundwater Bores - Analysis of bores at the Showground, Clifton Grove and Endeavour field (Emu’s) indicates an estimated 300 ML to 500 ML total annual yield. These bores if utilised may require packaged water treatment plants to facilitate direct injection into the mains or alternatively be piped to the raw water supply. The estimated cost is up to a further $450k. The use of Endeavour field bore is subject to negotiations with the current user.

• Maximising Dam outputs - Diver survey of Suma Park and checking of infrastructure indicates a low level of “dead storage” for water supply impoundments.

• Stormwater Harvesting - Construction of Stage 1 of BSC Stormwater Harvesting proofing concept and opportunities for a Stage 2 as well as stormwater harvesting for Ploughmans/North Orange area;

• Analysis of yield, security and reliability by both Geolyse (Council’s IWCM Strategy Consultant) and by MWH (Centroc Regional Study Consultant) has been undertaken. These measures of the robustness of water supply are summarised/defined in the following box (Source: MWH Centroc Regional Water Study – October, 2008);

How is Water Supply Security Determined?

Historically, the secure yield of a water supply has been determined using the “5,10, 20 rule”. This rule is an accepted guideline, not a standard. This rule states that the secure yield is the annual demand that can be supplied:

• Without restrictions of any kind applied for more than 5% of the time (the “5” element);

• Where restrictions are applied, they should not be imposed more than one year in ten on average (the “10” element); and

• The system should be able to supply 80% of normal demand (ie 20% reduction in consumption) through a repeat of the worst drought on record (the “20” element).

It is important to note that, even with this rule, there are financial (affordability), social and environmental reasons why this level of service may not be provided in all areas.

Secure yield determination is based on historical events. This approach is considered to be “static” and “deterministic” modelling as it considers non-varying future annual demand and one possible “reality” ie the past.

5 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Yield is not static. It changes depending on inflows, infrastructure and operating rules and therefore needs to be reviewed frequently. Demand is not static as it changes in response to climate variation, dryer years have higher demands and vice versa, wetter years have lower demands.

In recent years, with improvements in computational modelling, a more dynamic approach to water supply security assessment has been adopted. This approach is “stochastic”. This approach allows for estimating the probability of supply coming under threat (ie moving into restrictions and failure) under potential future conditions. These models allow for the possibility of a series of potential outcomes, each with a different probability of occurring. The process is based on replicating the random fluctuations observed in historical data.

This modelling approach does not use the “5, 10, 20 rule”. Instead, this process considers the probability of certain outcomes. In this type of analysis, there are two key concepts: security and reliability. The security of a supply is the probability that a system will run out of water. The reliability of a supply is the likelihood that restriction on demand will be required.

Determining the security and reliability of a water supply system also needs to take into account design criteria. For instance, whilst it is not acceptable to run out of water, the reasonable restriction of water demand during droughts is acceptable. Similarly, the assessment should also consider expected reductions in demand as a result of water conservation activities. The key objectives of this study are:

Based on a reliability criteria of 90% (as adopted by major cities in Australia for stochastic modelling)

• Security: that water supply storages do not empty more often than 0.1% of the time.

• Reliability: that restrictions (of any duration) do not occur more in greater than 10% of years (ie that restrictions are not too frequent – the same as the “10” element in the old rule).

Initially the reliability and security of an existing water supply system is assessed and then if the objectives are not satisfied the required changes to infrastructure and/or demand management are determined. Relaxing these objectives would reduce the reliability and/or security of supply, while reducing the required expenditure and vice versa, tightening these criteria increase the level of expenditure on new infrastructure for water supply, potentially to levels that are not affordable.

In this study, the stochastic Water Headworks Network (WATHNET) software package has been used. Historical and synthetic information have been used to simulate the system and generate a range of potential outcomes to help better assess the reliability and security of supply.

The analysis shows an estimated current yield of 4000 to 5900 ML/a depending on the model used (deterministic and stochastic respectively). Reliability is estimated at 10% (10% desired limit) and security at < 0.1% (deterministic model) to 0.6% (stochastic model) depending on the model used (0.1% desired limit). Using the deterministic model with the addition of Blackman’s Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting, the bores and Ploughman’s Creek Stormwater Harvesting, a local solution providing for growth for 9 years can be achieved. With the addition of the pipeline to the Macquarie, a twenty plus year growth can be met and with an expanded Rowlands Scheme, a forty plus growth horizon can be met.

The analysis also considered both climate correction and climate change in establishing yield. Compared to other regional localities, Orange is impacted to a lower level by climate change. The effect is estimated at around 433 ML per year by 2050 (See appendices to MWH report);

When demand management measures are also included the results are a potential saving annually of 1200 ML. Going forward, compliance with the 5, 10, 20 approach can also be reached with the abovementioned augmentations; 6 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• Demand Management - Continuing good performance of Orange Community in managing demand;

• Wastewater Reuse - Analysis of the wastewater re-use scheme given the proposal by Cadia Valley Operations to use effluent for a further 21 years.

The analysis of this scheme shows around 500 homes of a targeted 4500 have been fitted with dual water distribution pipelines and internal plumbing, along with the construction by Council of a trunk pipeline at a cost of around $3.7M, with funds to be recouped through developer contributions. A further estimated 500 lots have been created with the dual system, and are yet to be built upon.

The analysis shows that similar schemes for large scale residential application have experienced problems with public health and cross-connection necessitating the treatment of wastewater to a virtually potable standard. Were this potable approach to be taken at Orange, it would be necessary to retrofit the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) with further purification infrastructure at an estimated cost of $15M-$20M

In addition, the use of the wastewater trunk main is identified as part of the expanded stormwater/raw water concept to allow connection of the Ploughmans/North Orange areas.

The beneficial outcomes of stormwater harvesting significantly exceed the outcomes of the wastewater re-use scheme in terms of volume.

Furthermore, should Council continue to provide wastewater to CVO, possibly to 2030, Council will not have wastewater to treat to charge the main.

It is also likely that other options will emerge for the use of wastewater including use for environmental and irrigator flows balanced by a maximisation of the operation of Suma Park Dam and stormwater harvesting. In the longer-term indirect potable reuse may also come into consideration should it become acceptable to the community.

In light of the above, it is intended that the current effluent re-use scheme be investigated with a view to either being wound up or deferred well into the future. At that time, options such as indirect potable re-use, environmental flows, maximising stormwater harvesting and operation of storages or a continuation of existing or similar schemes will be required to be looked at.

This may prove complex as it will necessarily consider a re-apportionment of developer contributions and how to manage the wind up in terms of BASIX and the plumbing of homes, currently a requirement in subdivision consents.

• Analysis of very short-term options given current storages. These include identification of Level 6 restrictions at 15%, use of Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam at a trigger of 25%, development of the Ploughman’s Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme and equipping the three bores, as well as seeking funding for regional pipelines;

• Long term acquisition of Cadia infrastructure and entitlements – consideration of much longer-term strategic options such as Council’s agreed “first option” on acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements at the Cadia Mines site at the completion of mining at the site.

7 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Going Forward – the Strategy

A multi-faceted strategy providing a viable water supply for 40 plus years with growth and with options to extend beyond 50 years has emerged.

The Strategy includes the following: • Continuation of effective demand management, education and policy direction; • Continuation of high level efficiency measures such as leak prevention and working with key users to reduce consumption; • Continuation of general efficiency programs such as Waterwise and provision of water saving devices; • Ongoing supply and demand modelling picking up on actions and enabling more refined modelling and analysis to inform development and timing of augmentations; • Continuation of rainwater tank rebates; • Permanent low level restrictions on outdoor use; • In the short-term, setting the trigger for Level 6 restrictions at 15%; • Triggering transfers from Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam at 25% • Fitting of bores at the Orange Showground and Clifton Grove and Endeavour Field (Emu’s) as needed in the short-term. Action involving bore at Endeavour field subject to satisfactory discussions with users; • Continuing with local solutions including Ploughman’s Creek Stormwater Harvesting in the short term with a view to fast tracking and completion in the first half of 2010. • Pursuing State and Federal funding for regional pipelines in the priority order of both the Macquarie and Rowlands pipeline firstly, failing which, the Macquarie Pipeline. Works to be undertaken in the short-term (around 1-2 years ideally). Progress of Lake Rowlands pipeline subject to suitable water volumes and business arrangements with Central Tablelands Water (CTW). • Failing tri-government funding of the Macquarie/Rowlands pipeline options, the Macquarie pipeline targeted to be secured in the medium term and the Rowlands connection in the medium/long-term (again subject to agreement with CTW on suitable volumes and business arrangements); • Council proceeding to full feasibility analysis of the Macquarie pipeline firstly and immediately and the Rowlands pipeline secondly to both confirm concept and if appropriate prepare for construction in order to optimise delivery of project; • Council support the promotion of the expansion of Lake Rowlands and associated pipelines in principle for the pursuit of State and Federal funding and for the negotiation of suitable access, volume, water charges and business arrangements and for full feasibility analysis; • Council seeking to normalise emergency supplies over the medium term up to full supply capacity on the regional pipelines and stormwater harvesting and at 25% of full system supply for Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam; • Council continuing to monitor opportunities which involve pipelines to either Burrendong or Wyangala; 8 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• Council acknowledging longer-term options such as the acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements upon the wind up of operations at the Cadia site, including Cadiangullong Dam, Rodds Creek Dam, groundwater and surface water; • Council including the concept of first option for acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements at the Cadia site within the current Effluent Agreement negotiations; • Council investigating the winding up or deferral of the current effluent re-use scheme due to an absence of available effluent (should Council continue to provide it to Cadia Valley Operations) in the medium/long term and considering in more detail the much more beneficial outcome of stormwater harvesting and, over time, potentially more advantageous options such as indirect potable re-use or environmental flows balanced by maximisation of stormwater harvesting and optimising operation of storages; • Council continue to seek reform through the Department of Local Government for the aggregation of Water Fund and Sewer Fund under the IWCM principles; and • Council promote this strategy to groups such as the local Catchment Management Authorities (CMA’s) to seek support for grant funding approaches; • This interim strategy be used to inform the IWCM Strategy.

Overall, this Executive Summary pulls together a brief summary of a very large body of work which is found in the body of the report and in its attachments.

The Strategy while fairly mature is not final - a number of elements need to proceed to full feasibility testing. The strategy is appropriate to facilitate and accelerate short-term options, the seeking of funds for regional pipelines, for feasibility analysis of options and for informing the IWCM Strategy. The IWCM Strategy as well as considering the above, will look at more mundane things such as pricing policy and also the wastewater management aspect of the integrated approach and other water management issues such as risk management (for example in circumstances of contamination).

The Strategy presented is a very significant leap forward in Orange’s water management and presents a robust and sustainable supply from a multi-facetted system.

Funding

Arising from this body of work and the strategy presented is the need to secure funding of infrastructure. To this end, with the staging of the Suma Park Dam safety works, Council has the capacity to both complete the program before it, which includes completing further stormwater harvesting stages, and the fitting of bores and to build a regional pipeline or pipelines with the latter subject to tri-government funding.

This program will result in a peak debt service ratio of 22% based on a $5M loan in Water Fund over the next 10 years dropping back to zero at the end of the 10 year period if no further loans are required. It will provide for the following projects over the 10 year period:

9 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Infrastructure Estimated Cost

Suma Park Dam $15M

• Council and State Funding

Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting $4M

• Funding sources are Councils and NSW Government and with an opportunity for further grant funding for this project at Federal Government level

Other projects including connection of Lake $1M Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam, bores and feasibility studies.

• Funding sources Council, NSW Government

Regional Pipelines Preliminary estimate up to $50M

• Contribution by Council Up to $10M depending on scope • Balance from State and Federal Governments of project and funding formula

Options to cushion such funding demands include:

• the raising of water charges; • reform to Water and Sewer Fund creating a single fund; and • potential General Fund sources such as sale of assets and the outcome of the Effluent Agreement negotiations with Cadia Valley Operations. Such increases in funding would significantly reduce the debt service ratio.

Beyond the first 10 years, Council has the opportunity to contribute to further regional pipelines (if not achieved in the first 10 years) and the expansion of Lake Rowlands subject to agreement on funding models, grants, full feasibility, governance arrangements and whether Council simply buys water or has a role as an asset owner.

In addition, the analysis shows that Council has an adequate supply going forward to the point where effluent can be supplied for the extension of CVO to around 2030 if Council wishes. 10 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Next Steps and Summary

As the Strategy involves some complexities Councillors have been provided a series of briefings during November.

A series of grant and lobbying opportunities exist over the short term as follows: • Basins programs (Round 1 of Infrastructure Program), submissions made by November 6, 2009 deadline; • National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns Program, submissions to be provided by December 1, 2009. • Stormwater Harvesting & Reuse Projects Program Round 2, submission by February 10, 2010.

It is intended to lodge submissions to the grants programs where appropriate. Additionally, water supply issues have been raised at the recent Federal Cabinet meeting in Bathurst and with the NSW Water Minister.

After a very significant body of work, the recommended strategy takes the following approach: • Holistic/integrated approach which meets national water initiative requirements – essentially a balanced portfolio of realistic demand and supply options. • Achievable and very significant levels of demand management; • Achievable and very significant levels of user education; • Achievable and very significant levels of water system efficiency; • Proper inclusion of climate change and climate correction; • Proper analysis of yield, reliability and security compared to population and growth; • After consideration of the above, the identification of the need for further sources to meet growth and improve yield, reliability and security; • Identification of local and regional sources to take the city forward several decades with an appropriate cushion/contingency;

The strategy proposed tends to maximise outcomes at this stage. Reducing the program is cautioned against as the exact timing of projects and funding sources at this stage is not confirmed, and on this basis, every project listed is needed over the broader term of the strategy. Additionally, some of the listed options are needed in the immediate term with the ongoing dry period.

It is acknowledged that some of the projects will cause some opposition, however as mentioned previously, the strategy is multi-facetted with every element considered necessary in the circumstances. Efforts will be made to ameliorate impacts and additionally, full impacts will be identified in the process.

11 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council adopt the following comprehensive water supply management strategy as outlined in the report to Council on 19 November 2009 entitled “WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009”.

The aim is to establish a broad based water supply strategy for the next 50 years and beyond which focuses on ongoing water conservation, quality and demand management and the provision of key water supply infrastructure at least 10 years in advance of projected demand, achieved through the following actions.

1. Water Conservation and Quality and Demand Management a) Ongoing effective demand management, community education, and policy direction aimed at ensuring efficient water usage across the city; b) Continuing investigation into, and implementation of, high level water efficiency measures within the water supply system, such as leak prevention and re-use; c) Working with key water users to assist in the implementation of water efficient processes to reduce consumption, including assistance in the development of Water Saving Action Plans; d) Continuation of general efficiency programs such as Waterwise, the promotion and provision of appropriate water efficiency devices and rainwater tank rebates; e) Ongoing supply and demand modelling identifying actions undertaken to date and enabling more refined modelling and analysis to inform development and timing of augmentations; f) Development of permanent low level restrictions on outdoor water use; g) Adoption of the following trigger levels for water restrictions; i) 70% of Full Supply Level - Level 1 ii) 60% of Full Supply Level - Level 2 iii) 50% of Full Supply Level - Level 3 iv) 40% of Full Supply Level - Level 4 v) 35% of Full Supply Level - Level 5 vi) 25% of Full Supply Level - Access up to 50% of water from Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam vii) 15% of Full Supply Level - Level 6 h) Review of the conditions and implementation of water restrictions, in particular levels 5 & 6 and proposed exit strategy, be undertaken and reported back to Council; i) Commitment to a “Whole of Catchment” approach to the integrated management of all aspects of quality and quantity relating to stormwater, drinking water, groundwater and wastewater; j) Allocation of appropriate resources within the water and sewerage funds to implement an effective Water Conservation and Quality and Demand Management Program. 12 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

2. Provision of Infrastructure Priority Local Options a) Fast tracking the development and construction of the Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting scheme as an emergency water supply project, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements, for completion in the first half of 2010; b) Commissioning of bores at the Orange Showground, Clifton Grove and Endeavour Field (following agreement with existing users) as an emergency water supply project, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements, for connection to the water supply system in the first half of 2010; c) Completion of safety upgrading works at Suma Park Dam including the adoption of operational rules which do not require the dam to be raised above its existing full supply level but enable the existing storage to be utilised more efficiently through the development of additional points of supply, such as stormwater harvesting.

Priority Regional Options d) Undertake a detailed feasibility analysis immediately into the establishment of an emergency water supply pipeline connection from the Macquarie River downstream of Bathurst to Orange, and as a secondary option, from Lake Rowlands to Orange (subject to the availability of suitable water volumes and agreement on business arrangements with Central Tablelands Water(CTW)), to confirm concepts and, if suitable, undertake the necessary statutory assessments to prepare for construction in order to optimise delivery of project/s, ideally within 2 years; e) Pursue State and Federal Government funding for regional pipelines in the priority order of both the Macquarie River and Lake Rowlands pipeline (subject to agreement with CTW) firstly, failing which, the Macquarie River pipeline only; f) Failing State and Federal Government funding of the Macquarie/Rowlands pipeline options, the Macquarie River pipeline be targeted to be secured in the medium term and the CTW connection in the medium/long-term (again subject to agreement with CTW on suitable volumes and business arrangements); g) Support the outcomes of the Centroc Water Security Study including promotion of the expansion of Lake Rowlands and associated pipelines in principle for the pursuit of State and Federal funding and for the negotiation of suitable access, volume, water charges and business arrangements and for full feasibility analysis.

