The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
The Value of Water: Inquiry into Australia’s management of urban water
Report of the Senate Environment, Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
December 2002 ii
Commonwealth of Australia 2002
ISBN 0 642 71210 7
This document was printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. iii
Terms of Reference
On 5 April 2001 the Senate referred the following mat6ters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2002 (which was later extended to 5 December 2002): a) the management of water in Australian cities including: i. a review of existing reports on the management of water, predominantly in urban areas, and ii. an assessment of what constitutes ecologically sustainable water use and the environmental, health and economic implications and imperatives for achieving this, taking into account: (A) projected population growth and consumption rates, (B) water quality and adequacy, (C) urban planning, and (D) water management systems; b) the progress and adequacy of Australia’s policies to reduce urban water use and improve water quality; c) evironmental performance in urban stormwater management, including: i. effects of accelerated run-off from sealed urban catchments on waterways, ii. the impact of urban run-off on receiving waters, iii. best environmental practice in urban stormwater management, and iv. clarification of roles, responsibilities and reporting requirements amongst public agencies at state and local government level; and d) the potential for Australia to improve water quality and environmental outcomes, incuding: i. the opportunities, constraints and costs of: (A) waste water recycling, grey water use and urban stormwater utilisation, and (B) improved water use efficiency in household, garden, public open space and industrial contexts demand management, ii. the effectiveness of applying financial, market and other mechanisms to achieve water efficiency, iii. the effectiveness and relevance of environmental management systems, certification programs and best management practices, and iv. the introduction of bulk water entitlements and water markets, and their implications for urban and industrial water consumption. iv
Committee membership Members: Senator Lyn Allison (AD, VIC) (Chair) Senator John Tierney (LP, NSW) (Deputy Chair) Senator Kate Lundy (ALP, ACT) Senator Sue Mackay (ALP, TAS) Senator Tsebin Tchen (LP, VIC) Senator Penny Wong (ALP, SA)
Substitute Members Senator Crossin to replace Senator Mackay for the inquiry into environmental regulation of uranium mines Senator Buckland to replace Senator Lundy for the inquiry into environmental regulation of uranium mines Senator Scullion to replace Senator Tierney for the inquiry into environmental regulation of uranium mines
Participating: Members: Senator the Hon Eric Abetz (LP, TAS) Senator the Hon Nick Bolkus (ALP, SA) Senator the Hon Ron Boswell (NPA, QLD) Senator Bob Brown (AG, TAS) Senator Geoffrey Buckland (ALP, SA) Senator George Campbell (ALP, NSW) Senator Kim Carr (ALP, VIC) Senator Grant Chapman (LP, SA) Senator Stephen Conroy (ALP, VIC) Senator the Hon Helen Coonan (LP, NSW) Senator Alan Eggleston, (LP, WA) Senator Christopher Evans (ALP, WA) Senator the Hon. John Faulkner (ALP, NSW) Senator Alan Ferguson (LP, SA) Senator Jeannie Ferris (LP, SA) Senator Brian Greig (AD, WA) for information technology portfolio Senator Brian Harradine (IND, TAS) Senator Leonard Harris (PHON, QLD) Senator Susan Knowles (LP, WA) Senator Meg Lees (AD, SA) Senator Brett Mason (LP, QLD) v
Senator Julian McGauran (NPA, VIC) Senator Shayne Murphy (IND, TAS) Senator Kerry Nettle (AG, NSW) Senator Marise Payne (LP, NSW) Senator Aden Ridgeway (AD, NSW) for arts portfolio Senator John Watson (LP, TAS)
Committee Secretariat Mr Michael McLean, Secretary Mr Jonathan Curtis, Principal Research Officer Dr Derek Drinkwater, Principal Research Officer Ms Stephanie Holden, Senior Research Officer Ms Sharon Smith, Executive Assistant
Committee Address:
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee
S1. 57, Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6277 3526
Fax: 02 6277 5818
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/index.htm vi vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... iii
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP...... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... xi
CHAPTER 1 ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Terms of reference...... 1 Conduct of the inquiry...... 1 Acknowledgments ...... 2 The report ...... 3 The water cycle...... 4 Disruptions to the natural water cycle by cities and urban centres ...... 8 Defining ecologically sustainable water use ...... 11 Australia’s water resources...... 19 Overview of Australia’s urban water supplies ...... 22 Extent of water use ...... 25 Categories of urban users ...... 32 Water quality standards ...... 39 Conclusions ...... 40
CHAPTER 2 ...... 41 WATER SUPPLY...... 41 Introduction ...... 41 Urban water supplies in context ...... 41 Threats to water quality...... 44 Catchment quality...... 46 Groundwater supplies...... 50 Other sources of water...... 52 Water treatment ...... 54 Future dilemmas: finding extra supplies ...... 56 Conclusions ...... 57 viii
CHAPTER 3 ...... 59 THE OPTIONS...... 59 Introduction ...... 59 Demand management ...... 59 Conclusions ...... 79 Water reuse and recycling ...... 79 Education...... 116 Information systems ...... 117 Knowledge...... 137
CHAPTER 4 ...... 153 STORMWATER ...... 153 Introduction ...... 153 Problems with stormwater...... 154 Best practice stormwater management...... 159 Water sensitive urban design...... 181 Conclusions ...... 187
CHAPTER 5 ...... 189 EFFLUENT...... 189 Introduction ...... 189 Treatment systems ...... 189 Sources of water pollution from urban areas...... 194 Effects of pollution – receiving waters...... 199 Options for improved effluent management...... 206 Conclusions ...... 208
CHAPTER 6 ...... 211 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND POLICY ...... 211 Introduction ...... 211 Commonwealth legislation and powers...... 212 Commonwealth water policy...... 213 COAG Water Reform Framework and the National Competition Policy...... 214 Commonwealth funding programs...... 215 The problem of fragmentation...... 217 The problem of managing risk and liability ...... 230 Principles for system reform ...... 231 Institutional reform options ...... 233 Legislative and policy solutions ...... 244 ix
Enforcement of legal standards ...... 256 Making informed choices – ratings schemes...... 262 Accreditation of people ...... 266 The Commonwealth as underwriter ...... 266 Funding options – rebates, grants and subsidies ...... 267
CHAPTER 7 ...... 271 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS...... 271 Introduction ...... 271 Factoring in externalities ...... 271 Pricing...... 276 Solutions ...... 281 Conclusions ...... 298
APPENDIX 1 ...... 299 LIST OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 299
APPENDIX 2 ...... 303 WITNESSES AT PUBLIC HEARINGS...... 303
APPENDIX 3 ...... 307 EXHIBITS...... 307
APPENDIX 4 ...... 315 OVERVIEW OF COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTIONS, AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS ...... 315
APPENDIX 5 ...... 331 SITE VISITS, INSPECTIONS AND INFORMAL BRIEFINGS...... 331
APPENDIX 6 ...... 367 REFERENCES ...... 367
APPENDIX 7 ...... 379 SUMMARY OF KEY REPORTS, INQUIRIES AND STUDIES ...... 379
AUSTRALIA’S URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT...... 391 GOVERNMENT MEMBERS REPORT ...... 391 x xi
Executive Summary
Australian cities have generally been well served by the arrangements to date: they have had reliable water supplies, they have had good public health and they have had good drainage. But the time is now ripe for a new approach to be much more effective in terms of water use, and for much more useful environmental outcomes.1
~~~~~~
Traditionally, management of water has been to protect health and safety, to prevent damage and danger to person/s and property. Today, water should be recognised as a valuable resource and the planning and management of a site be undertaken with regard to water being an asset.2
Introduction In conducting its inquiry into Australia’s urban water management, the Committee has collected a wealth of evidence from submissions, reports, oral evidence, and the valuable impressions gained from site visits around the country.
It is clear that urban centres in Australia are using water in ways, and quantities, that are unsustainable.
There is however, a growing public and institutional awareness of the problem and the level of commitment to change is obvious from the strong interest in the inquiry from all sectors. Australia has the technology, the resources and the scientific know-how to fix the problems.
Although a great deal is being done, the real need is to force the pace of change. Reform is not keeping pace with the ecological damage caused by the expanding ecological footprint of our cities.
The report addresses each of the Committee’s terms of reference and takes a solutions based approach to urban water management, rather than simply recounting a list of problems.
The Committee is mindful of the fact that urban water management is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government in Australia and this guarantees jurisdictional complexity. Accordingly, the report considers the roles of all three levels, but ultimately focuses its recommendations on matters that are the responsibility of the Commonwealth.
1 Professor Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 267. 2 Hornsby Shire Council, Submission 6, p 2. xii
Problems in Australia’s urban water use Demand and supply Australians use about 350 litres per person per day, and despite significant reductions in per capita consumption over the past decade, overall demand is gradually increasing due largely to increasing population. On current trends many cities and towns in Australia will still need to find new sources of water unless there are significant improvements in water conservation.
Some cities and towns are harvesting water from aquifers at a greater rate than they are being recharged. For others, the quantity and quality of raw water in their water catchments are under pressure from agriculture and logging.
Urban water users are also now competing for water against irrigation and environmental flows for rivers and streams and this competition is likely to become more intense over time as irrigation-dependent agriculture keeps expanding and the forecast reductions in rainfall as a result of climate change, take effect.
Difficult and possibly expensive decisions will have to be made and major reforms in our management will have to be made to ensure ongoing, reliable and high quality urban water supply. Stormwater and effluent Existing stormwater systems were designed to prevent flooding and the prevailing view was that rainwater falling on cities should be transported as quickly as possible into the receiving waters of streams, rivers and the sea.
The water generally moves at speed through our stormwater systems and brings with it high levels of pollution from urban activities. Pollutants include litter and general detritus, sewer overflows, vehicle emissions, animal faeces, garden fertilisers, silt and vegetation.
While natural ecosystems can absorb some pollutants, metropolitan centres produce waste streams that are too concentrated and which move too quickly via concrete drains and pipes to be assimilated by receiving waters. The results are algal blooms, fish kills, closed beaches and shrinking fisheries, all of which have direct effects on the health, prosperity and amenity of urban areas. River systems and enclosed waters such as Moreton Bay and the Great Barrier Reef are particularly vulnerable to effluent and stormwater pollution.
There are also hidden pollutants in stormwater derived from pharmaceutical products such as endocrine disruptors, as well as the chemicals and antibiotics in agricultural runoff. xiii
Institutions and policy The institutional and policy complexities of three jurisdictions of government, the myriad of agencies responsible for planning, health, environment protection, natural resource management and price regulation and institutional inertia in general have been barriers to achieving greater progress towards more sustainable water management.
Water also flows across local and state boundaries and problems caused in one jurisdiction will often have to be dealt with in another. Infrastructure legacy Australia has billions of dollars worth of water supply, sewerage and stormwater pipework, and water and sewage treatment plants. The network of pipes transporting sewage and stormwater in inner city areas tends to be old, inefficient, in poor condition and designed around concepts that are now outdated. Rapid replacement of this infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive. Water pricing At an average of around $1 per kilolitre, the price of water in Australia, compared with other countries and with other products is very low and as such is not providing any incentive to households for water conservation. It has been possible to keep water prices low because neither the costs of taking the water from the environment nor of protecting the catchments from which it is collected are required to be included in the current ‘full cost recovery’ pricing regimes.
Increasing water prices would be politically contentious and many consumers would argue that because water is a basic human need, it should be free. However, it is ironic that Australians are prepared to pay a thousand times more per litre for bottled water than they do for tap water of much the same quality.
Similarly, the costs of stormwater runoff are not attributed. A block of land covered with impervious surfaces such as roofs and carparks is charged no more in drainage fees than a similar sized block with a large garden and minimal runoff.
Management Principles: ecological sustainability and the water cycle Achieving an ecologically sustainable pattern of water management in Australia, and measuring our current practices against this goal, must ultimately be based on an understanding of the natural water cycle, which in Australia, is characterised by great diversity and variability. Accordingly, the management of water around Australia must be essentially local, tailoring decisions to local conditions in different parts of the continent. Management solutions must also be based on the three parameters of xiv environmental, social and economic sustainability. The report provides a number of indicators to judge such sustainability.
It is also important that improvements to the urban water management system are not made in isolation, but are closely integrated with national reforms to water management. Solutions From the evidence received during the inquiry, reinforced by visits to a number of innovative examples of best practice, the Committee is convinced that Australia already has most of the knowledge, technical expertise and systems to solve the problems in urban water management. Demand management There is considerable scope to reduce water use and achieve efficiencies. Water efficient appliances such as dual flush toilets, low flow shower heads, washing machines and dishwashers can dramatically reduce water use in homes. This can be coupled to water efficient gardens, using native plants, minimal lawns and efficient watering systems. However, the fundamental factor in a successful demand management program is changing behaviour away from habits such as hosing down driveways and gutters, watering lawns during the heat of the day and having long showers.
Variability in water usage patterns and geographic conditions means that no single demand management strategy will be appropriate for all places. Balancing costs and benefits is integral to deciding how to implement a demand management strategy and while the least cost basis is appropriate for initially choosing between demand management alternatives, achieving ecologically sustainable water use may require more aggressive adoption of demand management tools. Water reuse and recycling Australia reuses only a small fraction of its wastewater, whether it be stormwater or effluent, and there are major opportunities to improve on this performance.
Water can be reused on gardens and playing fields, for irrigation, in industrial processes, and in the sewage treatment systems themselves, which are heavy users of water. Developments such as Rouse Hill in NSW have implemented a dual pipe system that delivers both potable and recycled water to homes.
Techniques such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery and sewer mining also introduce greater flexibility into systems for using wastewater.
Nevertheless, recycling still faces major obstacles. Often recycled water is remote from the users, and the costs of storage and transport are prohibitive. Matching the availability of recycled water with the needs of the users can also be problematic. Most of all, negative public perceptions remain a significant barrier to expanded xv applications for recycled water, together with certain legitimate health issues that need to be resolved. New generation treatment systems Australia has working examples of facilities that can treat wastewater to the highest standards, up to and including potable water. Technologies used include membrane filtration, bio-remediation, and dissolved air flotation processes.
These tertiary treatment technologies are gradually being adopted around Australia, and are instrumental in rectifying the damage caused to waterways and coastal areas from sewage discharges.
This technology is also driving a change towards smaller scale treatment plants, which in the future is likely to see individual suburbs, office buildings and housing developments have their own treatment systems. This will offer great opportunities for reuse of water, by creating multiple supply sources. The innovative system used at the Sydney Olympic site at Newington is a model of this direction. Stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design Techniques are now available that are vastly more efficient and which sustainably reintegrate stormwater flows into urban water cycles, making effective use of this water as a resource. Developments such as the Lynbrook Estate in Victoria demonstrate the techniques of water sensitive urban design and also show that the associated costs of construction and maintenance are comparable with conventional methods. At the same time, they offer surrounding communities increased levels of utility and aesthetics.
Unfortunately the application of water sensitive urban design principles remains the exception rather than the rule, even in new developments, where the implementation costs are much lower.
Some developers adopt features of WSUD that are ostensibly environmentally friendly and attractive to buyers, but which play no role in water efficient design. It is common for example, to see natural, functioning wetlands be drained in housing estates, and replaced with small ornamental lakes that have no filtering or purifying role in stormwater management.
However, much of Australia’s stormwater infrastructure will reach the end of its useful life over the coming twenty years and this provides Australia with a rare opportunity to replace this infrastructure with more ecologically sustainable systems. Education and information systems The key to changing Australia’s urban water use is to change the mindset of water users, which requires education programs that target all levels of society. Water efficiency must also be embedded in the design of our cities, and so must be understood by engineers, planning professionals, architects, plumbers and builders. xvi
Many innovative and effective education programs are being run around Australia, including those of WaterWatch, AWA, the GreenPlumbers, and Healthy Waterways. These have worked to reinforce water efficiency education campaigns by State and Territory governments, which have achieved significant reductions in per capita water consumption and a notable increase in community awareness of water conservation over the past two decades.
Nevertheless, the Committee identified the need to extend these education programs further, and particularly to address the lack of broadly integrated skills training that professionals require to understand, design and implement water efficient designs. There is a need to further develop integrated and cross disciplinary training of professionals to create a more holistic view of sustainability.
Wastage of water, a cultural preference for European style gardens, and lack of knowledge of the water cycle still create substantial barriers to efficient water use, and the widescale adoption of recycling.
Another prerequisite for sustainable water management is strong research and easy access to the resulting information.
Australia has a number of excellent research institutions, that provided valuable assistance to the Committee. These include the Cooperative Research Centres, CSIRO, and specialist research centres at universities such as the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. The National Land and Water Resources Audit is also developing a powerful national level information resource.
The strong links between the CRCs and other research institutions with industry bodies such as the Australian Water Association and urban water authorities means that much of this research is being disseminated effectively. Goals for Australian urban water management A central concern for the Committee is how to make all of these solutions actually happen. What is lacking is a sense of urgency.
In Australian cities, efficient water use is still perceived as an emergency measure to be adopted during drought conditions. In a country of such limited water resources, this behaviour must be the norm, not the exception.
Using a combination of techniques is the key to changing this.
The committee considers that the Commonwealth can do much to drive the pace of change and the starting point for this leadership role is to adopt aggressive goals.
Australia must commit to sustainable water management goals. xvii
Recommendations for change The Committee makes the general recommendations that: A. The Commonwealth play a more prominent role in driving the changes needed to manage urban water more sustainably. B. A national approach is taken to overcome the jurisdictional barriers to better practice. C. A high priority be given to scientific research into water management coordinated at the national level. D. Efforts be made to enhance awareness of the environmental issues associated with water use and management. E. Water prices should better reflect the significant impacts of current extraction and discharge. Any extra revenue generated should be used to improve performance in this area. F. Australians generally be encouraged and assisted to use less water, recycle more effluent and significantly reduce the impact that urban development and its stormwater collection and transport has on natural systems. In addition, the Committee specifically recommends: A National Water Policy 1. The development of a National Water Policy (NWP) through a National Water Partnership Framework. The National Water Partnership Framework 2. The National Water Partnership Framework between all levels of government, research institutions, catchment management authorities and the general public should include:
• reforms to simplify institutional arrangements for urban water management; • an examination of the effectiveness of COAG water reforms in achieving sustainable water management; • collaboration between levels of government and all stakeholders; • participation by local communities; • consideration of consumption targets in water service provider licences or revenue caps for retail water distributors; and • developing a system of water conservation targets in operating licences. Setting targets 3. The NWP should include agreed State and local targets with timeframes for: • catchment protection and rehabilitation; • rehabilitating natural waterways and wetlands; xviii
• effluent reuse; • stormwater retention and pollution removal; • subsidies to encourage domestic rainwater tanks; • better maintenance and monitoring and reporting of leaks; • per capita water consumption reductions; • long term infrastructure investment; • decentralised, small scale sewage treatment; and • reducing effluent to ocean outfalls. Setting standards 4. The NWP should set standards that include: • model planning codes that incorporate water sensitive urban design principles, supported by multidisciplinary training; • national water efficiency standards and rating schemes for appliances and building systems; • best practice guidelines in: − the design of stormwater infrastructure and management, − urban forms that minimise impervious areas, − greywater reuse, − on-site rainwater collection, and − small-scale sewage treatment systems; • best practice water management standards in the Building and Plumbing Codes of Australia developed in collaboration with the Australian Building Codes Board and the National Plumbing Regulators Forum. Better monitoring, reporting and data 5. The National Water Partnership Framework include measures to achieve better monitoring, reporting and data access, including: • monitoring systems to gauge the effectiveness of urban water management strategies and, in particular, the impacts on receiving waters; • nationally consistent reporting mechanisms on water management; and • a regularly updated, spatially based information system on water consumption, sewage and drainage production. 6. The Commonwealth examine legislative and regulatory opportunities for reporting on water consumption. xix
Funding and financing better water management 7. The Commonwealth, in conjunction with the States and Territories and the private sector, consider funding mechanisms for a comprehensive research effort to include:
• Integrated Urban Water Management; • reuse of stormwater and wastewater; • water quality issues; • a national water reuse research program, covering: − socio-economics of reuse, (for example, factors affecting public confidence in products grown with reclaimed water, and methods to appropriately account for externalities in investment decisions), − innovative technologies for reuse (in collaboration with private sector investors, to reduce costs of treatment of reclaimed waters), − environmental fate of constituents (viruses, endocrine disruptors, organic chemicals, nutrients, salt and their re-entry into the human food chain or human exposure, or ecosystems), and − human health risk assessment (toxicology and endocrinology studies and application of risk based methods); • groundwater management; • catchment management; • small scale treatment technologies; • low energy sludge dewatering; • leak detection; • low cost salinity removal; • small scale water treatment and recycling plants for use in domestic, commercial and industrial processes; and • water-independent housing. 8. Consideration of pricing and financing for better water use and management
• an examination of the water utility dividends paid to government; • an examination of urban water pricing to develop full cost recovery water pricing mechanisms; • an examination of the effectiveness of current Commonwealth grants programs related to urban water management; and • consideration of funding options to implement the policy objectives, including environmental levies, resource ‘royalties’ or general revenue. xx
Leading by example 9. The Commonwealth develop a strategy for progressively upgrading all Commonwealth buildings for high standards of water efficiency. 10. The Joint House Department be funded to change all toilet cisterns in Parliament House to dual flush and to fit water efficient shower roses.
______
Senator Lyn Allison Chair 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Terms of reference 1.1 On 5 April 2001 the Senate asked the Committee to inquire into the management of Australia’s urban water, with a reporting date of 1 April 2002. The terms of reference are shown at p iii.
1.2 Several priority matters intervened to prevent the Committee making any progress on a hearings program prior to the federal election held in November 2001. The Senate’s reference lapsed with the dissolution of the 39th Parliament. However, on 15 February 2002 the Senate in the 40th Parliament authorised the Committee to resume the inquiry with the same terms of reference, with a new reporting date of 27 June 2002. That reporting date was subsequently extended to 5 December 2002 when it became clear that the scale and complexity of the inquiry required more extensive consideration by the Committee. Conduct of the inquiry 1.3 The Committee’s inquiry had been advertised in the national press in April 2001 with a request that submissions be provided to the Committee by 15 June, which deadline was subsequently extended to 12 July to allow several major groups to finalise their submissions. Prior to the calling of the election, some 57 submissions had been received.
1.4 The renewal of the Committee’s inquiry in February 2002 was not the subject of another round of national advertising. Rather the Chair issued a media release to invite interested individuals or organisations to consider lodging submissions by 15 March 2002 and the secretariat made contact with the authors of the 57 submissions to invite them to consider updating their contributions.
1.5 The Committee finally received submissions from 82 submitters, some of whom provided several submissions. Details are given in Appendix 1.
1.6 The Committee then conducted a series of eight public hearings over the period from March to May 2002. Hearings were held in Canberra on two occasions, and in Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide, details of which are given in Appendix 2. Witnesses at the hearings presented the Committee with a wealth of background material. A schedule of these exhibits is given in Appendix 3.
1.7 The Committee took the view that its understanding of the issues in relation to urban water management would be assisted by the undertaking of a program of site visits in conjunction with its hearings program. The Committee undertook site visits in each of the cities in which it held hearings, as well as visiting the city of Bendigo in 2 regional Victoria. Details of the site visits are given in Appendix 5. The Committee’s program of site visits took it to a range of localities around Australia that are subject to very different climatic and geo-morphological conditions, leading to very regionalised urban water problems. It was able to study at first hand water management in urban areas in the tropics, in both a major inland centre and a provincial inland regional centre, and in several capital cities in coastal locations. The range of challenges was impressive, as was the initiative being shown in meeting them.
1.8 Some members of the Committee also took part in a delegation to the New Zealand Parliament from 15 to 17 April 2002. As part of its program, some of the delegation were briefed by the Wellington Regional Council about its approach to water management and visited the Te Marua Water Treatment Plant and the Moa Point Sewage Treatment Plant. While that delegation is the subject of a separate report to the Senate, its findings have informed the Committee’s deliberations in this report.
1.9 Under term of reference (a)(i) the Committee was requested by the Senate to undertake a review of existing reports on the management of water, predominantly in urban areas. To assist that review the Committee compiled a schedule of several key reports, including detailing their backgrounds and outcomes. That schedule is included as Appendix 7. Acknowledgments 1.10 The Committee notes that, while responsibility for land and water management in Australia rests primarily with the governments of the States and Territories, and also with local government under authority delegated by the State governments, it received nothing but the full cooperation of representatives of all three tiers of government during the course of this inquiry. There seemed to be a general recognition that the Commonwealth Government can play an important role in the process of urban water management, not only in showing national leadership in an otherwise fragmented sector, but also in ensuring that Australia’s international obligations are met.
1.11 The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to all parties who contributed to the conduct of this inquiry, whether by making a written submission, by personal attendance at a hearing or, in many cases, by both written and oral submissions. Many witnesses gave of their time and expertise – and their obvious passion for the subject – to ensure that the Committee’s inquiry process was a comprehensive and rewarding one.
1.12 The Committee also wishes to thank the several councillors, council officers, and representatives from other public bodies and from the private sector who went to great lengths to ensure that the Committee’s inspections and site visits program was fully beneficial. 3
1.13 The Committee trusts that the quality of this report justifies their investment in the inquiry process and that their contributions will have been of benefit to the identification of normative approaches to the sustainable use of urban water.
1.14 Finally, the Committee wishes to recognise the efforts of the officers of the secretariat who assisted it with the conduct of the inquiry and the drafting of this report. The report 1.15 The report addresses each of the Committee’s terms of reference and was written with two major factors in mind. First, the report aims to take a solutions based approach to urban water management, rather than simply recounting a list of problems. Second, the Committee is mindful of the fact that urban water management is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government in Australia, which ensures a degree of jurisdictional complexity. The report considers the roles of all three levels, but ultimately focuses its recommendations on matters that are the responsibility of the Commonwealth.
1.16 In this context, the report is structured as follows:
1.17 Chapter 2 examines the water supply and gives an overview of the environmental, health and economic implications of related problems. This sets the scene for addressing the imperatives to achieving ecologically sustainable water management. [Terms of Reference a(ii)]
1.18 Chapter 3 then addresses the general options available to achieve this sustainability, including demand management, water efficiency and recycling. [Terms of Reference d.]
1.19 Chapter 4 covers the issues associated with stormwater management, use and reuse. [Terms of Reference c.]
1.20 Chapter 5 discusses problems associated with effluent and best practice treatment systems.
1.21 In Chapter 6, the Committee evaluates the progress and adequacy of Australia’s policies to achieve the solutions raised in Chapter 3, including a discussion of the adequacy of laws, organisational arrangements, and environmental management systems. [Terms of Reference d(iii)].
1.22 The report concludes with Chapter 7’s discussion of pricing issues and other economic instruments.
1.23 This chapter sets the scene for the rest of the report by describing the water cycle; the characteristics of Australia’s water supply, and the overall patterns of supply and demand for water in Australia’s urban centres. 4
The water cycle 1.24 Urbanising the landscape has profound effects on the natural water cycle and while all types of land development have hydrological consequences, the impacts of cities and towns create a range of issues distinct from those of other land uses. Impacts on one part of the water cycle can have far reaching effects and despite the fact that urban water use in Australia comprises only about 25-30 per cent of total water use, the consequences, both ecological and economic of that consumption, raise questions about the sustainability of Australia’s cities.
1.25 Very little water escapes from the planet because of the earth’s atmosphere, and the total amount of water on the earth has remained about the same for many millions of years. Of all water on the earth, only about 2.5 per cent is fresh water and of this, 76 per cent is located in glaciers and ice caps; and 23.5 per cent comprises groundwater. Only 0.5 per cent of global water is in freshwater lakes, rivers, water vapour in the atmosphere, and water stored in animal and plant life, and in the soil.1
1.26 Water is stored on the land – in the soil, plants and animals, surface waters and groundwater – in the oceans, and in the atmosphere, and it is transferred between these reservoirs in a continuous cycle driven by the sun. Each year, the average amount of water circulating is less than one per cent of the total volume of water on land and in the oceans.
1.27 The water cycle (or hydrological cycle) is the means by which life is sustained. A unique characteristic of water is that it exists in all physical states on the earth – gas, liquid and solid.
1.28 The sun’s energy heats water on the surface of the planet, changing it from a liquid into water vapour. As the earth’s surface warms, rising currents of air carry the vapour upward to where temperatures become cooler and it condenses into tiny drops of liquid, forming clouds. These drops of water combine and grow (it takes one million droplets to form one raindrop) and, under suitable conditions, fall back to the land and oceans as precipitation (sleet, rain, snow or hail). Most of the water that falls as precipitation comes from the sea – approximately 85 per cent is evaporated from the oceans and 15 per cent from the land.
1.29 Water returns to the atmosphere through evaporation from soil and water surfaces as well as through transpiration from plants, which is the process through which plants take in water from their roots and expel it as water vapour through their leaves. The total loss of water from a particular area, equal to the sum of the water lost by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and that lost by transpiration from plants, is referred to as evapotranspiration.
1 Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, pp 2-3. 5
1.30 Some precipitation may evaporate during its fall towards the earth and some may evaporate after it is intercepted by vegetation and other surfaces. Precipitation, which reaches the ground, can follow one of four courses. It may:
• remain on the surface as pools, puddles or surface soil moisture which is directly evaporated; • flow over the land into depressions and channels to become surface runoff in the form of streams which either recharge groundwater via seepage or flow to lakes and the oceans; • soak a little way into the ground, be absorbed by plant roots and return to the water vapour in the air by transpiration from the leaves; or • soak deeply into the ground and add to the groundwater, moving slowly along the direction of groundwater flow towards rivers, wetlands or the sea. 1.31 A water catchment, or drainage basin, is an area of land that collects and transfers all the precipitation that falls on it (with the exception of evapotranspiration and groundwater losses) into a particular watercourse. Divisions between catchments are called watersheds.2 The catchments of creeks, gullies and streams combined, form the catchments of small rivers, which together form the catchments, or river basins, of major rivers. Water purification3 1.32 Natural processes at work in catchments purify water. Forests, woodlands, wetlands, and grasslands act as sponges to slow the movement of water from where it falls as precipitation to where it enters streams, lakes, and estuaries. This is important to natural purification because many of the processes by which the water is cleaned are biological processes, often performed by microbes such as bacteria and fungi. These processes take time, so the longer it takes for water to move across the landscape, the greater the cleansing that occurs.
1.33 Once runoff water reaches a stream, fallen trees, branches and natural debris (snags) in the water are important to slow it down and allow bacteria, fungi and algae to remove impurities. Wetlands and streamside (riparian) vegetation are particularly important for removing fine sediments from runoff. As sediment-laden water moves across and through these ecosystems, 80-90 per cent of the fine particles settle to the bottom or are filtered out. Other pollutants such as organics, metals, and radionuclides (radioactive elements) are often adsorbed4 by silt particles. Settling of the silt removes these pollutants from the water. Thus sediment deposition provides multiple benefits to downstream water quality.
2 Although in America, this term is used to refer to the catchment itself. 3 This section is based on the Science NetLinks site, at: http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/lessons.cfm?DocID=275 4 Adsorption is the bonding of substances such as metals and nutrients onto the surfaces of suspended particles by way of physical, chemical and biological processes. 6
1.34 Healthy microbial assemblages in soil and on surfaces in water change the form (and possibly the toxicity) of pesticides and they also remove heavy metals, such as mercury, that can be harmful to life. Wetlands can remove 20-60 per cent of heavy metals in the waters moving through them, and microbes in ecosystems can also change herbicides so that they are no longer toxic. It is difficult to predict how much and what type of materials and pollutants can be treated within a natural ecosystem without permanently harming it, but factors such as location, size, type of soil and vegetation, water flow (patterns and extremes), and the landscape in which the ecosystem exists all play a part. Soil moisture 1.35 Besides surface water storages such as rivers, there are two other important stores of water in the catchment — the moisture in the soil and the groundwater. Most of the rain that falls in catchments is stored in the regolith5 before being transpired by plants, entering the groundwater system or becoming streamflow.
1.36 The soil itself acts as a regulator in the water cycle. Soil moisture occupies the pores between grains and crumbs of soil. When these pores are completely full of water, the soil is saturated and water can drain through fairly easily. The role of the soil as a regulator arises because it retains water and partitions it between the runoff part of the system and evapotranspiration. The extent of this partitioning depends on the soil moisture content – when the soil is dry, drainage and throughflow are slow and most precipitation is retained in the soil and subsequently evaporated. When the soil is initially moist, the addition of further water from precipitation promotes rapid drainage, groundwater recharge and throughflow. The soil organic matter content also has an important influence on the amount of water that soaks into soil. Groundwater 1.37 The amount of water that infiltrates the soil varies with the degree of land slope, the amount and type of vegetation, soil type and rock type, and whether the soil is already saturated by water. The more openings there are in the surface of the land (cracks, pores, joints), the more infiltration occurs. Water that is not used by plants or evaporated, continues moving downward through empty spaces in the soil, sand or rocks until it reaches a layer of bedrock though which it cannot easily move and that over time becomes saturated. The water fills the empty spaces and cracks above that layer and is referred to as groundwater. Over time the bedrock can become broken and fractured, and some bedrock, for example limestone, is dissolved by water. These processes can lead to vast underground lakes being created.
1.38 The water table is the surface of the saturated zone, wherever that occurs below the ground. It is not so clearly defined as the surface of a river since the water level gradually peters out. Surface tension allows ‘capillary’ forces to penetrate the
5 The regolith is the layer of loose unconsolidated material, including soils, sediments, and rock fragments, that overlies bedrock and forms the surface of the land. 7 soil above the water table without saturating it. This zone in the soil is vital for most land plants and biological activity, which require both water and gases for their survival.
1.39 Groundwater is replenished (recharged) through infiltration from precipitation and through leakage from the bottom of some rivers and lakes. In some cases it is groundwater which provides the water for wetlands. In general, shallow groundwater flow is towards nearby rivers or springs, where it seeps to the surface to form stream flow, but deeper groundwater may flow beneath catchments to form regional flow systems.