Alternative Options (to be pursued following the above options or in lieu of the priority options if they cannot be achieved in the short term) h) Connection of Lake Canobolas into the city’s water supply network, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements including the establishment of appropriate operating rules to regulate operation of this system; i) Direct connection from Gosling Creek Dam into the city’s water reticulation network, including provision of appropriate water treatment infrastructure, subject to compliance with appropriate environmental and regulatory requirements including the establishment of appropriate operating rules to regulate operation of this system; j) Development of the second stage of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme generally as outlined in the original approval for this project; k) Investigation into the feasibility of developing a Managed Aquifer Recharge system in conjunction with the Federal Government. 13 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

3. Management, Promotion and Lobbying a) Seek to normalise emergency supplies over the medium term up to full supply capacity on the regional pipelines and stormwater harvesting and at 25% of full system supply for Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam; b) Continue to seek reform through the Department of Local Government and NSW Office of Water for the aggregation of Water Fund and Sewer Fund under IWCM principles; c) Continue to monitor opportunities for the construction of pipelines to either Burrendong or Wyangala Dams; d) Acknowledge longer-term options such as the acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements upon the wind up of operations at the Cadia Valley Operations (CVO) site, including Cadiangullong Dam, Rodds Creek Dam, groundwater, surface water and associated pipelines and pumping stations; e) Include the concept of first option for acquisition of water infrastructure and entitlements at the Cadia site within the current Effluent Agreement negotiations with CVO; f) Investigate the winding up or deferral of the current effluent re-use scheme due to an absence of available effluent (should Council continue to provide it to CVO in the medium/long term) and considering in more detail the much more beneficial outcome of stormwater harvesting and, over time, potentially more advantageous options such as indirect potable re-use or contribution to environmental flows balanced by maximisation of stormwater harvesting and effective operation of storages; g) Promote this strategy to groups such as the local Catchment Management Authorities (CMA’s) to seek support for grant funding approaches; h) Use this interim strategy to inform the Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy.

4. Funding a) Utilise existing NSW State Government emergency funding to complete Priority Local Projects at Ploughman’s Creek and bores and undertake investigations into Priority Regional Pipelines, and seek additional emergency funding and approval to alter existing emergency program from NSW Office of Water (NOW); b) Note that up to $10M of additional funding may be needed in Water Fund from internal or external sources as Council’s contribution towards regional pipelines or alternative water supply projects as outlined above; c) Note options to cushion such additional funding demands including; i) the raising of water charges; ii) reform to Water and Sewer Fund creating a single fund; and iii) potential General Fund sources such as sale of assets and the outcome of the Effluent Agreement negotiations with Cadia Valley Operations. Such increases in funding would significantly reduce the debt service ratio; d) Examine all relevant water related programs from the State and Federal Governments to secure additional funds to deliver this strategy, including submissions to the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns Program and Stormwater Harvesting & Reuse Projects Program Round 2.

14 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

BACKGROUND REPORT WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT-NOVEMBER 2009

INTRODUCTION This report provides detailed information on a wide range of existing and proposed activities within Council related to the development of a comprehensive strategy for the management of Orange’s water supply infrastructure to meet immediate and long term needs of the community.

EXISTING WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY Concerns have been raised in the local press about Council’s perceived lack of a strategic approach to water management. While there have been a number of reports on this matter provided in recent years outlining Council’s approach, it is useful to reflect on what Council has actually delivered in terms of its overall integrated water management in recent years as well as outline future options.

What has become evident throughout this period is that a water management strategy must be adaptable, particularly in light of the vast number of changes and challenges which have confronted local water utilities in recent times. These challenges have arisen from a variety of sources, from evermore stringent compliance requirements in environmental and legislative areas, through to structural reform, the need for financial sustainability and OH&S compliance. Added to this has been the impact of the drought and the need for local water utilities to manage and plan for the ongoing effects of climate change.

The fact that Orange is regarded across the industry in NSW as one of the leading large scale non-metropolitan Local Water Utilities (LWU’s) indicates that Council has been able to effectively meet many of these challenges and position itself to respond effectively to future challenges as they arise. The annual comparative data for water and sewerage utilities, published by the NSW Office of Water (formally DWE) continually ranks Orange near the top of most key performance indicators (see below) for inland large water utilities.

AVERAGE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLIED (inland LWU's)

350

300

250

200

150

kL per property per kL 100

50

0 Orange Bathurst Dubbo Local Water Utility

LWU's Statewide median

15 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BILL

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Amount in $ Amount 300 200 100 0 Orange Bathurst Dubbo Local Water Utility

Water Sewer Combined Statewide Median Water Statewide Median Sewer Statewide Median Combined

Achievements in the last 5 – 10 years have included: • Construction of the Ozone and Biological Activated Carbon Water Treatment Plant at Council’s existing Treatment Plant facility on Icely Road. This advanced standard of treatment, which is common throughout Europe, is rare in NSW and Australia. • Successful upgrade works at Spring Creek Dam in order to meet current NSW Dam Safety Committee requirements. This allows the dam to be filled to its maximum capacity, as well as withstand extreme flood events. • Compliance with Best Practice Guidelines for Water Supply and Sewerage. • Water pressure improvements in low pressure areas. • Construction of nutrient reduction treatment facilities at the existing Sewage Treatment Plant in Phillip Street. • Completion of the North Orange water and sewerage strategy in order to provide for residential growth in both the north and west. • Construction of water and sewerage infrastructure in order to service the new Orange Base Hospital and southern suburb.

Over the last two to three years, in response to challenges of a decreasing water supply, Council has developed an integrated approach to water management. This has involved: • Undertaking systems improvements, such as water loss management, leak detection, repair and pressure reduction programs resulting in savings of around 300-500ML/a. • Implementing processes for water re-use within the system, such as returning supernatant from the Icely Road Water Treatment Plant to Suma Park Dam, providing savings of around 200ML/a. • Demand management through pricing and the imposition of water restrictions. • Development of alternative water supplies such as stormwater harvesting. 16 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• Community education, such as involvement with the Waterwise and Watertight programs. • Hospitality industry audits in partnership with Dubbo City Council with funding from the Central West Catchment Management Authority. • Working with specific industry sectors, such as the major water users, to develop on-site strategies to reduce water consumption. Major water users such as the Central West Linen Service and Electrolux have undertaken extensive water audits and developed Water Savings Action Plans that aim to significantly reduce water consumption. The Linen service indicated savings in excess of 30% or around 44ML/a. • Provision of rainwater tank rebates and the showerhead exchange program. • Installation of water efficient devices throughout all Council buildings, with savings of between 24-40% being achieved. • Catchment based actions such as willow removal along many creeks in the city area. • Improvements to water quality throughout the catchment, such as the construction of gross pollutant traps along with effective trade waste management to minimise the likelihood of pollutants entering the water system.

The range of achievements and ongoing programs and initiatives indicates that Council has taken a very pro-active role in water management in recent years which has not only contributed to a significant overall reduction in water usage across the city, but has also resulted in a much more robust and diverse water supply system. These are not just “one- off” solutions but contribute to ongoing reductions in overall water usage, thus improving the sustainability of the system in the longer term. It is estimated that these actions will result in a net improvement to the water supply system of between 1500-1800ML/a.

These achievements have been possible due to the effective collaboration between Council and the Orange community, which is reflected in the way residents have embraced changes in water management over this time. In particular the community has lived under level 5 water restrictions for the last 18 months and the dramatic reduction in overall water consumption, from over 7100ML/a to 4100ML/a since 2002, as outlined in the graph below, demonstrates that the Orange community understands the need to use water more wisely.

17 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Orange Monthly Rainfall and Water Consumption vs Time (Jan 1998 - Aug 2009) 250 1200

Water restrictions - Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, level 5

User Pays - Stage 1, Stage 2 1000 200

800

150

600

Rainfall (mm) (mm) Rainfall 100 Consumption (ML) Consumption 400

50 200

0 0 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Jul-04 Oct-04 Jan-05 Apr-05 Jul-05 Oct-05 Jan-06 Apr-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Jan-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09

Time

Rainfall Consumption

FUTURE STRATEGIC DIRECTION THE NEED TO RE-FOCUS The current regime of high level water restrictions must not, however, become the norm for Orange.

Council needs to develop a plan for its water supply infrastructure which addresses the current water shortage in the immediate term and forms part of a robust long term strategy which aims to avoid severe water restrictions in the future and enable the Orange community to return to a reasonable level of water availability with responsible usage.

There is no greater responsibility on Council than to secure the city’s future water supplies. There is no better an opportunity for Council to take on this challenge than now given the focus on sustainable water management at all levels of government in Australia.

Council has established a solid platform from which to develop a comprehensive water management strategy for the future, building upon: • The demand management programs which have been implemented in recent years, giving the community a greater understanding of the real value of water and how they can use less. • Ongoing efficiency improvements which are now firmly embedded in the operation of the water supply system. • Effective and ongoing community engagement on water management. • Completion of the Centroc Water Security Study which provides a regional context for water management for the first time. 18 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• The successful delivery of the first stage of the stormwater harvesting scheme providing a new and reliable source of water, and providing Council with a model from which further similar projects can evolve.

STRATEGY AIMS The water strategy must be broad based and not reliant on one single supply option as has been the case in the past. In its development the strategy needs to consider all possible options presently available, and be open to new and innovative solutions. All of these need to be fully examined and, where appropriate, adopted and prioritised to address current short-term needs immediately as well as form part of the city’s ongoing water strategy in the medium and long term. The strategy must be adaptable to meet current and future challenges particularly given the level of water reform which is occurring in NSW and Australia at the present time.

As is the case with other regional cities, Council should be striving to position the city in such a way that the underlying uncertainty amongst residents about the security of their water supply is removed. This needs to be achieved through a combination of efficient water usage as well as a supply system that is secure in the long term. The historical peaks and troughs of abundance and scarcity need to be removed and replaced by a new water supply system which is robust, diverse and adaptable and able to respond to future demands efficiently. Council needs to adopt a long planning and implementation horizon for its key water infrastructure to avoid the need to implement harsh and long lasting water restrictions. To aid in this aim a buffer of around 10 years of supply capacity is considered appropriate.

The stormwater harvesting scheme is an example of the innovative and smart approach Council is taking in its management of water. This scheme is relatively simple in its operation, providing a source of “new” water to the city which can be run at variable levels as determined by the operating rules adopted. In addition, this scheme enables existing infrastructure, ie Suma Park Dam, to be operated more effectively by being able to control inflows into the dam and therefore make more efficient usage of the available infrastructure.

A range of system enhancements, both structural and non-structural, has been identified which will deliver both additional volume as well significant sustainable system efficiencies, improving the security of supply to meet future demands. These are outlined in detail later in this report.

CURRENT WATER SUPPLY SITUATION The graph below provides a clear indication of the water supply challenge facing the city in the immediate term. Current weather models identify a return of the El Nino weather pattern at least until Autumn 2010 and predictions that rainfall within the Murray Darling Basin is likely to remain at below average levels for the next two years. Given the uncertainty about future rainfall and subsequent runoff as a result of the prolonged dry conditions, Council should be endeavouring, in conjunction with ongoing demand management programs, to implement infrastructure solutions as quickly as possible which, in the first instance, enable the city’s water needs to be met during these conditions, and, in the longer term, can be operated in such a manner to help avoid the city’s water supplies being placed under such levels of stress in the future.

19 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

ANALYSIS OF YIELD, SECURITY & RELIABILITY The most critical elements in understanding the current status of the city’s water supply are the future demand which will be made on the system by the city’s residents as the population grows, and the ability of the system to effectively meet this demand.

With the finalisation of the Centroc Water Security Study and the completion of the secure yield analysis under the IWCM Strategy, Council now has the benefit of two separate detailed technical assessments which address these issues.

The summary below, which is an extract from the Centroc Study, provides a detailed discussion on the two methods of analysis used to assess the secure yield, security and reliability of urban water supplies.

How is Water Supply Security Determined?

Historically, the secure yield of a water supply has been determined using the “5,10, 20 rule”. This rule is an accepted guideline, not a standard. This rule states that the secure yield is the annual demand that can be supplied:

• Without restrictions of any kind applied for more than 5% of the time (the “5” element);

• Where restrictions are applied, they should not be imposed more than one year in ten on average (the “10” element); and

20 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

• The system should be able to supply 80% of normal demand (ie 20% reduction in consumption) through a repeat of the worst drought on record (the “20” element).

It is important to note that, even with this rule, there are financial (affordability), social and environmental reasons why this level of service may not be provided in all areas.

Secure yield determination is based on historical events. This approach is considered to be “static” and “deterministic” modelling as it considers non-varying future annual demand and one possible “reality” ie the past.

Yield is not static. It changes depending on inflows, infrastructure and operating rules and therefore needs to be reviewed frequently. Demand is not static as it changes in response to climate variation, dryer years have higher demands and vice versa, wetter years have lower demands.

In recent years, with improvements in computational modelling, a more dynamic approach to water supply security assessment has been adopted. This approach is “stochastic”. This approach allows for estimating the probability of supply coming under threat (ie moving into restrictions and failure) under potential future conditions. These models allow for the possibility of a series of potential outcomes, each with a different probability of occurring. The process is based on replicating the random fluctuations observed in historical data.

This modelling approach does not use the “5, 10, 20 rule”. Instead, this process considers the probability of certain outcomes. In this type of analysis, there are two key concepts: security and reliability. The security of a supply is the probability that a system will run out of water. The reliability of a supply is the likelihood that restriction on demand will be required.

Determining the security and reliability of a water supply system also needs to take into account design criteria. For instance, whilst it is not acceptable to run out of water, the reasonable restriction of water demand during droughts is acceptable. Similarly, the assessment should also consider expected reductions in demand as a result of water conservation activities. The key objectives of this study are:

Based on a reliability criteria of 90% (as adopted by major cities in Australia for stochastic modelling)

• Security: that water supply storages do not empty more often than 0.1% of the time.

• Reliability: that restrictions (of any duration) do not occur more in greater than 10% of years (ie that restrictions are not too frequent – the same as the “10” element in the old rule).

Initially the reliability and security of an existing water supply system is assessed and then if the objectives are not satisfied the required changes to infrastructure and/or demand management are determined. Relaxing these objectives would reduce the reliability and/or security of supply, while reducing the required expenditure and vice versa, tightening these criteria increase the level of expenditure on new infrastructure for water supply, potentially to levels that are not affordable.

In this study, the stochastic Water Headworks Network (WATHNET) software package has been used. Historical and synthetic information have been used to simulate the system and generate a range of potential outcomes to help better assess the reliability and security of supply.

21 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

CENTROC WATER SECURITY STUDY-RELIABILITY AND SECURITY ASSESSMENT The Centroc Study findings for Orange can be summarised as follows:

2009 2059

Population served with water 36,766 42,107

Existing baseline demand ML/a 5,837 7,373 Average demand with current demand management 5,818 6,395 programs in place ML/a Average annual demand with recommended additional 5,818 6,174 conservation program ML/a Average Annual demand with recommended conservation (2050) 6,543 programs plus climate change

This analysis demonstrates that Council’s current demand management will have a significant ongoing impact on enabling Council to meet the future water needs of a growing population. Comparing the projected baseline water demand for 2059 (7,373ML/a) against what demand management strategies Council has already put in place (6,395 ML/a) results in a reduction of around 1000ML/a, with this saving potentially increasing to around 1,200 ML/a if additional conservation programs are implemented.

The study also looked at the impact of climate change and identified that in 2050 the average annual demand would increase to 6,543 ML/a, representing an impact of around 433ML/a.

The Centroc Study focuses on the reliability and security of the city’s water supply system.

The reliability assessment is based on criteria adopted by major cities in Australia which aims to achieve 90% reliability -that is restrictions (of any duration) do not occur in greater than 10% of years ie restrictions are not too frequent. For Orange the study identifies that this can be achieved, ie the probability of level 1 restrictions is 10% or once every 10 years.

Security relates to the likelihood of the water supply system failing, and the adopted criteria for major cities is once in 1000 years or 0.1% of the time. The Centroc Study identifies that, at this time, the likelihood of the city’s water supply failing is 6 times in 1000 years or 0.6% if a demand of 5,837ML/a is to be met. Therefore the study has identified that action needs to be taken to improve the security of Orange’s water supply. This can be achieved in the medium term through the augmentation of Lake Rowland’s and connection into the city’s water supply system. However, as the study identifies, it will be at least 10 years before this project will become operational. The study also identifies a shorter term solution involving connection to the Macquarie River east of Orange and this, and other options discussed below are being examined to ensure a significant improvement in the city’s water security is achieved in the short term.