1.40 Groundwater comprises 23.5 per cent of the world’s fresh water. This percentage can be compared with the amount of surface water on the planet (in fresh- water lakes, soil moisture and water vapour in the atmosphere) which constitutes only 0.5 per cent of the world’s fresh water. However, groundwater can be of varying quality and much is inaccessible to humans with current technology. Human induced pollution issues aside, the chemical components of groundwater depend upon the different types of rock and other matter in which the water is contained and through which it flows.
Aquifers and aquicludes 1.41 Rocks with moderate to high permeability allow considerable flow of groundwater and are called aquifers (‘water-bearers’). Rates of groundwater flow depend on the composition of the rock containing the groundwater (the aquifer). Permeable rocks such as sands, gravels and some types of limestone allow rapid water flow but impermeable layers such as clay can limit the flow rate – for example to less than a metre per year. Rocks such as clays, shales, silts and unfractured crystalline rocks are aquicludes – their permeability is so low that they form barriers to groundwater movement.
1.42 An unconfined aquifer is one where the upper boundary of the groundwater body is the water table and the groundwater is fed by recharge from the unsaturated zone. Alternatively, a confined aquifer is one where the aquifer is overlain by an aquiclude and so there is no water table: the water cannot find its own level but is forced to stay below the overlying layer. In this case the water is under greater than atmospheric pressure and, in some cases when a bore is drilled, the internal pressure can be sufficient to propel water to the surface without the aid of a pump. This is an artesian bore.
1.43 If more water is extracted from an aquifer than is recharged, the water table is lowered and subsidence of the land can follow as the previously saturated ground dries and shrinks. On the other hand, when deep-rooted vegetation is removed and/or irrigation is used, the water table can rise and dissolved salts and minerals are brought to the surface and left there when the water evaporates, causing the problem known as dry land salinity. 8
Disruptions to the natural water cycle by cities and urban centres 1.44 The water cycle continually replenishes water but cities and urban centres change the hydrological characteristics of catchments and affect various elements of the cycle. In addition to changes to hydrological cycles, urbanisation destroys biophysical processes, the energy cycle, the carbon cycle and a variety of ecological cycles and food chains, all of which are connected.6
1.45 Urban water extractions and returns to the environment often have a significant and unsustainable impact on the catchments in which they are situated. Impacts on the water cycle arise from changes to the flow regime of rivers, disconnections between parts of the river system (upstream, downstream and the floodplain, for example) and removal of the links between groundwater and surface waters. These changes permeate through the entire cycle, from the headwaters of the catchment to receiving waters.
1.46 Developing the natural landscape alters the amount of water that soaks into the ground, the way it moves across the surface of the land, and what materials it carries with it. The Australian Water Association considers that of all catchment processes, land use has the most profound impact on water quality and the environment.7 In addition, urban areas divert waters from the environment, prevent groundwater recharge and regulate rivers, all of which affect ecosystems. The extent of a city’s influence in this regard can range more widely than its perimeter and is referred to as an ecological footprint:8
The natural flow of water down a river to the sea is a part of a healthy system. It is when we prevent this that the river’s health is at risk.
Today, we see a link between the amount of water taken by Melbourne and the level of toxic algae in the Gippsland Lakes. The algae flourish on a bank of nutrients caused by land-clearing and agriculture. The nutrients are triggered by low flows in the rivers running into the lakes. The ability of the rivers to cope with their nutrient loads is directly related to their ability to flush themselves naturally.
The landscape, its plants and animals have evolved to cope with episodic flooding. By taking out the water and preventing floods, we need to be aware we are also destroying that landscape.9
6 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 498. 7 Australian Water Association (AWA), Submission 41, p 8. 8 The ecological footprint is the geographical area affected by a city. It includes directly and indirectly affected resources used by the city as well as areas affected by the wastes the city generates. An individual’s ecological footprint is the area of land required to sustain that person’s lifestyle. 9 John Williams, A landscape dammed by dreams, by Kim Mahood, Sunday Age, 9 December 2001, p 15. 9
1.47 To ensure a ready supply of water for communities, engineering systems modify the natural regimes and disturb what were previously, stable ecosystems. Withdrawing increasing volumes of water from surface flows significantly adds to the stresses on the ecological systems from which the water is sequestered, affecting the lifecycles of fish and other animals (discussed in Chapter 2). These changes in river systems can then have further flow-on effects in other ecosystems, such as wetlands and floodplains, reducing biological diversity and ecological integrity.
1.48 The Centre for Cooperative Research for Catchment Hydrology lists some effects of changes in catchment hydrology as a consequence of urbanisation as follows:10
• increased frequency of high velocity flows;
• increased frequency of disturbance to the streambed (and hence the habitats of many aquatic fauna);
• increased sediment supply and sediment transport rates;
• long term changes to streambed particle size range due to the removal of the more easily eroded and supply limited materials;
• increased rates of streambed erosion and upstream movement of erosion fronts.
1.49 These changes lead to a reduction in in-stream physical diversity and, as a consequence, reduce aquatic ecosystem health. Changing water levels11 1.50 Development though drainage, clearing, drawing water for water supplies, and construction can affect the local water balance in complex ways. For example, the following activities raise the water table, raise wetland levels, and cause normally seasonal wetlands to be often or permanently flooded:
• constructing impervious surfaces such as roads, roofs, footpaths and car parks, reduces groundwater recharge and increases runoff; • channelling water away in drains may raise wetland levels in other places; and • clearing vegetation and removing trees reduces the amount of water drawn up through roots, which can allow the water table to rise. 1.51 In some areas, the rising water table brings dissolved salts to the surface, causing salinity problems.
10 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25, p 2. 11 This section is based on information from the Water and Rivers Commission site, Water facts7, at: www.wrc.wa.gov.au/public/waterfacts/7_water_cycle/impact.html 10
1.52 Conversely, the following activities can lower the water table and dry out wetlands:
• draining wet, low-lying land for housing or agriculture destroys wetlands and moves water from one place to another, for example to drainage sumps, other wetlands or rivers; and • excessive use of shallow groundwater can lower the watertable and dry out wetlands some distance away from the bores. 1.53 Lowered water tables can damage native vegetation and wetland ecology. Pollution 1.54 Probably the most obvious effect of urban centres is the pollution of water courses, oceans and groundwater from contaminated water entering the environment, either from direct discharge from point or non-point sources,12 or from the seepage of water from contaminated sites into aquifers and other water courses. According to Dr Fleming:
There are many sources of water pollution, and most are related in some way to the way that land is developed, used and managed. Sources of pollution are well known and include industrial sites, waste depots, rail yards, sewage disposal facilities, contaminated sites (such as leaking tanks at fuel stations), inappropriately designed landfills, and sites of intensive animal keeping (such as stock sale yards).13
1.55 The types and consequences of pollution from these various sources is discussed in later chapters. Interactions between various parts of the urban water system 1.56 In general, urban water authorities focus on a once-through use-and-dispose approach to water. This involves harnessing a water source, filtering and disinfecting the water, storing it, and delivering it to users through a system of pipes. Following its use, in sewered areas water is sent through a system of sewerage14 pipes to the wastewater treatment facility (sewage plant) where it is treated. The resulting effluent15 is then discharged, usually to the ocean.
1.57 Current water treatment technologies allow water to be cleansed and made available for more than one use. Rainwater, greywater and effluent can all be captured, treated and made suitable for a variety of uses, thus reducing requirements
12 Point sources are identified sources of pollution such as discharge pipes. Non-point sources are diffuse sources of pollution such as agricultural runoff and stormwater runoff. 13 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 4. 14 Sewage refers to wastewater and refuse, and the sewerage system is the pipes and fittings which convey the sewage. 15 Effluent is the liquid waste matter that results from sewage treatment or industrial processing. 11 for increasing amounts of water being diverted from catchments for the consumption of cities.
1.58 Many submissions emphasised the importance of an holistic approach to water management, that considers the total water supply rather than dissecting it into segments – potable water, greywater, blackwater, stormwater, groundwater, natural river water and recycled water. These are all interrelated and changes in one area will have impacts on the dynamics in the rest of the system.
1.59 Ultimately there is a finite quantity of water in the system, and this total water resource supports the biodiversity of life and environment in the catchment, including the urban communities who live in, take and dispose of their water.16 Just as the various components of the water cycle are linked, so too are the various components of the urban water system and each can influence the other. Significantly changing the method of storage, the volume, the pollution and the discharge of any or all the types of water (potable, grey, black, stormwater etc), would need to be carefully analysed and the benefits and costs identified as they affect the whole system.
1.60 For example, if the need (demand) for potable water is significantly reduced by using stormwater and recycled greywater, then less potable water requires storage, transport and treatment, less effluent requires disposal (large quantities would be taken by water recyclers) and the volume of flows in stormwater drains would fall, reducing localised flooding. Use of stormwater can mitigate peak flows from drainage systems (which are magnified in urban areas due to the prevalence of hard surfaces). However, stormwater use may reduce the market for wastewater reuse.17
1.61 For this reason the system ought to be considered as a whole within, and as a part of, the water cycle, and be holistically managed. Defining ecologically sustainable water use 1.62 The COAG water reforms of the 1990s were instigated in recognition that Australia was not managing its water resources sustainably and the consequences, in addition to a degraded environment, would be felt on economic activity. Many submissions to the Committee’s inquiry were able to identify activity that was not ecologically sustainable, but few could say precisely what constitutes sustainability:
I believe it is false to suggest that anyone knows what constitutes a sustainable urban water system. Certainly, there are many people developing and applying technologies to use water more efficiently and to make better use of municipal effluent and stormwater, and it is likely that these activities are important in pursuing sustainability. However, the challenge and complication arises in integrating these technologies into
16 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37, p 3. 17 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 14. 12
water systems where traditional technologies and traditional thinking dominates.18
1.63 It is generally agreed that current urban water use is not sustainable. Although the urban water system is often referred to as a ‘cycle’, it is actually more of a linear flow of water. In an environment of ever increasing city sizes, urban developments exceed the capacity of natural systems to absorb the effects of urban water use.
1.64 The key to achieving ecological sustainability therefore revolves around returning this linear pattern to its natural cycle, and not creating impacts on the environment greater than can be assimilated within the natural ecosystem. In practice, this means changing the human tendency to ‘solve’ problems by displacing them.
1.65 In doing this in cities, each component of the urban water management system cannot be viewed in isolation from other parts of the system and it must be integrated with the management of other urban infrastructure:
The reality is that the most effective and enduring solutions require a multi- disciplinary and holistic approach to living with the capacity of natural systems.19
1.66 The CSIRO recommends more self-sufficient systems for the provision of water to urban areas:
If the environmental impact of providing urban water services is to be reduced, a movement towards more self-sufficient systems is required rather than the once-through systems that presently dominate. This should not be taken to suggest that existing systems should necessarily be dismantled, as this may not be required to satisfy sustainability criteria. Rather, it suggests that continuous development of new linear systems is unlikely to be sustainable: we must seek systems that reduce dependence on new natural resources as sources of supply and waste sinks. The form of urban development will significantly affect our ability to reduce dependence on imported water and the use of the environment as a waste sink.20
1.67 The United Nations Commission on Environment and Development 1987 report, Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report) defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.21 Needs are culturally and socially determined; nevertheless sustainable development should promote consumption levels that are supported ecologically and that can be realised by all. At a minimum,
18 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 4. 19 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 10. 20 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 34. 21 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 13. 13
sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils and the living beings.
1.68 The ability to ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future’ is an aspiration that will be difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy. However, the underlying principle provides a yardstick against which development objectives should be measured.
1.69 Sustainability, of course, requires the integration of social, environmental and economic considerations and as such, is not a fixed condition. It will be difficult to determine the ‘state’ that represents sustainability, albeit particular requirements might be identified (for example the amount of water that should be made available for environmental flow in a particular river system). Consequently, it will often be more valuable to work toward a reduction in unsustainability than to decree something as sustainable and posit that as an immutable goal.
1.70 This view of reducing unsustainability is echoed by Professors Troy and White:
The notion of sustainability means different things to different people, and the policies aimed at enhancing the sustainability of cities will differ between regions and countries. While sustainability is seen by some as problematic and by others as unattainable, the reality is that Australia must adopt the strategy of a transition to sustainability by attempting to systematically reduce environmental stress. Nowhere is this strategy more important than in the city given its central role as a major source and location of environmental stress. An integral part of contemporary strategies and initiatives has been to make our cities less unsustainable.22
1.71 Several witnesses suggest that sustainability is about a process or a journey rather than a destination.23 This journey involves continuous learning, adaptation and improvement to sustain environmental, social and economic systems. According to the Australian Water Association:
The complexity of linking systems and processes is so great that the process can only be tackled on an evolutionary basis and may never be achieved completely. A useful concept here is adaptive environmental management, which means making the best decisions we can now, but revisiting them as new, better information comes to hand. Taking the ecologically sustainable water use journey will thus mean starting with the best we know now and improving it as we learn more, by experience and from research.24
22 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50A, p 1. 23 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 4; Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 7; and Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 505-506. 24 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 7. 14
1.72 Additionally, sustainability depends on the integration of the economics, the environment and the social consequences of the planning and implementation cycle.25 The CSIRO notes that the most important benefit of an integrated approach to urban water systems is the potential to increase the range of opportunities available in order to be able to develop more sustainable systems:
In as much as the robustness of ecological systems is increased through diversity, so too will the sustainability of urban water systems be improved if an increased range of options are made available enabling solutions to be tailored to local circumstances.26
1.73 Melbourne Water points out that the broad principles of sustainable water use involve understanding the complex relationships and interconnections between all the elements in the environment so that decisions are made in an holistic context; for example the sequential relationship between well managed catchments and healthy waterways and bays.27 Given that there is no universally acceptable definition of sustainability, practitioners have defaulted to using a set of guiding principles to deliver outcomes that are consistent with ecologically sustainable water use. These are:
• decision making processes should incorporate economic, environmental and social equity considerations; • global dimensions of environmental impacts need to be recognised and considered when protecting biodiversity; • when there is a lack of scientific certainty about the extent of risk, the precautionary principle should apply; • flexible policies such as improved valuation of all costs, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be adopted; and • decisions should provide for broad community involvement on issues that affect it.28 1.74 Sustainable water use will vary from site to site, and even within sites and it needs to be viewed within the context of all social, environmental and economic considerations. For example, sustainability might not be achieved by arbitrarily decreeing a reduction in water use, if achievement of the goal requires additional energy use and where water abstractions do not lead to an appreciable diminution of ecosystem function. In other circumstances, such as those in which a minimum environmental flow requirement has been mandated, setting a target for reducing water use to meet human needs may be an entirely appropriate strategy. Similarly, at a site where water use appears sustainable, but wastewater discharge is clearly not, the
25 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 499. 26 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 34. 27 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, pp 3-4. 28 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 4. 15 solution to the discharge problem – such as greater reuse – will affect the amount of water used, even though the current demand would appear to be sustainable.29
1.75 The Australian Water Association makes the point that ecologically sustainable water use means creating a sustainable system in each catchment or coherent management unit (bioregion or groundwater region), which allows communities today to maintain their quality of life, without compromising either the environment or future generations’ ability to enjoy at least the same quality of life.
1.76 As populations grow, generally and in particular locations, increasing pressures will be put on water resources. Traditionally, increasing demand has been met by harnessing new supplies to meet that demand, but the environmental, social and economic costs of such an approach are high and increasingly recognised as unacceptable, in both environmental and economic terms. Where such constraints are emerging, planning effort needs to be directed to determining the most appropriate way of meeting human needs from the host of options that have emerged over the past two decades or more. Indicators of sustainability 1.77 Despite some difficulties in defining sustainability, the CSIRO suggests that there is considerable value in measuring systems performance against a range of criteria to determine progress towards an objective relevant to particular aspects of the system or its impact.30 Mr Davis from the Australian Water Association echoed this approach:
We are trying to wrestle with the idea of how you measure sustainability. The only thing we can do is to try to come up with a lot of surrogates for sustainability and to try to measure them and look at best practice.31
1.78 The CSIRO suggests that relevant objectives would include those related to systems performance, environmental outcomes, economic and social impacts and regulatory issues.32 A list would include:
• water availability – which reports on the source and extent of supply; • water usage – which provides a measure of water usage within and across urban sectors; • supply water quality – which reports on the quality of the water reaching the public; • water disposal – including both stormwater and wastewater discharges to receiving environments and the contaminants they carry;
29 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 13. 30 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 14. 31 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 231. 32 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 14-15. 16
• receiving water quality – which provides a measure of the extent to which receiving marine and inland water environments are affected by stormwater and wastewater discharges; • flow implications – which measures the extent to which abstraction for supply purposes alters flow regimes and natural environments; • economic and institutional implications – which measures the expenditure or investment in conventional stormwater, groundwater and wastewater practices, as well as ‘greener’ initiatives; • political and social objectives – which reports on the ability of urban water systems to satisfy community needs; and • promotion of reuse, recycling and sustainable water use – which identifies and measures the extent to which alternative, environmentally friendly technologies are being implemented. It also reports on the extent to which the community is involved in these activities. 1.79 An alternative grouping of these issues would be the following broader objectives:
• conservation and enhancement of public health; • conservation and enhancement of aquatic ecosystems and associated environments (water quality); • conservation and management of water resources (flow control); • satisfaction of economic and institutional constraints; • meeting of political and social constraints; and 33 • promotion of reuse, recycling and sustainable water use. 1.80 The following table lists a selected range of possible indicators of urban water system sustainability, and matches them against the issues and objectives that they are attempting to satisfy:34
Table 1 Possible Indicators of Urban Water Sustainability
Objective/Issue Indicator
1. Water availability • proportion and volume of water derived from groundwater, surface water and reclaimed water resources; and
• frequency and duration of water shortages.
33 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 15. 34 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 15. 17
2. Water usage • daily and total municipal water usage by sector;
• municipal household water consumption patterns;
• authorised versus actual groundwater abstraction; and
• number of water trading licences issued, and volume of water traded.
3. Supply water quality: conserve and • human health criteria exceedances. enhance public health
4. Water disposal • proportion of municipal population served by treated wastewater;
• percentage and amount of effluent disinfected - by method;
• disposal and reuse of treated wastewater;
• volume of sludge from wastewater treatment plant disposed or reused; and
• volume of stormwater treated and discharged to receiving waters or reused.
5. Receiving water quality: conserve • guideline trigger levels reached in inland waters; and and enhance aquatic ecosystems and associated environments • pollutant loadings to marine environments from stormwater and wastewater pipes and drains, which exceed environmental health regulations.
6. Flow implications: Conserve and • ratio of groundwater abstraction to groundwater manage water resources recharge; and
• river discontinuity.
7. Satisfy economic and institutional • expenditure on water supply; constraints • expenditure on wastewater treatment and disposal;
• cost of water supply and disposal under conventional versus ‘greener’ urban water systems; and
• investment ratio in ‘greener’ wastewater, stormwater and groundwater management practices, as a proportion of total wastewater, stormwater and groundwater expenditure.
8. Social and political expectations • already listed within indicators 1-7, and indicator 9.
9. Promote reuse, recycling and • proportion of greywater, stormwater and blackwater sustainable water use recycled/ reused;
• proportion of wastewater reused (before/after) 18
reaching wastewater treatment plant;
• composite indicator: management effort; and
• number of people involved in community water monitoring programs.
1.81 The Committee also took evidence on the value of triple bottom line reporting as a way to encourage best practice.35 This idea ties in with the concept mentioned previously of sustainability being about a process. The notion of reporting against the three components (or ‘bottom lines’) of economic, environmental, and social performance is directly tied to the concept and goal of sustainable development. The perspective taken is that for an organisation (or a community) to be sustainable (a long run perspective) it must be financially secure (as evidenced through such measures as profitability); it must minimise (or ideally eliminate) its negative environmental impacts; and, it must act in conformity with societal expectations. These three factors are obviously highly interrelated.
1.82 The Department of Land and Water Conservation is planning for balanced outcomes by taking triple bottom line goals into account when considering various options for managing the urban water cycle.36 The Balanced Outcomes Planning (BOP) approach involves the economic evaluation of different options or bundles of options to achieve a stated goal at least cost. This approach makes some attempt to include external costs in the analysis.
1.83 Foley and Daniell conclude in their paper, that governments need to be committed and have a sustainability model in place that is not static and allows targets and goals to be reviewed on a regular basis. The model must recognise that sustainability is location and resource dependent and that decision support systems are required to assess the merits of proposed projects in relation to economic, social and environmental issues independently of political considerations.37
1.84 This issue of political considerations is an important point. Decisions made in the timeframe of the electoral cycle do not sit well within the context of a long-run, sustainable approach:
There is certainly a time frame issue there and, with all respect, I think that it partly has to do with the political process. When you have people making decisions who have a horizon of two years, or six years if they are in the upper house, then the ability to look at planning horizons for something like
35 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 186 and 187. 36 Department of Land and Water Conservation, Submission 36, p 2. 37 Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering, Submission 30, Attachment, p 10. 19
water, which should be looked at 20 or 50 or 100 years ahead, becomes difficult.38 Australia’s water resources 1.85 One of the worst Australian clichés is that this is the ‘driest continent on Earth’. Leaving aside that the statement is technically untrue (Antarctica is drier) it masks significant regional variation that must be taken into account in any assessment of the adequacy of water supplies or the extent to which our total water stocks are utilised.39
1.86 Australia’s large size as an island continent that stretches from an equatorial zone in the north to a temperate zone in the south, means that it has a wide range of climatic regions. These vary from tropical regions in the north, dominated by the monsoonal seasonal extremes of ‘wet’ and ‘dry’, through the arid expanses of the interior and west representing about 50 per cent of the land mass, to temperate regions in the south that reflect Mediterranean-type climates with winter rains and hot dry summers. Only Tasmania and parts of the eastern coast including the adjacent ranges and slopes, experience a more temperate climate with relatively uniform rainfall on average.40
1.87 In addition to the differences in climate across the Australian landmass, there are significant year-to-year variations in rainfall, so that areas with reasonably high annual rainfall averages can also experience regular drought episodes interspersed with severe flooding (for example Sydney and Brisbane). The explanation for this large annual variability is the influence of the Southern Oscillation, which is the variation in the atmospheric circulation and is the driving force for the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effect. Australia is one of the most affected continents, experiencing major droughts interspersed with extensive wet periods. The frequency of tropical cyclones, heat waves, bushfires and frosts is also linked to the Southern Oscillation.
1.88 In general, annual rainfall variability is inversely related to annual precipitation – that is, arid regions not only receive less rain on average but the rain that they do receive is more episodic. A statistical measure, the coefficient of variation,41 is used as an indication of this variability – the larger the coefficient, the greater the variability. Australia has greater variability of rainfall and runoff than any other continental region and its coefficients of variation are 2 to 4 times those of North America and Europe.42 It is for this reason that Australia’s adoption of European
38 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 232. 39 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 27. 40 The Australian Water Directory 2001, Australian Water Association, p 10. 41 The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation divided by the mean. 42 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 2. 20 methods of farming, which are based on regular patterns of rainfall, has such a devastating effect on the land.
1.89 Ecosystems in Australia have adapted to this variability and depend on it for their survival. For example, some wetland species are reliant not only on major floods, but on smaller flood episodes, which, with the construction of dams, no longer occur. The imposition of regularity on water flows which is so vital for agricultural, is having a damaging effect on native lifeforms.43
1.90 Dr Fisher made the following point:
In terms of the discharge, it is often thought that if water runs past you then it is wasted. There are views that all that water running out to sea after floods is wasted and should be dammed, and perhaps piped to other areas where there are water shortages. But that is a part of the ecology of the inshore marine waters. For example, in the Snowy River system, research has been done showing that the lack of flow from the Snowy into the Pacific Ocean has stopped the Snowy River from being a location for eels, because they actually sense the water gradient as they swim up the coast. So we do not fully understand these issues about flooding, but floods are part of the marine ecology, as indeed they are of the river ecology.44
1.91 Overall, Australia is relatively arid, with 80 per cent of the country receiving less than 600 mm of rain per year and about 50 per cent receiving less than 300 mm. Australia’s rainfall is the lowest of the five continents (excluding Antarctica). The discharge of Australia’s rivers into the sea is by far the lowest of any of the continents.
1.92 In addition to the extreme variability of the rainfall, Australia has high evapotranspiration rates. The driving force for direct evaporation is incoming solar radiation, and the highest values in Australia are recorded in the central areas of the country which have exceptionally long hours of sunlight.45 Runoff is the difference between precipitation and evaporation and is the amount of water available for lakes, streams and other land reserves. Evaporation losses greatly reduce the water available as runoff. Worldwide, on average, runoff and groundwater recharge is about 12 per cent of average rainfall – but for three-quarters of the land area of Australia, evapotranspiration limits the runoff to less than 5 per cent of the rainfall. Australia has approximately 5 per cent of the world’s land area, but produces only 1 per cent of global river runoff. This contrasts with 31 per cent produced by Asia, 10 per cent by Africa and 7 per cent by Europe.
1.93 Low rainfall, combined with high evaporation rates, results in low surface water flows and many intermittent river systems. In turn, these factors contribute to problems with salinity and algal blooms as rivers do not have sufficient volumes of water to flush through – for example the largest river system in Australia is the
43 Ticky Fullerton, Watershed: Deciding our water future, ABC Books, 2001, pp 234-236. 44 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 364. 45 Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, pp 10-11. 21
Murray-Darling, but in less than one day the Amazon River in South America carries the equivalent of the Murray’s entire annual flow. The hydrological cycle itself is most vigorous in South America and least so in Australia.
1.94 However, Australian’s relationship with water is modified by two characteristics. First, it is highly urbanised with 64 per cent of Australia’s 19.2 million people living in capital cities,46 which, with the exception of Perth, are located in quite well-watered regions.47 Moreover, most of the Australian population is in five cities with populations in excess of one million, of which two, Melbourne and Sydney, have more than three million. This contrasts with the typical population of a European or North American mid-sized city which is around 50,000 people.
1.95 Second, Australia’s population is concentrated within 100 km of the Australian coast – far from the arid centre (80 per cent of the population lives within 30 kilometres of the coast, and that number is rapidly increasing). The availability of water has been a significant force behind patterns of urban settlement, with the majority of Australia’s urbanised areas lying adjacent to the coasts where water supplies are more secure. As a consequence of these factors, and its low population, the amount of water available per person, ranks among the most favourable on Earth.48
1.96 However, there is a mismatch in that Australia’s major water resources are in northern Australia and Tasmania (as shown in the following table), whereas most of its agriculture and people are in the south-eastern mainland.
46 Sydney Morning Herald, A country practice: pack up, move on and leave a small town to die, 15 January 2001, p 1. 47 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 9. 48 Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, p 16. 22
Table 2
Australia’s divertible and developed water resources in 1995/9649 Spatial unit Divertible fresh water resources Volume Proportion (gigalitres) used utilised Surface water Groundwater Total (%) Queensland coast 6000 1220 7220 2740 38 Queensland part of Lake Eyre 160 170 330 80 24 Drainage Basin Queensland Carpentaria and Cape 20130 620 20750 400 2 York New South Wales coast 11160 820 11980 1460 12 Victorian coast 3830 380 4210 1030 24 Tasmania 10860 180 11040 560 5 New South Wales part of Murray- 5140 710 5850 6750 115 Darling Basin Victorian part of Murray-Darling 6530 60 6590 3790 58 Basin Queensland part of Murray- 720 230 950 370 39 Darling Basin South Australian part of Murray- 20 0 20 500 2500 Darling Basin South-east coast of South 80 1090 1170 490 42 Australia Adelaide and hinterland 150 230 380 290 76 South Australia Eyre Peninsula 10 320 330 80 24 and North South-west of Western Australia 1390 730 2120 980 46 Goldfields and Esperance 10 50 60 30 50 Gascoyne and Pilbara 300 90 390 150 38 Kimberley 8660 490 9150 130 1 Northern Territory 17320 2420 19740 120 1 Total 92470 9810 102280 19950 20
Overview of Australia’s urban water supplies 1.97 Australian towns and cities source their water from either surface water, flowing in streams and rivers and stored in dams, or groundwater, extracted from aquifers.
1.98 All State and Territory capital cities are built on major waterways, however the geographical differences in rainfall patterns across Australia means each region has found its own solutions to water supply. Some areas, such as Melbourne and Sydney, rely solely on surface water, while others like Alice Springs, rely on groundwater. Perth, Newcastle and Geelong, use a mixture of surface and groundwater reservoirs. The following gives a brief overview of the various water supply arrangements for cities across the country.50
49 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 28. 50 The following analysis includes only capital cities, both for reasons of brevity, and because detailed information is not available on all regional centres. 23
Australian Capital Territory - Canberra 1.99 The Australian Capital Territory is the largest inland urban centre in Australia and is located in the Murray Darling Basin. The ACT draws its water supply from two separate catchment systems. The principal supply is the Cotter system based on the Cotter River catchment containing the Corin, Bendora and Cotter Dams. These catchment areas are well protected and forested and water is of a high quality requiring little treatment.
1.100 The secondary supply is the Googong Dam collecting water from the Queanbeyan River. This is collected from a rural environment and requires full treatment, and consequently, is ten times as expensive to treat as water from the Cotter.51 Most of the water required to meet present demands is drawn from the Cotter system, with water from Googong being drawn to meet peaks in demand during the summer or extensive dry periods. New South Wales – Sydney 1.101 Sydney’s bulk drinking water supply is largely drawn from catchments on four main river systems which occupy more than 1.6 million hectares (16,000 square kilometres52) in eastern New South Wales. The catchment stretches from the Coxs River near Lithgow in the Blue Mountains, to Goulburn and the Mulwaree and down to the headwaters53 of the Shoalhaven River near Cooma. The main reservoir supplying about 80 per cent of Sydney’s water is the Warragamba Dam (which alone has a catchment area 9,050 square kilometres). Eleven treatment plants and 20,000 kilometres of pipes are required to deliver water to Sydney consumers.
1.102 According to the 2001 audit of the Sydney water supply catchments, 70 per cent of the catchment was in less than excellent condition and was exposed to threats and pressures from continuing urban, rural and industrial development.54 The report also found that farm animals could access 38 per cent of all rivers in the catchment, resulting in the cryptosporidium and giardia organisms at the centre of Sydney’s 1998 water crisis.55
51 ACT future water supply strategy, ACTEW, June 1994, p. 36. 52 Ticky Fullerton, Watershed: Deciding our water future, ABC Books, 2001, p 22. 53 Headwaters are the waters upstream from a dam or other such structure. 54 CSIRO, Audit of the Sydney Drinking Water Supply Catchments managed by the Sydney Catchment Authority, Interim Report to the Minister for the Environment, NSW State Government, December 2001. 55 Sydney Morning Herald, Dangerous bugs still lurking in city’s water, 20 December 2001, p 3. 24
Northern Territory – Darwin 56 1.103 Around 58 per cent of drinking water in the Northern Territory is sourced from surface water stored in dams and weirs on the Darwin and Katherine Rivers. The remaining 42 per cent is sourced from groundwater.
1.104 Darwin relies on water from the Darwin River Dam, Manton Dam, and the McMinns’ Borefield. The other urban centres of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara use groundwater. Queensland – Brisbane 1.105 Brisbane uses surface water stored in four dams – Somerset, Wivenhoe and North Pine. Queensland’s State of the Environment report 1999, warns that half of Brisbane’s water catchment area is used for grazing, with forests and plantations accounting for another 35 per cent. South Australia – Adelaide 1.106 Adelaide’s reticulated water is sourced from the Murray River, which provides around 40 per cent, with the remaining 60 per cent coming from catchments in the Mount Lofty Ranges. These catchments cover more than 4,000 square kilometres and are in quite poor condition – only 8 per cent of native vegetation remains; 80 per cent of the land is used for primary production, and only 1 per cent of the stream network of the Adelaide Hills has riparian vegetation that is described as being in a healthy condition.57
1.107 Adelaide’s reliance on the Murray River increases significantly in drought periods, accounting for up to 90 per cent of supply58 (although Adelaide’s withdrawals generally only amount to less than one per cent of the overall Murray-Darling Basin flow59). However, it is estimated that by 2020 water supplied to Adelaide from the Murray will fail the World Health Organization standards for drinking water 20 per cent of the time by 2050.60 The poor quality and poor taste of both the Murray River and Adelaide Hills water is probably the primary reason that 20 per cent of Adelaide home owners use rainwater as their primary source of drinking water.61
56 No evidence to the inquiry was received from the Northern Territory Government. 57 South Australian Government, Environment Protection Agency, The State of Health of the Mounty Lofty Ranges Catchments from a water quality perspective, p. 5. 58 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 31. 59 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 469. 60 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 31. 61 Mr Allen, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 455. 25
Tasmania – Hobart 62 1.108 Hobart uses surface water from three catchments: River Derwent (60 per cent); Mount Field National Park (20 per cent); and Mount Wellington (20 per cent). Victoria – Melbourne 1.109 Around 90 per cent of Melbourne’s water supply comes from uninhabited catchments amounting to 140,000 hectares, which include the Yarra Ranges and Kinglake National Parks.63 Most of the water from these catchments is of sufficiently high quality that it does not require filtration.
1.110 These areas include nine major storage reservoirs with maximum gross storage of 1,773,000 megalitres. The largest of these reservoirs is the Thomson Dam in the Gippsland district, which supplies 60 per cent of the city’s water. Western Australia – Perth 1.111 Drinking water in Perth is sourced from protected catchments and freshwater underground reserves. Groundwater provides 50 per cent of the total public water supply requirements. About half of the groundwater is pumped from the unconfined superficial aquifer (a major unconfined aquifer extending throughout the coastal plain west of the Gingin and Darling Scarps) with the balance drawn from the confined aquifers that underlie the Perth Region.64
1.112 About 25 per cent (or 150,000) of Perth’s houses also have private wells which access groundwater for outdoor use.65 Extent of water use 1.113 A gigalitre (GL) of water is equivalent to one billion litres.66 According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)67 an estimated total of 68,703 gigalitres of surface water and groundwater was extracted from the environment for 1996-97. 11,525 GL was distributed for use via mains infrastructure and 49,480 GL was
62 No evidence to the inquiry was received from the Tasmanian Government. 63 Melbourne Water site, The water source, information sheet, at: www.melbournewater.com.au 64 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, pp 25-26. 65 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 399; Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 416. 66 1 kilolitre (kL) = 1,000 litres (L) 1 megalitre (ML) = 1 million litres 1 gigalitre (GL) = 1,000 megalitres or 1 thousand million litres 67 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4610.0 Water Account for Australia 1993-94 to 1996-97, Main features, at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/a7f8ae8188 119911ca2568d40004eaf7!OpenDocument 26 discharged back to the environment directly to surface waters (46,509 GL of which was utilised in-stream by hydro-electric power generation schemes). Net water consumption,68 which is the amount of water used and not discharged back to existing water bodies, was 22,186 GL and this is a 19 per cent increase over four years from 1993/94.
1.114 In 1996-97, the agricultural sector accounted for the bulk of net water consumption in Australia. At 15,522 GL this comprised 70 per cent of the total; the industry and manufacturing sectors consumed 4,312 GL, of water which was 20 per cent of the total; and the household sector accounted for 1,829 GL or 8 per cent. In the context of the Committee’s terms of reference, the Australian urban water industry provides water and wastewater services to 13 million people and the water supplied accounts for less than 10 per cent of all water used in Australia.69 Nexus between agricultural water use and cities 1.115 The amount of water used in the agricultural sector is far greater than that used in urban areas and examples of inefficient and wasteful water use abound in agriculture as they do in cities and towns. In relation to this point, several submissions note that an inquiry into water that does not take into account agricultural use, will be deficient.
1.116 Dr Fleming notes that the growth in urban populations is relatively small in an historical context and water use on a per capita basis is relatively static and in some areas declining:
Growth in overall urban water demand and the capacity to meet that demand is therefore not the principal concern or constraint to development. Increasing water demand in the rural sector, principally for irrigation, is the major issue in relation to water quantity.70
1.117 The Australian Water Association suggests that any serious attempt to address sustainable use of water in Australia must include consideration of rural water use:
Common sense dictates that the most cost effective gains can typically be secured by focusing first on the biggest part of the pie. A 1% savings in the rural sector requires 4% savings in the urban sector to yield the same quantity of water.71
1.118 Further, the Association notes that:
68 This is calculated as self extracted use + mains use – mains supply – in-stream discharge. 69 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p i. 70 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 4. 71 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 2. 27
The bottom line in water utilisation, therefore, is that the key issue for water demand management is not associated with urban water but rather with rural water …72
1.119 The CSIRO however argues that:
Urban water use constitutes only about 28% of total water use in Australia. Strong arguments are often put that such use should be considered in the total Australian context and that if this were done, the focus would naturally fall on water consumption outside urban areas. While this argument has legitimacy in many circumstances, urban water extractions and returns to the environment often have a significant and unsustainable impact on the catchments in which they are situated. In this sense, the Committee should not be misled by arguments suggesting that urban water management should not be the focus of the Committee’s work.73
1.120 Whilst the agricultural sector is the largest water user in the country, the Committee recognises that much of its products sustain urban populations. Therefore, there is a connection between the demands of the cities and the amount of water used by the rural sector. In terms of the ecological footprint referred to previously, it takes 4.5 hectares of arable land to sustain one person in an Australian city. This point was emphasised by Councillor Johnstone from the City of Port Phillip in Melbourne:
I think there is little understanding of water consumption in Victoria. Indeed, people say, ‘The city only uses 10 or 20 per cent.’ They fail to remember that 75 per cent of the water consumed in the state is principally in agriculture to support those urban lifestyles. The water consumption would not be happening in regional Victoria if it was not supporting export production and consumption in cities. So, to me, there is a big gulf in understanding and, if we are going to get those behavioural changes, people need to better understand the ecological footprint of their current way of life.74
1.121 Mr Alan Pears from Sustainable Solutions Pty Ltd provided an example of the connection between rural and urban Victoria:
Regarding the rural water use, data in the Melbourne water resources review showed that 77% of Victoria’s water is used for irrigation, and only about 8% is used by Melbourne people directly. The simple point is that even if only 10% of food and fibre produced in Victorian rural areas is consumed by Melbourne people (and Melbourne holds over ¾ of Victoria’s total population) this would mean our indirect water consumption was greater than our direct consumption. So Melbourne dwellers are really importing water from rural Victoria ‘embodied’ in the food and fibre they consume. In reality, Melbourne people actually use a relatively large proportion of
72 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 4. 73 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 14. 74 Councillor Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354. 28
Victorian-produced food, in which case they are indirectly using much more water than they are directly.75
1.122 It may be that people in cities have an obligation to assist the rural sector to use water more sustainably, whether by paying an additional charge for water to be used to improve rural practices, or by some other means.
1.123 The Australian Water Association notes that any measures to reduce urban water use adopted in the urban context needs to be compared on a least cost basis with achieving equivalent outcomes in the rural setting.76 The AWA provided an example from California where an urban utility funded the lining of irrigation canals and then made use of the water saved. This provided a cheaper and more acceptable alternative to building a new dam.
1.124 Rather than allocating resources to achieve a reduction in urban water use, the same amount of resources could potentially reduce rural water use by a greater amount.77 In general terms therefore, this rural/urban nexus reinforces the point that sustainability is about the interrelation between all water uses and that cities must look beyond their own immediate impacts. However, as the issue is outside of the Committee’s terms of reference, it will not be discussed further in this report. Trend in water use 1.125 On average, water usage in Australia is increasing. Between 1983/84 and 1996/97 it increased by 65 per cent.78 This was mostly due to increases in irrigated agriculture that consumed an additional 5,000 GL over the period. This increase alone is more than 2½ times the level of water consumed by Australian households in 1996/97.79
1.126 Mr Davis from the Australian Water Association told the Committee that overall, Australia uses about 3,300 litres per person per day, which is high:
It is not nearly as high as the United States, it is not as high as Canada, but it is a lot higher than Europe and anywhere else in the world. If you look at the domestic scene, we use about 350 litres per person per day in the household.80
75 City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, Attachment. 76 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 9. 77 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 2. 78 National Land and Water Resources Audit site, Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, Australian Natural Resources Atlas: Water - Water Resources - Australia, at: http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/water/docs/national/Water_Use.html 79 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 3. 80 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 231. 29
Urban water consumption 1.127 The following table shows the amount of water supplied to urban areas:
Table 3
Urban Water Supplied: 1995/96 to 1999/0081
Financial Year Water Supplied (ML)
1995/96 2,002,854
1996/97 2,159,197
1997/98 2,230,413
1998/99 2,172,868
1999/00 2,217,751
2000/01 2,377,598
1.128 While urban water use was variable across State capitals, in some cities it declined during the 1990s. The following table shows the amount of water used in various Australian cities, for the years 1983/84 and 1996/97:
Table 4
Urban Water Use in Some Australian Cities, 1983-84 and 1996-9782
City Use in Use in % change 1983-84 1996-97
(ML83/yr) (ML/yr)
Adelaide 182,800 214,650 17
Brisbane 144,900 183,900 27
Canberra 67,500 50,700 -25
81 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, pp 21-23. 82 National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, Australian Natural Resources Atlas: Water - Water Resources – Australia. 83 ML = megalitre. Refer to footnote 66 for water volumes. 30
Urban Water Use in Some Australian Cities, 1983-84 and 1996-9782
Darwin 21,890 37,400 71
Geelong 29,600 34,900 18
Hobart 19,860 36,600 84
Melbourne 406,600 500,000 23
Newcastle 55,400 60,800 10
Perth 322,000 314,600 -3
Sydney 473,000 480,900 2
1.129 The CSIRO concludes that in the absence of more extensive data, total water consumption is increasing only marginally in urban areas.
1.130 There has been a significant reduction over 22 years in per capita consumption of water in major urban centres in Australia. However, despite these reductions, population growth is producing an increase in total demand, particularly in developing areas.
1.131 The introduction of user-pays pricing, universal water metering, and various demand management policies and educational campaigns has had a significant impact on the per capita consumption of water, allowing exploitation of new water resources to be deferred for many years. These reductions have meant that total water use has not increased, or has only marginally increased, despite significant population increases. As an example, the following table shows changes in water use in Sydney, Melbourne and Newcastle:
Table 5
Changes in Water Use84
Total Water Used Water Used Per Capita
1970 to 1980 1980 to 1990 1990 to 2000 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1990 1990 to 2000 Sydney +30% -6% +2% +15% -16% -7%
Melbourne +50% +13% -1% +38% -6% -12%
Newcastle +37% -16% -2% +27% -23% -14%
84 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p ii. 31
1.132 Despite these achievements, there is concern that total water consumption (and possibly per capita water consumption) is now trending upward, although the influence of climate variability is a confounding factor over the short term. If the upward trend is confirmed, pressure will be put on water resources in many jurisdictions, where it does not presently exist. Some high growth areas are already subject to such pressures.85
Increasing populations 1.133 It can generally be said that water use in each sector has declined (or in the case of industrial water use, remained steady) over 19 years. However, even with very aggressive demand management there remains the risk that population increases will eventually overcome any achievement made, even if this has not yet occurred. It also cannot be said that the reduction in water consumption achieved to date is sufficient to mitigate or prevent unsustainable conditions at various locations. Nevertheless, the CSIRO’s analysis suggests that the demand management gains made to date have forestalled increases in total urban water consumption.
1.134 Whilst there is a suggestion that total water consumption is increasing only marginally in urban areas, demand for water for urban use is growing in a number of locations, such as the ‘sun-belt’ regions of Western Australian and south-east Queensland. Add to this, the uncertainty associated with climate change and the potential for decreased yield from existing water supply catchments and growing community resistance to the building of dams because of their effects on the natural environmental, and there is considerable potential for conflict over supplying increased urban water demands.
Annual total per capita water use 1.135 In conjunction with the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA), the CSIRO conducted a review of all the major urban water supply authorities in Australia for the period 1990-91 to 1997-98.86 The review was confined to large urban communities centred on the major cities in Australia and because it was a similar format to previous CSIRO reviews, it has enabled trends in water use to be established. Major findings from the review are reproduced below.
1.136 Average total water use ranges from 316 litres per capita per day (lpcpd) in Melbourne to 1,212 lpcpd in Darwin. The usage in most cities ranges from 348 lpcpd to 479 lpcpd. Total water consumption varies with the seasons with peak consumption in summer. The exception to this is Darwin which experiences peak consumption during its dry winter period.
1.137 The annual total water use per capita including unmetered use (ie losses) shows a downward trend over the last 22 years for all cities except Darwin. Levels of
85 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 17 and 18. 86 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 19-26. 32 average annual use fell from 640 lpcpd in 1977, to 622 lpcpd in 1983/84, and, following the implementation of various demand management strategies, to about 500 lpcpd in 1998. This represents a reduction of 21 per cent overall or 0.9 per cent per annum from 1977 to 1998 in per capita water consumption.87 However, despite these gains, rising populations are forcing up total demand for urban water. Categories of urban users 1.138 Users of water can be divided into the categories as shown in the table below. The proportion of total use that each category comprises is also given:
Table 6 Categories of urban water user88
Category of use Description Average percentage of total use
Domestic water consumed in private residences 59
Non-domestic includes all categories except 28 domestic and unmetered use
Industrial water consumed in industrial 13 processes (eg manufacturing, cooling water, washdown water etc)
Commercial water consumed in commercial (non- 10 industrial) premises (eg restaurants, shops, office buildings)
Unmetered water/non- water lost to the system due to 2 revenue leakage, maintenance, theft, water/unaccounted-for- evaporation, firefighting water
Institutional water used in premises such as 6 schools, public swimming pools etc
Parks and gardens used for irrigation of public spaces 13 water
1.139 The following table gives an indication of how much water is used each day by the different categories. It shows the range of water use across user categories for
87 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 20. 88 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 17-18. 33
large urban communities centred on the major cities in Australia and, where data is available, the average range in most cities:89
Table 7
Water use across Australian cities
Category of user Range of water use Average range in most (litres/capita/day) cities (litres/capita/day)
Domestic 206 to 461 233 to 288
Non-domestic 35 to 595 102 to 216
Industrial 17 to 100 —
Commercial 24 to 91 —
Parks and 1.2 to21 — gardens
Institutional 11.6 to 47.3 —
Unmetered (Non- — 35 to 69 revenue)
Annual total 316 to 1,212 348 to 479
1.140 An example of a breakdown of some of these market segments as well as changes in the sectors between 1975/76 to 1998/99 are given for Sydney below:90
Table 8 Changes in Market Sector Use for Sydney Water from 1975/76 to 1998/99
1975/76 Water Use 1998/99 Water Use
Houses 41% Houses 52%
Flats & Units 8% Flats & Units 15%
Industry 23% Industry 13%
89 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 19-25. 90 Sydney Water, Submission 45, Appendix 1, Demand Management Strategy, December 1999, p 5. 34
Changes in Market Sector Use for Sydney Water from 1975/76 to 1998/99
1975/76 Water Use 1998/99 Water Use
Commercial 14% Commercial 10%
Govt/Exempt 9% Govt/Exempt 6%
Other 5% Other 4%
1.141 As can be seen, the relative water use by the major customer sectors has changed over time. Continuing population growth and the construction of new housing in the Sydney basin has resulted in increasing demands from the residential sector which grew from 49 per cent of total consumption in 1975/76 to 67 per cent of consumption in 1998/99.
1.142 Commercial consumption has remained reasonably stable although the number of commercial properties has increased. Commercial properties (and all other non-residential customers) pay by volume for both water use and sewage discharges, as well as incurring trade waste charges where applicable. Because of these factors, the price incentives and monetary savings from conservation are much stronger for commercial and other non-residential customers than for residential customers.
1.143 Industrial water use has been declining due to a general shift in Sydney’s economic base away from heavy industry toward commercial and institutional activity. Water saving technology has also been developed and implemented more rapidly by industry, relative to the other non-residential water users.91 Domestic 1.144 Domestic or residential water use can be subdivided into categories of use as is shown for Sydney households below. Around 69 per cent of current metered water use in Sydney is domestic and this comprises use from houses, strata units and flats.92
Table 9
Domestic Water Use, Sydney
Toilet 20%
Shower 23%
91 Sydney Water, Submission 45, Appendix 1, Demand Management Strategy, December 1999, pp 5-6. 92 Sydney Water, Submission 45, Appendix 1, Demand Management Strategy, December 1999, p 6. 35
Bath and basin 4%
Washing machine 17%
Laundry trough 3%
Dishwasher 1%
Sink 5%
Waste disposal 0.04%
Garden and lawn 23%
Outdoor use 1.145 The volume of water used outside of the house is variable and dependent on the size and type of garden, suburb, pricing policies and seasonal influences. Although climate, in terms of rainfall, temperature and relative humidity, is one factor in explaining domestic demand and the differences in daily use for the major cities, Smith suggests that it is not the only factor, and there are various reasons for the differences. One of these is the perceived need to water lawns and gardens.93 Outdoor water use is the largest component of household water use and can be as much as 60 per cent of the total, but varies greatly in response to the weather. Additionally, the style of housing will greatly influence water use, for example Canberra has a ‘garden city’ reputation and the dominant housing subdivisions are quarter acre blocks. As a consequence it has a higher demand for garden watering than does Sydney in which a large proportion of the population lives in multi- occupancy residences.94
1.146 The Water Services Association of Australia notes that Australia’s urban development is similar to that of urban sprawls in the USA and with this kind of development comes significant water use to maintain suburban gardens and other outdoor water uses.95 The Association compares the outdoor water use in Perth of more than 50 per cent, with that in the United Kingdom which is only 3 per cent of total residential consumption.
1.147 Increased affluence in Australia has added to residential outdoor water use by the growing incidence of private swimming pools and the introduction of automatic garden watering systems that have the potential to increase peak usage.96 Offsetting
93 Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, p 109. 94 Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, p 109. 95 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 6. 96 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 9. 36 the trends in increased usage are the moves towards greater urban infill and the greater use of outdoor paving that requires negligible outdoor residential water consumption.
1.148 Recent figures for Melbourne show that the average suburban household with a garden uses up to 65 per cent of water indoors and the remaining 35 per cent externally - predominantly on the garden.97 The outdoor component of household consumption can fluctuate by plus or minus 8 per cent depending on the weather. A breakdown of residential water use for Melbourne shows where, on average, water is used in households:
Table 10 Estimated average residential potable water use98
Garden 35%
Bathroom 26%
Toilet 19%
Laundry 15%
Kitchen 5%
1.149 The relationship between rainfall and water consumption is a very significant issue. The demand for water increases during periods of low rainfall and the main reason for this is that the majority of water is going to garden usage.99
Indoor use 1.150 50 litres per person per day has been determined as the basic water requirement for drinking, sanitation, bathing and cooking. According to the National Land and Water Audit, people in Asia, Africa and Latin America use 50-100 litres per day; and people in America use 400-500 litres per day.100
1.151 According to Foley and Daniell, it is the in-house proportion of water usage that is considered a basic requirement. However, this does not mean that indoor use is
97 Water Resources Strategy Committee for the Melbourne Area, Discussion Starter: Stage I in developing a Water Resources Strategy for the Greater Melbourne area, June 2001, p 17. 98 Water Resources Strategy Committee for the Melbourne Area, Discussion Starter: Stage I in developing a Water Resources Strategy for the Greater Melbourne area, June 2001, p 14. 99 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 280. 100 National Land and Water Resources Audit site, Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, Australian Natural Resources Atlas: Water - Water Resources - Australia, at: http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/water/docs/national/Water_Use.html 37 static and cannot be altered. Changes in the efficiency of appliances such as low flush toilets, water efficient showerheads, washing machines and dishwashers will over time lead to reduced water use inside the home.
1.152 Annual domestic water use has shown a downward trend over the last 22 years for all cities. Levels of average annual use fell from 424 lpcpd in 1977 to 384 lpcpd in 1983/84. Since 1983/84, the implementation of demand management measures aimed mainly at domestic users has brought the average water use down to about 277 lpcpd. This represents a reduction of 34 per cent overall or 1.3 per cent per annum from 1977 to 1998. The reduction from 1983/84 to 1998 is 39 per cent or 2.2 per cent annum.
1.153 For most major cities in Australia, domestic use peaks in summer, except for Darwin, where peak use coincides with the dry winter period. Non-domestic 1.154 Non-domestic water use includes all categories of use except domestic and unmetered uses. It has also shown a small downward trend over the last 15 years for all cities. Levels of average annual use fell from 199 lpcpd in 1983/84 to 176 lpcpd in 1997/98. This represents a reduction of 12 per cent overall or 0.8 per cent per annum from 1983/84 to 1998.
1.155 Seasonal non-domestic water consumption also exhibits significant variability for most authorities and peaks in summer, except for Darwin, where peak use coincides with the dry winter period. Industrial 1.156 Water has a wide range of uses in industrial processes. It may be incorporated into a product such as food and drinks; used for heating, cooling, steam generation; in mining to form slurry, for washdown, concrete batch mixing; and a variety of other purposes. Many industries use potable water when lower quality water would be adequate for their purposes. Some industries use recycled water from their own site or treated effluent from the sewage treatment plant, in their manufacturing processes, but currently this is only a minor component of total industrial use.
1.157 Industrial water use varies significantly from city to city. Levels of average annual use rose from 51 lpcpd in 1977 to 75 lpcpd in 1983/84 and have since fallen to about 56 lpcpd.
1.158 From the limited data available, industrial consumption exhibits low seasonal variability. 38
1.159 The Australian Water Association suggests that the introduction of water and wastewater tariffs over the last 20 years has led to industries dramatically cutting their unit of production consumption rates.101
1.160 During its water efficiency audits of various industrial companies, Sydney Water found that some industrial end uses show the greatest opportunities to improve water management, including cooling towers, steam systems and on-site reuse of rinse water and other process effluent streams.102
1.161 Between 1990/91 and 1998/99, Sydney’s industrial water use declined from 80,600 to 60,000 ML per year. Since 1991 average water use per property has fallen from 5,200 kL per year to current levels of 3,180 kL per year. Lower water use by new industries is contributing to the lower average figures for the sector.103
1.162 Sydney Water has considerable experience in terms of its demand management program in dealing with major commercial industrial customers and it undertakes water audits of various businesses:
I know we recently signed up Sydney’s largest or very major laundry service. We go in and inspect their operations. We hire experts that understand the processes, especially things like clean production. They say, ‘If you can do this or that you can actually increase your cycle frequency for the usage of this water and you can cut consumption down by 10 per cent.’ We have done that with a number of customers.104
1.163 Brisbane City Council encourages lower industrial water use by offering two price tariffs to its top 42 industrial water users. Users will be eligible for the lower tariff if they introduce water management plans.105 Commercial 1.164 Commercial water use varies significantly from city to city. Levels of average annual use have fallen from 105 lpcpd in 1977 to 81 lpcpd in 1983/84 and have since fallen to about 45 lpcpd.
1.165 From the limited data available, commercial consumption exhibits low seasonal variability.
101 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 8. 102 Sydney Water Corporation, Submission 45, Additional Attachment, Water Conservation and Recycling Implementation Report, August 2000, p 14. 103 Sydney Water, Submission 45, Appendix 1, Demand Management Strategy, December 1999. 104 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 183. 105 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2002, p 611. 39
Parks and gardens 1.166 Parks and gardens water use varies significantly from city to city. Levels of average annual use have fallen from 43 lpcpd in 1983/84 to about 10 lpcpd in 1990/98.
1.167 Municipal parks and gardens water use is essentially a response to irrigation needs and therefore in general tends to vary seasonally with peaks in the dry seasons. Institutional 1.168 Institutional water use varies widely from city to city. Levels of institutional use were not assessed in previous CSIRO reviews and so trend data is not available. Institutional water use exhibits significant seasonal variability which indicates that it is driven partly by irrigation needs with peaks in the dry seasons for the southern cities although more data is needed to confirm this inference. Unmetered (Non-revenue water) 1.169 Unmetered water use has shown a small increase over the last 15 years. Levels of average annual use have risen from 58 lpcpd in 1983/84 to 65 lpcpd in 1990/98. Authority estimates of unmetered use suggest an average value of 77 lpcpd.
1.170 Leakage loss is expected to be reasonably constant throughout the year, as it is dependent on the water-tightness of the distribution and service pipe system. Leakage is a function of operating pressures and not a function of total use. A peak in unmetered use would result from system maintenance, fires or pipe bursts being concentrated in a particular season of the year. Variability in unmetered use does occur in some cities. Water quality standards 1.171 Standards for water quality in Australia are the shared responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The Commonwealth takes a leadership role in the production of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), which set out benchmarks for safe drinking water. Water suppliers are expected to achieve water quality that meets this standard, however local conditions may lead to lesser standards being adopted. Legal standards for water quality are the responsibility of the State and Territory health authorities, based on the ADWG.
1.172 The quality of natural waters is covered by the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, which were revised in 2000.
1.173 The other general source of standards for water management is the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) which has been evolving since 1992. 40
The strategy is discussed in detail in the AFFA/EA submission, and so far, nineteen of the projected twenty-one of the guidelines have been published.106 Conclusions 1.174 Achieving an ecologically sustainable pattern of water management in Australia, and measuring our current practices against this goal, must ultimately be based on an understanding of the natural water cycle, however much many city dwellers may prefer to believe otherwise. The various solutions taken around Australia to provide safe water supplies, reflect the diversity of the water cycle, climate and rainfall patterns in different parts of the continent.
1.175 As this chapter has shown, urban water use comprises a relatively modest component of overall water use, and the battle to achieve ecologically sustainable water use will ultimately be won or lost in the rural sector. But this is not to suggest that urban water can be ignored. Australian cities maintain high, rising and unsustainable levels of water usage, based on inefficiencies, inappropriate garden styles, and sheer wastage. All of this creates an ecological ‘footprint’ that extends well beyond the borders of cities themselves, and places stress on natural ecosystems that are already stretched by other demands.
The technology is there, and there are certainly far more efficient ways of using water, but the social challenge of getting people out of inappropriate places and inappropriate practices is huge. It is not a technical issue; it is a human issue and a political one.107
106 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 13. For a more detailed discussion of policies and standards, see Chapter 6. 107 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 13. 41
Chapter 2
Water supply
Introduction 2.1 For many urban dwellers, water is simply a product that comes out of a tap It is assumed that it will be there when needed, and that it will be safe, clean and clear. Yet in reality, the processes required to deliver high quality water to Australia’s towns and cities are much more complicated, and face considerable and growing challenges from increasing demand, competing uses, pollution and climate change.
2.2 This chapter examines how these pressures are affecting Australia’s water supplies, and some of the alternative sources of supply that have been advanced to solve these problems. Urban water supplies in context 2.3 A number of issues at the supply end of the water cycle are driving changes to the way we manage urban water, and so provide an important context for much of the discussion that follows. Global warming & climate change 2.4 There is much uncertainty about the effects that climate change will have on rainfall patterns and water supply. However, possible scenarios include the potential for decreased yields from existing water supply catchments; decreases in rainfall; reductions in average volumes of river flow; decreases in run-off; difficulties in maintaining environmental flows; increases in drought severity; and increases in flooding in urban areas due to more intense rainfall falling on impervious urban surfaces.1
2.5 Consequently, urban water planners must factor this uncertainty of the future water supply into their calculations, as it cannot be assumed that catchments will maintain their current levels of water. This uncertainty suggests that as a society, we must build in a larger margin for error, or ‘fudge factor’, when planning our future water supply to allow for these unpredictable changes. Competition with other uses 2.6 Cities will also increasingly have to compete with the requirements of both the environment and irrigators for water supplies. There is growing awareness that the current levels of extraction from catchments and rivers are unsustainable and that the
1 Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, The Heat is On: Australia’s Greenhouse Future, November 2000, pp 28-29. 42 health of these riverine ecosystems depends on restoring something approximating their natural flows, including both quantities and flow patterns. It is estimated that environmental flows should be about two-thirds of the natural flow, yet one of Australia’s greatest rivers, the Murray, has an average flow of only about 27%.2
2.7 This can have significant impacts on planning for urban water supplies, as the experience of the ACT shows. In 1993, when undertaking the future water supply strategy for the ACT, it was considered that a new storage facility would not be needed until 2040:
The impact of the introduction of mandated environmental flows under the ACT Water Resources Act shifted that timing back 20 years – in other words, back to 2018, 2020.3
2.8 Equally, irrigators, who are the major users of water in Australia, are coming under increasing pressure to use their water more efficiently. All users of water, both urban and agricultural, will face capping of water extractions.
2.9 A further factor is the increased value being placed on the recreational and environmental values of pristine catchments and waterways, which can be degraded or destroyed by the construction of new dams, or from major water extractions. Mr Wilkinson from the ACT government outlined the wider context of these planning constraints:
In theory, we could be all right for some time, but as we have said, we are in the Murray-Darling Basin. We might be able to physically catch more water up here but we have to take a broader view of what is happening in the basin as a whole. We also have to take account of the environmental impacts of building another dam. That area where the new dam would go is a valued recreational wilderness area. There would be a lot of public opposition to building the new dam. So, while on one hand we have the physical resource there, we are still subject to the same pressures as everyone else about trying to develop that. We are coming to the realisation that we will probably have to manage within our existing developed resource.4
2.10 In this context, supplies of water directed to urban use will need to be justified, and the trade-offs for increasing this supply increasingly apparent and costly. Water shortages 2.11 Other pressures on the supply are more immediate, with several Australian cities already facing severe pressures on their water supplies. Perth, for example, is:
2 Dr Blackmore, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 565. 3 Mr Dymke, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 552. 4 Mr Wilkinson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 551. 43
suffering from the worst water shortage in its history. There were possibly equally acute ones in the 1890s, but this is the worst since it has been a large city.5
2.12 Melbourne, Adelaide and the Gold Coast have also faced significant shortages within the last two years, and many towns in NSW and Victoria are also under pressure.6
2.13 The consequences of these shortages can go beyond domestic inconvenience. In Gladstone in central Queensland, the Awonga Dam is down to 30 per cent of capacity, and:
Of the water supply for Gladstone 75 per cent is used by industry in Gladstone – Queensland Alumina, the NRG power station and so forth. If it does not rain shortly, there is a real prospect that our exports will be directly affected by the drought, and that is probably the first time that has happened in terms of manufacturing capacity.7
2.14 Similarly, capping of the town’s water supply threatens to freeze Tamworth’s urban and industrial growth prospects to current levels.8 Future dilemmas: finding extra supplies 2.15 Many Australian cities are facing considerable challenges over the next twenty or so years, as the competing demands made on the water supply increase. Fundamentally, water managers must consider the options of finding extra water supplies, decreasing water demand, or both.
2.16 The timeframe for this decision varies across Australia. It is estimated that a new water source will be required for Perth between 2005 and 2007;9 Brisbane by 2015;10 and Canberra by around 2017. Other cities have more time: Melbourne has enough capacity to maintain the security of supply until 2040 without developing new water sources,11 and in South Australia, the metropolitan supply is considered to have significant spare capacity, which has reduced the need for increasing future supply.12
5 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 416. 6 Including Broken Hill, Coolabah, Wallan and Broadford. Herald Sun, Town consumers suffer big thirst, 14 October 2002, p 24 and Daily Telegraph, Towns down to 6 months water supply, 12 October 2002, p 16. 7 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 364. 8 Land (NSW), Watershed politics, 1 November 2001, p 6. 9 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, pp 25-26. 10 Ticky Fullerton, Watershed: Deciding our water future, ABC Books, 2001, p 39. 11 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 4. 12 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 10. 44
2.17 However, these timeframes are shorter than they may at first seem, given the scale of the investments required to build new dams or significantly change usage patterns. Planning must also be done in the context of uncertainty over regional growth patterns. The Committee saw how Wellington, New Zealand, for example, has not grown at the expected rates, with the result that the water supplies easily meet likely future requirements.13 Other cities with high growth rates, such as the Gold Coast, Queensland, face the opposite problem. Threats to water quality 2.18 The issues discussed above are not the only problems facing the water supply. The quality of the water drawn from the environment cannot be taken for granted, and is increasingly being affected by pollution, salinity, and other problems associated with the degradation of many of the catchment areas. Contaminants in surface water 2.19 Water from rivers and dams inevitably has some degree of contamination, including from natural sources. These have effects ranging from aesthetically undesirable taste, odour or colour, through to harmful organisms capable of causing disease and death. The principle pollutants are organic matter, nutrients, pathogens and trade waste.14
2.20 Organic matter refers to faecal, vegetable and animal matter suspended in the water, together with bacteria that feeds on it. Because the bacteria needs oxygen to do this, the amount of oxygen required is a useful measure of the amount of organic matter in the water, and is known as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The other main measure of organic matter is the amount of solid matter suspended in the water, known as the Suspended Solid content (SS).
2.21 Nutrients comprise nitrogen and phosphorous, with most nitrogen in the water coming from urine, present as ammonia or urea.
2.22 Pathogens are organisms that are capable of causing disease, and are of four common types. Bacteria, are single celled organisms and dangerous examples include Salmonella typhi (typhoid fever) and Vibrio cholerae (cholera). Another bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) is found in the digestive tract of all warm-blooded animals and therefore serves as a useful indicator of the presence of faecal matter in water (although the faecal matter need not originate from humans). Protozoa are also single- celled organisms which form hard-coated cysts that contain their eggs; these pass out of the body in the faeces. The two that are most often associated with human health problems are giardia and cryptosporidium. Helminths are parasitic worms such as
13 Committee briefing, Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, 15 April 2002. 14 An excellent overview of pollutants is: Simpson and Oliver, Water Quality: From wastewater to drinking water to even better and The Dilemma of Watter Quandary, 1996, pp 9 – 16, from which this summary is taken. 45 round worms and tape worms. Their eggs are passed in faeces and if ingested will lead to infection.
2.23 Waterborne diseases are illnesses caused by drinking contaminated water. The contaminants can be bacteria (Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, Myobacterium, Vibrio, Leptospira, E. coli), viruses, or small parasites (Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Toxoplasma). Most outbreaks of waterborne disease are caused by faecal contamination of water by infected animals or people. Drinking water systems and public swimming pools have both been associated with waterborne disease outbreaks. People who have suppressed immune systems are at greater risk from waterborne disease.
2.24 For many years it has been widely accepted that contaminated water is the major vehicle for transmission of diarrhoeal diseases, and this has led to a predominant emphasis on the microbiological quality of drinking water.15 However, recent work by the World Health Organization and others has shown that food-borne transmission is more important and probably accounts for 70 per cent of diarrhoeal episodes. Outbreak of waterborne disease in Australia is thought to be rare although it is often difficult to determine the source of such diseases, as they may be food-borne, faecal-oral, or person-to-person as well as waterborne.
2.25 Campylobacteriosis, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, shigellosis, tuberculosis, typhoid, and yersiniosis are nationally notifiable diseases in Australia that may be waterborne; giardia may be waterborne but is not nationally notifiable. The National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System annual reports provide little information on the source of the disease associated with the notification. Therefore, it is not possible to provide an indication of the relative importance of waterborne disease compared to food-borne, faecal-oral, or person-to-person transmission. In addition, water is often considered a food and so disease caused by contaminated water is reported as ‘food-borne’. Salinity 2.26 Although salinity is usually a problem that is associated with causing damage to agricultural lands, awareness is growing of the threat that salinity poses to drinking water supplies. The CSIRO comments that:
If biological contamination of Australia’s drinking water is rare, salinity is a much more pervasive problem, especially for selected cities and towns that draw water from inland rivers and groundwater aquifers (for example Dubbo, NSW; and Katanning, WA). For Adelaide in particular it represents a real challenge. …
The recent Salinity Audit for the River Murray System (MDBMC 1999) reports that by 2020, water supplied to Adelaide will exceed the World
15 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 29. 46
Health Organisation threshold (upper limit 800 EC) for drinking water 20 percent of the time and by 2050, 50 percent of the time.16
2.27 Currently, around 1,100 tonnes of salt are extracted from the Murray river every day just to maintain the status quo, and this is due to be increased by an additional 900 tonnes per day, at a cost of $60m per annum.17 Similarly, removing the salt from town water supplies in NSW’s central west costs $5.1m a year.18
2.28 Salinity in catchment areas is threatening urban water quality in some Queensland towns including Kingaroy in the South Burnett and Warwick in the Darling Downs, while it is estimated that salt flowing into river systems in the Condamine-Balonne catchment will rise from 5.02 tonnes a year in 1997 to 16.021 tonnes a year in 2050.19 Water supplies in Yass, NSW, have salt levels of around 700 parts per million,20 and CSIRO notes that Katanning, in Western Australia, is another example of a town experiencing problems with the salinity of its water supply.21 Catchment quality 2.29 A critical consideration for the health of both surface and groundwater supplies is the catchment in which they are located, and changes to landuse or ecosystems in a catchment can have profound effects on resulting water quality. As discussed above, the quality of the catchments supplying Australia’s major cities varies considerably. There are four principle threats to catchment quality.