IWCM STRATEGY –SECURE YIELD ASSESSMENT This modelling adopts a baseline annual demand equivalent to permanent low level restrictions of 5,400ML/a, being the average of the Centroc Study value of 5,818ML/a and the demand under level 1 restrictions of 5,000ML/a. The secure yield analysis undertaken by Geolyse indicates that, with the introduction of additional water from bore supplies in conjunction with the additional water supplied by the first stage of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting System, this demand can be met at the current time. Without these additional supplies the secure yield was around 4,000ML/a, therefore the actions 22 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009 taken by Council over the past two years, or currently underway through the development of the bore supplies, has improved the city’s secure yield to meet baseline needs.

The analysis models two potential growth scenarios for the city and identifies the expected timeline that a range of local and regional water supply options would be able to meet future demands. A base growth rate of 0.6% has been modelled, consistent with the IWCM Concept Study, along with a potential growth rate of 1%.

Secure Available Available 0.6% 1% Option Yield Capacity Capacity Growth Growth (ML/a) (Years) (Years) Base situation 4,000

+ Blackmans Stage 1 5,000

+ Current Local Projects

+ bores 5,500 2012 3 2011 2 + Ploughmans Creek 5,900 2024 15 2017 8 harvesting Regional Proposal + Macquarie River connection based on 7,100 2054 43 2036 27 3ML/day) Ultimate Proposal

+ Expanded Lake Rowlands 9,300 2060 50+ 2058 50+

It is important to understand that, as new projects such as the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting project is a new source of water, it has not been contributing to the supply levels and so the benefit of the scheme in terms of augmenting the base supply level ie 5,000ML/a has not yet been achieved. The secure yield calculations are based on over 120 years of data and so, when additional water sources are included, it assumes these sources have also been contributing to the system for the entire modelling period. This provides a higher annual secure yield value than would be achieved as the accrual of this additional supply in the system has not occurred.

23 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

This analysis indicates that, while the current local projects can achieve the predicted secure yield for the next 9-16 years, it is necessary to begin development of the next stage of infrastructure works immediately to improve security and limit the likelihood of ongoing water restrictions. As well, provision must be made for the development and delivery of any project which realistically requires a minimum lead time of more than two years.

Council should be striving for a water supply system which has in-built redundancy in the event that one part of the system does not deliver to the full extent expected. It needs to be recognised that these yield assessments, while based on current agreed methods of analysis, are modelled values. The nature of this type of assessment, which is statistically based, means that yields either above or below the predicted amounts will occur in individual years. The need for Council to continue to develop additional water supply sources at the present time is particularly critical because actual yields for the last few years have been below expected levels, resulting in the water supply system being at a current all time low level, reducing the systems flexibility to deal with these annual variations.

PROPOSED STRATEGY INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS - CURRENT PROJECTS The projects currently under development involve: • Bores at

o the showground, o Clifton Grove, and o Endeavour Field (Emus) (Subject to appropriate arrangements with users), and • Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting project. 24 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

These projects are capable of increasing the secure yield to 5,900ML/a thus creating between 9 and 16 years of spare capacity for the city’s secure yield. These projects are all proposed to be implemented over the next six to eight months. Given the need to deliver these works as quickly as possible, where appropriate, preliminary processes will be fast- tracked to enable on-site construction to commence as soon as possible. • Suma Park Dam safety upgrading

Details of these individual projects are discussed later in this report.

INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS - PROPOSED PROJECTS The above projects are all locally based, aimed at optimising water supply opportunities within the Orange LGA. In order to increase the diversity and robustness of the city’s water supply system it is recommended that the next phase of the strategy involve regional solutions which extend beyond the city’s boundaries.

Macquarie River Pipeline As outlined above, a pipeline to the Macquarie River has been identified in the Centroc Study as an emergency water supply option for Orange. Preliminary investigations indicate that a flow of between 3ML/day (as modelled above) and 5ML/day should be achievable with a high level of reliability. This would increase the city’s secure yield to around 7600ML/a and provide a significant buffer in the city’s water supply.

A number of potential pipeline routes have been identified between Orange and the Macquarie River and, based on a preliminary “order of cost” assessment of around $700/m, the minimum cost of such a project is around $22m. It is proposed to undertake a more detailed assessment of the hydrology of the river, as well as examine a wide range of potential pipeline routes, to determine the optimal point from which Council could look to draw water from the Macquarie River. In addition a full understanding of the potential social and environmental impacts of such a project will need to be developed.

This pipeline would be initially constructed as an emergency project in a similar way that the other existing and proposed water supply works have been developed in Orange. In the longer term the pipeline should operate as a component of the city’s normal water supply system. As is the case with the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting project, any approval for this project would be subject to a range of operating rules to ensure an appropriate baseflow is maintained in the river and extraction rates were regulated as appropriate during the emergency phase. For example, the emergency approval for the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting project limits extraction to when Suma Park Dam is at or below 50%.

Delivery of this project could be achieved potentially within two years. It is therefore important that further, more detailed, investigations commence immediately to enable Council to gain a clearer understanding of all the key issues relating to this project.

A number of funding options could be pursued to deliver this project. A similar project approved in recent times is the Wingecarribee-Goulburn pipeline. This $50M project has been funded in a 1:1 funding model involving the Federal and State Governments. Given the massive funding available for water related infrastructure from the Federal Government of around $12.4b, every effort should be made to secure a portion of this funding for this project. As an alternative, the 50:50 emergency funding model of the State Government, which Council is benefitting from in the delivery of the current range of emergency projects, could be utilised. To encourage this project it may be appropriate to seek funding on a 2:2:1 basis including 20% funding from Council. 25 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Centroc Regional Water Security Plan The final stage of Council’s water supply strategy involves implementation of the key recommendations of the Centroc Water Security Study, in particular the upgrading of Lake Rowlands and the development of a regional pipe network including a connection to Orange and Molong from the augmented Lake Rowlands.

In conjunction with the local and regional options identified above, Council should be providing its full support for this regional project, particularly through lobbying as part of Centroc. In addition, Council staff, as part of their involvement in the Centroc Infrastructure Group, will be working with staff from other Centroc Councils, to develop an implementation plan aimed at ultimately delivering this project.

The Centroc Study has identified that, with the implementation of this project, Orange’s water security and reliability will be at a level similar to that adopted for all major cities in Australia.

Council should therefore support the recommendations of the Centroc Water Security Study as these recommendations present a significant benefit to the long term security of the city’s water supply.

Alternative Infrastructure Options The four projects identified above are either currently underway or, in the case of the Macquarie River pipeline option, appears to be the most advantageous option for Council to pursue at this time. However, in order to ensure all possible options are considered in the development of the water supply strategy, it is important to identify a range of alternative infrastructure projects, some of which could either be undertaken as a further stage of the strategy following implementation of the above projects, or could be considered as alternatives should any of the above projects not proceed. A detailed discussion on these alternative project follows.

Pipeline to Lake Rowlands This option involves negotiating with Central Tablelands Water (CTW) to potentially access a portion of the water in the existing Lake Rowlands through the construction of a pipeline from Orange to Blayney in the first instance, and possibly onto Carcoar and/or Lake Rowlands ultimately. This pipeline has been identified in the Centroc Water Study as part of the recommended network ultimately linking Orange and Molong to an expanded Lake Rowlands. Such an option would be subject to a suitable agreement being negotiated with CTW, with the availability and cost of the water being two key issues. While this proposal meets the objective of adopting a regional approach to water management, there is potential for opposition from within the existing CTW network, particularly if water restrictions have to be imposed on existing customers as a result of Orange utilising some of the water.

The Centroc study also identified Cowra, Forbes and Parkes as also benefitting from an expanded Lake Rowlands. With the current low level of Wyangala Dam and the reduction in flows in the Lachlan River, these centres may also need to seek to access water from Lake Rowlands as an emergency supply. Therefore Council would need to fully investigate these issues and, if necessary, develop an agreement regarding equitable access to any available water. 26 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

A further possible benefit related to a pipeline in this location is the potential for it to be used to transfer water from Browns Creek Mine near Blayney. In conjunction with staff from the NSW Office of Water (NOW, previously DWE) Council commissioned a preliminary investigation into the feasibility of extracting a portion of the 4500ML of water stored in the Browns Creek Mine near Blayney. The assessment identified concerns about the stability of the mine if significant drawdown occurred and also identified potential impacts on adjacent creek systems which replenish the mine. The study indicated that this source could reliably deliver in the order of 2ML/day. Should this option be pursued, significant environmental assessment would be required including consultation with potentially affected landowners and downstream surface and groundwater users.

At this stage, given the potential for significant possible State and Federal funding for water infrastructure, Council should pursue this option in conjunction with the Macquarie River pipeline. Further consultation and investigations need to be undertaken in regard to this proposal, including assessing options for staging the works. At this time an indicative price of around $30M should be adopted for this project and, in conjunction with the Macquarie River project, discussions held with State and Federal Governments on possible funding models. The total value of these two pipelines is similar to the $50M provided under the funding model for the Goulburn pipeline.

Blackmans Swamp Stormwater Harvesting Scheme-Stage 2 The second option available to Council is implementation of the second stage of the Blackmans Swamp Stormwater Harvesting project. This involves construction of a large storage structure on or adjacent to the creek to store flows during high rainfall events so that harvesting can continue for a period of time after flows in the creek drop back below the trigger levels of the extraction pumps. This enables significantly larger volumes, of around an additional 800ML/a, to be extracted. This will however have a larger impact on the downstream aquatic environment. The existing Summer Hill Creek water users group which meets regularly with Council staff have been monitoring the effects of the current harvesting scheme, and regularly express concerns about being the only creek system currently being impacted as a result of water supply works aimed at alleviating the city’s water shortage. To extract further water from this system without firstly putting in place a broad range of alternative solutions would be met with concern by this group. As previously discussed, Council should be seeking to develop a broad range of alternative water supply options in the first instance. Once this is achieved, or if these options cannot be delivered due to failure to secure appropriate approvals and/or funding, Council has the option to then turn to projects such as the second stage of the harvesting scheme.

Re-connection of Lake Canobolas Council has a third option involving re-connecting into Lake Canobolas. While this is a relatively small supply, of around 450ML, it does offer an additional source of water during times of scarcity which would help augment the city’s water supplies. Council’s current resolution supports the construction of infrastructure to link the Lake in to the city water supply. Operation of this scheme could be managed by a series of operating rules, possibly involving • preserving water levels in the lake as high as possible for as long as possible, with any extraction only to occur when the city’s total storages reached a critical trigger point, such as 25%, and the impacts on the aquatic environment of the lake to be given proper consideration when setting extraction levels, and • a component of harvesting when the lake is overflowing, set at levels that minimised potential impacts on the downstream aquatic environment.

27 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

This project would be subject to a full environmental assessment and community consultation. However, as part of Council’s approach to developing a wide range of alternative water supply options, re-connecting of Lake Canobolas should remain under consideration. It also needs to be recognised that Council’s water fund, which has been under significant financial stress in recent years, is required to meet the ongoing operational and maintenance costs of Lake Canobolas. In time this will include significant upgrading work to a similar standard as has been demanded at both Spring Creek and Suma Park Dams by the Dam Safety Committee. Therefore this significant investment by the ratepayers of Orange who currently pay for this facility as part of their water rates and charges, should not only provide a recreational facility but should also contribute to improving the security of the city’s water supply.

Connection of Gosling Creek Dam Gosling Creek Dam, with a capacity of around 650ML, is located upstream of Spring Creek Dam and water can be released from Gosling Creek Dam if needed to augment the city’s water supply. Due to its role as a recreational facility, Gosling Creek Dam is generally not utilised as a water supply dam and is therefore not included in reports on the water supply system’s overall status. However, as with Lake Canobolas, the dam is funded by water fund and therefore should be available for water supply purposes when appropriate.

Extraction from the dam should be managed similarly to Lake Canobolas, ie preserving water levels in the lake as high as possible for as long as possible, with any extraction only to occur when the city’s total storages reached a critical trigger point, such as 25%, and the impacts on the aquatic environment of the lake given proper consideration when setting extraction levels. Gosling Creek Dam is connected directly into the city’s water reticulation system via the Spring Creek Water Filtration Plant. This plant is currently out of service due to the decreased water demand in the city being fully met by the Icely Rd Filtration Plant. It would be possible to replace this plant, for a short term use, with a package treatment plant which could be brought on line at short notice. This would ensure that any water extracted from Gosling Creek Dam met the appropriate Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. This would eliminate system losses associated with transferring water from the dam to Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam during periods when these storages were at low levels. Detailed investigation into this option will be undertaken as part of the development of the overall water supply strategy.

Lucknow Mine Water Chris Jewell and Associates, Hydro-geological Consultants, have provided a report on the Lucknow Mine water. Old records were located of a dewatering project carried out in 1958. The records indicate 120 ML was extracted to the 90m level. Inflow during the extraction period was estimated at 2 ML per week but the records note that it was an extremely wet period. The mines extend extensively below the 300ft level so total water volume could be assumed to be approximately 250 ML. The water should be considered to be groundwater in the ownership of the Crown and therefore a licence application would be required to extract the water.

The report considers the impact of water extraction on the structural stability of the mine and comments, “After many years of abandonment, both natural and artificial supports are likely to have deteriorated, but some support is provided by the water that has flooded the voids. If this hydraulic support is removed, collapse may occur.” 28 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

To avoid any risk of collapse, extraction could be limited to balancing the inflow rate however that inflow rate must be assumed to be a maximum of 2 ML per week (approximately 3% of total annual water use – cost benefit rules out this option i.e. amount of water saved is minimal compared to the capital cost of construction and operation) Other options provide better use of Council’s funds.

Stormwater Managed Aquifer Recharge Orange has been identified as one of two possible locations in NSW where a Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme could possibly be developed. This involves injection of surplus water into contained aquifers for storage and future retrieval. This has the advantage of providing some cleansing of the water through natural filtration processes as well as avoiding evaporation losses. A Scope of Works has been prepared to undertake a feasibility study to determine the viability off such a scheme. Federal Government funding is available to undertake this study.

STATUS OF CURRENT LOCAL PROPOSALS Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme This scheme has been operating in batch mode since April. To date harvesting has occurred from 25 individual storm runoff events yielding around 245ML of water. A large number of water samples have been taken from this harvested stormwater both before and after preliminary treatment. These samples have been subjected to over 200 individual tests to provide a detailed understanding of the quality of this water, and thus determine its suitability for discharge into Suma Park Dam. To date, while a very small number of tests failed to meet the established target criteria levels in the first instance, necessitating some re-testing or re-treatment, all batches transferred to Suma Park Dam have complied with the target criteria.

The scheme is due to move to the next part of the commissioning process which is the continuous phase in the near future. This will involve operating the scheme on an ongoing basis as harvesting opportunities allow until a further 15 test samples are taken. Once this phase has been successfully concluded, the scheme can move into the trial production phase for 12 months, followed by full production. The NSW Office of Water requires all these discreet stages to be successfully passed as part of their ongoing approval of the scheme.

While the early results have been very encouraging, the scheme is still in the developmental stages. Substantially more data is required to enable a better understanding of the water quality and quantity issues associated with the scheme. As this knowledge base grows, Council will be in a better position to make decisions about how to best adjust any operational aspects of the scheme to ensure the system operates with maximum efficiency. At the same time Council staff are continuing to meet with a representative group of downstream property owners, sharing information about the actual operation of the scheme and discussing any issues which may arise.

Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme Council’s project team have been progressing with the concept plans and the approvals for the Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (PCSHS). PCSHS is expected to generate an annual yield of 730 – 790 ML to supplement the City’s raw water supply and is expected to be operational by June 2010. This represents around 13% of baseline supply. The PCSHS will extract raw stormwater from the Ploughmans Creek catchment and transfer via a combination of new and existing pipe lines to the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSHS) Holding Pond. The PCSHS stormwater will be stored, treated and transferred to Suma Park Dam using the existing BSCSHS infrastructure. 29 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

The project involves construction of wetlands at three locations • Upstream of Cargo Road on Ploughmans Creek • Downstream of Escort Way on Ploughmans Creek • Somerset Park

These locations have been identified as part of an overall review of proposed wetlands across the city. These three locations were identified by wetland consultant Geoff Sainty as being among the five sites across the city recommended for wetland construction.

Development of this project is well advanced, with the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) due to be completed by mid November. While this is a Part 5 activity under the EP&A Act which does not require public consultation, it is proposed to provide a two week consultation period, following which a report will be prepared for Council’s consideration at its meeting on 17 December 2009. At the same time a number of tenders have been called for key components of the work to enable the project to commence in January 2010, subject to Council approval. These issues will be outlined in more detail in the report to Council in December 2009.

Groundwater Showground Bore The original Showground bore has been successfully upgraded and extended yield testing has shown that the bore appears capable of sustaining flows of up to 0.3-0.5 ML per day. Staff are investigating the following options: • direct injection into the town water supply system after appropriate treatment; • linking the bore to the Blackmans Swamp Stormwater Harvesting Scheme infrastructure as part of the proposed Ploughmans Creek Stormwater Harvesting Project. Survey and design work for this option has been completed.

The bore is currently connected to a non potable filling station and truck wash facilities at Council’s Works Depot. This supply was recently used to fill the main pool at the aquatic centre.

Endeavour Field Bore Emu’s Rugby Club has provided Council with access to the bore at Endeavour field. Yield testing has shown that the bore appears capable of sustaining flows of 0.3-0.5 ML per day. Once again, Council staff are investigating the direct injection from the bore into the town water supply system after appropriate treatment. Further discussion will need to be held with Emus relating to longer term access to this bore and to the option of adjusting the existing licence for town water usage. This will be the subject of a separate report to Council in the near future. In the interim this bore will be used to fill the diving pool and provide top-up water for the aquatic centre, which helps relieve the demand on the city’s potable supplies.

Clifton Grove Bore As with the Showground and Emu’s bores, staff are investigating the option of direct injection of the bore water into the water supply system after appropriate treatment. In addition, the option of linking this bore directly to Suma Park Dam is being examined. This supply is capable of providing between 0.3-0.5ML per day. 30 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

The estimated cost to connect these bore supplies to the city’s water supply is around $450,000, of which 50% is provided for under the State Government’s emergency water supply funding. It is proposed to have these supplies functional by June next year at the latest.

Suma Park Dam Upgrade Status Dead Storage Council staff engaged divers to assess the base of Suma Park Dam recently. This investigation revealed only around 100mm of siltation on the bottom of the dam, indicating that the dam capacity has not been impacted significantly by sediment build up since construction. It was also confirmed that the base of the dam slopes to the dam wall and it is possible to extract basically all water from the dam either through the off-take tower or the scour valve at the base of the dam.

Upgrading Works Council staff have concluded the engagement with the previous consultant working on the design of the safety upgrade for the dam and have sought expressions of interest to enable a short list of consultants capable of undertaking this work to be developed. Six responses were received and these consultants will now be invited to submit concept designs for the project which achieve the necessary first stage safety requirements of the Dam Safety Committee as well as guaranteeing the design can be delivered within Council’s budget. The Consultant providing the most appropriate submission will then be engaged to undertake the detailed design work.

In a previous report to Council in May 2008 the issue of raising the dam wall as part of the safety upgrading work was discussed. As this report indicated, with reduced run off into the dam from the rural catchments, the value of making the dam larger was questionable, particularly when any increase in the storage capacity of the dam could also result in the need for increased environmental flows from the dam, thus reducing the effectiveness of the additional storage capacity. In addition, the increased storage depth would result in a substantially larger surface area resulting in increased evaporation.

As recommended in this current report, Council should focus on diversifying its water supply network by establishing a broad range of supply options in preference to the traditional reliance on runoff from rural catchments. Schemes such as stormwater harvesting, bores and pipelines from new sources all achieve this, enabling the existing dam to be utilised more efficiently by being filled from a number of sources. This provides Council with much more control over its water supply system and thus enables Council to operate key infrastructure such as Suma Park Dam more effectively.

While a larger dam can hold more water, the size of the dam must be optimised to suit the expected yield from the catchment. Making the dam too large creates storage capacity which is underutilised. The revised secure yield calculations suggest that increasing the dam size is unwarranted. Based on this new assessment, the current dam will now take over five years to fill when previously it would have been expected to fill in 2.3 years.

With the range of alternative water supply options identified in this report, funding of these projects in preference to raising the dam level at Suma Park Dam provides significantly more benefits to the water supply system and so should be pursued.

The Dam Safety Emergency Plan is currently being finalised, with a Draft Plan delivered to Council last week. Once adopted, this plan will be implemented as a matter of priority, providing a much more effective means of alerting downstream residents of any potential safety or flooding issues associated with the dam. 31 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Effluent Re-use The re-use of treated sewerage effluent has been identified as a possible source of alternative water supply for the city which should be considered. With current methods of treatment, it is technically possible to cleanse sewerage effluent to a standard for discharge into potable water supplies or indirect potable re-use (IPR). However there is still significant resistance from regulators as well as sections of the community over the use of such schemes. The recent events in Toowoomba are an example of the challenges faced in gaining community support for the use of treated sewerage in potable water supplies. Given the level of caution being shown by the NSW Department of Health and NSW Office of Water in regard to the provision of a permanent licence for the stormwater harvesting scheme, the pathway to approval of a sewerage re-use scheme is likely to be much more difficult and protracted.

The implementation of such a scheme would require the installation of very sophisticated Advanced Water Treatment Plants. The development of such a scheme must follow the guidelines set out in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling, with the level of treatment considered within a risk management framework that takes into account the quality of the raw water and its intended use. Obviously ultimate potable use presents the greatest risks. The risks addressed by the Guidelines are in two categories-‘acute’ which are short term risks associated with microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa and ‘chronic’ which are long term, carcinogenic risks and are associated with a range of organic micro-contaminants.

The primary treatment objectives for IPR schemes is the removal of pathogens or organics by implementing a multiple-barrier treatment process which could include some of the following technologies; coagulation and sedimentation for particle and organics removal, filtration (conventional or membranes) for particle and pathogen removal, reverse osmosis or granulated activated carbon for organics removal, advanced oxidation for removal of micro- contaminants and disinfection for inactivation of pathogens.

The order of costs for these plants is between $14-20M capital costs and the operational cost to produce the water, excluding capital cost, is between $0.30-0.90/kl.

Under the current agreement with Cadia Valley Operations (CVO) Council does not have access to this effluent until around 2012 at the earliest and, as Council is aware, is currently in discussion with CVO over future access agreements. At this time, therefore, Council should focus on more cost effective options which can be potentially be brought on-line in a shorter time frame.

Dual Water System Council has constructed a dual water supply system which will ultimately service 4500 homes in the north and west of the city.

The scheme was developed to reduce the demand for potable water usage across the city and thus save significant funds by delaying major infrastructure works particularly associated with upgrading of the water filtration plant. This was to be achieved by initially providing properties with raw water directly from Suma Park Dam, and ultimately providing treated effluent from the Sewerage Treatment Plant. To achieve this, separate piped reticulation systems for both potable and non-potable water had to be installed. To date around 500 properties have been connected into this system, with a further 500 lots connected to the dual system. 32 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

A key element of this proposal was that the non-potable water, which typically accounts for the majority of usage during peak demand periods, was to be provided at a reduced cost compared to the treated water. While this proposal involved additional infrastructure to be installed in these new residential areas, it was deemed by the Department of Planning to satisfy the BASIX requirements for water re-use and so relieved property owners of the requirements to install rain water tanks on their properties.

The initial phase of this scheme relies on Suma Park Dam as the point of supply of both potable and non-potable water. While the scheme would certainly reduce the demand for treated water, the reduced charge for non-potable water would encourage an increase in usage for this component, thus leading to an overall increase in total water usage.

In recent years, as storage dam levels have steadily dropped, Council has had to implement water restrictions aimed at reducing overall water usage, with outdoor non-potable usage being the main area where residents have been required to make significant cutbacks. This has necessitated a review of Council’s approach to operating the dual water system. When Council first considered the dual water supply system in 2002 the economic analysis then indicated that, should demand for potable water reduce by more than 12% as a consequence of user-pays pricing, a single water reticulation system is considered more economical than a dual system utilising raw water from Suma Park Dam. As potable usage has dropped significantly in recent times, the scheme as originally proposed now needs to be reviewed.

At the same time stormwater harvesting opportunities in the Ploughmans Creek catchment, have now emerged as an additional source of water which enables Council to fulfil the original intentions of the dual water supply system in a much more sustainable manner. Specifically, the dual water supply system replaced the need for residents to place rainwater tanks on individual properties to meet their BASIX obligations. By harvesting the stormwater from this same area, not only is the roof water which would have fed rainwater tanks captured in a single system, but so to is the additional runoff from hardstand areas ie driveways, footpaths, roads etc. This results in a much more widespread and efficient capture of “new” water, which ultimately reduces overall demand on the existing potable supply by a much greater amount than would be achieved by individual rainwater tanks.

In addition the proposed Ploughmans Creek Harvesting Scheme seeks to utilise sections of the dual water trunk mains to convey harvested stormwater from Ploughmans Creek to the holding pond for subsequent discharge into Suma Park Dam. At this time therefore, harvested stormwater, as well as being able to more than adequately meet the quantity demands originally intended for the dual water system, also offers significantly greater water quality outcomes especially when compared with treated effluent. In addition to uncertainty about when treated effluent may become available for re-use due to the current agreement with CVO and ongoing negotiations, issues relating to the treatment of this effluent to an appropriate standard for re-use also need to be resolved. In addition, concerns exist over potential contamination due to illegal cross-connections between the non-potable and potable supplies.

At this time Council is reviewing the whole dual water supply system and is in discussion with the Dept of Planning on this matter. In light of the above, it is intended that the current effluent re-use scheme be investigated with a view to either being wound up or deferred well into the future. At that time, options such as indirect potable, environmental flows, maximising stormwater harvesting and operation of storages or a continuation of existing or similar schemes will be required to be looked at.

33 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

This may prove complex as it will necessarily consider a re-apportionment of developer contributions and how to manage the wind up in terms of BASIX and the plumbing of homes, currently a requirement in subdivision consents.

FURTHER OUTCOMES OF THE CENTROC WATER SECURITY STUDY Mining Implications The Centroc Water Security Study examined the options of utilising regional water sources to meet the future demands of the mining sector. While it was not possible to clearly identify the full level of future demand from this sector, due to the uncertainty of when and if mines might proceed as well as the need for private mining organisations to be careful with information about future ventures which could impact their performance on the stock exchange, a reasonable estimate of possible future demand was achieved. An estimated regional demand of between 40-58 ML/day was adopted for modelling purposes, with the study indicating that such demand could be met from an expanded Lake Rowlands plus supply from Chifley Dam at Bathurst. If the Chifley supply was not available consideration would need to be given to either increasing the planned size of the amplification of Lake Rowlands or investigate supply from either Wyangala or Burrendong Dams. While the majority of the cost for such infrastructure would need to be met by the mining industry, there is the potential for mutual benefit for town water supplies. Therefore the development of any options which might bring a mutual benefit to Council should be monitored and reported to Council in the future.

Regional Pipelines - The potential for regional pipelines to Burrendong or Wyangala did not arise as a higher priority than Rowlands within the Centroc study as a source of town water, principally due to concerns about security and also comparative costs in regard to pumping. The Centroc study did not look at water sharing plans for the major State controlled dams. With the current over-allocation situation and uncertainty about progress on reforms to deliver a viable and robust water sharing environment, it is difficult to establish a satisfactory security for the impoundments. Upon suitable reform, this perspective may change. It is anticipated that through such a reform process consultation would occur between Councils, State Water and the local CMA’s.

Nonetheless, should the appropriate level of mining demand arise as mooted, the potential for regional pipelines (particularly to Wyangala) may require further analysis. In these circumstances, it may be possible to source further water for the Orange City supply.

NON-INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS Non-structural strategies currently underway which will contribute further to the security of the water supply system include:

Best Practice Compliance The NSW Office of Water (formerly Department of Water and Energy) requires Local Water Utilities (LWU’s) to demonstrate best-practice management of its business as a prerequisite for: • payment of a dividend from the surplus of a Local Government LWU’s water supply and sewerage businesses, and • financial assistance under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program.

There are six (6) best-practice criteria which are required to be complied with. These criteria are outlined in more detail in the Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage – Guidelines (DWE August 2007) and are listed below. 34 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Orange complies with all six of these criteria. • Strategic Business Planning • Pricing (including Developer Charges, Liquid Trade Waste Policy and Approvals) • Water Conservation • Drought Management • Performance Reporting • Integrated Water Cycle Management

Council has been identified as being one of the better performing LWU’s in NSW with regard to compliance with these guidelines and it is therefore important to ensure ongoing commitment to Best Practice. The following criteria provide evidence of this • Average annual residential water supplied (inland LWU's)

o Orange 177 kL per property o Statewide median 230 kL per property o Orange is lowest inland city with more than 10,000 connections • Typical Residential Bill

o Orange Water $378, Sewer $292, Combined $670 o Statewide median Water $370, Sewer $440, Combined $810 • Employees per 1000 properties (Water and Sewer) o Orange 1.0 o Statewide median 1.6 • Water quality complaints per 1000 properties

o Orange 1.0 o Statewide median 3.0 • 100% water quality compliance with physical, chemical and microbiological parameters • 100% Compliance with Effluent Discharge Licence (BOD, SS)

Demand Management Council has a comprehensive program aimed at promoting and maintaining effective demand management within the water fund. The programs identified below have been successfully implemented in recent years and have played a significant role in helping achieve significant reductions in water usage across the community. • Rainwater Tank Rebates • Waterwise Program & Community Engagement (Watertight Program) • Showerhead Exchange Program • Installation of water efficient devices in all Council buildings • Liaison with large water users to reduce usage

35 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

In addition, a number of new initiatives have been identified:- • Caroma Dorf ToiletSmart Program • Hospitality Industry Audits – CMA Funding • The development, implementation, auditing and monitoring of Water Savings Action Plans

In order to ensure these programs are effectively implemented and new initiatives are taken up in the future it is proposed to re-allocate staff resources in water and sewerage section, including the creation of a new position of Project Officer-Water Sustainability, to focus on all aspects of community engagement within the water supply catchment, including: • working with specific businesses to develop water saving action plans • promotion of water efficient practices in homes, schools, places of work etc • raising community awareness of the need to manage the catchment appropriately to ensure runoff water quality is of the highest possible standard

Water Restrictions Council has recently resolved to adopt a new regime of water restrictions in conjunction with Bathurst and Dubbo Councils. These restrictions establish a range of target consumption levels for the various levels of restriction. Individual Councils are free to determine at what particular storage levels the various restrictions apply.

Council is currently on Level 5 water restrictions, which is imposed when the total combined storage (Suma Park and Spring Creek Dams) falls below 30%.

In moving to the new water restrictions, Council should be aiming to develop a critical hierarchy of actions to be taken to prolong the water supply system. The aim should always be to avoid wherever possible Level 6 restrictions due to their potential impact on residents and business in the city.

Therefore decisive, early action should be taken to prevent this occurring. This can be achieved by imposing lower water restriction levels earlier than was previously the case.

Suggested Water Restriction Implementation Levels:

70% of Full Supply Level Level 1 60% of Full Supply Level Level 2 50% of Full Supply Level Level 3 40% of Full Supply Level Level 4 35% of Full Supply Level Level 5 25% of Full Supply Level Access up to 50% of water from Lake Canobolas and Gosling Creek Dam 15% of Full Supply Level Level 6

Council recently adopted common water restrictions along with Bathurst and Dubbo Councils. These restrictions are more comprehensive than those previously adopted by Council, and concerns have been raised about the severity and enforcement of these restrictions, particularly the new level 5 and 6 restrictions. In order to ensure the goal of achieving reduced water usage across the whole community, it is important to ensure a proper process of implementation of these restrictions. In addition, once conditions improve, the process of relaxing water restrictions also needs to be further examined. 36 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

As outlined above, this will be undertaken generally by water and sewerage staff specifically allocated to work with the community on a broad range of promotional and educational activities, as well as in the development of water savings actions plans, as identified in the water restrictions criteria.

In order to fully outline how these restrictions will be implemented, as well as review the conditions relating to level 5 and 6 restrictions, it is proposed to prepare a separate report on this matter for Council’s consideration.

Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan Status The second stage of the Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) planning process is currently being undertaken by local consultant Geolyse. This document will outline the Strategy which Council can adopt to effectively manage its urban water resources into the future.

With the need for Council, at the same time, to examine all possible options, both structural and non-structural, to address its immediate water supply needs, the IWCM Strategy development has evolved in conjunction with the development of these options. The IWCM framework provides a clear outline of the process Council needs to follow, not just in the development of the overall Strategy, but also in the development of specific projects which will all form part of the ultimate strategy.

The works outlined in this report will form a major part of the ultimate IWCM Strategy. Subject to adoption of the key recommendations of this report it is anticipated that the IWCM Strategy can be finalised in the first quarter of 2010.

Participation in the Local Government and Shires Association / Water Directorate Water Loss Management Program (WLMP) This has involved an extensive program of leak detection and repair of the water reticulation system with an estimated savings in the order of 300-500 ML/a.

Council staff have also thoroughly investigated process water losses through the Icely Road Water Treatment Plant and identified water savings through efficiency improvements and recycling of supernatant, generator cooling water and cellar water which have resulted in further savings of around 250ML/a.

Merging of Water and Sewer Funds A logical extension of the integration of water management within Council, particularly between drinking water and waste water, is the amalgamation of the financial management processes associated with the delivery of these services. This issue has been discussed with both the Department of Local Government and the NSW Office of Water. Council has recently sought a joint meeting with key staff from both these departments to further progress this matter.

FUNDING Arising from this body of work and the strategy presented is the need to secure funding of infrastructure. To this end, with the staging of the Suma Park Dam safety works, Council has the capacity to both complete the program before it, which includes completing further stormwater harvesting stages, connection of Lake Canobolas and the fitting of bores and to build a regional pipeline or pipelines with the latter subject to tri-government funding.