2.30 Agricultural activities may result in run-off of pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, and animal effluent into the waterways. As Dr Fisher told the Committee, on a farm, either urine or excrement:
is straight out the back of the animal to the paddock. Some research is showing that the antibiotics that they have been giving to cattle as fatteners or growth promoters are producing mutations in dung flies – and that is only the start. A lot of stuff is going onto the farm: a lot of hormonal chemicals are used to bring cows into heat at the same time, to synchronise cows; other chemicals are used to bring on birthing cows; and antiseptics are used on cow teats. Also, topicals are painted on the spines of the cattle for ticks, worms and so forth.22
2.31 Urban developments within catchments may also cause contamination (through stormwater and septic systems, discussed in chapters 4 and 5), however, even
16 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 30-31. 17 Dr Blackmore, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 562. 18 Daily Telegraph, Salt of the earth is a $51m problem, 7 February 2002, p 22. 19 Courier Mail, Town water supplies facing salinity threat, 17 April 2002, p 7. 20 Dr Blackmore, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 560. 21 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 30. 22 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 366. 47 protected catchments are vulnerable to contamination caused by illegal activities such as camping, and rubbish dumping. Professor Bursill reflected on the experience of a Water Corporation of Western Australia staff member and how hard it was to keep people doing the right thing:
There are big signs saying, ‘This is a water protection zone. It is your water supply catchment area. Please stay out. Please observe the rules,’ and all of this sort of detail. There were bullet holes shot through the thing, piles of disposable nappies and other rubbish piled up underneath the signpost, fences cut through and four-wheel drive tracks going through the place. The guy even showed one picture of a series of they must have been at least fifteen or twenty 44-gallon drums of industrial organic waste piled up not far from one of their bores … .23
2.32 There is also emerging awareness of the effects of logging operations on the effectiveness of catchments. The Doctors for Native Forests point out that:
Logging has a significant impact both on water quality and quantity. Clearfell logging causes a 50% reduction in water yield that takes over 130 years to return to pre-logging levels. This is because the regrowth forest consumes large amounts of water. Logging has an impact on water quality. The muddy run-off from clearfelled sites carries with it mud, salt and nutrients. Many of the catchments that have had clearfelling have had severe problems with algal blooms. Rivers in the Otways, Daylesford, Bacchus Marsh and Blackwood, amongst many other areas in Victoria, have had algal blooms in the recent past. The forests that supply these areas have had a severe impact from logging. For example, Daylesford has had three years of permanent boiled water notices. …
A recent report into the impact of logging on the water supply to Geelong and the Otways concluded that the cessation of logging the Otways would lead to an increase in water yield of the region of 10%, which is enough to supply a town the size of Colac.24
2.33 Even from a purely financial point of view, there are powerful incentives to ensure that catchments are as protected as possible. As is shown below, the technology exists to purify water of almost any quality, however, these treatments are expensive, and often it will be cheaper to take steps to protect the catchment in preference to meeting the costs of water treatment.
2.34 Several examples demonstrate this point. One of the first big cities to discover this was New York in 1997, where they found that proper management and
23 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 538. 24 Doctors for Native Forests, Submission 15, p 2; see also Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 12. 48 protection of the city’s catchment was a lot cheaper than building the improved treatment facilities.25
2.35 Another (award winning) example occurred in Melbourne, where the Tarago Reservoir, 85km out of Melbourne, suffered blue-green algae outbreaks. The overall catchment area is 11,400 hectares of which around 2,800 is in agricultural use. Faced with taking the reservoir out of use, and in the longer term building an expensive water treatment plant, Melbourne Water embarked on a community partnership which involved funding catchment repair activities. These remediation efforts proved very successful and resulted in significant reductions to the projected costs of future water treatments.26 Costs of water treatment 2.36 Customer and regulator expectations are driving water suppliers to ensure that water provided for urban purposes meets health and aesthetic standards. Although water treatment in Australia is for the most part effective, the costs are high. The minimum immediate cost to Sydney Water of the Cryptosporidium incident was $33 million. Improving the quality of raw water from surface water and groundwater storages provides an efficient and potentially more effective path to protect public health, than continued investment in treatment infrastructure. The requirement for better catchment management to maintain water quality is evidenced by the formation of a new Catchment Management Authority in Sydney.
2.37 Considerable effort has been directed to improving, or at least managing, land uses and conditions such that runoff from the land to storages and to groundwater is not degraded. However, increasingly it is evident that a holistic understanding is required, incorporating land use and management and the management of stored waters, including their ecology. To date there appears to have been relatively little effort spent on quantifying the economic and environmental benefits that result from maintaining or improving water quality in surface water storages. Dams and reservoirs 2.38 The construction of dams to ‘drought proof’ the country has long been a feature of Australian water management and public investment. The number of dams is a reflection of both Australia’s aridity and the large variability of our rainfall, resulting in storage levels that are 12 to 15 times greater than other areas in the world.27 Australia has 443 large dams with a total storage capacity of 10.45km2 with
25 Dr Steven Cork, Presentation to the 2001 Annual Conference of Parliamentary Environment Committees, Hansard, 11 July 01, p 37. 26 CRC Association, Triumphs of Technology Transfer, p 6. The project won an award for excellence in technology transfer. 27 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 506 49 around a million ‘small’ dams.28 These large dams alone, if full, have the capacity to store five times Australia’s annual water consumption.29
2.39 As is now becoming more widely understood, construction of dams brings with it significant environmental problems that compromise the benefits of water storage, as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority explains:
Local river impacts include impediment of the movement of fauna along waterways, alteration of water temperature and flow regimes, loss of habitat and degraded water quality … loss of breeding habitat for fish and altered hydrological regimes in estuarine areas.30
2.40 Dams interrupt the natural life cycles of fish, macro-invertebrates and other species, with consequent impacts on their breeding and colonising up and down the rivers.31 According to the Australian Conservation Foundation:
The capture of flows during wet seasons delays natural high flow periods and suppresses flow peaks at the expense of floodplains, wetlands and lakes. Invariably, rivers are used to deliver high volumes of water during naturally low flow periods, again disrupting river ecology.32
2.41 A second issue is cold water pollution. Cold dense water settles at the bottom of reservoirs and is released downstream from low-level valves, with releases commonly 10-12 degrees colder than ambient water temperatures and in some rivers temperatures do not return to normal for hundreds of kilometres downstream. Estimates suggest that about 2,500km of rivers are affected by coldwater pollution in the Murray Darling Basin alone, which can affect breeding, reproduction, migration and survival which are all temperature dependent.33
2.42 Thirdly, CSIRO explains that additional problems occur through stratification of water in storages, which causes anoxic (no oxygen) conditions with a resulting high concentration of dissolved metals (particularly iron and manganese), the release of nutrient rich sediments, and associated high levels of organic carbon. These support the development of algal blooms and more rapid growth of biofilms in the reticulation network.
28 That is, those with a wall height of less than 15 metres. 29 The Australian Water Directory 2002, Australian Water Association, p 16. 30 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60. 31 Dams and Diversity – Disturbing the balance, Dr Richard Marchant, Watershed, Mar 2001, p 5. 32 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 3. 33 Cold Water Pollution: Barren, wintry rivers in Mid-Summer, Dr John Harris, WaterShed, Sep 2001, p 3. 50
2.43 For water treatment plants, the implications of this are increased treatment costs, and larger doses of chlorine which in turn produce more disinfection by- products such as trihalomethanes, which are suspected carcinogens.34 Groundwater supplies 2.44 As evidenced above, many Australian cities are heavily dependent on groundwater for their urban water supplies. This is due not only to the scarcity of surface water in some parts of the continent, but also that Australia has one of the largest aquifer systems in the world – the Great Artesian Basin which covers 1.7 million square kilometres. The national sustainable yield from groundwater sources is estimated at 25,789 gigalitres per year with actual extractions amounting to 4,962 gigalitres per year or 19 per cent of sustainable yield and 21 per cent of national water use.35
2.45 In maintaining the quality and sustainability of groundwater supplies, the two central management issues are over-extraction and contamination. Over-extraction of groundwater 2.46 Essential as groundwater is as a supply of water, overuse of this resource poses several threats caused by the altering of the levels of the watertable. First, in relation to coastal aquifers such as those in Perth or Wellington, depletion of aquifers may lower the watertable allowing salt water from the nearby sea to enter the aquifer and contaminate it (known as saline intrusion).36 This may render the water unfit for human use for decades, which could be catastrophic for an urban centre that relies on the groundwater.
2.47 Second, the loss of water from the aquifers and resulting changes to the water table may affect the health of wetlands and ecosystems on the surface.37 This is explained by the Australian Conservation Foundation:
The first comprehensive attempt at documenting groundwater dependent ecosystems in Australia was undertaken by Hatton and Evans (1998). Despite an overwhelming lack of data and research, Hatton and Evans described a number of ecosystem types that are wholly, or partially, dependent on groundwater for their continued survival. These include:
River base flows – where they exist – are by and large wholly dependent on groundwater discharge.
34 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 33. 35 The Australian Water Directory 2002, Australian Water Association, p 18. 36 Discussed in Urban water crisis in Perth, Catalyst, 14 Mar 02, ABC TV. This also poses a problem in Wellington, New Zealand, where the Committee was briefed on issues relating to the aquifer recharged by the Hutt River which supplies 50% of Wellington’s water. 37 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 399. 51
Terrestrial vegetation – wholly or partially dependent on groundwater availability. These include some tropical paperbark forests, jarrah forests, swamp sclerophyll forests, some coastal banksia and casuarina woodlands, coastal heathland communities, saline discharge samphire shrublands, and a unique inland stand of coastal mangroves at Mandora Soak, south of Broome, WA.
Wetland communities, including numerous coastal wetland, mangrove and saltmarsh communities, arid-region waterholes, and some swamp sedgelands and grasslands.
Karstic cave and sinkhole ecosystems, including their ‘troglodyte’ fauna
Aquifer ecosystems – poorly-known communities of bacteria and primitive invertebrates living between wetted subsoil particles in aquifers.38
2.48 This issue became cause for recent comments by the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, which reports that thirty or more species faced extinction from the drying out of the Yanchep caves which are fed from the Gnangara mound aquifer.39 Contamination of groundwater 2.49 Contamination of groundwater poses a major threat to both the continued safety of drinking water supplies, and eventually to the health of waterways generally, once the water re-enters surface water streams. Of particular concern though is that once contaminated, it is extremely difficult, expensive and often impossible to remediate the damage.
2.50 Common sources of groundwater contamination are leaky septic tanks (discussed in detail in Chapter 5), wastedumps and industrial facilities, and recent examples include:
• toxic chemicals from the former Bellevue recycling plant have leaked into a Perth tap water source;40 41 • pollutants (especially ammonia) from landfills in Tasmania; • the Friends of Malabar Headland in Sydney drew the Committee’s attention to leachate from landfill contamination;42
38 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 4. 39 West Australian, Bores pose threat to WA fauna, 11 June 2002, p 3. 40 West Australian, Toxic waste linked to water, 11 February 2002, p 7. 41 Mercury, Water contamination fear from tips, 31 June 2001, p 15; The Examiner, Project to examine effects of disposal, 31 May 2001, p 10. 42 Friends of the Mallabar Headland, Submission 26. 52
• groundwater pollution by septic tanks has caused closure of Sisters beach in Tasmania, with an associated drop in business;43 • the Claisebrook Catchment in Perth has a 200 year legacy of soil and groundwater pollution from urban and commercial use;44 • groundwater pollution presents a significant threat to the water supply of the key regional centre of Mount Gambier;45 and • according to a CSIRO study, one fifth of Perth’s 500 service stations had leaking underground tanks. One station had leaked 15 litres a day into the system for two years, producing pollution 1,000 times higher than NHMRC guidelines.46 Other sources of water 2.51 Four other sources of urban water supplies are briefly considered: desalinated water; major transfer schemes, rainwater tanks and reused water. Desalination 2.52 Australia is surrounded by water, and despite its salt content, it often seems tempting to use sea water to solve Australia’s water supply problems. But implementing large-scale desalination has significant practical problems, as Dr Fisher explains:
Desalinated water costs about three times the price of reservoir supplied water at the moment. It also has a very significant brine output. If that brine is delivered into waters like estuaries and bays then it leads to high salinity contamination of the waters. So I do not think that desalination is the panacea it is made out to be. It is also, at the moment, very energy guzzling. We have to look at the impact of that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and so forth.47
2.53 Nevertheless, the option remains attractive, particularly if the energy needs can be met using sustainable power from solar or wind sources. A desalination plant has already been installed at Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island, and the towns of Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs source their water from desalinated groundwater.48 A desalination plant is also currently under consideration for Perth, which will cost over $200 million, with an $850 000 feasibility study currently under way.
43 Mercury, Popular holiday centre hit by sewage problem, 8 January 2002, p 11. 44 Swan Catchment Council, Submission 23, pp 1-2. 45 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 4. 46 Sunday Herald Sun, Five cities and their different supply problems, 15 July 2001, p 80, quoting John Archer, Australia’s Drinking Water. 47 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 364. 48 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 26. 53
2.54 However, as Professor Jennings from the WA Conservation Council noted, fresh water from the plant is likely to cost about $1.80 a kilolitre compared to 55c a kilolitre that is currently charged,49 and the WA Water and Rivers Commission confirm that this is not likely to prove an attractive option.50
2.55 Notwithstanding these problems, several commentators consider that the desalination technologies are becoming much more cost effective and will be used much more widely in the next 20 years as alternate water sources increase in price, and as groundwater and rivers face increasing pressures from salinity.51 Major transfer schemes 2.56 A perennial solution that is put forward to solve Australia’s water problems is the large scale transfer of water from the major rivers of Northern Australia to the drier inland regions and southern states. Mr Stroud gave this explanation:
[T]here needs to be a solving of the imbalance between the high-rainfall regions of northern Australia, and the rain-deficient population concentrations of south-western and southern areas.
… the excess seasonal rainwater harvested in the Ord River Scheme in the Kimberley in northern Australia now needs to be also directed, by pipeline or open canal/channel, directly overland down south to the water-restricted population centres of Perth and Adelaide.52
2.57 Mr Stroud adds that there is the added advantage of:
[at] the same time mitigating some of the regular flooding problems of the [Northern] river pathways.53
2.58 There are significant adverse environmental problems with this approach. First, it would cause a major disruption to the natural flow patterns of the northern rivers, whose natural ecosystems rely on the flood cycle. Second, as Dr Fisher argues:
You are transferring water from one watershed to another that is maybe 2,000 or 3,000 kilometres away. We are thinking about these schemes to transfer water from Far North Queensland into the Murray-Darling Basin, where we are transferring into those all sorts of micro-organisms of which we have no information about how they are going to interact in the new
49 West Australian, Desalination plant closer, 1 Februrary 2002, p 11. 50 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 399. 51 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 9. See also Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 26. 52 Mr Stroud, Submission 38, p 2. 53 Mr Stroud, Submission 38, p 4. 54
environment. This is a great concern and it should be researched more adequately before anything like that is entertained.54
2.59 Overall, given the complexity of the relationships within floodplain ecosystems and our lack of knowledge in this area, coupled with the massive problems in rectifying the damage caused by water diversions and dams in the southern states, it would seem irresponsible to multiply the problems in the north. Reclaimed water and rainwater tanks 2.60 The two other alternate water sources for urban use are reclaimed water and rainwater collected in tanks. Both issues are examined in detail in following chapters. Water treatment 2.61 Before water is delivered to homes through a tap, it is subject to a process of treatment and testing to ensure it meets public health standards. Modern treatment processes are capable of turning heavily contaminated water into safe drinking water through a number of processes which are briefly described below. Treatment processes 2.62 Treatment processes vary depending principally on the quality of the catchment areas: protected catchments such as those enjoyed by Melbourne and Canberra require little treatment, whereas water from unprotected catchments, such as Adelaide’s Mount Lofty Ranges will need much higher levels of treatment. Water coming into a treatment plant will go through several phases.55
2.63 The first step is known as flocculation, which involves the adding of chemicals such as alum (aluminium sulphate) to the water which acts as a coagulant to make suspended matter aggregate into larger, heavier particles that settle into the sludge at the bottom of settlement tanks. Often water also has to be treated to remove iron and manganese which are common in Australian water (Perth groundwater, for example, is naturally very high in iron which causes discolouration56). Lime, sulphuric acid or sodium bicarbonate may also be added to alter the pH (acidity or alkalinity of the water). Then, in the second phase of treatment, water is moved through filtration beds of sand, fine gravel, anthracite (finely divided high carbon coal) or zeolite (a fine clay).
2.64 The treated water is then disinfected with chlorine to protect it from infection within the water supply system, and also dosed with flouride. Sometimes ammonia is
54 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 364. See also Dr Fisher, Submission 2, p 2. 55 The following outline of the treatment process is based on Simpson and Oliver, Water Quality: From wastewater to drinking water to even better and The Dilemma of Watter Quandary, 1996,pp. 30-31 56 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 417. 55
added with the chlorine to produce chloramines which have a longer lasting residual effect.57 Concerns with chlorine dosing 2.65 Chlorine disinfection continues to attract some controversy. Dr Fisher explains that:
Chlorine is a pernicious element. ... It is also capable of forming quite serious disinfection by-products if there is any organic matter in the water when the water is chlorinated. This is a concern because disinfection by- products are carcinogenic.
It has been shown, in California for instance, that drinking 10 glasses of chlorinated tap water per day can produce miscarriages in women. It is like cigarette smoking: we do not have definitive proof but there is an indication – and I emphasise that point. I am concerned about the continuing usage of chlorinated water with respect to the drinking water supply, because half of that water is going onto gardens and it has disinfection by-products in it. It is going into the ecosystem in some way or other.58
2.66 On the strength of these concerns, some towns actively oppose chlorine treatments. Elmhurst in Victoria has successfully opposed plans by Grampian Water to treat its water supply with chlorine, while in Myrtleford in 2000, the town rejected chlorine and argued for the use of ultraviolet treatment instead.59
2.67 However, according to the Australian Water Association, the health risks of drinking unchlorinated water far outweigh those of drinking chlorinated water.60 Visits to water treatment plants 2.68 The Committee visited a number of Water Treatment Plants during the course of the inquiry, including:
• Mount Stromlo WTP (ACT); • Sandhurst Water Treatment Plant, Bendigo; and • Te Marua Water Treatment Plants in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. 2.69 Additionally, it received a briefing on the Mt Pleasant WTP (SA).
57 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 78. 58 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 364-5. 59 Herald Sun, Here’s cheers, 31 May 2001, p 24. 60 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 78. 56
2.70 A more detailed description of these visits is included in Appendix 5. However, several examples of innovative best practice deserve mention here.
2.71 The first of these is the use of membrane microfiltration at the Sandhurst Water Treatment Plant in Bendigo, Victoria. This plant was constructed for Coliban Water by Vivendi, under a $50m Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) contract, and uses submerged membranes which filter down to 0.2 microns61 – small enough to remove cryptosporidium and giardia as well as protozoan cysts. This process produces high quality water without the need for as much chemical dosing as is required in traditional treatment and disinfection processes.
2.72 The Mount Stromlo Water Treatment Plant in the ACT, uses a standard water treatment process, but is interesting for its introduction of a mini hydro-electricity generator turbine that is coupled onto the gravity fed water supply pipes connecting the Bendora Dam to Mount Stromlo. The generator saves over 3,600 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, by supplying electricity that would otherwise come from fossil-fuel power stations. Future dilemmas: finding extra supplies 2.73 As is evident from the above discussion, many Australian cities are facing considerable challenges over the next twenty or so years, as the competing demands made on the water supply increase. Fundamentally, water managers must consider the options of finding extra water supplies, decreasing water demand, or both.
2.74 The timeframe for this decision varies across Australia. It is estimated that a new water source will be required for Perth between 2005 and 2007;62 Brisbane by 2015;63 and Canberra by around 2017. Other cities have more time: Melbourne has enough capacity to maintain the security of supply until 2040 without developing new water sources,64 and in South Australia, the metropolitan supply is considered to have significant spare capacity, which has reduced the need for increasing future supply.65
2.75 However, these timeframes are shorter than they may at first seem, given the scale of the investments required to build new dams or significantly change usage patterns. Planning must also be done in the context of uncertainty over regional growth patterns. The Committee saw how Wellington, New Zealand, for example, has not grown at the expected rates, with the result that the water supplies easily meet likely future requirements.66 Other cities with high growth rates, such as the Gold Coast, Queensland, face the opposite problem.
61 A micron is one millionth of a metre. 62 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, pp 25-26. 63 Ticky Fullerton, Watershed: Deciding our water future, ABC Books, 2001, p 39. 64 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 4. 65 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 10. 66 Committee briefing, Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, 15 April 2002. 57
Conclusions 2.76 From the discussion in this chapter, it is evident that the sources of water for Australian cities are under growing pressures from pollution and competing uses, such as irrigation and environmental flows. Added to this is the uncertainty of changes to climate and rainfall patterns caused by human induced global warming.
2.77 Several things stand out in this discussion. The first is the importance of high catchment quality in ensuring high water quality, and in minimising the costs of treatment. To a large extent, this relationship is still not adequately understood by the public, which creates extra difficulties for policy makers in gaining public acceptance for some of the hard decisions on land use in these catchment areas.
2.78 Catchment protection is a matter in which the Commonwealth has only a limited role, however, the Committee urges state and territory governments to take decisive action to increase the level of protection for threatened catchments. The security of some of the catchments supplying Canberra and Melbourne stand as powerful examples in this regard.
2.79 The second issue concerns the search for new sources of water supply. The chapter discussed several possibilities that are currently under consideration, but the Committee cautions against pursuit of many of these ‘silver bullet’ solutions. These options should, in most cases, not be allowed to take priority over the more urgent business of using existing water supplies more efficiently. Increasing supply without addressing these underlying inefficiencies will only delay the inevitable point where demand again outstrips supply.
2.80 However, where these alternative sources of supply are sought, the focus of effort should be on options that solve other problems in our water use patterns, such as the use of rainwater tanks, or expanding the use of recycled water. These issues are explored in the following chapter. 58 59
Chapter 3
The options
Introduction 3.1 The previous two chapters set the scene by examining the nature of Australia’s water cycle; water use across various sectors; and some of the major supply issues that will increasingly impact on planning over the coming decades.
3.2 This chapter focuses on the range of options that are available to deal with these issues. As this chapter demonstrates, while the challenges and problems faced by water managers are significant, there are lots of options to overcome these problems. These include demand management and water efficiency measures to reduce the amount of water our society needs. It also includes adopting a more clever approach to expanding our supply by reusing water, storing rainwater that otherwise goes down the drains, and using new techniques such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery to solve the storage problems that occur from the erratic nature of both supply and demand for water.
3.3 At a more strategic level, the chapter exams the ways in which education at all levels of society, from school children to engineers, will be necessary to effect the culture change that is needed for Australians to become sustainable users of water. The chapter then concludes with consideration of the role of knowledge systems, such as the Cooperative Research Centres, in providing the technical information about ecosystems, water treatment, and public health, that are the crucial foundation to best management practice.
3.4 In covering this range of options, what is clear is that none amount to a complete solution of themselves. Rather, each is a tool, that must be used in collaboration with all the others, to work on each element of the system. Demand management 3.5 As Chapter 2 showed, increasing water supplies is problematic. An alternative is to reduce people’s demand for water. However, the water supply and demand circumstances and the prospects for population growth in the various Australian urban centres are very different. This suggests, therefore, that the need for a uniform demand management solution across Australia does not exist.1
3.6 Water managers are using demand management measures to curb water use and to achieve more efficient water use. These measures have so far been successful in reducing urban water consumption. For example, the Queensland EPA told the
1 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 10. 60
Committee, that local governments that are implementing significant demand management programs are achieving water savings between 15 and 30 per cent.2
3.7 Another example from Melbourne is the drop in annual consumption per household from 256 kL in the early 1990s to around 240 kL at present. Continuing population growth and new housing is expected to result in Melbourne’s demand for water growing at around 1 per cent per annum in the foreseeable future. This is lower than the 3 per cent growth rate experienced in the 1980s.3
3.8 There are many aspects to demand management and the following list shows some of the measures that can be taken:
• appropriate pricing of water; • universal customer metering in order to implement the pricing measures; • customer advisory services, and the use of incentives for installing water efficient equipment and landscapes; • communication strategies, including community education campaigns designed to reinforce the other aspects of a demand management strategy; • use of collected rainwater and reclaimed water to reduce the need for fresh water supplies; • regulation of the efficiency of water-using appliances, especially in new buildings and for garden watering; • operational measures, such as reducing leaks in the water supply system, reducing pressure, and reducing water use by the water utility; and 4 • regulations and water use restrictions, either on a temporary or permanent basis. 3.9 Foley and Daniell distinguish between water conservation programmes instigated in response to drought, and programs targeting sustainable water use. While water conservation programs have been successful, once the crisis passes, water demand starts to increase again. They suggest that by targeting sustainable water use, there would be a long-term change in water use patterns.5
3.10 Water consumption in Perth reduced significantly in the mid to late 1970s because of several drought years and the imposition of severe restrictions. However, groundwater use increased as a proportion of supply, including a major increase of
2 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 146. 3 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 4. 4 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A Demand Management Manual for Water Utilities, p 1. 5 Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering, Submission 30, Attachment, p 8. 61 self-supplied groundwater for outdoor use. About 25 per cent of Perth’s houses have private wells.6
3.11 The range of water conservation measures implemented in Perth includes the following:7
• a permanent ban on daytime use of sprinklers; • promotion of water efficient household devices and water efficient garden design; • introduction of charges for water in 1993/94, including higher charges for water use in excess of 350 kL; • a meter replacement program which upgrades 20,000 units each year; and • a leakage reduction program, which has reduced leakage from Perth’s supply system to between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the water supplied; and • a regulatory requirement for dual flush toilets in new dwellings. 3.12 Other water conservation initiatives for Western Australia more generally include:
• development of a leak detection program for regional urban centres; • building relationships and partnerships with major users; • Kwinana Water Reuse Project, where up to 20 gigalitres of treated wastewater may be reused by industry; • reuse of treated wastewater to irrigate local government ovals / parks in over 30 towns; • integrating water-related learning into the school curriculum with schools endorsed as “Waterwise” after they have met an agreed set of criteria; and • recycling of wastewater at major wastewater treatment plants (replacing potable water or groundwater for process use). Pricing 3.13 The Water Services Association of Australia says that the key measures introduced to curb urban demand for water were the introduction of consumption based pricing and full cost recovery.8 Consumption based pricing was followed by progressively increasing the reliance on the consumption part of the two part tariff. The combination of pricing, technological change and education campaigns have successfully reduced growth in urban water use.
6 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, pp 10 and 12. 7 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 12. 8 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p ii. For a detailed discussion of pricing issues, see Chapter 7. 62
Consumer behaviour 3.14 Demand management programs were being instigated in most of the jurisdictions on which the Committee took evidence, although with varying degrees of success. The CSIRO suggests that the limited progress towards more conservative water use in urban areas may have been caused by a myriad of factors, but it has not been the result of people’s lack of concern about water conservation. Its submission provides the results of a large-scale domestic water use study in 1981/82 and 1999 from Perth that shows the number of people stating that they were undertaking conserving activities has risen.9
3.15 The study reveals that there is inadequate feedback as to how much water is actually being used. For example, households with timed reticulation systems presumably bought for convenience and to save water have been shown to use more water for garden watering than comparable other families. There is also quite a poor relationship between household water consumption and reported savings behaviours. This could be due in part, to it being socially desirable to present a ‘conserving’ image, especially during drought periods.
3.16 There appears to be a relatively limited advance in terms of comprehensive demand management programs and reductions in individual household use. Certainly there is steady public support for careful use of water. In fact about 30 per cent of Perth consumers can be labelled as predominantly conservation minded. Nevertheless there is a quarter of the population (including the population outside Perth) who regard water supply as purely a service that should be provided like other utilities, 20 per cent who are indifferent to water issues, and about the same number who consider it as important to lifestyle.
3.17 The requirement for utilities to mount strong demand management programs therefore needs to be tempered against the perceived consumption needs of their customers. There is a justifiable need to balance water conservation against the social benefits obtained from using water through low density housing, gardening as a recreation and the lifestyle benefits of showers and other water uses making hot summers bearable.
3.18 The Committee was told on several occasions that knowledge of consumer behaviour is incomplete and this fact could explain why demand management programs do not always deliver the gains anticipated:
As I said earlier, we have the theoretical savings that you can make through shower roses. The actual saving that you achieve is different, and we are in the process of modelling that now in order to insert that across our long- term planning horizons.10
9 CSIRO, Submission 47, pp 63-64. 10 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 601-602. 63
3.19 The CSIRO notes that there has been little systematic research as to the significance of water, despite its central and ubiquitous contribution to the Australian wellbeing and psyche on an everyday basis.11 Water saving devices12 3.20 Much of day to day water use involves appliances such as showers, washing machines etc. Many of these are very wasteful users of water. Sustaining reduced per capita consumption in the longer term is heavily dependent on water efficient appliances and fittings becoming the accepted norm in the marketplace.13 It was generally felt that installing a few basic, well-proven devices in residential developments is the most cost effective and practical means for reducing mains water use.14
3.21 Some water service providers have used incentives to encourage retrofitting of existing sanitary and plumbing fittings. Such incentives have included subsidies for the installation of showerheads and rainwater tanks as well as water efficiency ratings of houses with recommendations for improvements. These programs can be effective in achieving reductions in water usage. However they are expensive and the Water Services Association of Australia recommends that their overall resource efficiency needs to be considered.15
Dual flush toilets 3.22 Flush toilets typically use 50 kilolitres of water per household per year, or approximately 16 per cent of residential water use. Older single flush toilets use between 11 and 13 litres of water per flush. In 1984 dual flush 11 litre/6 litre cistern units were introduced (that is, they used 11 litres of water for a full flush and 6 litres for a reduced flush), followed in 1987 by 9/4.5 litre cisterns, and in 1993 6/3 litre cisterns. The latter need to be used with an appropriate toilet pan in order to be effective and they will contribute approximately a 67 per cent reduction in water use compared with single flush models. The Committee was told that work is currently taking place on microflush systems that use only a litre of water.16
3.23 There are considerable water savings to be made from upgrading toilets and most major water authorities require the use of dual flush toilets in all new and replacement installations. Despite the fact that their use was not universally
11 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 64. 12 Much of the information in this section is taken from Wise Water Management, A demand mangement manual for water utilities, Water Services Association of Australia, pp 87-94. 13 Sydney Water, Submission 45, Additional Attachment, Water Conservation and Recycling Report, August 2000, p 19. 14 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 23. 15 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 14. 16 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 599. 64 mandated, the requirement from a critical mass of authorities was sufficient to encourage their manufacture to the extent that they forced out single flush toilets. The Committee heard evidence from the Queensland EPA that it is now difficult if not impossible to buy single flush toilets in the Australian market.17 Additionally, Melbourne Water told the Committee:
If you went back to 1975, only about eight or 10 per cent of properties in Melbourne had dual-flush toilets. Because they were made compulsory, we are now up to a penetration rate of about 75 per cent. The impact of that on water consumption is quite profound. Particularly the new toilets are down to flushes of about four litres and seven litres. The reason I raise that is that the power of one here is very important. A few little incremental steps at the start may not seem much, but multiply them over the years and in 20 or 30 years time you look back and you are starting to make a real impact. The point I am trying to make is that you have to start somewhere.18
Showerheads 3.24 Showers use on average 50 kilolitres of water per household per year. The average flow rate of a shower can be more than 15 litres of water per minute, with Australians enjoying on average a 7-8 minute shower. A triple A rated showerhead uses less than 9 litres per minute so there are considerable water savings that can be made from their installation.
3.25 Flow rate, or water efficiency of a showerhead is one important criterion in its use, but the user-comfort of a particular showerhead and water pressure combination is also important, as are the personal preferences of the user. Water efficient showerheads vary in spray pattern from those that provide a misty spray to a needle- like spray, while others have a pulsating, massaging flow. Factors that affect the comfort of a shower are:
• the speed of the spray; • the evenness of the rings of water jets; and • the temperature differences of the water from the top to the bottom of the spray. 3.26 Some water efficient showerheads incorporate a flow regulator that maintains a constant and predetermined flow rate over a range of water pressures. This is in contrast with the standard design where a flow restrictor limits the flow regardless of the pressure.
3.27 In considering the effectiveness of low flow showerheads as part of a demand management strategy, it is also apparent that they are not suitable for installing in low pressure areas or with flow restricted instantaneous hot water systems, and there is
17 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 135. 18 Mr Young, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 331. 65 some indication that customer dissatisfaction with water efficient showerheads has occurred because of their inappropriate installation in these situations.19
3.28 The Committee heard evidence that the actual water savings from installing water efficient showerheads are often different to the anticipated theoretical savings. This may be because users change their behaviour after the devices are installed - for example they may take longer showers or turn the tap on harder when using the devices.20 There are other scenarios, where the amount of anticipated savings are not achieved because the original estimate of water used is overstated, for example most people operate showers at less than the maximum flow rate and so they may not be using the potential maximum amount of water.21
3.29 However, Sydney Water did not think that people who participated in its retrofit program were taking longer showers. Around 180,000 households have taken part in its residential audit and retrofit program and its customer surveys indicate that more than 95 per cent of these people have retain their efficient showerheads, indicating that this number of people are content with the quality of the shower. Analysis of water consumption data before and after retrofitting showed that on average 20,000 litres of water per household was saved, although savings in the order of 23,000 litres per household had been expected.22
Flow regulators 3.30 Flow regulators are devices that can be fitted into shower arms and taps to alter the flow of water. They include flow restrictors that can be placed in the shower arm connection or in taps. Most water efficient showerheads rely upon these to reduce the flow of water, but it is usually in combination with a shower head design that improves the spray pattern for user comfort. Their use without an appropriate shower head, whilst providing a relatively cheap device to reduce water use, may be counterproductive as the user may remove them and become resistant to other water reduction measures because of the inferior quality of the shower.23
3.31 Flow regulators can be used in taps, but the type chosen will depend on the major use for which the tap is required: taps will be either used for water flow or for volume. An example of a flow situation is where a tap is predominantly used for
19 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 91. 20 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 599 and 601-602. 21 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 90. 22 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 177; Sydney Water, Submission 45A; and Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002, p 38. 23 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 91. 66 washing hands, such as a vanity tap; the flow rate is not a major consideration and may be restricted without loss of convenience. In this situation a tap aerator that mixes air with the water stream, can be incorporated in the tap spout and will reduce water use without affecting the quality of the service.