This program will result in a peak debt service ratio of 22% in water fund based on a $5M loan over the next 10 years dropping back to zero at the end of the 10 year period. It will provide for the following projects over the 10 year period: 37 WATER PROJECTS UPDATE REPORT – NOVEMBER 2009 12 November 2009

Infrastructure Estimated Cost

Suma Park Dam $15M • Council and State Funding Ploughmans Creek/North Orange Stormwater Harvesting $4M • Funding sources are Councils and NSW Government and with an opportunity for further grant funding for this project at Federal Government level Other projects including connection of Lake Canobolas, bores $1M and feasibility studies. • Funding sources Council, NSW Government Regional Pipelines Prelim $50M • Contribution by Council $5- $10M depending on scope of project and • Balance from State and Federal Governments funding formula

Options to cushion such funding demands include: • The raising of water charges; • Reform to Water and Sewer Fund creating a single fund; and • Potential General Fund sources such as sale of assets and the outcome of the Effluent Agreement negotiations with Cadia Valley Operations. Such increases in funding would significantly reduce the debt service ratio.

Beyond the first 10 years, Council has the opportunity to contribute to further regional pipelines (if not achieved in the first 10 years) and the expansion of Lake Rowlands subject to agreement on funding models, grants, full feasibility, governance arrangements and whether Council simply buys water or has a role as an asset owner.

RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations arising out of this study are contained at the end of the Executive Summary which precedes this background report.

Chris Devitt DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES

AppendixD NOWCommentsonFinalDraft INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS

PREPARED FOR: ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

APRIL 2013

POSTAL ADDRESS PO BOX 1963 ORANGE NSW 2800 LOCATION 154 PEISLEY STREET ORANGE NSW 2800 TELEPHONE 02 6393 5000 FACSIMILE 02 6393 5050 EMAIL [email protected] WEB SITE WWW.GEOLYSE.COM INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Report Title: Integrated Water Cycle Management Evaluation Study

Project: Response to NSW Office of Water Comments

Client: Orange City Council

Report Ref.: 208103_REP_001B_NOW.docx

Status: Final

Issued: 16 April 2013

Geolyse Pty Ltd and the authors responsible for the preparation and compilation of this report declare that we do not have, nor expect to have a beneficial interest in the study area of this project and will not benefit from any of the recommendations outlined in this report.

The preparation of this report has been in accordance with the project brief provided by the client and has relied upon the information, data and results provided or collected from the sources and under the conditions outlined in the report.

All information contained within this report is prepared for the exclusive use of Orange City Council to accompany this report for the land described herein and are not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person or entity. No reliance should be placed on the information contained in this report for any purposes apart from those stated therein.

Geolyse Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage suffered or inconveniences arising from, any person or entity using the plans or information in this study for purposes other than those stated above.

208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 NOTE ABOUT DOCUMENT DATES ...... 1

2.0 KEY COMMENTS ...... 1 3.0 DETAILED COMMENTS ...... 4 3.1 INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN DOCUMENTS ...... 4 3.2 LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ...... 8 3.3 CADIA ...... 8 3.4 STORMWATER HARVESTING AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ...... 10 3.5 SECURE YIELD AND ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW ...... 11 3.6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT ...... 13 3.7 STATUS OF BASIX AND COMPENSATORY MEASURES ...... 16

4.0 REFERENCES ...... 18 APPENDICES APPENDIX A NOW Comments on Draft IWCM Evaluation Study

208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Orange City Council completed a draft Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Evaluation Study in June 2012 and submitted this to the NSW Office of Water (NOW) for review and comment.

NOW provided detailed comments in March 2013 and requested that Council consider these comments in finalising the IWCM Evaluation Study. Comments received from NOW are included as Appendix A.

Each comment is addressed below under the headings provided by NOW. The actual NOW comment is provided in italics for ease of referencing.

Each comment is addressed as:  Noted – no further comment or change to the final IWCM Evaluation Study is proposed;  Clarified – the comment raised by NOW is clarified and no change to the final IWCM Evaluation Study is proposed; or  Updated – the comment raised by NOW is clarified and will be changed/added in the final IWCM Evaluation Study.

1.2 NOTE ABOUT DOCUMENT DATES

The Final Draft IWCM Evaluation Study submitted to NOW was dated June 2012 and presents the water cycle setting and information/data as at that date. Some elements have changed since the completion of the final draft as water cycle management in Orange is not static and Council is progressing with many of its business as usual actions.

Some of the comments from NOW have required minor changes to the final draft document. These changes have been made as noted in this report.

2.0 KEY COMMENTS

 It is a credit to OCC that it is committed to diversifying its water supply sources to improve secure yield for Orange for the next 30 years by investigating all potential sources. OCC’s pioneering effort in promoting and trying to achieve a highly integrated water cycle management system should be commended.

Response: Noted

 In the immediate term, for the next 5 to 10 years, 100% stormwater harvesting from Blackman’s Swamp from the IWCM perspective and subject to all licensing rules and results of the environmental flow study, seems an acceptable proposition.

Response: Clarified

The “100%” term used throughout the IWCM Evaluation Study as it relates to Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting means being able to use the scheme whenever Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100% of capacity. This is different to the proposed staging of the scheme.

PAGE 1 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

• Having said that the IWCM must strongly demonstrate case and justify the need for 100% operation of Blackman Swamp harvesting in the medium term and long term (post 2030). Consider:

o Section 3.6.3.4 Technical Note 2 states that Stage 2 harvesting is estimated to increase the secure yield by 900 ML/year. While the increase in the average annual extraction from Blackmans Swamp Creek from 8% to 17% may not impact downstream users, it is a question of whether OCC Stage 2 is justified.

o A high growth scenario will require 6,655 ML/year (Table 3.8 Technical Note 5, BaU). o Table 3.9 Technical Note 5 forecast demand at maximum level demand management to be 6,410 ML/year.

o OCC only needs an additional 1,905ML in 2040 to meet high growth assumptions in a BaU scenario.

o The following projects will more than meet this demand: Macquarie-Orange pipeline will add 2,800 ML to secure yield; effluent (currently supplying Cadia with 9.5ML/day or 3,467 ML/year) will deliver over 3,000 ML of treatable effluent to OCC after 2030; Lake Rowlands potentially will add around 972ML; and the raising of Suma Park Dam, at least adding 1000ML. The additional volumes are more than enough to supply the 400ML increase in demand due to climate change.

o Therefore there seem to be no real and continuing justification for Stage 2 harvesting considering most of these sources will come on line for OCC in the next 10-15 years. OCC needs to justify the need for Blackman Swamp SW harvesting scheme to operate 100% of the time once water supply projects are complete.

Response: Clarified

The references in the above comments should be to Technical Note 3 (not Technical Note 5).

Figures 32 and 33 of the IWCM Evaluation Study demonstrate that even under climate change assumptions, Council’s current mix of water supply options under the Business as Usual (BAU) scenario provides water security for the 30 year IWCM planning period; subject to these schemes gaining the required approvals and licences.

If the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline proposal receives approval, the need for Stage 2 stormwater harvesting in Blackmans Swamp Creek could be delayed to beyond 2040 without climate change and to around 2033 under climate change assumptions. It is correct that at this time, there may be other viable water sources which are currently not available (e.g. using treated effluent for indirect potable reuse). This would be reviewed in the regular six year reviews of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

If the Macquarie River to Orange pipeline does not gain approval, the mix of water supply options would need to be reviewed and the need for Stage 2 stormwater harvesting would most likely be brought forward based on the current understanding of available water supply options. This would be considered in the next review of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

The following clarifications are provided in relation to the potential secure yield added by the various options listed by NOW in sub dot point 5 above:

• Macquarie River to Orange pipeline – the IWCM Evaluation Study adopted a secure yield value of 2,800 ML/year; the final environmental assessment for the project was based on a secure yield of 2,700 ML/year due to a slight change in operational rules. The secure yield value presented in the IWCM Evaluation Study will not be changed.

• Treated effluent – this source is currently not available to Council due to the existing water supply agreement with Cadia Holdings Pty Limited. It may be available for use in the water cycle after 2030.

• Lake Rowlands – the footnote on page 110 of Technical Note 2 details that a recent secure yield study for Lake Rowlands indicates that there is unlikely to be significant spare secure yield

PAGE 2 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

to supply Orange. It is extremely unlikely that this option could supply the 972 ML/year used in the assessment.

• Raising Suma Park Dam – this option will only add 100 to 200 ML/year to the system secure yield (refer to Section 3.2.4 of Technical Note 2).

• UFW figures need to be reduced to around 10% to demonstrate water use efficiency. Figure 0- 14 of the Final Concept Study, Dec 2007, p 90 indicates potential UFW of 24% in mid 2005. UFW ranged from 22% to 47% from 2000- 2005. The IWCM needs to present measurable evidence that the UFW is now within 10%.

Response: Clarified

The IWCM Evaluation Study presents the information that is available at the time. With regards to Unaccounted for Water (UFW) the available information is presented in Section 3.2.6 of Technical Note 3.

OCC has not undertaken any further measurements relating to UFW since the completion of the 2007 IWCM Concept Study. Therefore the IWCM Evaluation Study adopted the starting value of 20% UFW as used in the IWCM Concept Study.

The audited results of the leak reduction program are included in Technical Note 3 and when applied to the 20% UFW factor would reduce this to around 10% (refer to Section 3.2.6 of Technical Note 3, page 14).

In 2012, OCC commenced the development of a detailed system wide water model. Flow measurement and gauging’s were undertaken throughout the system to help inform this model. The model was calibrated to available data and additional meters have been added throughout the system. Results from this model can be used to quantify UFW. This action was included as part of OCC’s BAU Scenario (refer to Table 5.2, page 112/113 of the IWCM Evaluation Study) and is ongoing.

Results from this model were not available at the time of completing the draft IWCM Evaluation Study. Data from the water system model will be used to inform the next IWCM review.

• The assumption that the same amount of potable water is saved for the amount of alternative water supplied is not necessarily valid. The alternative water source augments the water supply. It may or may not save potable water. Potable water savings depend on level of consumption.

Response: Clarified

Section 3.3.3 of Technical Note 3 (page 15 and 16) details the assumptions relating to the demand reduction potential of the alternative water supply scheme. The modelling assumes the dual water supply system would reduce household potable water consumption for toilets and outdoor use by 70%.

The dual water supply system will reduce potable demand. However it was not assumed this would be a one for one relationship.

• Orange City Council’s IWCM Evaluation Table 5.3 states that 'unless the issue with licensing of Stage 1 is resolved, Stage 2 will not be pursued'. In the event that options SH0 (Stage 1 - full harvesting 100% for Blackman Swamp) and SH1 (Stage 2 - construction and operation of storage for additional water harvested in a full harvesting regime for Blackman Swamp) do not proceed, the IWCM will need to be revised, with the BaU amended accordingly.

Response: Clarified

As discussed above, Council’s current mix of water supply options under the BAU scenario provides water security for the 30 year IWCM planning period; subject to these schemes gaining the required approvals and licences.

PAGE 3 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

OCC’s BAU will need to be revised over time depending on the outcome of the approval and licencing process for these options.

These changes would be picked up through the regular six year reviews of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

• Production data and consumption data allow an accurate derivation of UFW which is very important data for a utility in terms of efficiency and both water and cost savings. Table 4-1 IWCM Evaluation (p97) states that the lack of production data is of low importance. This needs to be rectified.

Response: Updated

It is acknowledged that the accurate derivation of UFW is important. As discussed above, data from Council’s water system model was not available at the time of completing the draft IWCM Evaluation Study and 10% UFW was adopted for the modelling.

Data from the water system model will allow more accurate assessment of UFW through the system and will help direct future investigations and possible works to reduce UFW.

The dot point in Table 4.1 stating it was “low importance” was referring to how the uncertainty around the UFW value may impact on the ability to forecast demand. It was considered that the assumption of 10% UFW was reasonable given the available data at the time.

The dot points in Table 4.1 will be amended to read:

• Unaccounted for water (UFW) is an important measure of efficiency and Council is undertaking actions to accurately quantify this measure. Actions include the installation of additional meters and the development of a system wide water model. This work is currently ongoing.

• At the time of the modelling for the IWCM, the best available information indicates UFW of around 10%. This is based on the estimated 20% UFW derived in the Concept Study (MWH, 2007) and the 500 ML/year saving achieved in the leak reduction program completed in 2009.

• Review water data and report in the 6 year IWCM Evaluation Study review.

• There is need to explain and clarify several inconsistencies between information contained in different technical notes, the Demand Management Plan and the IWCM. Several examples are given below.

Response: Noted

Additional comments are provided in the following sections.

3.0 DETAILED COMMENTS

3.1 INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN DOCUMENTS

• The per capita per day consumption provided in the OCC IWCM Evaluation is 404 liters per person per day in 2010 (p55). OCC figure submitted to Planning for the BASIX certificate (Aug 2012) is 160 liters per person per day since Level 5A restrictions were lifted 2 years ago. CENTROC Water Security Study (2009) adopted 435 liters per capita per day as average consumption figure. Explain and reconcile inconsistencies in per capita per day consumption.

PAGE 4 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Response: Clarified

• Page 55 of the IWCM Evaluation Study states the baseline per capita per day consumption is 404 L/p/day. The derivation of this value is detailed in Section 3.2.3 of Technical Note 3 (page 11). It is important to note that this is total water consumption (i.e. includes residential, industrial/commercial, public/open space and UFW).

• The OCC figure submitted to the Department of Planning (DoP) of 160 L/p/day was for the residential sector only. Level 2 water restrictions were also in place at this time.

• The CENTROC Water Security Study (MWH, 2009) adopted 435 L/p/day which was derived through an extension to the IWCM Concept Study modelling (MWH, 2007). Section 3.2.3 of Technical Note 3 (page 11) details how this value is derived from a period towards the end of 2006 when there were no water restrictions in force and the full user pay pricing system was in place. The same value was adopted for the IWCM Evaluation Study. However it was reduced to 404 L/p/day by factoring in the 500 ML/year saved through the leak reduction program which was completed in 2009. This approach is detailed in Section 3.2.3 of Technical Note 3 (page 11).

• BaU demand management is expected to reduce consumption from 5400 ML per year in 2010 to a low 4536 ML (16% reduction based on DM modelling, OCC DMP). However, Tables 3.8 and 3.9 of Technical Note 3 do not reflect this. Please clarify inconsistency.

Response: Clarified

The 16% quoted in the OCC Water Demand and Conservation Management Plan (Geolyse, 2012) refers to the potential water savings in Year 30 (860 ML/year) as a percentage of the current unrestricted demand (i.e. 860/5400 x 100 = 16%). Nowhere in the forecasting for the BAU scenario does the annual consumption fall below about 5,140 ML/year.

• A high growth scenario will require 6,655 ML/year (Table 3.8 Technical Note 5, BaU). Table 3.9 Technical Note 5 forecast demand at maximum level demand management to be 6,410 ML/year but BaU in the DMP indicates a low of 4536 ML (after 16% reduction in consumption). Please clarify inconsistency.

Response: Clarified

The reference in this comment should be to Technical Note 3 (not Technical Note 5).

Please refer to the above comment regarding the 16% saving.

• For the next 5 to 10 years, in a high growth /high demand projection, OCC would require up to 6,790ML per year based on a consumption of 404 litres per capita per day (unrestricted) and using the PB population estimate of 46,048 (high for 2021) from Table 3.2, page 7 of Technical Note 3. This is not the same value in Technical Note 5. Please clarify inconsistency.

Response: Clarified

The reference in this comment should be to Technical Note 3 (not Technical Note 5).

The starting consumption of 404 L/p/day does not stay static through the forecasting. The DSS model applies various assumptions about market penetration and water savings for each different demand side management measures. These are detailed in Section 2.4.2.2 of Technical Note 3 (page 3 and 4).

The application of these assumptions in the modelling means that the daily per capita consumption will reduce over time as the demand management measures become more effective. This is reflected in the daily per capita water demand value included in Table 3.9 of Technical Note 3 (page 16) for the BAU Scenario. This shows a reduction from 404 to 370 L/p/day over the first 10 years of the model (2020 to 2020).

PAGE 5 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

• Table 3-19 of Technical Note 2 page 62 indicates that total harvested volumes are 349ML per year and 509ML per year for Blackman and Ploughmans Valley respectively. This is not consistent with statements in Technical Note 5 where the volumes indicated were 800ML for PV and 70ML for Blackmans. Please clarify inconsistency.

Response: Clarified

Firstly, it should be noted that Technical Note 5 Options for Reticulated Alternative Water Supply in the PVNO Area (Geolyse, 2011) was not included as part of the IWCM Evaluation Study; it was a document prepared to support OCC’s negotiation with the DoP regarding the provision of an alternative water supply scheme under BASIX.

Secondly, Technical Note 5 does not make any reference to the volume supplied by the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme – so we are unclear as to the reference to 70ML.