3.32 Other taps, such as bath taps, are required to deliver a volume of water as quickly as possible and installation of a flow regulator would not be appropriate.
3.33 Some companies, for example hotels, hospitals or other commercial or industrial complexes, install flow regulators in all their water outlets, primarily to balance the pressure and flow rate in the outlets, but there can also be substantial water and energy savings from doing so.
Taps 3.34 In public places, slow release push button taps or centre-return taps can help reduce water wastage that occurs when taps are left on. Knees, elbows and feet can also activate certain types of taps and these types of taps can overcome any usage difficulties in centre-return taps, as well as providing improved hygiene.
3.35 Ceramic or quarter-turn taps provide rapid shut-off and excellent wearing properties. They can be useful for people, such as arthritis sufferers, who have difficulty turning taps on and off.
3.36 Thermostatic mixing valves are available that reduce the water wastage that occurs while temperatures are being adjusted. Electronic taps and electronic mixing valves with preset temperatures can also be used to reduce water use and have potential for water savings in hotels, hospitals and similar places.
Urinals 3.37 Depending on their operation, urinals can be extremely high users of water. For example cyclic flush urinals, although banned by many authorities, can use as much as 2 megalitres of water per annum and can be the largest single water consuming device in a commercial organisation. There are various types of controllers and sensor-operated systems that can be installed to reduce water useage and the water efficiency ratings specify a water usage of 2 litres or less per single stall. Waterless urinals have now been developed but their use to date is rare.
Washing machines 3.38 The water efficiency of washing machines is expressed in terms of the volume of water required to wash and rinse a dry kilogram of clothes. There is large variability in the amount of water used by washing machines. They range between using about 10 litres of water per kilogram of clothes to about 35 litres per kilogram.24
24 Australian Consumers Association, CHOICE January/February 2002, pp 40-41. 67
3.39 Generally, twin tub machines use less water than other types and are cheaper to buy. Front loading machines are considerably more efficient than are top loaders, but unlike Europeans, Australians favour top loading machines with ownership of these outnumbering front-loaders by 10 to 1. The price of front loading machines is initially greater, but running costs in terms of power and water, are lower.
Dishwashers 3.40 In 1998 dishwasher ownership was approximately 25 per cent of households and is expected to rise to more than 40 per cent by 2010. Water consumption in dishwashers varies between 1.6 litres and 4.8 litres per place setting. Machines that use less water have a more efficient spray pattern during the wash and rinse cycle. Average water use of dishwashers has improved significantly, falling from 29 litres per cycle in 1993 to 22 litres in 1996, with an efficient model able to use 13 litres or less.
3.41 There is some evidence to suggest that in certain cases dishwashers can use less water than washing up by hand, but this will vary greatly between households and dishwasher models. Management of leaks and other losses 3.42 Managing leaks is an important part of demand management. At the household level, large amounts of water can be wasted from leaking cisterns - up to 50 kL per annum can be lost. Even small unnoticeable leaks can result in losses up to 10 kL per annum. Leakage checks need to be part of any assessment and retrofit program.25
3.43 One category of water use is unaccounted-for water or non-revenue water. Included in this category are leaks, unmetered and illegal water use, system flushing, and also water used for firefighting.
3.44 Leakage in a water supply system occurs from a few large leaks and a large number of small leaks, mostly in the pipe network. Burst pipes and moderate leaks are usually repaired within a few days because of the high visibility factor or through detection technology. Therefore, though large volumes are lost during burst events, the total volume lost on an annual basis is small. In contrast, small leaks continue 24 hours a day throughout the year, without detection, especially in sandy soils where even large leaks can go unnoticed. They can be difficult to locate and it becomes impractical and uneconomic to eliminate them all.26 In well maintained and monitored water reticulation systems, water losses can be reduced to about 5 per cent,
25 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 88. 26 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 65. 68 but some systems lose as much as 60 per cent of their water. The average range of total unaccounted-for water is between 5 and 25 per cent.27
3.45 WSAAFacts shows the weighted average amount of urban system water losses per property in 2000/01 was 41.63 kilolitres per property.28 As a proportion of the total volume of water supplied, the weighted average system water losses was 9.6 per cent. This ranged from 3.3 per cent in Western Australia to 26.8 per cent in the Central Gippsland area.29 One estimate of water loss to illegal connections in Melbourne is 4,000 megalitres each year, worth more than $3 million.30 The Australian Water Association told the Committee in relation to leakage management:
if you can get down to five per cent loss in your urban system, you are doing quite well. Places like Kazakhstan lose 95 per cent. Places like Malaysia might lose 60 per cent. The UK until a few years ago used to lose about 50 per cent.31
3.46 The economic balance of searching for and repairing leakage, and of controlling it to an acceptable level, is a complex issue. Typically a leakage percentage below 10 per cent or even 15 per cent may not be economic to pursue, purely from the value of water lost. In other words the effect of hunting down, identifying and repairing the leakage costs more than the value of water saved.
3.47 To address leakage reduction beyond pressure management, suppliers need to adopt either a passive policy or an active policy for repair and remedial work. The passive method of leak control where only visible or reported leaks are repaired has most commonly been adopted in Australia.
3.48 Although leakage increases operating costs because of the need to pump and treat water that subsequently goes to waste, the major cost arises from the need to augment water supplies at an earlier date than would otherwise be the case. Additionally, there would be large costs in constructing works of a greater capacity than necessary to meet water demand. Therefore, the cost of leakage control has been found to be worthwhile only if augmentation is imminent and leakage control is able to delay that augmentation of supply.
3.49 The Committee took evidence in relation to significant gains in reducing system losses. For example in Melbourne over the last five years since the disaggregation of the Melbourne water industry into one wholesaler and three
27 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, pp 115-116. 28 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, p 25. 29 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, p 68. 30 Herald Sun, Our water rats, Saturday 29 June 2002, p 3. 31 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 231. 69 retailers, there has been an approximate 50 per cent reduction in system losses. The retail companies have been doing a lot of work in relation to leak detection and have achieved quicker response times to such things as burst mains.32
3.50 Water pressure plays an important role in leakage management. It determines how much water will be lost from the system. Managing the water supply network at the lowest permissible operating pressure is the most convenient and least expensive option for leakage control. For example, research has shown that about a third of operational costs on water main repairs can be saved with slight pressure reductions - there will be fewer bursts and water supplies can be maintained for longer.33
3.51 Pressure modulation is achieved by using pressure reducing valves (PRVs), several types of which are available, ranging from the simple fixed outlet PRV to the flow modulated PRV.34 The latter controls the pressure downstream of the PRV in accordance with the demand. During peak demand periods, the minimum pressure (to service demand at the critical point) will be provided. At low demand periods the pressure will be reduced to minimise excess pressure and the associated leakage. The PRVs need to be adjusted at regular intervals because the leaks gradually increase. The cycle of night flow analysis and PRV adjustment has to be repeated at regular intervals to prolong the usable life of a deteriorating pipe network, at the expense of water leaking into the soil.
3.52 Apart from gravity fed systems, generation of pressure almost always costs money, hence reducing pressure by PRVs is intrinsically inefficient. Therefore other options, such as re-zoning the supply head in an area to match topography or matching pump supply curves to distribution demands should be explored before heading down the path of expensive PRV technology.
3.53 Mr Tim Waldron, Chief Executive Officer, Wide Bay Water, has had significant experience in managing system water loss. He contends that in relation to demand management actions, water companies tend to focus on water pricing and metering, but little is done in water pressure control:
As far as system water loss management is concerned, some cities lose up to about one-third of their water supply that they produce and measure though underground leaks because of ageing systems or through fractured systems because of badly controlled water pressures. The auditing of this is not done well generally in the water industry. Even the benchmark measurements that are taken in the water industry need to change to reflect perhaps something that may well give people comfort zones at the moment. Often
32 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 328. 33 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 208. 34 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 65. 70
we talk in terms of percentages, but a percentage can vary according to seasonal variations, but losses are usually continual.35
3.54 Mr Waldron says that there are some water suppliers who do not have meters on the outlets of their reservoirs and so they have no way of monitoring how much water they supply, and lose to leaks in the system.
3.55 Although he did not advocate their use in Australia, Mr Waldron drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that mandatory targets for leak reduction have been introduced in Europe in response to the last severe drought. He suggests that because of the extra costs incurred by water companies to fix leaks and because the leaks usually occur unobserved underground, the incentives to fix them are not strong. What is required is for the water industry to treat water as a resource that is becoming more scarce and audit its use with this philosophy in mind.36
3.56 Sydney Water has found that although its demand management program has not yielded the anticipated water savings it will still reach its targets because of greater than anticipated gains made in leakage reduction. Its leakage reduction programs has been its most successful demand management program to date because it is the only program that is completely under its own control.37
3.57 The Queensland EPA has prepared a series of booklets, Case studies in water loss management, and seminars for urban water managers on leakage and loss. It told the Committee that in addition to leak management being more cost effective and potentially saving money in infrastructure development, it can also provide jobs at a local level.38 Watering systems 3.58 Watering systems at both the domestic and institutional level are often very wasteful of water, but sometimes they are part of the solution and can contribute to substantial reductions in water use by utilising soil moisture sensors and climate data systems to improve water efficiency.39
3.59 The Committee was told that Sydney Water sponsors homes in the GreenSmart Village at Kellyville for which it has also provided water sensitive landscaping utilising plantings of Australian native grasses and native species. One of
35 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 200. 36 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 201. 37 Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002, p 51. 38 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 142. 39 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 24. 71 the houses is smart wired and has water sensors in the garden areas so that the computer system can inform the occupant when the garden needs watering.40
3.60 During its site visit to Catani Gardens, St Kilda, Melbourne, the Committee was shown the Council’s irrigation system that controls the irrigation in the gardens.
3.61 Under this system, a computer regulates the irrigation and receives data from sensors concerning the moisture levels in the soil. Importantly, the device shuts off watering when it is raining. The Committee was told that some 25 per cent of water used in irrigating the park has been saved. Overall, the Council has saved about $10,000 on its monthly summer water bills by watering the 20 parks and gardens using the system. The Council is in the process of converting all of its irrigation systems.41 Water efficient gardens 3.62 Because a large proportion of domestic water use occurs on gardens, there is a lot of scope to improve water efficiency in this area. This can be done through mulching garden beds to prevent water loss, selecting plants that require less water, and by removing lawns or at least allowing them to brown off in summer.
3.63 According to the Water Services Association of Australia, the problem with outdoor water usage is that it is not amenable to easy general fixes for water efficiency. The answers lie in garden designs, paving rather than lawns, appropriate plants, responsible watering, urban planning, swimming pool covers etc. The solutions in this area are mostly individual and the only obvious broad tool for management is to ensure that consumers pay for the water they use.
3.64 However, changing the public’s perception of the value of water, and enhanced public education in regard to garden watering, will greatly assist in improving water efficiency. Free mulches and native plants can be used as part of incentive schemes, and there is scope for developing a water rating system for all plants and turf, and for irrigation systems. For public gardens, authorities can promote low water using gardens, drip irrigation and the use of indigenous plants. Developers can also be encouraged in low garden water use practices.42
3.65 The Committee believes that management of public spaces can play a role in encouraging improved gardening practices. When authorities lavish quantities of water on maintaining lush, European-style gardens during summer the community is sent conflicting messages about water conservation.
3.66 The Committee took evidence from Mr Paul Totterdell, a horticulturist who creates landscapes that control and direct water and nutrient flow to growing areas in
40 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 255-256. 41 City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, p 5. 42 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 23. 72 gardens by using subsurface drains to retain water on-site. He uses nutrient holding strategies, and wastewater and stormwater recycling as tools to create a ‘biofilter’ that holds back, filters and recycles excess water, nutrients, organic wastes and pollutants that are produced from the site.43
Flora for Fauna 3.67 The Flora for Fauna programme is an initiative of the nursery and garden industry and supported by the Federal Government through the Natural Heritage Trust. It encourages people to plant local species in their gardens in order to provide habitat for native fauna. A corollary to this is the lower water requirements of native plants as compared with exotic species.
ActewAGL Xeriscape Gardens Demonstration Project 3.68 ActewAGL, together with the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) and the ACT Department of Urban Services, has established a Xeriscape garden to encourage water conservation. The garden features a range of Australian native and exotic plants, paving, and lawn, to demonstrate water conservation ideas. It also demonstrates water treatment and reuse through the Domestic Wastewater Reuse Research Project which includes a composting toilet, rainwater use and reed beds to cleanse used water. Case study: Sydney Water’s Demand Management Strategy 3.69 Sydney Water’s Demand Management Strategy provides an interesting case study of a demand management program in practice. It has been praised for its ambitious targets, the range of measures that it utilises and its success to date in reducing water consumption. The corporation itself considers it to be ‘one of the most comprehensive water conservation programs ever undertaken by an Australian water services provider’.44
3.70 However, there is evidence that some of the gains foreshadowed from the strategy are not going to be realised and total water demand has continued to rise over the last two years, although the corporation maintains that better than expected results with certain measures will offset less successful outcomes so that the overall targets will be met.45
3.71 Sydney Water’s Demand Management Strategy uses a mix of water efficiency, water recycling and leakage reduction measures and adopts a ‘plan, do, check, act’ cycle. It is being delivered through the ‘Every Drop Counts’ and ‘Water Recycling’ programs. Sydney Water anticipates that ongoing reductions in per capita
43 Mr Totterdell, Submission 31. 44 Sydney Water, Submission 45, p 9. 45 Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002, p 44. 73 consumption will allow an additional 700,000 people to be accommodated in Sydney over the next 20 years, as total water demand will stay at current levels.46
3.72 The aim of the strategy is to meet per capita water consumption targets of:
• 364 litres/capita/day in 2004/05; and • 329 litres/capita/day in 2010/11. 3.73 Consumption for 1999/2000, was 414 litres per capita per day. If the above targets are met, a 35 per cent reduction on 1990/91 levels of per capita withdrawals from storages will be the outcome. Sydney Water predicts that more than $50 million will be spent on water efficiency, water recycling and leakage reduction measures during the first five years of its strategy.
3.74 Sydney Water’s demand management strategy was developed using least-cost planning whereby it determined the options that would provide its customers with the water-related services that they demand at the lowest cost to the community. This approach is also followed in other jurisdictions such as with the Brisbane City Council.47 It recognises that customers do not necessarily want more water, but they want the services that water provides, such as clean hands, dishes and clothes and pleasing landscapes. Thus there is scope for satisfying demand for these services by improving the efficiency of water-using products and by replacing grassed areas with paving or using plant species with lower water requirements.
3.75 Sydney Water considered more than 40 different options to reduce demand (such as water efficiency, water recycling and leakage reduction). These options covered all water use sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, unaccounted for and non-metered water) and all end-uses (toilets, showers, taps, washing machines, and garden use). The options also covered the range of possible means of implementing water efficiency and water recycling measures, including regulation, pricing, education and advisory services, loans, incentives and retrofitting.
3.76 The options were modelled by estimating the potential demand reduction that would be achieved for different levels of investment for each option. In most cases the estimate includes a range of assumptions regarding levels of incentive and adoption rate. Options were selected using the following criteria, in approximate order of importance:
• cost to the community to implement the option; • ability to provide timely reductions in demand; • certainty about costs and benefits; • balance across customer sectors;
46 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 184. 47 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 601. 74
• equity; and • balance across option type (pricing, education, incentives, and regulation). 3.77 Sydney Water’s strategy is considered in its various components below. Whilst this strategy has been cited as a successful implementation of demand management, it clearly shows the importance on ongoing evaluation of results against goals and the necessity of refining programs as required.
3.78 While gains have been made with this strategy, it highlights the importance of the assumptions that are made in relation to consumer behaviour, existing equipment etc when designing the programs and anticipating savings.
Pricing reform48 3.79 Sydney Water hoped to increase the price of water from 90 cents per kilolitre in 2000 to $1 per kilolitre in 2002, in conjunction with a communication strategy and promotion. It was anticipated that this would produce a 2 per cent decline in water use. This proposal was not included in the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) price path in October 2000 and so in real terms water prices will fall and no reductions in water use have been gained from pricing reform.
Smart showerhead rebate program 3.80 This program was run jointly with the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) and other energy authorities. Households received vouchers that provided a $10 discount on the purchase of an approved AAA-rated showerhead from a participating retail outlet. 8,907 showerheads were sold under the program and an estimated water saving of 0.1 lpcpd49 was achieved as compared with the strategy estimate of 0.2 lpcpd. The reason that the take-up of vouchers was less than expected is attributed to retailers not being prepared to provide a discount at the point of sale. Customers were required to return the voucher for a refund rather than when they bought the showerhead and this would have been a deterrent to some.
Residential audit and retrofit 3.81 This program offered householders in targeted local government areas a water ‘tune-up’ of their premises by a trained plumber. A free shower head, tap flow regulators, cistern displacement device or flush arrestor for single flush cisterns, repair of simple leaks in toilets or taps, and advice regarding other water efficiency
48 The information that follows is taken from Sydney Water, Demand Management Strategy, December 1999; and Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002. 49 Sydney Water’s operating licence sets requirements in relation to water conservation and demand management. Among other things, these requirements include specific aims to reduce consumption in per capita terms. Many of the goals in the strategy are framed in terms of anticipated reductions in litres of water per capita per day (lpcpd). 75 improvements were included in the tune-up. The service was worth between $100 and $130 but most participants would only pay $20-$22 or it would be free for low- income participants.
3.82 The program assumed that 170,000 households would participate and the estimated average saving per property would be 27 kL/year. By 31 December 2001, 150,000 households had participated and average savings of 20 kL/year have been achieved. Sydney Water attributes the lower than projected savings to:
• many of the participating households were probably already relatively conservation aware and so their original water use could have been lower than average; • water usage of the replaced showerheads could have been lower than projected; • households with more than one shower may not have replaced all showerheads; • lower take-up of showers as part of the total retrofit package; and • the relatively high proportion of participants from low income and low water using households. Outdoor water use conditions 3.83 This program proposed to introduce permanent low-level restrictions for outdoor water use during 2000/01 to provide projected savings of 1.2 lpcpd by 2004/05. These restrictions were to apply to the hosing of pathways and garden watering times and were to be accompanied by a substantial communication strategy. Water authorities in Brisbane and Perth have successfully implemented similar restrictions.
3.84 Although the Sydney Water regulations were amended in 2000 to allow the Minister to impose water restrictions in the public interest, water usage conditions have not been introduced as proposed under the original program.
Outdoor programs voucher mailout 3.85 A reply-paid mail-out was sent to residents to register interest in the provision of water saving offers. Customers could obtain a gardening guide and a discount voucher booklet with offers provided by participating manufacturers and suppliers of approved outdoor water conserving products and services. It was estimated that 80,000 households would participate over 2 years generating savings of around 8 kL/year per household generated.
3.86 The program ran until 30 June 2001 and by April 2002, actual savings had not been analysed, although Sydney Water believes that additional demand generated by the Olympics and dry weather over the program period is likely to have outweighed the savings directly attributable to the program. 76
Showerhead and washing machine performance standards 3.87 Showerheads and washing machines account respectively for an estimated 23 per cent and 16 per cent of average residential consumption. Sydney Water anticipated savings of 2.6 lpcpd by 2004/05 for the introduction of minimum performance standards for showerheads and this could grow to 12.1 lpcpd by 2010/11 with standards also placed on washing machines.
3.88 Water consumption of showerheads is more than 15 litres per minute. The proposal is for only AAA showers to be available after 2003. These use less than nine litres per minute and the proposal anticipates savings of up to 25 kL/year.
3.89 Washing machines currently use more than 34 litres per dry kilogram of clothes.50 The proposal is for a minimum energy performance standard of 100 litres per 5 kg load (20 litres per kilogram) after 2005. Typical household savings are anticipated at 15 kL/year.
3.90 No savings have yet been achieved from this initiative as negotiations are continuing with State and Commonwealth regulators in relation to standards for showerheads.
Every Drop Counts business program 3.91 This program targeted customers in the industrial, commercial and government sectors that use about 30 per cent of all water drawn from storages. Initially it involved Sydney Water providing free water audits to selected business customers to identify water conservation initiatives. The program assumed a 30 per cent adoption rate and after retrofitting, water use by the participants would fall by 20 per cent which would provide estimated savings of 3.1 lpcpd.
3.92 Limited success was achieved from the free audit model with few businesses committing to implement the findings even when the potential gains were clear.
3.93 One of the findings from these audits was that despite there being considerable water savings, and therefore cost savings that could be made, other factors such as budgetary constraints or operating conditions precluded businesses from taking steps to achieve these savings. The instability of markets in which companies trade can be an issue as companies may be reluctant to invest considerable sums up-front because market volatility may curtail their operations.51
3.94 The business program has been completely revised with a strong emphasis on gaining senior management commitment through a water management diagnostic, the development of an improvement plan and the provision of a range of services that can
50 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 86. 51 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 183. 77 help companies to overcome barriers to improving their water management performance.
We revised the program based on the energy 1 to 5 program. It is completely revamped to where we now go in with top management and get these water efficiency, water recycling, evaluations put right into the processes from board executive level down so that they happen. That has been a fundamental progression in the program that has been very positive. Now we are seeing these programs getting taken up by the industries and implemented. Although you could prove the savings before, you could not get them to make the move to implement; now we are getting them to implement by changing the way that we introduce them.52
3.95 By April 2002 there were more than 70 companies involved in the program, with memoranda of understanding about implementation requirements signed with 50 participants.
Hospitality audits program 3.96 In anticipation of increased water use because of the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, the hospitality industry was the target of a water efficiency audit program that aimed to reduce demand for water in the tourism sector by an amount equivalent to the impact of the Olympic-induced tourism. This program was merged with the Every Drop Counts business program.
Leakage reduction program 3.97 The major contribution (28 per cent of total program savings) in water savings was projected to come from a sustained reduction in the leakage in the water distribution system. Estimated potential savings from leakage reduction were 28.8 ML/day (7.2 lpcpd) by 2004/5.
3.98 Prior to this program, Sydney Water had no active leakage program in place and so there was an extensive data collection phase and pilot program that delayed implementation of the major program until 2001. However, once implemented, the program resulted in significantly higher leakage reduction per kilometre of main at lower cost than originally estimated. The estimates of water savings resulting from the program were consequently increased to a target of 50 ML/day which is equivalent to an additional 5 lpcpd saving.
3.99 Sydney Water acknowledges that this program is its most successful demand management program to date. The reason it gives is that it is the only program that is completely under Sydney Water’s control and particularly, it is not dependent on the acceptance of customers to adopt new behaviour or technologies. This fact highlights
52 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 183. 78 the significant challenges associated with any community-wide social change program – it takes time to achieve results.53
Revising the strategy 3.100 Although the strategy still has some time to run, Sydney Water has identified some of the reasons why more progress has not been made in conserving water. These reasons include:
• Sydney’s population may be higher than current projections; • during and since the 2000 Olympic Games, Sydney has experienced extended periods of weather that is warmer and drier than average; • changes in the housing mix with rapid growth in luxury medium and high density have contributed to higher than expected average demand for this sector; • above average economic growth over the past two years, with strong customer spending and construction activity contributed to strong per capita demand; and • demand forecasts in the 1999 Strategy were based on a year when demand levels were abnormally low. 3.101 Sydney Water notes that meeting the 2005 targets in its operating licence to reduce the per capita quantity of water drawn from all sources will be challenging and will most likely require additional strategies and resources to improve demand management performance. These strategies may include:
• expanding leakage reduction and business programs; • refining the residential program to target high water users; • adding new programs targeting residential outdoor demand; • retrofitting Department of Housing properties; • providing incentives to increase sales of water efficient appliances; and • exploring alternative pricing structures. 3.102 Sydney Water’s experience to date indicates that the achievement of sustained behavioural change in the long-term is not just dependent on rolling out large-scale education campaigns. It will be far more effective if programs are targeted, to meet the needs of customers and engage the support of key industry, supplier and regulatory stakeholders to achieve a transformation in the specific target market.54
53 Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002, p 51. 54 Sydney Water Corporation, Submission on the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales mid-term review of our operating licence, April 2002, p 52. 79
Conclusions 3.103 Domestic users are accounting for a growing percentage of water use and overall demand for water is still creeping up. However, there is still considerable scope to contain water use and achieve efficiencies. Water using appliances demonstrate great variability in their water efficiency and there is potential to improve this as well as to encourage greater uptake of efficient appliances.
3.104 Variability in water usage patterns and geographic conditions means that no one demand management strategy will be appropriate for all places, as demonstrated by the Sydney Water case study. Balancing costs and benefits is integral to deciding how to implement a demand management strategy and while the least cost basis is appropriate for initially choosing between demand management alternatives, achieving ecologically sustainable water use may require more aggressive adoption of demand management tools.
3.105 While the Committee was impressed with the many positive and innovative efforts being made in the area of demand management, it remains mindful of the comments of Mr Tim Waldron from Wide Bay Water:
… I do not want to appear to knock some good quality water managers that there are in the industry, and certainly some companies are addressing these problems. I have been asked to quite a few of them to give lectures or workshops for them. There are some parts of the industry doing things, but I would say there is about 80 per cent of the water industry not doing anything.55 Water reuse and recycling 3.106 One way of easing the pressures on water supplies and of reducing the discharge of contaminants to natural environments is to get more use out of effluent. The natural water cycle is the ultimate example of water reuse as water circles the globe in continual renewal. As discussed in Chapter 2, water treatment plants can now produce high quality water suitable for many purposes.
3.107 In general, water treated to drinking water standard is available for all uses in urban areas, even though less than one per cent is actually consumed by people. Many submissions consider that this level of treatment for all water is wasteful and that water quality should be better matched with the purpose for which the water is to be used.56 At the same time, tougher environmental standards for discharging effluent into some waterways have led to improvements in the quality of that water to the point where those standards are on a par with or better than the quality of water required for many industrial, domestic and irrigation applications.
55 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 207. 56 See for example: CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25; and Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 2. 80
3.108 It is possible to treat what is currently considered wastewater to any required standard, regardless of the pollutants present. However, the treated water can be more costly than comparable potable supplies. Recycled water is at present used for irrigating city parks, verges, ovals, golf courses, for industrial purposes, for agriculture and horticulture, for cooling water, toilet flushing and for environmental purposes; although currently it only comprises a small proportion of total water use.
3.109 Recycling water needs to be part of the whole system of water management. Dr Essery from the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation emphasised these points:
… what is important to us is that in dealing with urban water issues there has been a tendency in the past to separate demand management and effluent reuse and discharge recycling. What I would suggest to you more than anything else as a part of our submission is that that separation is a fallacy. Both are heavily integrated and dependent on each other and therefore any approach to urban water issues must not only integrate demand management of water supply but also demand management, treatment of and use of effluent as part of the total water cycle as you would do in any balancing exercise.57
3.110 The CSIRO estimates that Australia currently reuses only 14 per cent of its effluent from sewage plants.58 Although growing, this is a small proportion when compared with water reuse overseas. In Florida around 34 per cent, and in California 63 per cent of treated effluent produced within those states is used for agricultural irrigation.
3.111 It is worth noting that indirect recycling takes place wherever sewage effluent is discharged into a waterway upstream from a town using the same waterway for its water supply. For example, Canberra’s effluent is discharged into the Molonglo River which eventually becomes part of the drinking water supply for Adelaide (and other towns along the way). Sewage can also infiltrate groundwater which can subsequently be extracted and used.
3.112 This chapter looks at reusing treated sewage effluent and greywater, and the use of stormwater is considered in Chapter 4. The terms ‘reused water’, ‘recycled water’ and ‘reclaimed water’ will be used interchangeably. Risks of reusing water 3.113 The major risks associated with the use of sewage effluent are environmental, human and stock health, safety of produce and legal liability (discussed in Chapter 6).
3.114 Health risks can include the spread of infectious diseases by bacteria (typhoid fever, dysentery, tetanus), virus infection (meningitis, hepatitis, respiratory diseases)
57 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 185. 58 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 55. 81 and worm infection (roundworm, whipworm, tapeworm). These risks can be managed with appropriate effluent treatment and use in accordance with recommendations and guidelines and there have not been any cases of disease outbreaks in Australia attributable to the use of reclaimed water.
3.115 The survival of pathogenic micro-organisms in soils depends on factors such as soil moisture, temperature, pH, nutrients, organic matter and the presence of some organisms and toxins. Sunlight and desiccation destroy micro-organisms remaining on exposed surfaces. Therefore, water containing these contaminants may be used in irrigation of public recreation areas provided a period of time is allowed before access is permitted. Buffer distances between residential areas and reclaimed water irrigation may be designated to prevent risks from airborne pollutants.
3.116 The relative degree of risk will depend on the nature of the reuse scheme, whether it is urban or rural, its size, the degree of treatment given to the reclaimed water, and the efficacy of the overall environmental management plan. Reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities is required to meet prescribed microbiological health standards.
3.117 Effluent can be quite salty and so it is generally not appropriately used in areas with salinity problems:
Most treatment systems are designed to reduce pathogen concentrations to safe levels whilst minimising nutrient and other contaminant concentrations in the water. They will not remove the dissolved salts in the effluent and in some processes will increase them slightly. Most treated effluents in Australia will have dissolved salt concentrations just below the threshold where their use for unrestricted irrigation would be limited.59
3.118 Dr Peter Fisher raised a cautionary note in relation to reclaimed water use because treatment plants do not currently remove pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors from the effluent (see Chapter 5). Greater use of reclaimed water will lead to the wider dissemination of these chemicals. The CSIRO also shares Dr Fisher’s concern about the potential of reuse schemes to recycle contaminants around the urban environment.
3.119 The CSIRO points out that reuse schemes will divert contaminants away from natural environments to which effluent is currently discharged to either sludge or onto rural or urban environments and care needs to be taken to ensure that these environments are able to handle the contaminant loads.60
3.120 In effect, by increasing the amount of recycling, the environmental risk of effluent discharge is being transferred from outfalls to land applications.
59 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 57. 60 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 50. 82
3.121 Both Dr Fisher and the CSIRO advocate that more research be done on filtration and the impact on natural systems, before treated effluent is taken up for widespread use.61 Additionally, the CSIRO suggests that the impact of these substances can be reduced by higher levels of treatment or by reduction at source (for example by legislating against the use of such contaminants in household products).62 Reclaimed water quality guidelines 3.122 Reclaimed water use may be governed by State and Territory legislation with specific statutory obligations imposed under health, environmental, agricultural or food legislation or all four, or it may be a condition of land development. To counter the risks involved in reuse, guidelines, health standards and recommendations for levels of treatment for various uses have been developed.63
3.123 The principle source of standards in Australia is the guideline for the use of reclaimed water.64 It is part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy and was developed by Commonwealth and State agencies, industries and the general community and claims to foster the use of reclaimed water from municipal sewage plants in a way that protects both the public health and the environment. Whilst it provides guidance for a national approach for reclaimed water use, State governments develop their own complementary guidelines as appropriate to underpin the Commonwealth documents, thus allowing for regional and local conditions. For example, there is cause for greater care in relation to hookworm in tropical regions.
3.124 Food hygiene concerns are not addressed in the guideline and individual industries need to address food safety issues relating to the use of reclaimed water.
3.125 The use of reclaimed water is classified in the guideline into a number of specific applications, each with its own requirements for:
• type of reuse; • level of treatment; • reclaimed water quality; • reclaimed water monitoring; and • controls. 3.126 Reclaimed water is divided into several classes in State guidelines, on the basis of the treatment level applied to the effluent and the uses to which it can be put. For example, Victoria specifies four classes of reclaimed water. Secondary treatment
61 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 366 and 372. 62 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 57. 63 P Thomas and R Croome. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation: some issues, September 2001, p 53. 64 National Water Quality Management Strategy, Guidelines for sewerage systems, Use of Reclaimed Water, November 2000. 83 produces Class D reclaimed water, and pathogen reduction and further treatment (tertiary) can be applied to produce Classes C to Class A as shown in the following table:
Table 1
Classes of reclaimed water and corresponding standards for biological treatment and pathogen reduction65
Class Water quality objectives - Treatment processesa Range of uses – uses medians unless specified1 include all lower class uses
A Indicative objectives Tertiary and pathogen Urban (non-potable): with reduction5 with sufficient uncontrolled public access • < 10 E.coli org/100 mL log reductions to achieve: 2 Agricultural: eg human • Turbidity < 2 NTU <10 E.coli per 100 mL; food crops consumed raw • < 10 / 5 mg/L BOD / SS 3 <1 helminth per litre; Industrial: open systems • pH 6 – 9 with worker exposure • 1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or < 1 protozoa per 50 litres; potential equivalent disinfection)4 and
< 1 virus per 50 litres
B • <100 E.coli org/100 mL Secondary and pathogen Agricultural: eg dairy cattle 3 (including helminth grazing • pH 6 – 9 reduction for cattle • < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / grazing) reduction5 Industrial: eg washdown SS6 water
C • <1000 E.coli org/100 Secondary and pathogen Urban (non- potable) with mL reduction (including controlled public access 3 helminth reduction for • pH 6 – 9 cattle grazing use schemes) Agricultural: eg human • < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / food crops SS6 cooked/processed, grazing/fodder for livestock
Industrial: systems with no potential worker exposure
65 EPA Victoria, Guidelines for environmental management: Use of reclaimed water, Publication 464.1, September 2002, pp 21 and 22, viewed on 4 October 2002, at: http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/716543f3e369a021ca256aa7001e5635/64c 2a15969d75e184a2569a00025de63/$FILE/464.1.pdf 84
Class Water quality objectives - Treatment processesa Range of uses – uses medians unless specified1 include all lower class uses
D • <10000 E.coli org/100 Secondary Agricultural: non-food mL crops including instant turf, 3 woodlots, flowers • pH 6 – 9 • < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / SS 8 Notes to Table 1
1. Medians to be determined over a 12-month period.
2. Turbidity limit is a 24-hour median value measured pre-disinfection. The maximum value is five NTU.
3. pH range is 90th percentile. A higher upper pH limit for lagoon-based systems with algal growth may be appropriate, provided it will not be detrimental to receiving soils and disinfection efficacy is maintained.