Technical Note 5 does make reference to the fact that the Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme can harvest an average of 700 to 800 ML/year depending on the level of catchment development.

The paragraphs above Table 3.19 in Technical Note 2 (page 62) explain that the average annual harvest from the Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme is when it operates on its own. The average harvest volume reduces when the two schemes operate together due to the interaction of the harvest schemes holding pond which buffers harvest inflows (from both schemes) prior to treatment.

• Table 3.28 from Technical Note 4 lists Ploughman’s Valley SW harvesting scheme is expected to generate 436 ML/year once Blackmans SW scheme operate at 100%. Why is this volume reduced from the current harvest of 800ML/year? Table 3.20 in Technical Note 2 states the volume will be 499ML, not 436ML on a 100% trigger. Please explain inconsistencies.

Response: Clarified

The first reference to Technical Note 4 should be Technical Note 2.

Table 3.28 in Technical Note 2 (page 73) shows the harvest volumes for what is described as a “maximum” Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme (i.e. an expansion of the scheme beyond Stage 3) operating whenever Suma Park Reservoir is less than 100% of capacity.

As more water is harvested from Blackmans Swamp Creek, the volume harvested from Ploughmans Creek reduces due to the interaction of the holding pond.

• IWCM Evaluation Section 3.3.1.10 uses the terms total water production figure and total consumption interchangeably. This is incorrect. Please supply total production data which is derivable from bulk metering data.

Response: Updated

This section should refer to water consumption and the final IWCM documents will be updated accordingly.

• Spring Hill and Lucknow is forecasted to decrease from a demand of 432 liters per capita per day in 2010 to 388 liters per capita per day in 2040 (Table 3.28). Contrary to what was claimed, the groundwater extraction limit of 75 ML per year will not be exceeded in 2040 based on Figure 22 which shows a demand of 72 ML/year in a high growth scenario development.

Response: Clarified

Refer to the discussion above relating to how the daily per capita demand reduces over time as demand management measures become more effective.

PAGE 6 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Table 3.28 in the IWCM Evaluation Study (page 64) shows the forecast water demand in 2040 under a high growth rate is 76 ML/year. This is greater than 75 ML/year and formed the basis of the statement that the existing licence limit could be exceeded by around 2038.

• Table 3.3 indicates two groundwater extraction licences for 4 new bores with a total entitlement of 442 ML per year was granted to OCC in March 2012. Table 3.43 in Technical Note 2 says it is 462 ML/year. Please reconcile these numbers.

Response: Clarified

We cannot locate any reference to a Table 3.3 in any of the IWCM Evaluation Study documents that includes reference to the four bores with a total entitlement of 442 ML/year.

The correct value is 462 ML/year and further searches will be made during the final document edits to ensure consistency.

• The increase in secure yield from the current (858 ML per year) approved harvesting scheme to the 100% trigger (1347ML per year) is 489 ML not 200ML. Table 3-19 and Table 3-20 clearly show this data. Please rectify statement: ‘Adding input from the two stormwater harvesting schemes both operating on a 100% trigger is estimated to increase the secure yield of the water supply system by 200 ML/year above the current approved schemes’ on page 63 of Technical Note 2, Section 3.3.2.2.

Response: Clarified

The values presented in Table 3.19 (page 62) and Table 3.20 (page 63) of Technical Note 2 are the average annual harvest volumes for each scheme, not the secure yield.

Secure yield is different to average annual values; it is measuring a different thing. In simple terms, secure yield is a measure of the amount of water supplied by a system through a drought period, which may be a period of several years. The average annual volumes are determined over 118 years of modelling.

The secure yield of the approved stormwater harvesting system is 900 ML/year.

The secure yield of the two existing schemes operating on a 100% trigger is 1,100 ML/year.

This is an increase of 200 ML/year. Therefore the statement referred to above is correct and does not need to be rectified.

• Table 3.28 from Technical Note 4 lists Ploughman’s Valley SW harvesting scheme is expected to generate 436 ML/year once Blackmans SW scheme operate at 100%. Why is this volume reduced from the current harvest of 800ML/year? Table 3.20 in Technical Note 2 states the volume will be 499ML, not 436ML on a 100% trigger. Please explain inconsistencies.

Response: Clarified

This is a repeated comment. See response above.

• Table 5-1 page 111, 3rd dot point states: Development of the second stage of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme generally as outlined in the original approval for this project. This line is misleading as the second stage is not part of the original approval for Blackman Swamp harvesting.

Response: Clarified

Council approved the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in October 2008. A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) prepared to support the application described that the scheme infrastructure would be constructed in stages with progression to the next stage contingent upon the success of the preceding stage, as confirmed through performance monitoring (Geolyse, 2008).

PAGE 7 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Table 3.17 in Technical Note 2 (page 58) describes the staging proposed and how it was modified during the NOW approval process. The statement in Table 5.1 of the IWCM Evaluation Study (page 111) is taken directly from Council papers. It is not misleading as subsequent stages were given planning approval. Further, the statement refers only to the development of the second stage “generally as outlined” in the original approval. It does not imply that the existing approval would be relied upon. If elements of future stages changed and were not covered by the original REF, further environmental assessment would need to be undertaken. Finally, any expansion of harvesting on Blackmans Swamp Creek would require appropriate licensing under the Water Act, 1912. As this statement is taken directly from Council meeting papers it will not be changed.

• Section 3.3.2.3 states (page 65) that a rainwater tank analysis is discussed in Technical Note 3. The discussion is found in Technical Note 2. Please rectify.

Response: Updated

This reference will be updated in the final IWCM Evaluation Study.

3.2 LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS

• All catchment related information should be discussed only in the context of water supply. Summarise information on vegetation, land uses, soils, salinity, etc. Also, summarise housing and development discussion.

Response: Noted

These sections will be summarised in the next IWCM Evaluation Study review.

• SBP, pricing and other BPM discussions should be summarised.

Response: Noted These sections will be updated and summarised in the next IWCM Evaluation Study review.

3.3 CADIA • Please provide an update on the progress of the negotiation of the existing effluent supply agreement with Cadia and advise on the expected timing for the resolution. A new agreement should allow the possibility of OCC able to gradually access effluent in the course of winding down Cadia operations until the mine fully ceases to operate in 2030. Effluent should be increasingly accessible to OCC i.e. 25% by 2020, 50% by 2025 and ultimately 100% post 2030. For the next 10 years, harvesting stormwater from Blackmans’s Swamp 100% of the time may be justified to improve the supply mix as recycled effluent is not available to OCC until late 2020.

Response: Clarified The IWCM Evaluation Study presents information as it is known at the time. It cannot, and should not, seek to predict what may happen as various actions are progressed. Therefore it was simply stated that negotiations with Cadia Holdings Pty Limited regarding the water supply agreement are in progress.

As at today’s date, these negotiations are continuing. There will be no change made to the IWCM documentation.

• Table 3.7 indicates that Cadia water infrastructure was not short listed. Please explain why. Cadia will terminate in 2030 and this period is covered in the 30 year IWCM time frame.

PAGE 8 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Response: Clarified

The reasons for not short-listing this option are included in Table 3.7 of the IWCM Evaluation Study (page 35).

Other considerations are that the potential use of the infrastructure is tied up in the water supply agreement negotiations and the asset life of the infrastructure is unknown.

The inclusion of this infrastructure can be picked up in IWCM reviews if applicable.

• In 2030, when effluent becomes fully available to OCC, SW harvesting licence renewal may require an updated secure yield analysis and a major IWCM review. Please mention this.

Response: Clarified

It cannot be stated, at this time, that effluent will become fully available to OCC in 2030.

The IWCM Evaluation Study will be reviewed every six years. Therefore at least three full reviews will be conducted by 2030. These reviews will include revisions to the secure yield modelling if required.

It will not be specifically mentioned in the IWCM Evaluation Study as regular review is part of the NOW IWCM process.

• An average daily discharge of treated effluent of around 2.4 ML/day would be required to compensate the increased extraction by going from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of harvesting. Since effluent is not available to OCC until 2030, where would this compensatory flow come from?

Response: Clarified

The discussion of options that utilise treated effluent was based on the assumption that the effluent would be available (see page 99 of the IWCM Evaluation Study) to allow comparison of these options with other potential supply sources.

This is further highlighted in the discussion on page 103 of the IWCM Evaluation Study where it is mentioned that there would need to be a change to the existing agreement to use treated effluent.

• Clarify if OCC plans to use the effluent available in 2030 to compensate for its extractions in a Stage 2 operation. This stormwater extraction and compensation by effluent seems to be convoluted and perhaps a more expensive exercise for OCC. Is it possible that OCC simply use the effluent available in 2030 to supply the dual pipe systems (this was the original design anyway) instead of moving to Stage 2 harvesting for this added supply? At 2.4ML/day to compensate, the volume is 876 ML/year which is almost the same volumetric (900ML/year) increase through Stage 2 harvesting.

Response: Clarified

Certainly, additional stormwater extraction and compensation using treated effluent is convoluted and not preferred by Council.

The dual water supply system will be supplied with harvested stormwater from the Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting system. It would not be necessary to change this system if effluent becomes available in 2030.

This issue would be addressed, if required, in future IWCM reviews (as noted above, there will be three undertaken before 2030).

• Contractual agreement with Cadia is at least 3,650 ML per year of effluent and yet Table 3.33 indicates that effluent supply was highest at 3629 ML with the highest percentage supplied at 94%. Is OCC breaching the agreement with CVO?

PAGE 9 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Response: Clarified

The relevant contract details are provided on page 14 of Technical Note 1. Council is required only to “make available” the initial 10 ML/day.

At times, the mine does not take the effluent. These situations are discussed above Table 3.33 on page 75 of the IWCM Evaluation Study and include periods when the mine has adequate on-site water supplies or periods of mine shutdown.

Therefore Council is not breaching the agreement.

3.4 STORMWATER HARVESTING AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

• Stormwater quality is a concern in the licensing process for Blackman Swamp. Discuss what operational level aspects are planned to overcome stormwater quality threats to Suma Park Dam.

Response: Clarified

The water quality approval process being followed for the licensing of the stormwater harvesting schemes is detailed in Section 3.3.1.4 of Technical Note 2.

This process has been developed by NOW in consultation with other agencies (Ministry of Health and Environment Protection Authority).

The operational aspects of the harvesting schemes to manage water quality are presented in the relevant REFs for each scheme and were thoroughly reviewed in the water quality risk assessment workshops which included participation by all of the above agencies.

As such, details around stormwater quality are being managed by a separate process and will not be detailed in the IWCM documentation.

• In the event of failure: ‘The preferred option would be to implement a solution which utilises as much of the existing infrastructure as possible whilst still achieving the necessary water quality outcomes. This would be achieved by the installation of a packaged Water Treatment Plant in the PVNO area which would allow harvested stormwater to be treated to an appropriate standard and then discharged directly into existing water mains for distribution to homes in the area.’ Explain how this option relates to the water quality approval process being developed at the moment.

Response: Clarified

The quotation included in the above comment is not located in any of the IWCM documentation.

NOW has confirmed that the quote was sourced from a Council document prepared during the negotiations with the DoP regarding the alternative water supply under BASIX (refer to NOW’s “Origin of Quotes” document in Appendix A). It does not relate to the water quality approval process that is being undertaken at the moment for the stormwater harvesting schemes.

A full water quality risk assessment has been undertaken for the provision of harvested stormwater to the dual water supply system.

• There are 202 water quality management actions (page 69) associated with risks identified by OCC. Please list key actions.

Response: Clarified

As mentioned above, details around stormwater quality are being managed by a separate process and it is not considered necessary to include details in the IWCM documentation.

PAGE 10 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

The key actions from the water quality risk assessment relate to compliance with NOW’s water quality approval framework which sets the higher level direction of what Council needs to achieve. This is detailed in the IWCM documentation.

• Section 3.3.3.1 page 72 lists non compliances for chlorine, nitrogen and faecal coliform in 2010- 2011. Please explain why compliance is recorded at 100% in Table 3.31 for microbiological and chemical quality.

Response: Clarified

Table 3.31 (IWCM Evaluation Study page 69) relates to the water supply system.

Section 3.3.3.1 (IWCM Evaluation Study page 72) relates to the sewerage system.

3.5 SECURE YIELD AND ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW

• Please explain this paragraph: ‘The increase in secure yield gained by the 1.0 m raise in Suma Park Dam is essentially “lost” by the proposed new environmental flow rule. The secure yield increases from 3,400 to 4,650 ML/year by raising the dam by 1.0 m and adding the harvesting scheme inflow; an increase of 1,250 ML/year. Therefore the net increase in secure yield by being able to operate the harvesting scheme full time is around 1,100 ML/year’.

Response: Clarified

Section 3.2.4.5 in Technical Note 2 (pages 20 to 25) presents the assessment of raising Suma Park Dam. Part of this assessment includes consideration of a possible new environmental flow rule, which at the time of the assessment, was a draft rule being considered as part of the licence enquiry being handled by the Orange Local Land Board. If a licence was granted to operate the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme whenever Suma Park Reservoir was less than 100% of capacity, this draft rule may have been included as a licence condition.

Results of the secure yield modelling show that the proposed environmental rule reduced the secure yield as it required the release of more water as environmental flow. For example (from Table 3.2 of Technical Note 2, page 23):

• With a Suma Park Reservoir volume of 17,290 ML and the existing environmental flow rule, the secure yield is 3,400 ML/year. • With a Suma Park Reservoir volume of 18,970 ML (i.e. raised 1.0 m) and the proposed new environmental flow rule, the secure yield is 3,400 ML/year.

This shows that the secure yield gained by raising the dam is lost when the proposed new environmental flow rule is applied.

The proposed new environmental flow rule was linked to gaining a licence to use the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme on a 100% trigger. However, there was no secure yield run undertaken for the dam raised 1.0 m, with stormwater harvesting and the proposed new environmental flow rule.

The secure yield for the dam raised 1.0 m, with stormwater harvesting operating on 100% trigger and with the existing environmental flow rule is 4,650 ML/year. That is an increase of 1,250 ML/year from the existing case (3,400 ML/year).

It was estimated that 150 ML/year of this increase would be lost when the new environmental flow rule was applied (based on the other modelling results). It was considered that in order to get approval to use harvesting on a 100% trigger the new rule would be applied as it was being negotiated as part of licensing.

PAGE 11 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Therefore the net increase in secure yield that would be gained by getting a successful outcome on the licensing negotiations to use harvesting on a 100% trigger would be 1,100 ML/year (i.e. 1,250 – 150 = 1,100 ML/year).

• What is the required environmental flow based on the completed study? While stormwater harvesting may not impact on downstream users at present (and based on this study), it is also the case that once effluent from Cadia becomes available to OCC after 2030, 100% harvesting from Blackman Swamp stormwater harvesting may not be necessary in the secure yield equation. Hence stormwater harvesting could fully cease. Environmental flow made available downstream in excess of the minimum may be better value than harvesting it to increase secure yield when there is more than adequate supply already secured by OCC.

Response: Clarified

The environmental flow study is now complete and includes recommended rules which are yet to be considered by NOW and the Orange Local Land Board. The results of this study will be included in the next IWCM review.

• In figure 29, indicate where is the holding pond.

Response: Updated

The location of the holding pond will be added to Figure 29.

• Having discussed projected changes to OCC due to climate change (p19), it is useful to indicate in brief what key impacts could be factored into the water supply planning process.

Response: Updated

The following will be added to Section 3.1.4 of the IWCM Evaluation Study:

In addition to these catchment changes, there is likely to be changes to water demand under climate change. The Centroc water security study provided an assessment of the possible impact of climate change on water demand. For Orange this assessment indicated the potable water demand could increase by around 7% or about 400 ML per year in 2050 (MWH, 2009).

Given these potential changes, the following key factors should be included in the water planning process:

o Data and climate change assessment methodologies should be regularly reviewed with details provided in each IWCM review;

o The water supply system should be based on diversified supply sources to reduce reliance on any particular source; and

o Demand management measures should be regularly reviewed. • Table 3.1 Technical Note 4 has no TRB costing for effluent reuse. Please explain why.

Response: Clarified

Table 3.1 of Technical Note 4 (page 13) presents TRB analysis of the water supply components of the BAU Scenario only. Effluent reuse is not part of Council’s BAU for water supply options.

A TRB analysis of indirect potable reuse options is presented in Section 3.6.3 of Technical Note 2 (page 99 to 102).

• OCC dual reticulation system would have been designed to accommodate the total effluent volume from OCC which it appears is 8.2 ML per day (page 72) or 2,993 ML. Is this a driver for OCC to maximise stormwater harvested volumes to 3,000ML per year (and hence propose SW harvesting 1b, and Stages 2 and 3?) i.e. in order to fully utilise this apparently under-utilised asset?

PAGE 12 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Response: Clarified

The dual reticulation system was not designed to accommodate 8.2 ML/day. It was designed to meet the outdoor use and toilet demand for 4,500 households; which is a peak of about 2.8 ML/day when fully developed.

Therefore the dual water system is not the driver for Council to pursue additional stormwater harvesting.