4. Chlorine residual limit of greater than one milligram per litre after 30 minutes (or equivalent pathogen reduction level) is suggested where there is a significant risk of human contact or where reclaimed water will be within distribution systems for prolonged periods. A chlorine residual of less than one milligram per litre applies at the point of use.
5. Helminth reduction is either detention in a pondage system for greater than or equal to 30 days, or by an NRE and EPA Victoria approved disinfection system (for example, sand or membrane filtration).
6. Where Class C or D is via treatment lagoons, although design limits of 20 milligrams per litre BOD and 30 milligrams per litre SS apply, only BOD is used for ongoing confirmation of plant performance. A correlation between process performance and BOD / filtered BOD should be established and in the event of an algal bloom, the filtered BOD should be less than 20 milligrams per litre. a Where schemes pose a significant risk of direct off-site movement of reclaimed water, nutrient reductions to nominally five milligrams per litre total nitrogen and 0.5 milligrams per litre total phosphorous will be required.
3.127 Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality and can be utilised in the urban context for non-potable use without restrictions on public access to the area where the water is being used. In the agricultural area, Class A water is suitable for irrigating raw human food crops and may be used for industrial uses that have the potential for worker exposure. The following tables give more detail of acceptable uses for the various classes of reclaimed water: 85
Table 2
Classes of reclaimed water and the associated acceptable uses (typically subject to site controls)66
Reclaimed Agricultural Uses Urban (non potable) and Water Class Industrial Uses
Raw human Dairy cattle1 Cooked/processed Grazing/fodder Non- food crops, Residential, Restricted food crops grazing/fodder, human food crops, or for cattle, sheep, woodlots, turf, unrestricted public access, exposed to livestock drinking selected crops not horses, goats, etc flowers public access, closed industrial reclaimed water (not pigs) directly exposed to open industrial systems reclaimed water systems
A !! ! !!!!
B X !! !!X !
C XX !!!X !
D XX X X! XX
Notes to Table 2
1. Dairy cattle grazing with Class C reclaimed water are also allowed subject to a five-day withholding period after irrigation.
! reclaimed water of this quality is generally acceptable for the corresponding uses, however, management controls may apply.
X reclaimed water of this quality will generally not be acceptable under these guidelines for the corresponding uses.
66 EPA Victoria, Guidelines for environmental management: Use of reclaimed water, Publication 464.1, September 2002, p 29, viewed on 4 October 2002 at: http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/716543f3e369a021ca256aa7001e5635/64c2a15969d75e184a2569a00025de63/$FILE/464.1.pdf 86
Table 3
Acceptable agricultural uses - livestock access and food safety controls for specific irrigation methods
Reuse category Minimum water Irrigation Key management controls for use Class method eg withholding period Raw human food crops exposed to reclaimed water Crops grown close to the Class A Unrestricted Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water ground and consumed raw (eg. irrigation when harvested celery, cabbage) Root crops consumed raw (eg. Class A Unrestricted Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water carrots, onions, radish) irrigation when harvested Human food crops cooked (>70°C for 2 minutes) or processed before human consumption, or consumed raw but with edible parts not exposed to reclaimed water Crops grown over 1 metre Class A Unrestricted Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water above the ground and eaten raw irrigation when harvested (eg. apples, pears, apricots, Class C Flood, furrow, Dropped produce not to be harvested table grapes, olives) drip, sub-surface Crops which are skinned, peeled Class A Unrestricted Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water or shelled before consumption irrigation when harvested (eg. lemons, limes, nuts, Class C Flood, furrow, Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water watermelons, rockmelons) drip, sub-surface irrigation when harvested Dropped produce not to be harvested Crops to be cooked (>70°C for Class C Unrestricted Produce should not be wet from reclaimed water 2 minutes) or processed before irrigation when harvested sale to consumers* (eg. wheat, wine grapes) 87
Reuse category Minimum water Irrigation Key management controls for use Class method eg withholding period Non food crops Crops not for consumption (eg. Class D Unrestricted Restrict public access to application area woodlots, turf growing, flowers) Harvested products not to be wet from reclaimed water when sold Livestock (excluding pigs) Irrigation of pasture and fodder Class B (including Unrestricted Withholding period of 4 hours before pasture use, dry or for dairy animals helminth reduction) ensile fodder Washdown water not to be used for milking machinery Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture or fodder Class C (including Unrestricted Withholding period of 5 days before pasture use, dry or helminth reduction) ensile fodder Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture or fodder Irrigation of pasture and fodder Class C (including Unrestricted Withholding period of 4 hours before pasture use, dry or for beef cattle helminth reduction) ensile fodder Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture or fodder Irrigation of pasture and fodder Class C (no Unrestricted Withholding period of 4 hours before pasture use, dry or for sheep, goats, horses, etc helminth reduction ensile fodder necessary) Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture or fodder 88
Reuse category Minimum water Irrigation Key management controls for use Class method eg withholding period Livestock drinking water or Class B — Washdown water not to be used for milking machinery. washdown water for dairy sheds Reclaimed water with a blue green algae bloom not suitable for stock drinking Pigs not to come into contact with reclaimed water
* Crops that are cooked prior to consumption can be sold uncooked to consumers provided the safety of the practice (such as considering the irrigation steps, preparation prior to sale and domestic cooking) can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of relevant Government agencies, EPA Victoria and DHS for example.
Note: The health risks associated with hydroponics have not been adequately assessed, therefore hydroponic crops consumed raw must currently use Class A water. 89
Reuse opportunities 3.128 Opportunities for reuse of water from sewage treatment plants have grown rapidly in recent years in all states. Despite the fact that the community has not yet accepted the concept of using reclaimed water for drinking, cooking and bathing purposes, opportunities for using reclaimed water exist in nearly all areas where water is used.
3.129 Some examples include:
• agricultural uses — irrigation of pasture, crops (for example, fruit, vegetables, cotton and sugarcane); hydroponics; and pasture production and turf farms; • horticultural uses — plant nurseries, vineyards and cut flowers; • forestry; • industrial uses — using internal and external sources of recycled water; particularly in electricity generation and to meet cooling and wash down requirements in other heavy industries; • residential and community (non-potable) uses — irrigation of open spaces; dual reticulation in residential and industrial developments; and • environmental uses — wetlands, ornamental lakes and environmental flows. 3.130 In general, there is a higher percentage of reuse in regional areas than in metropolitan areas because reuse opportunities depend on their proximity to treatment plants. The further away from the treatment plant, the greater the costs in terms of pipes and pumping of water to where it is required. Usually there is more available land close to treatment plants in regional areas, and there are therefore more opportunities for tree plantations for example, that can use the water.67
3.131 Although the greatest volumes of effluent are found in cities, they are often in low lying areas and require pumping to deliver the water to where it is needed. This can add significantly to the costs involved in reusing the water to the point where reuse schemes cannot compete economically with the use of potable water.
3.132 Sydney Water adopts the strategy of looking for reuse opportunities within an approximate 3 kilometre radius of its sewage treatment plants, concentrating on its inland plants which generally treat sewage to a higher standard than do the coastal plants because they must discharge into waterways. Outside this 3 kilometre distance, the costs of transporting recycled water become prohibitive.68
3.133 Mr Harvey from VicWater suggests that one option to overcome the expense of transporting water would be for strategic pipeline systems to be built from treatment plants to areas of economic activity. This would allow people to access and
67 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 281. 68 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 181. 90 tap into the pipeline to avail themselves of treated water as a viable, economic option to their business, rather than taking it from the potable supply.69 Another idea is for water using industries to be located in proximity to sewage treatment plants, although this would have limited feasibility in developed areas where there is no available land. However, introducing smaller scale sewage treatment plants, as discussed in Chapter 5, may create reuse opportunities along these lines.
3.134 There are many opportunities within sewage treatment plants themselves to reuse water in operational activities such as cleaning screens, washing down work areas, cooling, flushing pipes and irrigating landscaped areas. In fact, much of the current urban usage of recycled water occurs in wastewater treatment plants.
3.135 The CSIRO summarises the opportunities and constraints for water reuse as follows:
69 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 282. 91
Table 4 Summary of Reuse Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunity Implementation to date Barriers to further implementation
Reuse of sewage Widespread in rural locations and there is • distance required to pump reuse water effluent for a large scheme in Adelaide. 28% of water • storage requirements agriculture use occurs in the agricultural industries. • land availability in dedicated reuse schemes • requirement to licence even if discharge to receiving environment is spasmodic • salinity problems • nitrogen removal at small scales Reuse by industry 32% of water reuse occurs in the mining • distance required to pump reuse water industry, 5% in the electricity and gas • storage requirements industry, 3% in the metals industry and 3% in other industries. • economics of treating and transporting reuse water compared to the cost of potable water Dual reticulation Limited to a few demonstration sites. • economics unfavourable for sites that are already (potable water and developed May find application at greenfield sites on non potable water • the fringe of cities. redirects contaminant flows to local streams and household supplies) gardens Potable reuse Not practiced. Indirect potable reuse was • public acceptance is the major issue planned in Caboolture Shire but the public • there are risks to human health but these can be managed did not accept it. • economics will probably force the price of water up, but given the low price of water this might be inevitable 92
Opportunity Implementation to date Barriers to further implementation
Greywater reuse Practiced by people during drought. • long term watering with greywater would need to be (Household scale) Legislation requires this to be done using assessed for its environmental sustainability (ie salt loads, sub-surface irrigation. etc) • treatment of greywater would be required before surface irrigation or other water uses could be approved • more work needs to be performed on the human health and environmental outcomes of different levels of treated greywater. These outcomes may affect the economics and the public acceptance (maintenance of system by householder) of household greywater reuse Greywater reuse Requires separation of blackwater and • requires blackwater and greywater separation, and separate (cluster or estate greywater at source, and separate blackwater treatment scale) treatment systems for each stream. − blackwater collection through reticulated sewage Practiced overseas at Lubeck, where pipes is difficult because of the high solids content, greywater is treated in wetlands and which means the pipes may be prone to blockage. reused for non-potable uses. Also being The Lubeck development uses vacuum sewers over considered for Melbourne’s green suburb short distances (300-400 houses) to minimise these in the North East corridor. problems, but is still at demonstration stage. Larger water flows to transport blackwater can lead to treatment difficulties at the other end, as the quantity of sewage requiring treatment becomes expensive for anaerobic digestion − Sweden overcomes blackwater separation problems by using hydrocyclones to remove the solids from toilet water and composting the solids on site or for a cluster of houses 93
Opportunity Implementation to date Barriers to further implementation
− could be used with on-site treatment of blackwater eg cesspits/composting toilets etc • the requirements for treating greywater are not well understood, and the treatment plant design is assumed to be similar to that of combined sewage. Thus any gains in treating a lower strength waste are not incorporated into the economic analysis. Demonstration sites treating greywater are required for the industry to gain operating experience in handling greywater Rainwater tanks Used in parts of Australia where there is • economics based on cost of potable water versus cost of no reticulated potable water supply or tanks favour the use of reticulated potable water (full cost areas prone to restrictions. of potable water not included in the price). • not permitted by some local councils as they are viewed as unsightly • the traditional designs have taken up room in the back yard and this has produced a negative response from the community, however new designs may overcome these potential obstacles (eg use the eaves as storage) • water quality has not met the NHMRC guidelines for drinking water quality, and therefore there is a general move towards not wanting to use them for potable water uses. Appropriate technology (treatment and tank) may overcome some of these drawbacks • the tanks require maintenance (cleaning of gutters and tank) to maintain water quality. Householders are often 94
Opportunity Implementation to date Barriers to further implementation
viewed as being unreliable when it comes to maintenance issues, and this adds to the water quality issues surrounding rainwater tanks Stormwater reuse To be used in Mawson Lakes, Adelaide in • if for residential use, then the cost of extra piping may (cluster estate conjunction with aquifer storage and make it too expensive scale) recovery, and in some fringe areas of • residential demand is seasonal and occurs when there is no cities where the infrastructure costs are rain. Hence large storage capacity is required and this is high. often not available or developers of greenfield sites do not wish to lose land that might otherwise be developed. ASR technology may help in some cases • treatment of stormwater would be required before reuse, and in particular disinfection • industry has little experience with these schemes • the pricing of second grade water is difficult, as the cost of potable water is very low and this decreases the incentive to use second grade water Aquifer recharge Planned for Adelaide as part of the • relies on the local geology for it to be economic and recovery Virginia Pipeline scheme and as part of • untried technology and so the SA experience will be the Mawson Lakes development. closely monitored to see what difficulties it might have • potential to pollute ground waters if the water is not treated sufficiently before injection and if the demand for water is lower than anticipated 95
Social issues 3.136 Public acceptance for projects involving public contact with reclaimed water is an important part of achieving success for these projects and the guidelines for the use of reclaimed water acknowledge the importance of a high level of community involvement in any reuse scheme that is likely to have an impact on it.
3.137 Public opinion towards reclaimed water use is determined by:
• cost/price; • availability of other sources of water; • level of human contact; • health; • environment; • treatment; • distribution; • conservation; and 70 • community expectations. 3.138 Environment and community groups argued for a significant increase in water recycling, to reduce the amount of effluent discharged to waterways. The CSIRO notes that in general, people think recycling is a good idea but this support tends to lessen as the recycled water is used in applications that come closer to personal contact. The CSIRO’s study in Perth shows that more than 90 per cent of people would accept recycling of treated wastewater to public open spaces; 50 per cent for laundry use but only 10 per cent would accept it as a substitute for potable mains supply for drinking purposes.71 Sydney Water suggests that community support for recycling has decreased since 1995.72
3.139 The CSIRO puts the order of decreasing public acceptance of water reuse as follows:
• watering of golf courses etc • gardening/toilet flushing • laundry • shower/bath • drinking.
70 National Water Quality Management Strategy, Guidelines for sewerage systems, Use of Reclaimed Water, November 2000, p 4. 71 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 56. 72 Sydney Water, Water Recycling Strategy, p 3. 96
3.140 Resistance to water reuse can also stem from a lack of knowledge about water quality and treatment and witnesses suggest that this will only be overcome by better educating and consulting with the community – an issue that is discussed further in this Chapter.
3.141 There is also a general acceptance by the community of the use of roof run-off (rainwater tanks) as a source of potable water, and many consumers in rural areas practice this. However, people become more reluctant to use water that ‘originated’ from dirtier sources, and the order of public acceptance for alternative water sources is:
• potable water supply; • roof runoff (rainwater tanks); • stormwater; • greywater (non-toilet water); and • wastewater. 3.142 Taste and odour are major determinants in the public’s confidence in water quality. Recycling strategies 3.143 As part of their plans to move towards more sustainable urban water management, all states visited by the Committee are adopting recycling strategies and establishing demonstration projects to confirm the feasibility of using more reclaimed water and help change community perceptions. Domestic reuse 3.144 Water recycling for domestic or urban use can be done in three ways: centralised treatment of wastewater, which is piped back to individual houses (dual reticulation); onsite treatment and reuse systems; and direct greywater reuse.
3.145 Onsite systems are discussed in Chapter 5. However, in relation to recycling water from these onsite treatment plants, while viable and efficient systems are available, they are prone to many of the problems experienced with septic tank systems, including relatively high failure rates, and a reluctance of many residents to properly maintain them. Given the severe health implications of failures of these systems, it is unlikely they will achieve widespread use in the near future.
Dual reticulation systems 3.146 Treated effluent can be used in domestic premises by dual reticulation. That is, installing two separate pipelines – one supplying potable water and the other supplying recycled water. The latter is connected to taps for garden watering and/or cisterns for toilet flushing and the reclaimed water is treated to a suitable standard and sent to the premises from the treatment plant. 97
3.147 The obvious drawback to the these systems is the high cost involved in laying a second water main to each property plus duplicating elements of the plumbing. This means that dual reticulation is really only practical for new developments. However it should also be recognised that in such new developments, these capital costs can be mitigated by the fact that smaller pipes are required for both water supply and wastewater, since the recycled water reduces both demand loads and the amount of effluent leaving the site.
3.148 Professor Mein from the CRC for Catchment Hydrology suggests that these dual reticulation systems should be being laid now during development of all new suburbs in anticipation of future opportunities to recycle water. The fact that in general this is not being done, he sees as a major wasted opportunity:
On the outskirts of Melbourne, for example, we are building vast numbers of new suburbs, with each one that goes in being a missed opportunity to fit it up for more efficient water use in the future. I believe that we should put two pipes in the water supply trench and run two pipes into each house: one pipe would run to the kitchen sink, the shower and so on and the other one would run to the toilet and the garden. For a while, potable water would go on as before to do those things, but it would leave an easy option later on to run water reuse or recycled water to each house.73
3.149 Two practical demonstrations in New South Wales of operational dual reticulation systems are the suburbs of Newington, part of the Sydney Olympic Park site, and those in the Rouse Hill development area. They are discussed below.
Newington and the Sydney Olympic Park Site
3.150 The Committee visited Sydney Olympic Park at Homebush Bay where the Water Reclamation and Management Scheme (WRAMS) provides a practical demonstration of the use of recycled water. It is a good example of a complete system for water management of a discrete area and is the first urban water reuse scheme of its type in Australia. It aims to be a practical demonstration of managing urban water holistically by using conventional technology, but embracing all water elements in an integrated way.
3.151 The key elements of WRAMS include:
• a water reclamation plant that removes water from sewage sourced from the neighbouring residential suburb of Newington and from major venues and facilities at Homebush Bay. Approximately 2.2 million litres is treated per day. Advanced biological treatment processes remove pollutants and nutrients, leaving high quality effluent that is disinfected by ultraviolet light and then pumped to the water treatment plant for final processing; • a water storage reservoir in the lower levels of the north-western corner of the Homebush Bay brickpit store stormwater and excess treated effluent, to provide
73 Professor Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 273. 98
extra water for final treatment when demand is high. The brickpit also provides an environment for the endangered green and golden bell frog; • a water treatment plant to filter and disinfect water from the water reclamation plant and from the brickpit storage. This plant uses two treatment processes: − continuous micro-filtration, to remove all particles larger than 0.2 microns;74 − reverse osmosis, to reduce salinity. Chlorine is also used to disinfect the water; and • a separate dedicated supply system to pipe water from the treatment plant through Sydney Olympic Park venues, parks and Newington, which has approximately 1,400 properties connected to the reclaimed water supply.75 3.152 The recycled water is delivered to homes and facilities by dual reticulation and costs customers 78.35 cents/kilolitre which is 15 cents less than the price of drinking water. It is clear and odourless and is intended for use where drinking water is not required such as for firefighting, toilet flushing, irrigation, washing cars and other household and garden uses, but not for drinking, swimming, washing clothes or for pets.
3.153 Overall, by reusing water from sewage and stormwater, the scheme:
• reduces potable water demand by over 50 per cent; • reduces sewage discharge by 850 megalitres per year; • reduces stormwater pollution by 70-90 per cent compared with untreated stormwater runoff; • reduces stormwater run-off, peak flows and flood damage; • integrates stormwater into the landscape and the reuse scheme; • implements a stormwater source control policy across the entire development; and 76 • instigates mandatory use of water saving devices. 3.154 In terms of duplicating the success of WRAMs, several issues need to be considered.
3.155 The NSW Government subsidised the costs of the construction and the WRAMS operation and while this is appropriate for a demonstrator project, more
74 A micron is one millionth of a metre. 75 Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Submission 48; and Recycled water at Sydney Olympic Park, Winning with water, pamphlet. 76 Recycled Water System for Future Urban Development, Andrzej Listowski, Sydney Olympic Park Authority, e20651a, paper presented at the International Water Association World Water Congress, Melbourne Australia, 7-12 April 2002. 99 widespread use of the WRAMS techniques will depend on cost reductions in the technology and/or changes in pricing policy.
3.156 The price at which recycled water in NSW is sold to customers is currently set at 78 cents per kilolitre - 15 cents below the standard drinking water price of approximately 93 cents per kilolitre - as determined by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. This compares with the Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s operating cost of $1.40 per kilolitre for recycled water.
3.157 Part of the problem is that, despite the fact that the WRAMS scheme reduces the load on water supply, sewerage and stormwater infrastructure, Sydney Water continues to charge its standard rates for properties served by WRAMS on the basis that it needs to maintain back-up systems in case of a system failure by WRAMS.
3.158 Furthermore, WRAMS is disadvantaged because its competition, Sydney Water, does not have to pay for any environmental cost for dumping primary treated effluent into the nearby ocean.
Rouse Hill Estate
3.159 Sydney Water’s largest recycled water scheme is at Rouse Hill to the north west of Sydney and it provides recycled effluent from the Rouse Hill Sewage Treatment Plant to residential areas that have dual reticulation. The recycled water is cheaper than drinking water, with a quarterly connection charge of $5.75 for residential properties and a usage charge of 27 cents per kilolitre. This compares with a charge of approximately 93 cents per kilolitre for potable water.
3.160 Health and safety measures in the development included:
• colour coded meters, pipes and fittings for the recycled water system to ensure easy identification; • removable taps that require a reverse thread hose connection; and • all recycled water taps are fitted with a yellow and black ‘not for drinking’ warning sign. 3.161 Suburbs have been receiving recycled water since 31 August 2001 and currently approximately 5,000 homes are now being supplied. Another 6,000 homes are soon to be included in the scheme which will ultimately supply 8 megalitres a day of reclaimed water to 100,000 homes.
Greywater 3.162 Greywater, sometimes referred to as sullage, is used water from a household that does not include water from the toilet (blackwater). Greywater recycling is less complex than recycling sewage as there are fewer health issues (less pathogens) and less treatment is required.
3.163 Greywater is usually discharged from the bathroom, laundry and kitchen to the sewer but, especially in times of drought, some households intercept it for garden 100 watering, although little is known about how widespread this practice is. A number of witnesses wanted more to be done to encourage the use of this under utilised water resource both in the garden and for toilet flushing.
3.164 Widespread greywater reuse could have implications for operating the sewerage system which relies on greywater to keep sewage flowing. Any major reduction of greywater flow into sewers could lead to blockages and reduce the effectiveness of the system. Significant reductions in greywater flow would also increase concentrations of waste matter in the sewage which could have a detrimental effect on existing treatment plants.77
3.165 However, there are ways around these difficulties. In Lubeck, Germany, they have developed a process that separates blackwater and greywater, treating the latter in wetlands and using it for non-potable purposes, and using vacuum sewers over short distances (comprising about 300-400 houses) to minimise the problems of reduced flows.78 Sweden overcomes blackwater separation problems by using hydrocyclones to remove the solids from toilet water and then composting the solids on site for a cluster of houses.79
3.166 Since no two sewerage systems share quite the same design, the impacts of removing greywater flows will vary. For example, Perth’s sewerage system needs a high densitiy of pumps to move the sewage along as a consequence of low gradiants in the area. Also, minimal surface drainage enters the system to add to flows. Given these features, the Perth sewerage system is likely to be affected by removing greywater flows, however, there would need to be approximately a 50 per cent reduction of greywater to create such an adverse impact on the system.80
3.167 In summary, while widespread greywater reuse can have an impact on sewerage systems, there is much scope to increase the practice before these impacts will become evident.
Greywater quality
3.168 Many people erroneously believe that water from the laundry and shower is free of contaminants but laundry water contains soil from dirty clothes, phosphates from detergents and sometimes pathogens; shower water contains body soil, soap and sometimes pathogens; and kitchen water contains solid vegetable and animal matter and grease. It is generally recommended that kitchen washing up water not be reused because of its high grease and fat content.
77 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 28. See also CSIRO, Submission 47, p 60. 78 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 60. 79 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 60. 80 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 422. 101
3.169 The quality of the greywater very much depends on the health, composition and habits of residents in each household. For example, although greywater typically does not contain faecal contamination, if a baby’s nappies are being washed, the laundry water will be contaminated; or if a member of the household suffers from incontinence, the bath/shower water may be contaminated. Other issues such as the type and amount of washing powder used in the laundry will determine the levels of phosphorous and other chemicals.
3.170 There can be environmental and aesthetic problems associated with greywater use. Its application to the garden in a haphazard manner may lead to runoff that contaminates surface waters or groundwater and causes a build-up of nutrients and it is difficult for the average householder or body corporate to know if contamination is occurring.
3.171 Greywater may also cause an unsightly grey-green slime over the discharge area, due to soap, detergent and grease in the water. Sodium sulphate and other sodium salts are used as fillers in powder detergents and the elevated levels of sodium salts in greywater can lead to the destruction of the structure and stability of soil and reduce nutrient availability.
Greywater use and regulation
3.172 These health and quality issues lie behind the mixed responses of many regulatory authorities to the use of greywater. The Committee was told that regulations relating to greywater use vary across States, and authoritative advice about greywater use is generally difficult to come by:
Greywater, in one sense, is grey in the other sense—often councils do not know, or they are not sure whether we can or we cannot [establish greywater reuse systems]. The danger is there that, if people start taking these things on board and going ahead with them without that legislation being in place or without those guidelines being in place, you could end up with someone being hurt via a system that does bring people into contact with some water that they should not be touching.
That is the biggest concern of the whole issue—the public health one; that people should not be allowed to just put these things in without some sort of licensing, I suppose you would call it. But at the moment we are just dealing with that on a case-by-case basis. We will approach the council and they will apply their state laws as they stand.81
3.173 Because of the varying quality of greywater, authorities recognise the water savings that can be made from its reuse, but they generally prefer for it to remain a part of the sewage stream and undergo treatment with the resultant effluent made available for use. However, the CSIRO suggests that using greywater for garden watering will probably be more economic when performed at the household rather
81 Mr Totterdell, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 51. 102 than at the regional scale82 and conservation-minded households may question the benefits of repurchasing water that has already passed through their property and been sent to the sewage treatment plant. The dilemma is summarised by Dr Johnstone from Bayside City Council:
My understanding is that, clearly, for public health reasons, there are very good reasons for collecting greywater and putting it through the sewerage system, and discouraging grey water reuse. On the other hand it also seems to be a fairly useful resource which is often therefore going to waste, and could be better used.83
3.174 It is difficult for authorities to provide comprehensive advice about greywater use because its quality varies between households. Even with a greywater stream relatively free of pathogens, the increased contact risk at the domestic scale raises the probability of human health problems.84 Another consideration is that greywater systems need to be context-specific, depending on: the level of treatment; whether it will be a new construction or a retrofit; soil and climate conditions; and legal and planning considerations.
3.175 However, the environmental and health issues can be avoided if greywater reuse systems are carefully designed, installed and managed. Sufficient land needs to be available so that the water can be absorbed on site and it is prevented from flowing to neighbouring land. It must not be allowed to form puddles or be sprayed because of the risks of human contact.
3.176 Despite the fact that many people use greywater to water lawns, untreated greywater is generally only suitable for subsurface irrigation where organisms in healthy soils can break down contaminants. Underground systems also remove the risks associated with human contact and the CSIRO suggests that legislation is required to ensure that this occurs.85 Additionally, long term watering with greywater needs to be assessed for its environmental sustainability (for example, salt loads).
3.177 Using greywater in unsewered rural communities is a widespread practice that, because of lower concentrations of sources, does not apparently cause health problems but it can have environmental consequences. However the impediments that are placed in the way of greywater use are more significant with respect to health issues than for environmental ones.86
3.178 Greywater requires treatment before surface irrigation or other water uses can be approved and the CSIRO recommends that more work needs to be performed on the human health and environmental outcomes of different levels of treated greywater.
82 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 57. 83 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 306. 84 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 58. 85 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 59. 86 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 230. 103
These outcomes may affect the economics and the public acceptance (maintenance of the system by the householder) of household greywater reuse.
3.179 Although Mr Totterdell reported that because of the nutrients in greywater he had experienced improved plant growth from its use,87 the main advantage of greywater use is water conservation. A household can save money on potable water costs, but much of this saving is likely to be required for ongoing maintenance of the treatment system. The cost of a reuse system that includes sub-surface drip irrigation is more than $100088 although the Committee received evidence that systems can cost far more than this. At $1000, the system would need to be in use for more than twenty years before it paid for itself.
3.180 Added to the expense of household greywater treatment systems is the requirement for ongoing maintenance and commitment. One of the reasons that greywater reuse is often not permitted in sewered areas is because authorities say the community has a poor record for maintenance when it comes to ‘doing its own thing’. For example, a study of the performance of on-site systems in areas where households are not connected to sewers referred to in ‘We all use water’, found the following deficiencies:
• 39 per cent of absorption trenches had significant problems resulting in poor performance or seepage; • 65 per cent of septic tanks were not performing adequately, resulting in solids being carried over into absorption trenches, or they needed to be pumped out; • 54 per cent of grease traps needed cleaning out; • 48 per cent of household sewage treatment plants did not comply with accepted pathogen standards, due to poor performance and low chlorine levels; and • 90 per cent of houses with dishwashers were connected to grease traps that were undersized.89 3.181 It has been suggested that if further use of greywater is to be considered, there needs to be widespread monitoring and policing of the system.
3.182 In most jurisdictions, there is no prohibition against transfering water from the bath to the garden by bucket. However, once the householder decides to pipe the water to the garden, the system is classified as a septic tank system and requires treatment and a planning permit. Witnesses pointed to the inconsistency in this approach but Mr McCarthy from the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council pointed
87 Mr Totterdell, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 49-50. 88 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 203. 89 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 203. 104 out that it was because of the risk of pipes accumulating bacteria and becoming a health hazard.90
3.183 One area where there seems to be less concern with untreated greywater use, is a closed system that uses greywater for toilet flushing.91 Bath and shower water can be diverted to a holding tank and sent to cisterns. This minimises the risk of human contact with the water and can achieve considerable savings of potable water. Because there is about two to three times as much greywater generated per day per household than that required for toilet flushing no potable water would need to be used for flushing.92
3.184 However, in relation to the holding tank for the water, one of the tenets of good greywater management is that untreated greywater is not stored for longer than 24 hours. This is because it will very quickly become blackwater when stored, as pathogens multiply and unpleasant smells can be emitted. This problem can be overcome in relation to toilet flushing by a timing device on the holding tank that automatically sends unused water through an overflow pipe back to the sewer every 24 hours.93
3.185 Greywater reuse seems to intuitively appeal to people who are interested in conserving water because it is water under their control and regardless of regulation they will take matters into their own hands, especially when they observe the volumes that are being wasted. Witnesses complained that accurate information is not always readily available to make people aware of the potential health and environmental risks so they can take precautions to minimise or eliminate those risks.
3.186 The Committee was told that the key to overcoming barriers to greywater reuse is for health departments to formulate guidelines for safe usage.94 Local governments are reluctant to act autonomously, especially where risks to public health are involved, and they require a higher authority to advise them.95 There is a role for the Commonwealth to coordinate a process where agreement is reached between the various health and environment departments on how best greywater reuse can be managed.96 Unless this is done, the current state of uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable greywater reuse will continue and a valuable resource will continue to be wasted.
90 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 407. 91 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 420-421; Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 306. 92 Professor Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 278. 93 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 314. 94 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 407 95 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 230-231. 96 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 38. 105
3.187 The Committee visited two properties that included greywater recycling in their operation. One was Michael Mobbs’ sustainable house in Chippendale, Sydney that recycled the combined blackwater and greywater flows from a single household (see Chapter 5 for more detail), and the other was the Inkerman Oasis development, outlined below.
Inkerman Oasis, St Kilda, Melbourne
3.188 The Inkerman Oasis housing project in Inkerman Street, St Kilda, is a multi- unit residential development that will combine domestic greywater and stormwater recycling when it is completed in 2003.
3.189 Greywater from 50 per cent of the units’ bathroom basins, baths and showers will undergo primary treatment in an activated sludge (aeration) tank, before passing through a 400 square metre wetland and sand filter using sub-ground filtration and absorption. First flush roof and ground flow stormwater will also be captured and cleaned through the wetlands and sand filter.
3.190 The treated water will be used for both below ground garden irrigation and toilet flushing across the development. The water for toilet flushing will receive tertiary treatment through a microfiltration and ultraviolet disinfection unit.
3.191 Potable water requirements for the development will be reduced by up to 45 per cent, sewer loadings will be reduced through the reuse of greywater and nutrients from the greywater will prevent the need for fertiliser applications and also avoid such their presence in stormwater run-off from the site. Agricultural and horticultural reuse 3.192 The use of recycled water for agriculture is probably the one at the forefront of public consciousness. It seems to solve two problems at once: how to sustain irrigation dependent agriculture; and what to do with nutrient rich wastewater.
3.193 The major advantage of this approach is that by using these water waters, it saves money that would otherwise be spent on upgrading a wastewater treatment plant to comply with requirements for reduced nutrient discharges into receiving waters. Using the effluent for agriculture puts the nutrients onto the land where they can be taken up by plants, simultaneously reducing or eliminating the need for fertiliser inputs.
3.194 Agricultural reuse of sewage effluent is already widespread in rural locations, with 28 per cent of total water reuse occurring in the agricultural industries. However, there are several key issues in relation to implementing such schemes:97
• the proximity of the water supply to crops;
97 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 59. 106
• water storage requirements; • land availability in dedicated reuse schemes; • the environmental effects of effluent use; and • crop choices. 3.195 Where there are no suitable crops in the vicinity of a sewage treatment plant, the costs of building pipes, together with the ongoing costs of pumping, may defeat the economic viability of a reuse scheme. At the same time, the high overall energy requirements may negate any net environmental benefits.