• A design consideration in raising Suma Park Dam is the expected daily inputs from the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting schemes (both operating at 100%) whenever the storage in the dam is less than 100%. How does it impact the design if Blackman Swamp SW scheme is not granted the license to operate 100%?

Response: Clarified

Input from the harvesting schemes was not a design consideration for raising Suma Park Dam. The design was based on dam safety and structural considerations.

Therefore licensing of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme will not impact on the design of the proposed dam wall raising.

• There should be more discussion on CENTROC water supply and demand management initiatives and how these tie up and impact on OCC. For example, a table could be included listing CENTROC projects and OCC responses to each project with comments and explanation for the response.

Response: Clarified

Council’s BAU actions include continued involvement with Centroc and the Centroc Water Security Alliance. This keeps Council abreast of regional water developments.

There are many water supply initiatives being considered through Centroc. Apart from the investigation being undertaken for Lake Rowlands there are none that are related to or impact on Orange City Council’s water business. Issues relating to Lake Rowlands are discussed in the IWCM Evaluation Study. It is considered that Council does not need to make comment on other Centroc water supply initiatives in the IWCM Evaluation Study.

Two of Council’s BAU actions relate to updating relate to updating the Demand and Drought Management Plans for Orange. Council works actively with the Centroc Water Security Alliance and these plans are being prepared so that they are consistent with the regional plans being developed by Centroc (refer to BAU actions listed in Table 5.2 of the IWCM Evaluation Study, page 113).

• Page 115 states: ‘Using Council's 50 year adopted planning horizon, Figure 30 shows that in increment of 2,700 ML is needed to meet projected medium demand growth or 4,300 ML/year to meet the high demand growth’. The Macquarie –Orange pipeline alone will deliver more than this volume to allow OCC to meet this projection.

Response: Clarified

Correct. That is one reason why this project is being considered by Council as part of the BAU Scenario.

3.6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Please rectify error note on page 44: Section Error. Reference not found

Response: Updated

• Discussion on business and commercial activity should focus on water demand.

PAGE 13 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Response: Updated

The following concluding comment will be added in Section 3.3.1 of the IWCM Evaluation Study:

The above information indicates that the Orange business and commercial sector has taken steps to significantly reduce water consumption over the past five years. Consistent drivers remain for continued business and commercial development in Orange in line with the projected population growth.

• Why is there a special agreement with Nashdale water users and where is this located? There is no other mention of Nashdale and there are no diagrams showing Nashdale in other parts of the IWCM. Please clarify.

Response: Clarified

The Nashdale water users agreement is a historical agreement that has been in place for many years.

The Nashdale water users are individual households (and a school) supplied with non-potable water from Lake Canobolas. It is not possible to provide a figure that shows the location of the individual properties. The location of Lake Canobolas is shown on Figure 2 of the IWCM Evaluation Study (page 13).

The Nashdale Water Users Scheme Agreement is discussed in Section 2.4.2 of Technical Note 1 (page 16) and compliance with this agreement is included as one of Council’s IWCM Targets (refer to Table 4.1 of Technical Note 1, page 39; Table 4.2 of the IWCM Evaluation Study, page 102 and Table S1 of the IWCM Evaluation Study Executive Summary, page S4).

• OCC total utilisation went from a high of around 7,200 ML in 2002 to 3,735ML in 2010 under 2 years of Level 5A restrictions. This demonstrates that when a full suite of demand management actions is applied, OCC is capable of greatly cutting back its consumption. Demand management modelling shows that BaU water conservation actions are capable of reducing OCC (including Lucknow and Spring Hill) water consumption from between 10% to 16% (Section 6.4, DMP p32), that is from 5400 ML per year to a low 4536 ML per year which is within the current 5/10/10 secure yield of 4750 ML/year. This indicates the value of demand management in securing supplies. An effective action is reduction of the UFW through leakage management and also metering. Please include these actions in Table 4.1 of the OCC Demand Management Plan.

Response: Clarified

As discussed above, the application of the 16% reduction leading to a low of 4,536 ML/year is incorrect. The projected unrestricted water demand does not fall below 5,140 ML/year.

Demand management using restrictions is reflected in the application of the 5/10/10 rule which applies restrictions based on defined frequency and durations.

Table 4.1 of the Water Demand and Conservation Management Plan (Geolyse, 2012) lists those options that are included in the DSS modelling. Leakage management and metering are not included in this model.

• The water system model (page 70) was developed and will help identify areas for metering. Please indicate these areas.

Response: Clarified

The water system model is currently still a work in progress and district metering areas cannot be shown in this version of the IWCM Evaluation Study.

PAGE 14 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

It will be included in the next IWCM review. • ‘Without alternative supplies, BASIX target of 30 is achievable purely based on demand management measures. A 2K to 3K litre RWT will push the BASIX score to 40.’ Is this statement supported by Planning? Please give reference.

Response: Clarified

The quotation included in the above comment is not located in any of the IWCM documentation, so no reference can be provided.

NOW has confirmed that the origin of the quote is not clear (refer to NOW’s “Origin of Quotes” document in Appendix A).

• UFW was over 20%. The 2009 project on reduction of leakage saved 500ML per year. Present evidence that UFW is now reduced to 10%. The DMP indicates that the leakage reduction project is unfunded until 2016. Please explain why.

Response: Clarified

Refer to response in Section 2.0 with regards to UFW.

At this point in time, Council is not certain that leakage is a significant contributor to UFW. Having completed a major leak reduction program in 2009, Council’s focus is on other areas which may contribute to UFW.

The key priority area in the short term is meter replacement and this is fully budgeted. Council’s budget is reviewed every year, and at times throughout each year if required, and leak detection actions can be brought forward if required.

• What other actions does OCC have to achieve 10% UFW? If not currently achieved, when is the 10% UFW target planned to be reached? Total demand for 2010 was 5,403 ML/yr as per Section 4.1.2 DMP, p13. What was total production for 2010? These figures allow derivation of an accurate UFW.

Response: Clarified

A major element of the UFW assessment is the development and utilisation of the water system model. This model will be used to identify any areas of the system that do not meet the agreed level of service, assess capital works required for system expansions to cater for new developments and will guide the development and installation of additional system meters to improve water consumption monitoring. Development of this model includes detailed analysis of water meter data compared to production and raw water data to identify UFW.

The development and use of the water model was identified as one of Council’s BAU actions. The work is ongoing and findings/updates will be presented in the next IWCM review. This would include the assessment of UFW and identification of actions/time frames to reduce UFW if it is above 10%.

The total demand of 5,403 ML/year quoted throughout the IWCM documentation is the estimated unrestricted raw water demand in 2010 (i.e. water drawn from Suma Park Reservoir).

• The mathematical relationship used in modelling does not consider potential increase in the use of potable water by a community that knows that they have high water supply security through a combination of water supply sources. Consumer tendency is to increase consumption when there is assurance of a stable supply. How does OCC plan to counter this tendency of increased consumption due to a sense of high water security?

Response: Clarified

This phenomenon would be managed through monitoring water consumption patterns and continued community education.

PAGE 15 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Council could also consider reviewing the water restriction triggers and targets (i.e. apply Level 1 restrictions at a higher storage level).

This issue will be considered in the next IWCM review.

3.7 STATUS OF BASIX AND COMPENSATORY MEASURES

• Please clarify if OCC has completed compensatory measures i.e. rainwater tanks installed as part of the BASIX provisional recognition requirement. This is relevant to IWCM and to demand management since this demonstrates efforts of OCC to implement all initiatives (required or not required) to augment its supplies from alternative sources and save potable water.

Response: Clarified

Compensatory measures have not been required as the provisional recognition of the alternative water supply extends to October 2013.

Works to complete the supply of harvested stormwater to the alternative water supply scheme are on track to be completed by August 2013. • Please clarify the discussion on dual reticulation on page 51. In the context of continuing compliance with BASIX, Planning issued provisional recognition to the alternative of supplying harvested stormwater into the dual pipe system (instead of effluent) that is renewable after one year subject to conditions. The paragraph as it is could be misleading.

Response: Updated

This section will be updated to reflect the DoP provisional recognition and timing.

• It was recommended from this study that the system be supplied with harvested stormwater. This was approved by the DoP and the required capital works are underway and scheduled for completion in the last quarter of 2012. Therefore, treated effluent will no longer be required for the dual water supply system’. This is inaccurate. The provisional recognition granted has not totally discounted the possibility of using treated effluent in the dual reticulation system in future. See below comments.

Response: Updated

Council has invested significant capital to convert the scheme to harvested stormwater including separate rising mains and water treatment systems. Given this investment, it is extremely unlikely that treated effluent would ever be used to supply this system.

Section 3.6.3.5 in Technical Note 2 (page 104) will be updated to reflect that treated effluent is unlikely to be required in the future.

• OCC must reapply to renew the provisional recognition for BASIX as full NOW licences have not been issued as at 30 Oct 2012. Any new approval will be subject to OCC meeting compensatory measures. Provisional recognition is also subject to random review of the progress of the scheme against established criteria. What is the outcome of the BASIX review if one has been concluded? Has OCC applied for a new approval?

Response: Clarified

The draft IWCM Evaluation Study was completed in June 2012 and at that stage the full licensing of the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting scheme had not been issued.

The stormwater for the alternative water supply scheme is being supplied by the Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting scheme and full licensing for this scheme was issued in August 2011 (refer to Section 3.33.1. of Technical Note 2, page 53 and Section 2.2.1.1 of Technical Note 1, page 4).

PAGE 16 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Council applied to the DoP for a new approval, and provisional recognition of the alternative water supply extends to October 2013. Works to complete the supply of harvested stormwater to the alternative water supply scheme are on track to be completed by August 2013.

• Compensatory measure a) states that 19 RWTs need to be installed for a 6 month delay and 90 RWTs for a 12 month delay. Use of more efficient appliances could enable a lesser number of tanks to be installed to reach the BASIX water target. OCC needs to demonstrate that compensatory measures were put in place in the last 12 months. Please discuss how this has been accomplished.

Response: Clarified

Compensatory measures have not been required as the provisional recognition of the alternative water supply extends to October 2013. Works to complete the supply of harvested stormwater to the alternative water supply scheme are on track to be completed by August 2013.

• Please justify the calculations for cost of rainwater tanks based on a 10K liter capacity :’The average cost of installing a 10,000 L rainwater tank system connected for outdoor and toilet use (excluding the rebate) is $6,380 which equates to a total cost of $64.94 million. Assuming the upper end of the secure yield increase from the use of rainwater tanks, and a 10 year installation timeframe, would result in a cost of $11,044 per ML increase in secure yield’. BASIX recommends as a compensatory measure, installation of 2K or 3K litre RWTs (this pushes the BASIX score to 40). RWT modeling undertaken using DWE RWT model shows the optimum capacity of RWT suitable for OCC. Figures 36, 37 and 38 indicate that optimum water savings are gained by using RWTs up to 5K litres in capacity for Scenarios 1 and 2 and up to 6K litres capacity for Scenario 3. There seem to be no justification for modeling OCC costs based on a 10K litre RWT. Table 4-6 in Technical Note 4 indicates a high added cost to the TRB of $140 per water supply assessment for RWTs. This high cost may be misleading. Calculations for the cost of rainwater tanks should be based on the installation of 2K, 3K and 5K litre capacity tanks.

Response: Clarified

The assessment of rainwater tanks was undertaken to quantify their potential role as a water supply option. It was not undertaken to investigate the role of rainwater tanks in achieving BASIX compliance; that is an individual household choice.

A 10,000 L rainwater tank was used in the assessment as this tank size has a greater potable water saving potential compared to smaller rainwater tanks.

The typical installation cost were derived from first principles and checked by obtaining a quotation from a licensed plumber for 5,000 L and 10,000 L rainwater tanks. The quoted installation costs for a tank, pump and plumbing are (refer to Section 3.4.3.3 of Technical Note 2, page 84): • 5,000 L – $6,407.50 • 10,000 L – $6,924.50

The typical installation cost used in the TRB assessment for a 10,000 L rainwater tank was $6,380. This is less than the quoted cost for a 5,000 L rainwater tank.

The difference between a 5,000 L and 10,000 L rainwater tank installation is only $500. If the installation cost is reduced by this amount, the TRB for this option decreases to around $130 per assessment. This is a minor change given the other assumptions used in the assessment (i.e. the number of tanks installed, the timeframe over which they are installed etc).

Based on this result, and the intent of the assessment, financial analysis of 2,000 L, 3,000 L and 5,000 L rainwater tanks will not be undertaken.

PAGE 17 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION STUDY RESPONSE TO NSW OFFICE OF WATER COMMENTS ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

4.0 REFERENCES

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2008) Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme – Revised Harvesting Weir Operational Plan. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2011) Technical Note 5 - Options for Reticulated Alternative Water Supply in the PVNO Area. Report prepared for Orange City Council.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2012) Water Demand and Conservation Management Plan (Draft). Report prepared for Orange City Council.

MWH (2007) Orange Integrated Water Cycle Management Concept Study (Final Draft Version 2).

MWH (2009) Centroc water security study component 2: Options paper

PAGE 18 208103_REP_001B_NOW.DOCX

Appendix A NOW COMMENTS ON DRAFT IWCM EVALUATION STUDY

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT INTEGRATED WATER CYCLE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION Comments from NSW Office of Water

These comments should be considered by OCC in finalising its IWCM Evaluation.

KEY COMMENTS

• It is a credit to OCC that it is committed to diversifying its water supply sources to improve secure yield for Orange for the next 30 years by investigating all potential sources. OCC’s pioneering effort in promoting and trying to achieve a highly integrated water cycle management system should be commended. • In the immediate term, for the next 5 to 10 years, 100% stormwater harvesting from Blackman’s Swamp from the IWCM perspective and subject to all licensing rules and results of the environmental flow study, seems an acceptable proposition. • Having said that the IWCM must strongly demonstrate case and justify the need for 100% operation of Blackman Swamp harvesting in the medium term and long term (post 2030). Consider: o Section 3.6.3.4 Technical Note 2 states that Stage 2 harvesting is estimated to increase the secure yield by 900 ML/year. While the increase in the average annual extraction from Blackmans Swamp Creek from 8% to 17% may not impact downstream users, it is a question of whether OCC Stage 2 is justified. o A high growth scenario will require 6,655 ML/year (Table 3.8 Technical Note 5, BaU). o Table 3.9 Technical Note 5 forecast demand at maximum level demand management to be 6,410 ML/year. o OCC only needs an additional 1,905ML in 2040 to meet high growth assumptions in a BaU scenario. o The following projects will more than meet this demand: Macquarie- Orange pipeline will add 2,800 ML to secure yield; effluent (currently supplying Cadia with 9.5ML/day or 3,467 ML/year) will deliver over 3,000 ML of treatable effluent to OCC after 2030; Lake Rowlands potentially will add around 972ML; and the raising of Suma Park Dam, at least adding 1000ML. The additional volumes are more than enough to supply the 400ML increase in demand due to climate change. o Therefore there seem to be no real and continuing justification for Stage 2 harvesting considering most of these sources will come on line for OCC in the next 10-15 years. OCC needs to justify the need for Blackman Swamp SW harvesting scheme to operate 100% of the time once water supply projects are completed. o UFW figures need to be reduced to around 10% to demonstrate water use efficiency. Figure 0-14 of the Final Concept Study, Dec 2007, p 90 indicates potential UFW of 24% in mid 2005. UFW ranged from 22% to 47% from 2000- 2005. The IWCM needs to present measurable evidence that the UFW is now within 10%. • The assumption that the same amount of potable water is saved for the amount of alternative water supplied is not necessarily valid. The alternative water source augments the water supply. It may or may not save potable water. Potable water savings depend on level of consumption.

• Orange City Council's IWCM Evaluation Table 5.3 states that 'unless the issue with licensing of Stage 1 is resolved, Stage 2 will not be pursued'. In the event that options SH0 (Stage 1 - full harvesting 100% for Blackman Swamp) and SH1 (Stage 2 - construction and operation of storage for additional water harvested in a full harvesting regime for Blackman Swamp) do not proceed, the IWCM will need to be revised, with the BaU amended accordingly. • Production data and consumption data allow an accurate derivation of UFW which is very important data for a utility in terms of efficiency and both water and cost savings. Table 4-1 IWCM Evaluation (p97) states that the lack of production data is of low importance. This needs to be rectified • There is need to explain and clarify several inconsistencies between information contained in different technical notes, the Demand Management Plan and the IWCM. Several examples are given below.