3.196 The major difficulty with agricultural use is that many crops only require water for a certain proportion of the year and yet treated effluent from municipal schemes is available all year round. This means that alternative uses must be found for the water, or the water must be stored until it is needed again.
3.197 Sugar cane has been identified as a good crop to be grown with reclaimed water. One of the reasons for this is that sugar is a processed product and does not require as high a quality water as that required for crops that are eaten raw. Mr Waldron from Wide Bay Water advises that sugar cane yields for crops grown with reclaimed water increased by approximately 50 per cent per hectare.98 However, sugar cane only requires water for 5 months and only grows in Queensland and approximately halfway down NSW. This example illustrates the point that agricultural reuse needs to be site specific.
3.198 Mr Waldron identified trees as being one of the best crops for taking up water; and turf farms are useful as they can use water all year round.
3.199 There are other costs for prospective rural water recyclers, who in addition to capital infrastructure requirements to access the water, must also develop an environmental management plan, agreed to by the EPA.99 While these are clearly a necessary precaution, it is important that procedures to implement agreements are not so onerous as to become a disincentive to using the water.
3.200 If reclaimed water use replaces dependence on stretched river or groundwater systems it is likely there will be environmental benefit. However the danger is that by artificially deflating the cost of reclaimed water to encourage its use, agriculture will expand into regions that would not otherwise be promoted. This can result in increasing sediment and agricultural chemical loads downstream. For example, much of the sediment that is threatening the ecosystems of Moreton Bay, comes from agricultural areas upstream of Brisbane. It is also the case with the Great Barrier Reef where sediment and agricultural runoff is a threat to the health of the reef. Once industries are established it is very difficult politically to shut them down.
98 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 202. 99 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 202 and 213. 107
3.201 The Committee is concerned that such increases in negative environmental effects should not be permitted because of an expansion in reclaimed water use. As for any new venture, strict environmental assessment must be done to gauge the sustainability of the project.
3.202 Two agricultural reuse schemes are considered below.
Wide Bay Water, Sugar Cane irrigation 3.203 Irrigation of sugar with recycled water in Hervey Bay, Queensland, offers a good example of how these schemes can operate.
3.204 In 1998 Hervey Bay became the first region in Australia to reuse almost 100 per cent of its wastewater thereby eliminating the cost of providing tertiary sewage treatment and an ocean outfall.100 The water is used to irrigate cane farms, golf courses, a turf farm, airport and tea tree plantation, and more than 100 hectares of pasture and native trees.
3.205 Wide Bay Water built large storage dams to disinfect the secondary treated effluent by exposing it to 30 days of sunlight.101 This saved on the cost of installing tertiary treatment systems at the sewage plant.
3.206 The greatest cost in establishing the Wide Bay Water effluent reuse scheme was the capital cost to introduce it. After research showed that sugar cane would be the most suitable crop to make use of the effluent, approximately 50 per cent of the capital works cost was paid by the sugar industry. The State Government contributed funding and the Hervey Bay City Council paid approximately one-third of the cost. For the first 10 years of the scheme, the sugar industry pays only operational costs for the water. At the end of this period, a pricing structure to take account of such things as depreciation will be worked out.
3.207 Mr Waldron made the point that although Wide Bay Water incurs higher unit costs per megalitre of treated sewage as a consequence of the reuse scheme, Hervey Bay has not attracted the high cost to the environment that would have been incurred by dumping effluent into the sea.102
Virginia Pipeline, South Australia 3.208 The Committee visited the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant that treats approximately 55 per cent of Adelaide’s wastewater before discharging it to Gulf St Vincent. As part of the Environment Improvement Program to address the quality of effluent discharges to Gulf St Vincent, the plant was upgraded.
100 Wide Bay Water, Submission 20. 101 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 205 and 211. 102 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 202. 108
3.209 Effluent that has undergone secondary treatment is stored in lagoons for a minimum of 16 days and is then further treated in a Dissolved Air Flotation and Filtration (DAFF) plant. It is then piped to the vegetable growing region of the Northern Adelaide Plains for use by the growers whose demand for groundwater was exceeding the natural recharge rate of local aquifers in the area. It is anticipated that 50 to 70 per cent of Bolivar’s output will eventually be used for irrigation.
3.210 Currently growers have contracted for 19,658 megalitres of treated effluent per year.103 Actual use is dependent on the facilities in place to utilise the product plus climatic conditions. Since the scheme commenced, the volumes of water used have been:
1999/2000 6,446 ML
2000/2001 10,327 ML
2001/2002 7,017 ML (to Feb 2002)
3.211 The scheme is also testing an aquifer storage and recovery initiative where excess water that is not required by the growers, for example in winter, can be stored in aquifers to be pumped to the surface when required.
3.212 The pipeline cost $22 million, $7.15 million of which was provided under a BOOT104 contract with SA Water that expires in January 2018. The Building Better Cities program contributed $8.15 million and SA Water $6.7 million. The project has more than 240 customers, who pay 9.5 cents per kilolitre in summer, 7.5 c/kL in shoulder and 5.0 c/kL in winter under their initial contracts. Future contracts will be at market rates.
3.213 Because much of the produce of the area is to be exported, it was imperative that stringent standards were adhered to in relation to the water so as not to jeopardise overseas markets for product from the area. The water supplied is rated Class A Reclaimed Water and complies with the national guidelines for the use of reclaimed water making it safe for direct irrigation on food and salad crops. Comparisons show that the reclaimed water is of a higher, more reliable quality than most surface waters used in irrigation anywhere in Australia.
3.214 Continuous monitoring of water quality is a feature of the scheme, which also demands that the health authorities be notified if there is any disruption to the water treatment process and immediate shutdown of the supply of water until normal operations resume.
3.215 To safeguard the region’s soils, research and education programs have commenced with the support of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources
103 SA Water, Submission 78. 104 Build, Own, Operate, Transfer 109
SA, the University of Adelaide, the Horticulture Research Development Corporation and the Natural Heritage Trust.
3.216 To participate in the scheme, growers must use good irrigation practices and soil management especially as the salinity of the reclaimed water is higher than that of the groundwater in the area. A best practice farming program has been started which aims to assist growers improve their performance. It involves workshops on soils, irrigation techniques, salinity and plant nutrition and demonstrations of techniques to achieve improved but sustainable crop growth and yields.
3.217 In recognition of potential environmental issues, the scheme is subject to a South Australian Environment Protection Agency license and an authorised irrigation management plant that deals with the issues of environmental monitoring.
Sewer mining 3.218 As previously mentioned, one of the limiting factors in establishing markets for reclaimed water is the proximity of users of the water to the sewage treatment plant. This difficulty can be overcome by a technique known as sewer mining, which involves taking raw sewage from the sewer and treating it on-site in a miniature version of a treatment plant. However, the unit cost of treating water in this manner is higher than at larger scale treatment plants, and higher too than the cost of potable water. In these cases there is no incentive to move to sewer mining as a source of water supply unless water restrictions imposed during hot dry periods make water unavailable,105 or the costs of potable water increase significantly.
3.219 The Committee inspected two of these sewer mining facilities: one in Canberra at Southwell Park and the other at Kings Domain in Melbourne. Both utilised the latest technology to produce a high quality water suitable for watering playing fields and parks close to the plants.
Southwell Park watermining facility
3.220 The Southwell Park Watermining Facility is a cut-down version of Canberra’s major sewage treatment plant, the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre (LMWQCC), and it is operated remotely from that plant. The local electricity and water authority, ACTEW, chose the site based on the stable sewage supply from the local suburb, and the close proximity of playing fields that could be irrigated with the reclaimed water.
3.221 From the outside the plant looks quite small, and in fact it was designed to be very visually unobtrusive. However, it is much larger inside as the bulk of the development is underground. An additional part of keeping the plant unobtrusive is the use of air scrubbers which ensure that no odours reach the outside.
105 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 54. 110
3.222 This facility cost $2 million and a large part of the expense was from the excavation required to place the majority of the facility underground. Production costs for the reclaimed water are approximately 50 per cent higher than for potable water available through the mains.106
3.223 The treatment process in the facility works as follows:
• sewage is taken from the sewer; • a screen keeps the larger solids out of the treatment system; • lime is added to assist treatment; • smaller solids are separated from the water by allowing them to settle; • all the solids are returned to the sewer; • soluble impurities and ammonia are removed by biological treatment; • microfiltration removes fine solids and bacteria (the first health protection barrier); and • disinfection kills any remaining bacteria (the second health protection barrier). 3.224 All solids are returned to the sewer to be treated at LMWQCC, so there is no solids treatment and disposal at Southwell Park.
3.225 The watermining facility provides water of a high enough quality for irrigating the playing fields of Southwell Park. It is also of high enough quality to be potentially used around the home for garden watering or car washing.
3.226 Protecting the health of the public was a major consideration in the design and operation of the facility and the plant uses two disinfection processes working in combination, which satisfy the strict standards of the ACT Department of Health.
3.227 ACTEW identified the need for steady reuse opportunities as a significant barrier in the proliferation of sewer mining schemes. When reclaimed water is used for irrigating sports fields it is not needed during winter or when it rains. The reclaimed water could be stored in underground tanks, but in the case of the Southwell Park facility, such tanks were prohibitively expensive to construct. When the Committee visited the site in winter, sewage continued to be treated but the cleansed water was being returned to the sewer to enable the equipment to continue to run even though the reclaimed water was not needed.
3.228 ACTEW subsidises the cost of this project as a demonstrator to encourage uptake of reclaimed water use.
106 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 54. 111
King’s Domain sewer mining
3.229 The Committee visited Melbourne Water’s sewer mining trial in the King’s Domain gardens in Melbourne. The aim of the trial is to demonstrate that water from sewers can be successfully recycled and used to irrigate parks and gardens. It is also expected to provide useful information that will guide decisions on how Melbourne Water will achieve its target for recycling 20 per cent of its water.
3.230 The demonstration plant was particularly configured to both reduce nutrients in the recycled water to prevent pollution of Melbourne’s waterways and Port Phillip Bay, and to control the salt and major ion levels that could harm the botanical assets of the gardens.
3.231 The on-site recycling plant is housed in a portable shipping container. Raw sewage is pumped from the sewer main, screened and fine screened with all particulates larger than 3 mm returned to the sewer. A membrane bioreactor reduces organics and removes particles in the product water down to 0.04 micron using an aerobic biological treatment process coupled with an ultrafiltration separation membrane. The product water is then preconditioned for a reverse osmosis treatment by filtering, UV disinfection and descaling. Reverse osmosis reduces nutrients, pathogens and salts to acceptable levels.
3.232 The plant can produce 30,000 litres per day of high quality recycled water, at a cost of 1.4 cents per litre. The recycled water, which is used to irrigate one hectare of the King’s Domain gardens, exceeds Victoria’s Class A requirements, and makes it suitable for high contact end uses, such as residential garden watering.
3.233 These two examples of sewer mining show that there is a clear potential to substitute potable water with recycled water on a large scale, but there are obvious cost constraints that need to be addressed.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery 3.234 A technique with growing use in Australia is that of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), which involves injecting water (often either stormwater or recycled water) back into the underground aquifers using one of three main methods: injection wells, infiltration basins and bank filtration.107 The water remains in the aquifer until it is needed, whereupon it can be pumped back out again.
3.235 ASR offers two particular advantages to the practical problems that occur in storing water from recycling operations, or harvested from stormwater. Firstly, where the water source is recycled water, utilities have the problem that the supply of recycled water from a city is almost constant, but agricultural uses for that water vary across the year:
107 Department for Water Resources, South Australia, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in South Australia, Fact Sheet 2. 112
The effluent is there 365 days a year. Irrigation is not required for a lot of these sorts of crops for significant proportions of the year, either because of natural rainfall or because the climate is not good enough to grow the crop. For example, the irrigation season for grapes is very short but the effluent is there the whole time, so ASR and other things have to be looked at in terms of storing the winter flows so that they can be used more in the summer.108
3.236 Secondly, in parts of Australia such as Perth with a ‘Mediterranean climate’ where most of the rainfall occurs in short intense events, huge above ground rainwater tanks would be required to store the water. There are obvious advantages in using natural aquifers to store the water, instead of tank construction (although this is less of an issue in south-eastern Australia where the rainfall occurs in numerous smaller events, making above-ground storage much more cost effective).
3.237 In either case, ASR also has the capacity to purify water as well as store it. Research has found that many pathogens that survive the disinfection process at water treatment plants quickly die-off once introduced into the groundwater system.109
3.238 ASR is increasingly being used in South Australia with fifteen projects currently in operation using around one gigalitre, with a further nine under consideration.110
3.239 The widespread use of ASR in South Australia is also likely to ease the pressure on aquifers in the Virginia region (referred to previously) where the extractions for irrigation had reached unsustainable levels leading to a cone of depression in the aquifer that was not being replenished, with groundwater receding to 55 metres below its natural level. Injecting class A treated water back into the aquifer therefore both relieves some of the demand pressures from irrigation and prevents discharge of nutrient rich wastewater to the sensitive Gulf St Vincent.111
3.240 Ultimately the project to store reclaimed water from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant aims to encompass the entire winter excess of 10GL112 with the long term potential to store many times this amount.113
108 Mr Ringham, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 484. 109 Government of South Australia, Aquifer storage and recovery trial using reclaimed water, briefing sheet, p 4. 110 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 18. See also Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, Mr Allen, p 461. 111 Department for Water Resources, South Australia, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in South Australia, Fact Sheet 2. 112 Department for Water Resources, South Australia, Aquifer Storage and Recovery trial using reclaimed water, Fact Sheet 2. 113 Department for Water Resources, South Australia, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in South Australia, Fact Sheet 2. 113
Industrial reuse 3.241 Industrial use of reclaimed water can overcome the difficulties associated with agricultural reuse: it is used year round and concentrates use in one facility.
3.242 Thirty-two per cent of current water reuse occurs in the mining industry, with a further 5 per cent in the electricity and gas industry; 3 per cent in the metals industry; and 3 per cent in other industries.114 In many instances, the company will fund its own treatment plant so that it can reuse water on site.
3.243 In relation to Sydney Water’s industrial reuse programs, Ms Howe told the Committee:
as far as major use of effluent from a sewage treatment plant, that there are two different types of programs. Steel making is of course a big one. We have a 20-million litre per day contract signed with BHP in the Illawarra to recycle water. It will kick in in 2003. Paper manufacturing and cogeneration facilities are prime candidates for large volumes of recycled water and offer significant opportunities. Many times they are cost effective in their own right so they happen.115
3.244 As always proximity can present a barrier to reclaimed water uptake.116
3.245 The Committee received little information on industrial reuse around Australia, however one example is at Luggage Point in Brisbane.
Luggage Point Wastewater Treatment Plant, water reclamation project 3.246 BP Oil’s Bulwer Island Refinery in Queensland underwent a $500 million upgrade to produce low sulphur fuels which had the effect of increasing its daily water demand from five megalitres to ten megalitres. To cater for this increase, Brisbane City Council constructed a 14 megalitres per day dual membrane filtration plant treating secondary effluent from the Luggage Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3.247 The company now uses the reclaimed water in cooling systems, fire water and for steam generation in the refinery, resulting in a major reduction in its demand for potable water. Brisbane City Council is considering expanding the scheme to other users in the future. Barriers to water reuse 3.248 The main barriers to water recycling identified by witnesses are cost, price differentials, health issues, public acceptance and a lack of leadership. However, it is also relatively early days so far as the various State water recycling strategies are
114 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 59. 115 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 183. 116 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 54. 114 concerned and use of reclaimed water is set to significantly increase over the next few years.
3.249 It is self evident that there is enormous potential in Australia to improve on our current levels of reused water from urban centres for domestic, irrigation and industrial uses. At the moment though recycling is currently limited to niche markets such as market gardens, land utilised for recreation and some industrial processes. Limiting factors such as prevailing weather conditions, location of land within catchments and more viable economic alternatives for customers also limit the ability of water businesses to pursue reuse.117 Cost and price differentials 3.250 As this chapter has shown, the technology to recycle water exists but in some circumstances it is very expensive. Recycled water cannot compete on price with users who are currently using either groundwater or stream water because those sources of water are so cheap.118 On top of the treatment costs are the relatively high costs of distributing and storing the treated effluent.119
3.251 Mr Harvey from VicWater identified the price differential between potable water and treated effluent, as well as security of supply, as being the two most important influences on water reuse. Without a real or significant price differential, there is little incentive to take up reuse schemes on a commercial basis as most schemes involve some infrastructure costs to establish. Lack of understanding 3.252 Current arrangements relating to supply of water and wastewater services for towns and cities are fundamentally focussed on ensuring the health of populations. It is paramount that these health considerations are maintained even as there are increasing moves towards greater water reuse. Even when effluent is treated to a high quality, health authorities and the community need to be satisfied that adequate protection of public health is being taken care of before extensive reuse will be possible.120
3.253 However, the community does not have a good understanding of the ability to treat used water to produce high quality water that can be safely used for most purposes up to and including drinking:
117 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, p 41. 118 Mr Young, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 330. 119 Mr Wills, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 452. 120 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, p 41. 115
The community has little knowledge of water quality and treatment. We don’t even know the difference between wastewater and effluent or a bacterium and a virus.121
3.254 In many parts of Australia people already drink effluent when their water supply is downstream of a sewage treatment plant, but this relationship is not given prominence, and there is not sufficient understanding of the water cycle to bring it home to many:
I think there is a sort of wilful blindness thing; we do not want to think too much about that. The concentration tends to be on recovering natural flows from dam storages and other diversions rather than treating wastewater to potable standards. I think we are probably 40 or 50 years ahead of getting to that culturally. … I would have thought in Australia now there is generally an acceptance that we have sufficient water—fresh potable supplies, whether partially treated or not. There are lots of other things we should be doing to cease using potable or to improve our use of wastewater so that we cut down potable use.122
3.255 People’s lack of understanding of water issues is on many occasions reinforced by the media. The Committee was told that an ill-informed media pounce on recycling opportunities and can often ‘kill off’ projects123 and the evidence of sensational reporting of water reuse is not difficult to find. The Sunshine Coast Environment Council notes that:
water quality issues have the potential to form strong, negative headline material, which has great attraction to the media. It is easy to generate emotive, scaremongering headlines. The water industry does little, if anything, to counteract this; it is at best reactive, rarely proactive. It sometimes gives the impression of being ‘caught out’.124
3.256 Mrs Simpson suggests that there are gaps in our knowledge, especially about health issues. As a consequence, water managers find it difficult (and are therefore reluctant) to explain hazard, risk, risk assessment and risk management to the community.125
3.257 However, an understanding of risk and the management of it, is a fundamental part of assessing the feasibility of reuse opportunities. The conventional approach is one of risk aversion that ensures potable water is used for all purposes, used once and then disposed. This approach may not provide the best allocation of resources. According to the Australian Water Association:
121 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 2. 122 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 319. 123 Brisbane City Council, Submission 28. 124 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 2. 125 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 3. 116
If we treat all “potable” water supplies to ensure the maximum possible reduction of risk to public health, including addressing emerging concerns such as endocrine disruptors, then we run the risk of “over-treating” some 95% of the water. In the interests of sustainability, we have to ask whether this sort of expenditure of limited funds will result in the greatest net public health benefit.126
3.258 By understanding the risks associated with using different sources of water, there is greater opportunity to manage those risks and widen the choices available in water management. A corollary to this is the necessity of understanding the risk factors associated with innovation, which range from financial risk, through operational risk to, critically, human health and environmental risk lest the requirement to demonstrate an approach should get ahead of the science.127 Education 3.259 Improved urban water management will depend largely on the implementation of new programs and initiatives designed to increase individual and institutional awareness of water usage. Mrs Simpson, of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC), referred to the Australian community’s poor understanding of water matters, a factor that constitutes one of the greatest barriers to the adoption of more sustainable methods of managing water.
3.260 This ‘knowledge deficit’ also encompasses professionals such as government planners, architects, builders, and even many water managers. According to the Sunshine Coast Environment Council:
Much of what we think we know is negative and we are often wrong. This is because we haven’t been taughtit has never been part of a school curriculum and is covered in only a very limited number of specialised University courses. This lack of knowledge extends to senior members of Government Departments and elected representatives of the community who make decisions about water issues.128
3.261 There is a widespread lack of understanding of the natural water cycle, of the effect that urban water systems have on the environment, and of the need to manage water more sustainably. As Senator Tierney noted:
The average person turns on a tap and clean water comes out, and they press a button on the floor and it goes away. It is not an issue that is there at the centre of their lives.129
3.262 In fact, the general community seems oblivious to the subject.130
126 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 2. 127 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 9. 128 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 2. 129 Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 126. 117
3.263 A notable contrast is discernible between the attitudes of urban and rural dwellers towards water conservation:
In an agricultural community, every time it rains people know the tanks are being filled. They are more aware of it than are people in the city. People in the city believe, just as milk comes out of a carton, water comes out of the tap and that’s it.131
3.264 The negative consequences of little knowledge, scant incentive to learn and a fear of the unknown in the sphere of urban water management are that:
An uninformed community will have poorly formed opinions. This impedes change; the community has become dependent on water managers for provision of its water and management of its waste; and water managers presume the community is incapable of taking responsibility for itself.132
3.265 The so-called ‘community’ that needs to be educated about urban water management is not a single entity, but rather a four-part one: the broad community; the developer community; the design community; and the officials responsible for ensuring the implementation of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) policies and practices.133
3.266 Dr Essery, of the New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, is convinced that Australians must be provided with both the information and the tools necessary to enable them to make informed water use choices and decisions. This is crucial to the entire integrated water cycle planning approach.134 Germane to this approach is a wide-ranging educational undertaking supported by an information system containing the latest international and Australian water industry data. Information systems 3.267 Central to education are the issues of the amount, the quality and the transfer of information on water use and management. The focus and effectiveness of urban water systems are also important elements in the water usage debate. Although the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAPSWQ), for example, places a strong emphasis on disseminating information about water use, its urban coverage is selective. The NAPSWQ’s programs include the rural but exclude the major coastal cities within its regions.135
130 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 6. 131 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 166. 132 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 2. 133 Knox City Council, Submission 70, p 25. 134 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 187. 135 Ms Hunt, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 9. 118
3.268 Professor Troy, of the Australian National University’s Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, referred to an ‘alarming’ absence of spatially based information on water consumption, sewage production and stormwater run-off. He argues that it is possible to collect such information, the need for which is especially strong in urban areas, by preparing regular, spatially disaggregated statements of water consumption. Such data could be used in future water management planning.136 One leading water industry bodythe Australian Water Association (AWA)is concerned about the serious absence of basic technical data on urban water matters (for instance, comprehensive plans for the design of water reticulation systems); the availability of little empirical information on domestic water use; and the few sources containing this data.137 Environment Business Australia’s Mr Crockett, however, stated that a substantial body of knowledge relating to urban water management exists. He attributed the failure to use it more judiciously to the absence of an integrated national urban water strategy.138
3.269 Mr Ryan, of Perth’s Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, pointed to the lack of relevant quantitative data available for water planning in his area.139 The Secretary of the Perth Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee, Mr Hill, also referred to the poor standard of current information on the city’s water quality.140 Western Australia’s Water and Rivers Commission disputed this, however, describing its comprehensive water database as a sound source of baseline material.141 Information provided to the Commonwealth Government on water matters is not, in the AWA’s view, always as comprehensive or representative of industry opinion as it could be. To address this, the AWA advocated closer and more regular government consultation with industry peak bodies.142 The performance of such organisations in countering ill-informed media reports and information on water matters could also be improved.
3.270 A more coordinated approach to gathering, collating, processing, and sharing information between and within jurisdictions is essential to improved urban water management. Queensland’s water recycling strategythe first initiative of its kind in any Australian stateis an example of this form of information transfer. The Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland) (QEPA) developed this strategy in conjunction with industry over a three-year period during which past and current practice were investigated and gaps in present knowledge and patterns of water usage
136 Prof Troy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 27−8, 29; and Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 7. 137 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 138 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 575. 139 Mr Ryan, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 403. 140 Mr Hill, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 442. 141 Water and Rivers Commission, Submission 12a, p 1. 142 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 216. 119 identified.143 The need for a more sustained governmental and community effort has been emphasised by Mr Bruce of the Townsville City Council (TCC). In the case of stormwater, for instance:
Managing stormwater requires an integrated and collaborative approach … This may sound logical, but it is not necessarily well understood … Trialing difficult techniques and technology and sharing information on how to manage stormwater quality are of major benefit to all.144
3.271 The Townsville City Council conducted an urban stormwater quality management workshop in March 2001 aimed at promoting discussion and increasing knowledge and understanding of the subject. In individual states a clear determination is apparent at the local government level to ensure that ‘good information [gets] out there so we can learn from each other’s successes and not by our own mistakes’.145 On a national scale this function is performed to a degree by the Australian Water Association. The AWA, comprising some 3,500 individual and 500 institutional members, is primarily concerned with urban water and wastewater issues. Its emphasis is on the exchange of information and dialogue, rather than on reflecting all the views of a highly diverse membership.146 Information dissemination is also a major task of the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA), a twenty-one member body formed in 1995 to represent Australian urban water industry interests.147
3.272 A successful national initiative in sharing urban water management information and expertise is the WaterWise program in which all states (except South Australia) participate.
3.273 WaterWise Queensland was formed in 1993 by that state’s Department of Primary Industries and local authorities as a general and specialised education initiative. Its information programs have included training courses for members of Queensland’s Master Plumbers, Master Builders, and Nursery Industry Associations, as well as caravan industry stakeholders.
3.274 There is other evidence of fruitful information sharing at the local government level and between institutions and individual water management specialists. The Local Government Association of Queensland Inc has noted the increasing promotion by local councils of water demand management in the community.148 The Brisbane City Council (BCC), as part of the South Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, undertakes a prominent role in water saving and water efficiency.149 An important
143 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 138−9. 144 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 80. 145 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 362. 146 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 214. 147 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p i. 148 Local Government Association of Queensland Inc, Submission 56, p 1. 149 Mr Woolley, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 595−6. 120 means of achieving this is to provide access to the most current and comprehensive sources of water management information.
3.275 Representatives of Environment ACT referred to a Canberra example of government-community-private sector cooperation in creating a wetland. The knowledge and experience gained has been shared with other urban jurisdictions, and employed in establishing and improving wetlands in Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide.150 Information transfer is also occurring between major water provision stakeholders and key research organisations in the field. The BCC, for instance, works closely with urban water experts at the University of Newcastle, the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, and the CSIRO’s Urban Water Program.151 Problems with information exchange 3.276 Despite the interchange taking place, the process of collaboration is being handicapped by the absence of ‘formalised structures’,152 as well as an unsatisfactory amount of direct cooperation between the Commonwealth and state governments and local authorities. Councillor Ferrara, of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), emphasised ‘the complexity of the issues involved, and the need for better coordination and integration of information gathering and distribution, research, planning, legislation and expenditure’.
3.277 The need for an Australia-wide water management approach resting on more effective use of existing information and improved education has been explained by Mr Crockett:
If we had a clear statement of what constitutes an agreed national strategy for achieving ecologically sustainable development in the urban water context and more broadly, it would be a challenge to get people to apply this knowledge. Often the people who have the most knowledge are those who are too busy or otherwise not capable of influencing decision makers. The answer is that we all have to work together in an integrated way and no one discipline has an adequate knowledge to make these things advance.153
Conclusions 3.278 More effective Commonwealth Government coordination of water information gathering and transfer is highly desirable. This could best be achieved if the state and local tiers of government cooperate with their federal counterpart to establish mechanisms aimed at ensuring efficient collection, collation, processing and sharing of information within and between jurisdictions.
150 Ms Fowler and Mr Wilkinson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 556. 151 Mr Woolley, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 598. 152 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 145. 153 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 575. 121
Government 3.279 According to Mr Oliver and Mrs Simpson of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, the ‘dialogue’ about water usage and infrastructure has for too long been unsatisfactory,154 chiefly because the issue of water quality is not well understood by Australians.155 While there is no single solution to this problem,156 governments, community groups and individuals, educational institutions and industry all have a role to play in increasing understanding of water management through education.
Commonwealth 3.280 Elements of the Council of Australian Government (COAG) National Water Reform Framework (1994)the principal vehicle for Commonwealth water reform policies157and the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), display a substantial commitment to water management education. The example of Landcare, which has demonstrated a capacity to alter community attitudes to conservation, is an instructive one.158 However, financial and technical problems have emerged in community group implementation of the NWQMS initiatives.159 The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) reflect a strong Commonwealth recognition of the significance of education in relation to water resource management. The NHT funded River Murray schools education program, introduced in 2001 has the chief aim of educating school students about River Murray region water issues.160 Yet the NAPSWQ compass is selective. It excludes the main coastal cities and its remit should clearly be expanded.
3.281 The NHT-funded WaterWatch program consists of some 50,000 members across Australia. Its regional facilitators work with community groups and schools to improve awareness of water quality; to train individuals in water quality monitoring techniques; and to quantify and record the results, which are made available through the Internet to interested bodies and individuals.161 WaterWatch South Australia grew from ten groups in 1993 to over 260 in August 2001, when they were engaged in monitoring 565 sites in seven major catchments across the state.162
3.282 An example of a WaterWatch awareness-raising initiative is the Australian Junior Water Prize, produced in conjunction with the AWA and awarded annually to
154 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 128. 155 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 125. 156 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 14. 157 Victorian Water Industry Association, Submission 42, pp 4−5. 158 Ms Hunt, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 8−9. 159 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 4. 160 Mr Charter, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 487−8. 161 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 589. 162 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, pp iv and 16. 122 an individual or a secondary school for an outstanding water science project or piece of research.163
3.283 WaterWise, contrary to some received opinion, is more than a school education program.164 It provides guidance concerning the most efficient use of resources and concentrates on ‘the educative battle’ of altering the mind-set of local government officials responsible for delivering water related services.165 In Queensland, for example, the WaterWise campaign, launched in late 1992, now reaches 97 per cent of the population. Water usage is monitored by WaterWise through evaluations of specific programs and via studies of overall demand trends.