DETAILED COMMENTS

1. Inconsistencies identified are listed below. Accuracy is required in some statements. • The per capita per day consumption provided in the OCC IWCM Evaluation is 404 liters per person per day in 2010 (p55). OCC figure submitted to Planning for the BASIX certificate (Aug 2012) is 160 liters per person per day since Level 5A restrictions were lifted 2 years ago. CENTROC Water Security Study (2009) adopted 435 liters per capita per day as average consumption figure. Explain and reconcile inconsistencies in per capita per day consumption. • BaU demand management is expected to reduce consumption from 5400 ML per year in 2010 to a low 4536 ML (16% reduction based on DM modelling, OCC DMP). However, Tables 3.8 and 3.9 of Technical Note 3 do not reflect this. Please clarify inconsistency. • A high growth scenario will require 6,655 ML/year (Table 3.8 Technical Note 5, BaU). Table 3.9 Technical Note 5 forecast demand at maximum level demand management to be 6,410 ML/year but BaU in the DMP indicates a low of 4536 ML (after 16% reduction in consumption). Please clarify inconsistency • For the next 5 to 10 years, in a high growth /high demand projection, OCC would require up to 6,790ML per year based on a consumption of 404 litres per capita per day (unrestricted) and using the PB population estimate of 46,048 (high for 2021) from Table 3.2, page 7 of Technical Note 3. This is not the same value in Technical Note 5. Please clarify inconsistency • Table 3-19 of Technical Note 2 page 62 indicates that total harvested volumes are 349ML per year and 509ML per year for Blackman and Ploughmans Valley respectively. This is not consistent with statements in Technical Note 5 where the volumes indicated were 800ML for PV and 70ML for Blackmans. Please clarify inconsistency. • Table 3.28 from Technical Note 4 lists Ploughman’s Valley SW harvesting scheme is expected to generate 436 ML/year once Blackmans SW scheme operate at 100%. Why is this volume reduced from the current harvest of 800ML/year? Table 3.20 in Technical Note 2 states the volume will be 499ML, not 436ML on a 100% trigger. Please explain inconsistencies. • IWCM Evaluation Section 3.3.1.10 uses the terms total water production figure and total consumption interchangeably. This is incorrect. Please supply total production data which is derivable from bulk metering data. • Spring Hill and Lucknow is forecasted to decrease from a demand of 432 liters per capita per day in 2010 to 388 liters per capita per day in 2040 (Table 3.28). Contrary to what was claimed, the groundwater extraction limit of 75 ML per year will not be exceeded in 2040 based on Figure 22 which shows a demand of 72 ML/year in a high growth scenario development • Table 3.3 indicates two groundwater extraction licences for 4 new bores with a total entitlement of 442 ML per year was granted to OCC in March 2012. Table 3.43 in Technical Note 2 says it is 462 ML/year. Please reconcile these numbers • The increase in secure yield from the current (858 ML per year) approved harvesting scheme to the 100% trigger (1347ML per year) is 489 ML not 200ML. Table 3-19 and Table 3-20 clearly show this data. Please rectify statement: ‘Adding input from the two stormwater harvesting schemes both operating on a 100% trigger is estimated to increase the secure yield of the water supply system by 200 ML/year above the current approved schemes’ on page 63 of Technical Note 2, Section 3.3.2.2. • Table 3.28 from Technical Note 4 lists Ploughman’s Valley SW harvesting scheme is expected to generate 436 ML/year once Blackmans SW scheme operate at 100%. Why is this volume reduced from the current harvest of 800ML/year? Table 3.20 in Technical Note 2 states the volume will be 499ML, not 436ML on a 100% trigger. Please explain inconsistencies. • Table 5-1 page 111, 3rd dot point states: Development of the second stage of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme generally as outlined in the original approval for this project. This line is misleading as the second stage is not part of the original approval for Blackman Swamp harvesting. • Section 3.3.2.3 states (page 65) that a rainwater tank analysis is discussed in Technical Note 3. The discussion is found in Technical Note 2. Please rectify.

2. Lengthy discussions should be summarised • All catchment related information should be discussed only in the context of water supply. Summarise information on vegetation, land uses, soils, salinity, etc. Also, summarise housing and development discussion • SBP, pricing and other BPM discussions should be summarised

3. Cadia and supply of effluent to OCC in 2030 • Please provide an update on the progress of the negotiation of the existing effluent supply agreement with Cadia and advise on the expected timing for the resolution. A new agreement should allow the possibility of OCC able to gradually access effluent in the course of winding down Cadia operations until the mine fully ceases to operate in 2030. Effluent should be increasingly accessible to OCC i.e. 25% by 2020, 50% by 2025 and ultimately 100% post 2030. For the next 10 years, harvesting stormwater from Blackmans’s Swamp 100% of the time may be justified to improve the supply mix as recycled effluent is not available to OCC until late 2020. • Table 3.7 indicates that Cadia water infrastructure was not short listed. Please explain why. Cadia will terminate in 2030 and this period is covered in the 30 year IWCM time frame • In 2030, when effluent becomes fully available to OCC, SW harvesting licence renewal may require an updated secure yield analysis and a major IWCM review. Please mention this. • An average daily discharge of treated effluent of around 2.4 ML/day would be required to compensate the increased extraction by going from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of harvesting. Since effluent is not available to OCC until 2030, where would this compensatory flow come from? • Clarify if OCC plans to use the effluent available in 2030 to compensate for its extractions in a Stage 2 operation. This stormwater extraction and compensation by effluent seems to be convoluted and perhaps a more expensive exercise for OCC. Is it possible that OCC simply use the effluent available in 2030 to supply the dual pipe systems (this was the original design anyway) instead of moving to Stage 2 harvesting for this added supply? At 2.4ML/day to compensate, the volume is 876 ML/year which is almost the same volumetric (900ML/year) increase through Stage 2 harvesting. • Contractual agreement with Cadia is at least 3,650 ML per year of effluent and yet Table 3.33 indicates that effluent supply was highest at 3629 ML with the highest percentage supplied at 94%. Is OCC breaching the agreement with CVO?

4. Stormwater harvesting and water quality management • Stormwater quality is a concern in the licensing process for Blackman Swamp. Discuss what operational level aspects are planned to overcome stormwater quality threats to Suma Park Dam • In the event of failure: ‘The preferred option would be to implement a solution which utilises as much of the existing infrastructure as possible whilst still achieving the necessary water quality outcomes. This would be achieved by the installation of a packaged Water Treatment Plant in the PVNO area which would allow harvested stormwater to be treated to an appropriate standard and then discharged directly into existing water mains for distribution to homes in the area.’ Explain how this option relates to the water quality approval process being developed at the moment. • There are 202 water quality management actions (page 69) associated with risks identified by OCC. Please list key actions. • Section 3.3.3.1 page 72 lists non compliances for chlorine, nitrogen and faecal coliform in 2010-2011. Please explain why compliance is recorded at 100% in Table 3.31 for microbiological and chemical quality

5. Secure yield and environmental flows • Please explain this paragraph: ‘The increase in secure yield gained by the 1.0 m raise in Suma Park Dam is essentially “lost” by the proposed new environmental flow rule. The secure yield increases from 3,400 to 4,650 ML/year by raising the dam by 1.0 m and adding the harvesting scheme inflow; an increase of 1,250 ML/year. Therefore the net increase in secure yield by being able to operate the harvesting scheme full time is around 1,100 ML/year’. • What is the required environmental flow based on the completed study? While stormwater harvesting may not impact on downstream users at present (and based on this study), it is also the case that once effluent from Cadia becomes available to OCC after 2030, 100% harvesting from Blackman Swamp stormwater harvesting may not be necessary in the secure yield equation. Hence stormwater harvesting could fully cease. Environmental flow made available downstream in excess of the minimum may be better value than harvesting it to increase secure yield when there is more than adequate supply already secured by OCC • In figure 29, indicate where is the holding pond • Having discussed projected changes to OCC due to climate change (p19), it is useful to indicate in brief what key impacts could be factored into the water supply planning process • Table 3.1 Technical Note 4 has no TRB costing for effluent reuse. Please explain why. • OCC dual reticulation system would have been designed to accommodate the total effluent volume from OCC which it appears is 8.2 ML per day (page 72) or 2,993 ML. Is this a driver for OCC to maximise stormwater harvested volumes to 3,000ML per year (and hence propose SW harvesting 1b, and Stages 2 and 3?) i.e. in order to fully utilise this apparently under-utilised asset? • A design consideration in raising Suma Park Dam is the expected daily inputs from the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek stormwater harvesting schemes (both operating at 100%) whenever the storage in the dam is less than 100%. How does it impact the design if Blackman Swamp SW scheme is not granted the license to operate 100%? • There should be more discussion on CENTROC water supply and demand management initiatives and how these tie up and impact on OCC. For example, a table could be included listing CENTROC projects and OCC responses to each project with comments and explanation for the response • Page 115 states: Using Council's 50 year adopted planning horizon, Figure 30 shows that in increment of 2,700 ML is needed to meet projected medium demand growth or 4,300 ML/year to meet the high demand growth. The Macquarie –Orange pipeline alone will deliver more than this volume to allow OCC to meet this projection

6. Demand management • Please rectify error note on page 44: Section Error. Reference not found. • Discussion on business and commercial activity should focus on water demand • Why is there a special agreement with Nashdale water users and where is this located? There is no other mention of Nashdale and there are no diagrams showing Nashdale in other parts of the IWCM. Please clarify. • OCC total utilisation went from a high of around 7,200 ML in 2002 to 3,735ML in 2010 under 2 years of Level 5A restrictions. This demonstrates that when a full suite of demand management actions is applied, OCC is capable of greatly cutting back its consumption. Demand management modelling shows that BaU water conservation actions are capable of reducing OCC (including Lucknow and Spring Hill) water consumption from between 10% to 16% (Section 6.4, DMP p32), that is from 5400 ML per year to a low 4536 ML per year which is within the current 5/10/10 secure yield of 4750 ML/year. This indicates the value of demand management in securing supplies. An effective action is reduction of the UFW through leakage management and also metering. Please include these actions in Table 4.1 of the OCC Demand Management Plan. • The water system model (page 70) was developed and will help identify areas for metering. Please indicate these areas. • ‘Without alternative supplies, BASIX target of 30 is achievable purely based on demand management measures. A 2K to 3K litre RWT will push the BASIX score to 40.’ Is this statement supported by Planning? Please give reference. • UFW was over 20%. The 2009 project on reduction of leakage saved 500ML per year. Present evidence that UFW is now reduced to 10%. The DMP indicates that the leakage reduction project is unfunded until 2016. Please explain why. • What other actions does OCC have to achieve 10% UFW? If not currently achieved, when is the 10% UFW target planned to be reached? Total demand for 2010 was 5,403 ML/yr as per Section 4.1.2 DMP, p13. What was total production for 2010? These figures allow derivation of an accurate UFW. • The mathematical relationship used in modelling does not consider potential increase in the use of potable water by a community that knows that they have high water supply security through a combination of water supply sources. Consumer tendency is to increase consumption when there is assurance of a stable supply. How does OCC plan to counter this tendency of increased consumption due to a sense of high water security?

7. Status of BASIX and compensatory measures need to be clearly explained • Please clarify if OCC has completed compensatory measures i.e. rainwater tanks installed as part of the BASIX provisional recognition requirement. This is relevant to IWCM and to demand management since this demonstrates efforts of OCC to implement all initiatives (required or not required) to augment its supplies from alternative sources and save potable water. • Please clarify the discussion on dual reticulation on page 51. In the context of continuing compliance with BASIX, Planning issued provisional recognition to the alternative of supplying harvested stormwater into the dual pipe system (instead of effluent) that is renewable after one year subject to conditions. The paragraph as it is could be misleading. • It was recommended from this study that the system be supplied with harvested stormwater. This was approved by the DoP and the required capital works are underway and scheduled for completion in the last quarter of 2012. Therefore, treated effluent will no longer be required for the dual water supply system’. This is inaccurate. The provisional recognition granted has not totally discounted the possibility of using treated effluent in the dual reticulation system in future. See below comments. • OCC must reapply to renew the provisional recognition for BASIX as full NOW licences have not been issued as at 30 Oct 2012. Any new approval will be subject to OCC meeting compensatory measures. Provisional recognition is also subject to random review of the progress of the scheme against established criteria. What is the outcome of the BASIX review if one has been concluded? Has OCC applied for a new approval? • Compensatory measure a) states that 19 RWTs need to be installed for a 6 month delay and 90 RWTs for a 12 month delay. Use of more efficient appliances could enable a lesser number of tanks to be installed to reach the BASIX water target. OCC needs to demonstrate that compensatory measures were put in place in the last 12 months. Please discuss how this has been accomplished. • Please justify the calculations for cost of rainwater tanks based on a 10K liter capacity :’The average cost of installing a 10,000 L rainwater tank system connected for outdoor and toilet use (excluding the rebate) is $6,380 which equates to a total cost of $64.94 million. Assuming the upper end of the secure yield increase from the use of rainwater tanks, and a 10 year installation timeframe, would result in a cost of $11,044 per ML increase in secure yield’. BASIX recommends as a compensatory measure, installation of 2K or 3K litre RWTs (this pushes the BASIX score to 40). RWT modeling undertaken using DWE RWT model shows the optimum capacity of RWT suitable for OCC. Figures 36, 37 and 38 indicate that optimum water savings are gained by using RWTs up to 5K litres in capacity for Scenarios 1 and 2 and up to 6K litres capacity for Scenario 3. There seem to be no justification for modeling OCC costs based on a 10K litre RWT. Table 4-6 in Technical Note 4 indicates a high added cost to the TRB of $140 per water supply assessment for RWTs. This high cost may be misleading. Calculations for the cost of rainwater tanks should be based on the installation of 2K, 3K and 5K litre capacity tanks. To : Chris Devitt cc: Martin Haege

Origin of Quotes

------From the NSW Office of Water – Comments on the Orange IWCM First quote is in red

4. Stormwater harvesting and water quality management • Stormwater quality is a concern in the licensing process for Blackman Swamp. Discuss what operational level aspects are planned to overcome stormwater quality threats to Suma Park Dam • In the event of failure: ‘The preferred option would be to implement a solution which utilises as much of the existing infrastructure as possible whilst still achieving the necessary water quality outcomes. This would be achieved by the installation of a packaged Water Treatment Plant in the PVNO area which would allow harvested stormwater to be treated to an appropriate standard and then discharged directly into existing water mains for distribution to homes in the area.’ Explain how this option relates to the water quality approval process being developed at the moment.

------Reply: Technical Note 2 page 77 (?) is the closest I can find. The message is the same and the original comment applies in the same context. The full statement was sourced from: Alternative Water Supply Compensatory Measures Report by Chris Devitt (July 2011?)

The Alternative Water Supply Compensatory Measures report is Section 9 of the Alternate Water Supply Application – Ploughmans Valley/North Orange Alternative Water Supply Scheme. ------

From the NSW Office of Water – Comments on the Orange IWCM Second quote in red

6. Demand management • Please rectify error note on page 44: Section Error. Reference not found.

• The water system model (page 70) was developed and will help identify areas for metering. Please indicate these areas. • ‘Without alternative supplies, BASIX target of 30 is achievable purely based on demand management measures. A 2K to 3K litre RWT will push the BASIX score to 40.’ Is this statement supported by Planning? Please give reference. • UFW was over 20%. The 2009 project on reduction of leakage saved 500ML per year. Present evidence that UFW is now reduced to 10%. The DMP indicates that the leakage reduction project is unfunded until 2016. Please explain why. ------

Reply:

The origin of the second quote is not clear (due to lack of referencing on NOW’s part).

However, a Dept of Planning document advising Orange City Council and commenting on Technical Note number 5 submitted by OCC to Planning has the following (below). The relevant paragraph is taken from the document and pasted below. The lines in bold and in red gives the same message. Additionally, the comment on the cost of a 10K litre tank and a 3K litre tank also reflects previous NOW comments.

Rainwater tanks (Sec 3.4.2, p10) The Geolyse analysis of rainwater tanks as an alternative water supply is inadequate. The BASIX Outcomes Monitoring reports show that for 2006-08, 85% of new homes in NSW met their BASIX water saving requirements using alternative water supplied by water tanks alone, and that a further 10-11% of new homes included a water tank in association with other forms of alternative water supply. It is a proven and popular path for BASIX compliance. The most common tank size for metropolitan Sydney was in the 2000-3000 litre range and for regional NSW 4000-5000 litre size. It is noted that it is often a common practice to over specifying the size of rainwater tanks, which is probably the main driver in the reported over compliance of 6 BASIX points for water scores. A recent paper by Beven McBeth (Rous Water) published in the AWA journal (April 2011) indicates that over specification of tank size may, in some cases, lead to lower overall savings. Calculations by the Department show that an average 4 bedroom home in the PVNO estates can meet the BASIX 40 target with a 3000 litre tank. A 2010 costing provided to the Department by BMT Quantity Surveyors gave the cost of a 3000 litre water tank, installed, as $3,530. This is significantly under the cost estimate of $7,500 used at p10 of the Geolyse report. For homes already built in the PVNO area, the cost of dual pipe connections would be less, as this plumbing is already installed. A cost figure of around $3,000 would not be unreasonable for a volume contract that retrofitted tanks to existing houses.

------

From Page 6 of the same document –

Retrofitting of water tanks Modelling by the Department, based on average outcomes from projects submitted for alternative assessment between December 2010 and April 2011, indicates that most houses in PVNO estates can be retro fitted with a combination of better practice low flow water fixtures, some low-water use plants and a water tanks of between 2000 – 3000 litres and achieve, or substantially achieve, the BASIX water score.