3.284 The Commonwealth is also in a position to address through education and legislation the issue of inadequate current labelling practices for household products destined ultimately for discharge to the sewer. Better identification of product content and improved product descriptionsimilar to that employed for food itemswould enable Australians to make more informed purchasing decisions, thus increasing the number of sustainable water reuse options.166 Another desirable innovation in water industry education and practice would be the introduction of national standards of design and manufacture for items such as septic tanks. This would result in a more consistent approach to construction and better use of water as a natural resource.167
State 3.285 A good example of the potential for state education programs is provided by the QEPA. Its initiatives include organising seminars for members of peak industry bodies; in partnership with local governments offering locally based seminars for the construction industry; and devising water advisory and practice manuals in collaboration with groups such as the Hotel Engineers Association of Queensland.168 The Committee considers these types of programs to be essential to achieving sustainability in urban water matters. As to the success of the QEPA’s schools program, Mr Wiskar stated that in schools exposed to QEPA water education courses, water use has declined.169 The NSW WaterWatch network incorporates Catchment Crawls into their program: environmental experts take WaterWatch volunteers from the top of a catchment, working their way to the bottom carrying out litter surveys, site and habitat assessments, water quality monitoring and water bug surveys.170
163 Leaflet, The Australian Junior Water Prize. 164 Mr Woolley, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 602. 165 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 140. 166 Robert A. Patterson (1999), Reuse Initiatives Start in the Supermarket, NSW Country Convention, Northern Group, Institution of Engineers Australia, Armidale. 167 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 316−17. 168 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 138. 169 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 143-4. 170 Sunday Telegraph, Crawl is key to health, 20 October 2002, p 107. 123
3.286 In South Australia several education projects are in place. The South Australian Government’s principal water quality education campaign is Watercare. It comprises Watercare I and II (primary school students) and III (Certificate of Education students) and includes subjects in the fields of natural resources management and environmental science.171 However, the Committee notes that overall, the South Australia Water Corporation, which determines the amount of money allocated for water use education, allocates less than 0.02 per cent of its budget to educating South Australians about water usage.172
3.287 In Victoria, VicWater’s extension activities include its work as a member of the Victorian Water Week Coordinating Committee.173 In July 2002, the Western Australian Government announced that a number of community forums would be convened across the state to discuss Western Australia’s water situation, culminating in a Water Symposium held at Parliament House, Perth, in October.174
Local 3.288 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Council’s submission emphasised the central role that local government can play in providing a forum for environmental cooperation in a regional context.175 Mr Gellibrand, of Sydney Water, indicated how education could assist in solving the key problems bedevilling a major water management areastormwater:
Sydney Water has responsibility for some stormwater management inside Sydney. Outside of that, the responsibility is central to local government. From our experience in dealing with local government, the level of expertise and performance in managing stormwater is quite variable: some councils are cutting-edge experts that are leading the debate and the development of water sensitive urban designs while others do not acknowledge it. So you have quite significant extremes. Certainly from my experience, the limited number of professionals move from council to council according to the most interesting thing happening and the best paid jobs, but they do not seem to be becoming more numerous. So there is a shortage of properly trained and expert people in stormwater management.176
3.289 A culture prevails in many local councils whereby the option of treating stormwater for reuse is rejected in preference to disposing of it as quickly as
171 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 16. 172 Ms Howe and Mr Williams, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 481−2. 173 Victorian Water Industry Association, Submission 42, p 11. 174 Sunday Times, Perth, Water tax may hit $205, 13 Oct 02, p 21. 175 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd, Submission 62, p 11. 176 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 171. 124 possible.177 A similar perception often characterises local authority attitudes to the utilisation of technology in water management. As Associate Professor Wong argues:
We talk about the technology being there and perhaps … being able to convince all councils to start to change their planning requirements and planning law. What will still be required is sufficient funding to ensure that there is capacity within councils to understand the technology and to assess development based around the new technology. So perhaps, in one sense, this is about the dissemination of the technology that we have, and the handful of really good consultants that we have, back to council offices. I think that is going to be the one issue that will ultimately lead to a widespread adoption. It is about providing councils with the capacity to review these things.178
3.290 The optimal use of technology will indeed be essential to successful future water management, but only as part of well-informed, more broadly-based solutions.179
3.291 Mr Baltais, representing the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (Bayside Branch), referred to a lack of knowledge of pollutants on the part of local council officers and builders, and to a failure to appreciate the importance of environmental monitoring of development projects.180 To emphasise the degree to which litter is a community problem, the City of Port Phillip aims to empty its gross pollutant traps during busy parts of the day so that people can observe what is collected by these units and thus better comprehend the consequences of littering.181
3.292 Local government consultation with community groups as a vehicle for educating people about water matters has resulted in a measure of success. Through groups of volunteers the Townsville City Council pursues educational activities dealing with water quality issues as part of its obligations under state government environmental legislation.182 Similarly, the Brisbane City Council has instituted an ‘Integrated Water Management Strategy’ to better focus its water administration and education efforts.183
3.293 The City of Port Phillip has taken this further as one of five Australian local councils to participate in the pilot Water Campaign implemented by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It has also established the Sustainable Living at Home Program to facilitate education in fields such as water conservation
177 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 12. 178 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 276. 179 Mr Russell Cadman, Submission 22, p 10. 180 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 110−11. 181 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 358. 182 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, pp 83−4. 183 Brisbane City Council, Submission 28. 125 and purchasing.184 In South Australia, the River Murray Urban Users Committee (RMUUC) devised an action plan that identifies and supports collaboration with local government in areas including education through, for example, the Water Conservation Partnership Project.185 Community groups and individuals 3.294 In the area of water management ‘community education is really important … Working with the community is critical’,186 because ‘you cannot get very far if you do not have an educated community’.187 In the case of a major constituent of water resource managementstormwaterthe only means of persuading the public of its value is through education.188 The Stormwater Industry Association (SIA) stresses that community understanding of stormwater can be enhanced by fostering a view of stormwater as a valuable part of the urban water cycle.189 Dr Essery argues that, instead of concentrating on the technological means (for example, gross pollutant traps) of addressing undesirable water outcomes, more is to be gained from education in, or ‘end-user understanding’ of, the effects of factors like litter.190 In similar fashion, CDS Technologies, which manufactures gross pollution traps, stresses the need for a dual approach combining education and pollution control devices.191
3.295 Mr Oliver identifies three audiences for community water education programs: those engaged in water management; people interested but not directly involved in the work of catchment groups, community organisations, or wildlife preservation societies; and the uninterested and uninvolved.192
3.296 Education must be focused on specialist groups like builders as well as consumers. A representative of the Housing Industry Association (HIA), when discussing its GreenSmart campaign, referred to:
… the education component of GreenSmart: as much as we can educate the builders, we certainly need to get that message out to consumers. That is what drives best practice. If you have an aware consumer looking for
184 City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, pp 4−6. 185 River Murray Urban Users Committee, Submission 32a, p 1. 186 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 83. 187 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 121. 188 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 109. 189 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 166. 190 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 188. 191 CDS Technologies, Submission 63, p 2. 192 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 118. 126
GreenSmart product, then it is very easy to provide that product for themand that is the message of GreenSmart.193
3.297 A major problem confronting environmental agencies and educators is public ignorance of ‘environmental values’:
They are manifestly failing because the community does not know what environmental value iscouldn’t care lessand it is an extremely vague term that nobody can define. They cannot ask the right questions because the level of knowledge in the community is not there. They cannot actually ask a question to get a sensible answer … uninformed people have uninformed opinions.194
3.298 Education will almost certainly result in a population that is more informed and knowledgeable about urban water management. Nevertheless, the little-discussed question of the significance of a water usage education campaign in comparison with that of other public education campaigns, such as that relating to drug use, needs to be further explored. According to Senator Tierney:
There are a whole lot of community education programs on a whole range of things … Why should this become a top-of-the-head issue for people compared with every other community message we are trying to get through at the moment.195
3.299 The Sunshine Coast Environment Council, after pointing out that past attempts at water education have been confined to matters of water quantity and demand management, offered the following advice on the development, form and content of future education programs. They:
• must be factual and impartial to enable people to reach their own conclusions on the subject; • they should be entertaining and fun; • must cater for all learning styles, all levels and all ages in the community; • should be delivered with skill, imagination and enthusiasm; • must be provided well in advance of any consultation on specific local issues; and 196 • should be adequately funded. 3.300 A principal aim of groups like the Sunshine Coast Environment Council is to educate and alter the environmental outlooks of water industry managers by ensuring that the general public becomes better informed about water matters.
193 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 261. 194 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 121. 195 Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 125−6. 196 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 4. 127
3.301 One AWA member rated the importance of water education so highly as to warrant the appointment of a full-time officer responsible for this task and for the development of a national water education strategy.197 Cultural change, such as a transformation in perceptions of stormwater, from being a useless and disposable commodity to a treatable and reusable one, will clearly take time.198 Mr Head, representing the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), spoke of the necessity of persuading people to regard urban rivers and creeks as significant land use and landscape elements, and not as drains. This attitudinal change, along with that concerning dual-flush toilets and differently-shaped shower roses, will occur only over a long period. 199
3.302 Dr Essery cited an example of a New South Wales effluent reuse scheme in which the community was willing to pay up to 25 per cent more for sewerage services. He referred also to a water reduction scheme where the public was prepared to greatly exceed the expected demand management and to pay more for water. ‘People will pay for it if they understand whythat is crucial’.200 Community education and consultation were essential to the success of both initiatives.
3.303 As well as advertising campaigns and schools based education, an effective means of reaching the community is to make use of existing networks of community groups and to persuade the public in that way:
The sort of thinking that we are trying to engender is for people to look at not dealing just with the crust of the community, the people who are exposed to issues, but looking to the other people, the uninterested and uninvolved, and providing benefit to the networks that allow you access to that part of the community.201
3.304 A notable instance of this form of community engagement is the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group Inc, whose main area of concern is stormwater management in the Australian Capital Territory. Whether working with government, the community or industry, the Group involves the public at all levels of catchment management; bases its planning directly on community consultation outcomes; coordinates the successful integration of stakeholders through a process of shared decision-making; facilitates agreement on objectives and actions; and incorporates the expertise of specialists in its initiatives so as to ensure the latter’s technical and practical feasibility.202
197 Mrs McGregor, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 119−20. 198 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 12. 199 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 38. 200 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 189. 201 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 123. 202 Ms Gilles, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 55−6. 128
3.305 A similar undertaking is the community-driven Seagrass Watch program on Queensland’s south-eastern coast, a cooperative effort between the Bayside Branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, the Moreton Bay Alliance, state government agencies and several community organisations.203 According to Professor Bursill, Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality and Treatment, community consultation is now regarded as an important component of the water education and planning processes, one ignored or underestimated at a price. Such consultation, in order to be effective however, must rest on the best possible understanding of the known facts of each case.204
3.306 The Victorian Government in its development of a a long-term water resources plan for Greater Melbourne followed this approach. By generating an informed discussion in the wider community, it aims to build general community understanding of water issues, leading to greater consensus, and support for decision making.205
3.307 Other considerations should be borne in mind when discussing community consultation and education. The Sunshine Coast Environment Council contends that community consultation generally encompasses a small number of interested individuals. More effort is required to enable better communication of the water message to the large number of less interested members of the public. Also of concern is the fact that ‘during a consultation process about water issues people learn and often change their views. They are therefore no longer representative of the rest of the community. To extrapolate their views to the majority who have not been involved gives (sometimes disastrously) incorrect results’.206
3.308 In water management education ‘the learning experience needs to be interactive. It is not just a question of standing up in front of an audience and presenting to them. They need to get involved’.207 The Sunshine Coast Environment Council sought to devise a water education program which could be implemented jointly with large water infrastructure community consultation programs.208 Members of the SCEC, in partnership with the AWA, developed an education kit designed for use in schools. They found the public more receptive to the discussion of matters of water quantity than water quality.209 They also discovered an absence of a water focus in compulsory subjects, though the kit would be compatible with non-compulsory
203 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 104. 204 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 532−3. 205 Water Resources Strategy for the Melbourne Area Committee, Submission 57, p 1. 206 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 5. 207 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 123−4. 208 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 118. 209 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 116−17. 129
ones such as geography.210 This suggests a serious water education deficiency in the Queensland school curriculum.
3.309 However, evidence from the QEPA suggests otherwise. One of its representatives informed the Committee that it has developed curriculum-based resources accepted by Education Queensland and utilised in teaching numerous subjects:
… we have spent a lot of time, money and effort putting those resources together and they link into all areas of English, science, maths and the arts. I have even got a home economics module which talks about water efficiency. From my experience it certainly can fit into a whole range of school education parameters. So we have attacked it through those curriculum packages. We have also worked very closely with local governments in actually going out into schools, taking the education materials out to students and teachers and working in schools with teachers.211
3.310 There is ample evidence that community water management education is yielding benefits.212 The methods adopted and the results achieved in Dubbo, New South Wales, deserve attention:
In Dubbo, they have an enormous salinity problem. [It] is driven by the fact that people irrigate their lawns. There is no cost on water and no overuse cost, so everyone competed for the greenest lawn in town … What happened initially was they said, ‘Let’s put in a $1,000 levy.’ It did not stop anything. What was put in then was a moisture metre. They said, ‘We will put in this technology and we will recommend irrigation systems which will only turn on when the ground moisture requires it. You still finish up with the greenest lawn. Not only that, but it pays for itself in three years.’ That was an enormous success because they could see that there was a long-term economic gain.
Once again, with water, people will make their own decision in terms of putting in water tanks. Developers will put it as an on-cost to their development and the public at largeonce again, the proof of the exercise is probably in the leading township in water managements, Dubbowhen it was explained what was happening in regard to stormwater and water management, accepted an individual rate per lot, unanimously. And then the next year, they backed it up again, unanimously.
They went from a $50,000 allocation for stormwater management to $500,000 in one year because peopleif you explain it to them, if they see the reasoning behind it, and it is local so that they can see the investmenthave no real problem in paying for it. It will happen over time.
210 Mrs McGregor, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 119. 211 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 138. 212 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 285−6. 130
It will not be something that will happen overnight, but in 10 years it will happen. However, 10 years comes around very quickly if you do nothing.213
3.311 A number of projects set up under the first NHT program, such as the Clean Seas Program and the Living Cities Program, are also proving to be useful learning tools in the processes of public and specialist water management education.214 The City of Port Phillip informed the Committee of its EcoHouse initiative, which has involved the redevelopment of a former gardener’s cottage and gardens within the St Kilda Botanical Gardens. The purpose of the project is to establish a model of urban sustainability. The building comprises an open house and an office, allowing the public to study the available products and materials; to observe the recycling of stormwater in a practical manner; and to view recycling systems, water conservation appliances, water efficient gardens, and a composting toilet.215 It demonstrates the high priority attached by the Council to education in water issues.216
3.312 The success or otherwise of community education campaigns can only be determined with difficulty, given the high number of variables involved.217 Nevertheless, there is persuasive evidence to suggest that properly targeted public education campaigns can be an important agent for reform in addition to having a beneficial impact on water usage.218 It also seems to be clear that ‘overall education and communication requires well-prepared strategies, resources for implementation, a dedicated and sustained effort in communication, monitoring, and periodic review’.219 Educational institutions 3.313 Mr Head made the point that urban water management is a new and growing field.220 It is also an increasingly complex one. Australia’s experts in land use and engineering must be trained or, where necessary, retrained in the interconnectedness of relevant areas of knowledge and expertise:
We have this silo approach in the schools: we will teach you about land use planning but you do not need to know about water or, in the engineering school, we will teach you about water but you do not need to know anything about land use planning.221
213 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 158. 214 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 81. 215 For further detail, see Appendix 4 216 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354; and City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, p 5. 217 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 7. 218 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 14. 219 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 7. 220 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 38. 221 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 38. 131
3.314 At present, the CRC for Catchment Hydrology is the only Australian institution providing postgraduate level training specifically in water sensitive urban design, in which the key emphasis is on integrating freshwater ecology, landscape architecture, urban design, engineering hydrology, and urban stormwater quality.222
3.315 A central difficulty in the education and training spheres is geographical in origin:
Australia’s distance from a lot of other countries means it restricts the international knowledge transfer. It is notable that the training that is done in the water industry is isolated and perhaps has not taken account of international experience. The training industry associated with the water industry needs to be reformed.223
3.316 A recurring problem in education is that many key professional courses only provide training in specialist aspects without offering a more holistic overview of water management as a whole. Various witnesses raised this issue with the Committee.
3.317 Representatives of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects noted that a problem in the university education of its members is the failure to integrate urban design into mainstream teaching. Subjects such as water and sustainability are taught as electives, which are likely to be taken by students only if they fail to secure a place in a more ‘glamorous’ course.224
3.318 Similarly, the Director of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology, commented on the fragmented nature of much current tertiary training of professionals involved in water management,225 with a discernible ‘disconnect’ between the university training of engineers and environmental scientists. A joint approach to water management education and training is needed requiring contributions from engineers, scientists, economists, accountants and members of the community. The solutions to water problems ‘are all multidisciplinarythey go across the community and across the water cycle and there is a real need to expand the ability of professionals to understand all those components’.226
3.319 Professor Taylor, of the Planning Institute of Australia, argues that Australian urban planning is devoid of ‘a holistic approach’ that takes into account considerations of development or redevelopment. ‘In the education of planners, we seem to have lost that appreciation of the importance of biophysical context, and of cultural context as
222 Profs Mein and Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 276 and 277. 223 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 209. 224 Ms Owen and Mr Williams, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 347. 225 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 276. 226 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 171. 132 wellthe idea that we are actually planning for people in our cities’.227 This view has also been advanced at the local and federal levels of government.228
3.320 The present system of training engineers and planners does not appear to be conducive to a balanced and integrated approach to sound urban water management. In an attempt to address this, Macquarie University, supported by the Stormwater Industry Association, devised a postgraduate certificate course in stormwater management designed to meet the interdisciplinary needs of the industry by combining treatment of land use and scientific and engineering imperatives. The course has not proceeded. According to the Royal Australian Planning Institute and the Planning Institute of Australia, ‘what is needed, is improved research, education and training for professional[s] involved in the combined area[s] of land use planning and water/hydraulic engineering’.229
3.321 It is likely that there are limits to how far this problem can be addressed. Professor Tony Wong thought it too high an expectation to ask universities to skill their undergraduate students to the level required for implementing water sensitive urban design because of the interdisciplinary nature of the work. He argues that students’ time is best spent in acquiring a strong fundamental understanding of the basic concepts of urban water planning and management. ‘The way that the university conducts its undergraduate degrees is such that it is always going to be difficult to try and mesh those multi-disciplinary aspects together’.230
3.322 For education generally, the best time to begin changing attitudes towards water use and its wider management, according to Mr Williams, is at the primary and secondary levels of schooling. ‘That will probably change the demands in tertiary education. Spreading the message at a young age bears fruit further down the track’.231
3.323 A project of interest in the schools context is an initiative devised and implemented by the Ballarat Grammar School. Its Environmental Committee, and, more particularly, its Year 9 students, have established the Heinz Centre for Environmental Studies. This has proved a successful attempt to create a learning environment and to develop programs designed to foster the principles necessary for sustainable living. The three-year-old initiative is the result of collaboration with
227 Prof Taylor, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 38−9. 228 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 5. 229 Royal Australian Planning Institute/Planning Institute of Australia, Submission 61, p 3. 230 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 14. 231 Mr Williams, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 347. 133 several bodies, among them Greenhouse Australia, Ecorecycle Vic and the City of Ballarat.232
3.324 In its submission to the Committee, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council claims that:
The conservative attitude of water managers is often encouraged in University courses that do not question established practices and promote creative thinking. Universities could do more to promote a more liberal, dynamic approach to water management.233
3.325 In the realm of training, another consideration is assuming increasing significance. Victoria’s water industry, for example, has an ageing workforce, many of whom have spent their entire career in the industry. They are approaching retirement, and the need to train their successors in what will be a greater range of skills, is urgent. In response, VicWater has participated in the development of a national water training package aimed at improving future employees’ capacities through traineeships.234
3.326 Dr Stratton, a member of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, discussed the development of a tertiary qualification as a vehicle for training those whose task it is to educate individuals, members of the community and institutions about optimal water management. As she put it, ‘if we want people to go out there and be educating the community, school groups or whoever, we need to have trained peoplewe need to train the trainers’.235 Industry 3.327 Changing the work practices and skills of industry is also fundamental to any successful reforms, and there are several examples of how this can be effectively achieved.
3.328 The QEPA has undertaken significant work in collaboration with peak secondary industry organisations such as Commerce Queensland and the Australian Industry Group in an endeavour to improve water management practices. This activity includes offering locally based seminars for plumbers, builders and nursery employees.236 The HIA’s GreenSmart Awards to organisations and individuals for innovative building design and practice (much of which involves water management considerations); the GreenSmart Training and Accreditation course for builders;
232 Ballarat Grammar School, Environmental Committee, Heinz Centre for Environmental Studies, Ballarat, 2002. 233 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 5. 234 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 287. 235 Dr Stratton, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 120. 236 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 138; and Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland), Submission 43, pp 7−8. 134
GreenSmart Villages; and the PATHE (Partnership Advancing the Housing Environment) initiative represent ‘the housing industry’s response to growing community awareness of the environmental impact of daily life’.237 The Committee has also noted the extensive program of workshops, seminars and training programs around the country that have been developed by groups such as the AWA, and the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia.238
3.329 Associate Professor Wong emphasised the importance of knowledge transfer between academic institutions and industry in dealing with water problems and in the design and construction of projects like wetlands. ‘It is really about progressively building capacity in all the various sectors in the industry to ensure that we have this flow from technology and science to construction that reflects the intent of technology and science’.239 Clearly, in order to best utilise current research in achieving water sensitive urban design, it is necessary for contractors to be sufficiently skilled in translating these designs into practice. Conclusions 3.330 The authors of the education kit “We All Use Water” (members of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council) were convinced that the community lacked sufficient knowledge to engage adequately in the water debate, and they developed educational materials in an attempt to remedy this:
… the one thing we saw was that the water decision makers and professionals and the community were frustrated by the dialogue they were having about water infrastructure. That has been the unashamed focus of this activity.240
3.331 They set out to achieve several goals:
There would be much better acceptance of recycling and much greater application of recycling. It would cease to be terrifying to people and there would therefore be a lot more confidence amongst the decision-makers in making decisions that were, perhaps, slightly more controversialand they could do that with confidence instead of not doing it at all … I think there would be a greater awareness of water quality so we would understand better what it is we do that causes water quality to deteriorate, and therefore we would have more options to manage thatand more acceptable options. At the moment we cannot communicate with the community about this. They do not understand about water quality so they do not understand what it is that they do that degrades it. So we do not know how to improve that.
237 Housing Industry Association, Submission 59, pp 2 and 3. 238 For example, the National Green Plumbers Conference, Shepparton, October 2002. 239 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 273. 240 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 128. 135
We cannot make decisions about the best way to spend our money on improving it.241
3.332 More optimistically, Mr Rose, of the Melbourne Water Corporation, contends that a notable increase in community awareness of water conservation issues has occurred over the past two decades. Yet he stresses that, while some of these changes are traceable to community peer pressure, the message needs to be reiterated through education programs.242
3.333 By early 2002, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council’s Mrs Simpson believed that education has increased Australians’ preparedness to modify their water use habits and practices. As to whether there had been any notable shift in government and industry attitudes towards sustainable water usage, she commented in similar vein:
I think so, yes. I think one has to look back quite a long way. Like all these things, they are very slow, so when something happens you do not realise that that actually was a significant change. Yes, there is definitely more discussion. There is more acceptance of the fact that the way we do things at the moment is not sustainable… There is a very slow change in thinking, but yes, it is happening.243
3.334 Certainly, it now seems to be accepted that in water management reform ‘educating the community is one wayand probably the best wayto get them to change’.244 Dr Essery asserts that the preventative measure of education is more important in improving water practices than mechanical solutions. ‘Treatment is not necessarily the panacea’, he stated, before advising government and the water industry to focus not on ‘the engineering’ but on ‘the community’.245
3.335 Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, a question remains regarding the effectiveness of educational programs and initiatives, whether undertaken by government, community groups and individuals, educational institutions, or industry. The QEPA provides evidence concerning its joint pilot water efficiency initiative with Education Queensland at Merrimac High School on the Gold Coast. This institution reduced its annual water costs from $25,000 to $11,000. This program is now being implemented where appropriate across the state.246 Nevertheless, Mr Wiskar admits that the QEPA could do more to monitor water usage in Queensland schools:
241 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 125. 242 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 327. 243 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 130. 244 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002. 245 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 188. 246 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 138. 136
We have quite a deal of information which suggests that, when our education materials and officers are out there, school water use is reduced. But my honest assessment is that we could get a lot better at monitoring that.247
3.336 He argued similarly, and more specifically, in relation to the effectiveness of QEPA’s school education kits:
We need to be more rigorous in that area of monitoring … Having said that, we have got strong evidence, from the point of view that our teachers tend to go back to schools on a yearly basis, that [our education] kits are being used.248
3.337 In his ambitious study of Australians and their environment, Graeme Aplin concludes that only education in the broadest sense can provide the necessary foundation for a new ‘meta-theory’ of environmental change, one which would encompass both water use and management:
I would like to think that public opinion could force those in politics, business and other positions of power to adopt the new meta-theory, whatever its eventual form. But that presupposes that a large part of the general public has already adopted it and, as consumers, voters and activists, can then influence others.249
3.338 The main vehicle for change would be ‘education in the broadest sense, and hopefully with a sympathetic media, since so much public education now occurs through television sets and newspapers by an osmosis-like process’. As well, ‘the knowledge and data base will need to be strong and the arguments based on it convincing, as there are formidable obstacles and attitudes based on short-term self- interest to overcome.’250
3.339 Mr Aplin cautions that:
… the present meta-theory is so thoroughly ingrained that it will be difficult to displace. Unfortunately, a few real environmental catastrophes, hopefully not of an irreparable kind, will probably need to occur to drive the message home. Perhaps resource and energy shortages and degraded local environments will bring a more gradual realisation that change is sorely
247 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 144. 248 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 143−4. 249 Graeme Aplin (1998), Australians and Their Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Studies, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, p 525. 250 Graeme Aplin (1998), Australians and Their Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Studies, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, p 525. 137
needed. One way or another, the change needs to be driven by a groundswell of public opinion, like a massive wave breaking on a beach.251
3.340 The scope of the water management information provided by the NAPSWQ needs to be broadened. In order to reach those who remain largely unaware of water issues, community water education groups and interested individuals should adopt more active methods of increasing public interest, such as involving Australians as participants in water conservation initiatives. Machinery for creating stronger links between industry and educational institutions so as to achieve better specialist understanding of water management must also be established. In pursuit of a more flexible and creative approach to water issues, tertiary training institutions could ensure that undergraduate education of engineers, scientists and other professionals engaged in water management is more multidisciplinary in content. The three tiers of government should cooperate with water industry peak organisations to fund a tertiary course designed to provide formal training for water educationists. The already considerable institutional and individual efforts to improve Australians’ understanding of water matters would be enhanced by increased NHT funding for existing programs. Knowledge 3.341 In urban water management, questions of knowledge, research and development, monitoring and evaluation are of paramount significance. They encompass the state of scientific knowledge and the identification of research priorities; the effectiveness of institutions and individuals in pursuing knowledge and managing research and development; and the success or failure of present arrangements for disseminating and implementing research outcomes. When addressing the issue of whether Australian water managers have the information necessary for best practice urban water management, factors such as funding, research prioritisation, and formulating future directions in water delivery and technology must be accorded a high level of importance. Adequacy of existing knowledge 3.342 The size of this report’s bibliography (Appendix 6) attests to the large amount of information, both general and specific, that is available to water managers and researchers in the field of urban water design and use. Nevertheless, opinion remains sharply divided as to the value of much of this information. Mr Bruce argues that little knowledge existed of pollution in tropical catchments and of how to manage such contamination.252 Mrs Simpson observes that ‘the knowledge of water quality in general in the community is pathetically low. There is a chasm, a big hole, which is generally filled with emotive misinformation’.253
251 Graeme Aplin (1998), Australians and Their Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Studies, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, p 525. 252 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 81. 253 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 120. 138
3.343 In contrast, Mr Crockett contends that a large corpus of information exists on water management.254 Professor Mein, Director of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology, points out that an extensive ‘knowledge base’ on stormwater management is being built up in Melbourne.255 Indeed, Dr Essery believes that there is already a surfeit of ‘research and knowledge’ about water issues.256
3.344 Opportunities exist to expand the ‘knowledge sharing exercise’;257 to better utilise existing technological expertise;258 and to disseminate knowledge more efficiently to state agencies, local government, consultants and community groups.259
3.345 The main task confronting today’s water industry planners, researchers and managers has been defined by Ms Tarte, of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership:
The big issue for us is finding the balance between management, research and monitoring … in the past … management has really been a series of knee-jerk responses, often to hot-spot problems. Research has really been curiosity-driven rather than informing good management.260
3.346 Opinion varies considerably on the form, value and utility of water management research. Mr Waldron, Chief Executive Officer of Wide Bay Water, states that more research aligned with water industry needs should be undertaken. ‘I have worked in the industry for 30 years’, he told the Committee, ‘and I have actually seen very little research that has been of benefit to me in that 30 years’.261 There is also an increasing reluctance by water industry members to share information:
The tradition in our industry … was to share information. If you did some work, you wrote it up in a paper, you went to a conference and you told your colleagues. Now what happens is that water utilities are meant to be competitive, and suddenly what was industry knowledge is now intellectual property. So the Water Corporation in WA has done wonderful research work on what its community does with water, but they are not about to tell anyone because that is intellectual property. That to me is a tragedy.262
3.347 The principal institutions presently conducting research into urban water management are universities. Key centres for water research include: the Australian
254 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 575. 255 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 275−6. 256 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 190. 257 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 17. 258 Environment Business Australia, Submission 79, p 3. 259 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 8. 260 Ms Tarte, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 89. 261 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 201. 262 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 139
National University’s Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies; the Environment Technology Centre at Murdoch University; the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE);263 the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney; the CSIRO’s Urban Water Program; the Australian Water Quality Centre (AWQC); the Water Research Centre at the University of Western Australia and four of the Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) – for Catchment Hydrology, Freshwater Ecology, Water Quality and Treatment, and Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management. The role of the first-named CRC is :
… to provide resource managers with the capacity to predict the effects of land use changes at a whole-of-catchment scale. That covers rural and urban catchments, but in the urban area we produce software tools and knowledge for quantitative evaluation of the options for urban water management.264
3.348 According to Mr Daniell, from the University of Adelaide, CRC activity has shown evidence of an encouraging and steady trend from a ‘straight disciplinary’ to an ‘interdisciplinary’, or more ‘holistic’, approach to research and development between its first and second rounds.265 A number of CRCs have formed the Water Forum, a successful initiative designed to better coordinate and avoid duplication of their activities.266 While the CRCs are highly representative - the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment comprises twenty-nine parties from the water industry, the research community and government - their research has been criticised on the grounds that, though of an excellent standard, it is too scientific and cannot be readily applied. Mr Crockett asserts that a less ‘segmented and compartmentalised’ approach based on closer cooperation between the field’s researchers and its practitioners would prove more effective.267
3.349 A significant problem hindering research and development relates to the role of universities in the process. Mr Head refers to the reluctance of universities to devise specialist water management courses in view of the small demand for, and non- fee paying nature of, such courses.268 Universities do appear to have a monopoly on establishing research priorities:
… research seems to be dominated through universities and they set research directions. I would like to see a facility for industries rather than universities to lead research, and that government money should be directed to industry as well as to universities. From time to time, we have tried to
263 Its publications include the major report Water and the Australian Economy (1999). 264 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 267. 265 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 508. 266 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 542. 267 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 576. 268 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 40. 140
obtain funds for research. It is extremely difficult unless you know the system and know how to get the money. If you do not come from a university, it is almost impossible to secure funds for research.269 Research priorities 3.350 A number of research and development areas warrant special attention. WSROC, after emphasising the difficulties involved in repairing water provision infrastructure under pressure from population growth and urban expansion, called for further research into the problems of salinity and stormwater and their implications for WSUD.270 Dr Johnstone, from Melbourne’s Bayside City Council, stresses the need for more research into the source of pollutants, along the lines of a past Bayside- Melbourne Water-CSIRO project. It employed faecal sterols as indicators of human pollution and a means, albeit a costly one, of determining the origin of pollutants and identifying key linkages, for example, sewage overflow into stormwater drains.271 It is also clear that the range of chemicals being added to Australia’s water supply systems affects human health in ways which need to be better understood. Some research in this direction is already underway, such as the Sydney Water-CSIRO joint initiative examining the relationship between rates of bladder and bowel cancer and chlorinated water supplies.272
3.351 The effects of endocrine disruptors in effluent, which remain in dispute, also requires additional inquiry, as will be discussed in Chapter 5.
3.352 The variability of Australia’s ecosystems and rainfall patterns necessitates highly localised and adaptive research and development and water management techniques.273 As Chapter 1 shows, each part of Australia requires a different management approach that is tailored to the particular local climate. Mr Campin, of the QEPA, contrasts parts of Queensland and Victoria:
We have very significant short-duration high-intensity storms and the amount of water that is trapped by a rainwater tank is relatively small in proportion to the overall downfall, whereas the typical Melbourne weather is much more gentle rain spread throughout the year. We have much more intense, peaky rainfall, and it is very difficult to intercept a significant proportion of that annual rainfall. It may only occur in half a dozen events. So if you have a 10-cubic-metre stormwater tank, the actual amount of water you have intercepted is very small in comparison to, say, the
269 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 270 Cr Ferrara, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 234. 271 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 310. 272 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 249. 273 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 1. 141
Melbourne situation where you have nice gentle light rain and it works very well. That is quite a difference.274
3.353 A need is apparent for a greater, more refined focus on infrastructure research:
There is not a lot of data about some of the most basic work you do … There is not much information about statistics on pipes and what percentage of the pipe is sized for fire, what percentage is sized for peak demand and what percentage is sized just for garden watering and that sort of thing. There is not much data on basic information about how much water people use or where it goes in houses. There is a lot of stuff around, but it basically comes from the same source and there is not much data that has been derived by physical measurement.275
3.354 Dr Johnstone refers to a Port Phillip Bay project aimed at reducing nitrogen inputs to the Bay. The CSIRO advised that fifteen years of research data would be required in order to properly evaluate this projecta lengthy and expensive exercise.276 He also admits that, while the Bayside City Council’s stormwater drainage pipes are well-mapped on the relevant Geographic Information System, more research is required into the effectiveness of the system and the condition and size of its pipes.277 Because approximately one-third of water charges is linked to depreciation of assets, ‘asset life can be extended enormously through better research’.278 Yet, as most water industry assets are located underground,279 ‘it [is] not unheard of for [Melbourne] councils to have trouble locating some of their assets’.280
3.355 An adviser to the Planning Institute of Australia emphasises the importance of increasing our knowledge of the hydrological cycle, or groundwater recharge, as a means of combating the rising incidence of flooding in cities.281 The water industry and the wider community respectively could also initiate and participate more in water research. AWA members have indicated their preparedness to finance increased research.282 A representative of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership has spoken, in the context of freshwater measurement, of ‘fairly robust types of indicators which community groups can do, like finding the percentage of exotic species of fish’.283
274 Mr Campin, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 151. 275 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 276 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 303. 277 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 305. 278 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 207. 279 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 207. 280 Mr Young, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 326. 281 Prof Taylor, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 36. 282 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 218. 283 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 98. 142
3.356 Data gathered by WaterWatch and other groups has also assumed greater significance. There exists, for instance:
… a water warehouse database in Victoria. They are putting the monitoring data from WaterWatch on that database and identifying it as WaterWatch data. A lot of this data has been collected… in an educational fashion by a lot of people over 10 years and it has gone into shoeboxes under beds and things. Now they are focusing it more on what it is going to create and lead to. Also, there is benchmarking, scientific input and checking on the processes.284
3.357 The Canberra-based Institute of Australian Geographers suggestw that this be taken further by enlisting some 250,000 of Australia’s 1.3 million school children to contribute to a carefully-designed national water mapping project supervised by teachers. Its objectives could include the investigation of water issues as an important component of Australian ecology, raising awareness of environmental matters and gathering data. A national institute 3.358 One suggestion to the Committee was for the creation of a National Water Institute, that would amalgamate the functions of the CRCs when their lifespan concludes.285 This proposal was obliquely supported by CSIRO’s July 2002 call for the creation of a national water research (and funding) body, on the grounds that Australians had not adequately embraced water recycling; due to the poor prevailing use and reuse of urban run-off and effluent; and because of the fact that, notwithstanding twenty-three research projects in five years designed to address the issue, no national approach to water conservation has emerged.286
3.359 The call for a more integrated research approach287 could be met by creating a truly representative national institute for water studieswhat Mr Chris Davis has described as ‘not necessarily a bricks and mortar institute but a virtual institute that brings all the players together and tries to coordinate research so that it is coherent rather than competitive’.288 Knowledge sharing 3.360 To be useful, knowledge must not only be created but also shared, and the Committee has seen a number of successful models for maximising the process of information exchange. One such method is the creation of partnership arrangements between specialist research institutions and local governments.
284 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 18. 285 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 286 The Australian, Waste not, want not: CSIRO: 19 July 2002, p 6. 287 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 187−8. 288 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 217. 143
3.361 The University of Queensland for example, acknowledging that its research was not being adequately utilised by industry, embarked on research and monitoring work with the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership.289
3.362 Strong support for the establishment of a Wide Bay Innovation and Research Centre has been expressed by the Wide Bay’s four local councils in the form of a signed memorandum of understanding with the University of Southern Queensland and Wide Bay Water. The reasons behind such an undertaking are fivefold. A recognition that water industry research and training is essential for Queensland’s future; a large void presently exists in these areas; Wide Bay Water is already accredited as a national leader in industry innovation; a business plan for such a Centre indicates that it would be self-funding within three years; and a need to develop the necessary scientific and control technology for meeting national water industry needs, especially those of regional Australia.290 The reasons for the university’s involvement were explained by Wide Bay Water’s Chief Executive Officer:
The university recognised that there is obviously a need for industry associated research, because they tended to agree that research that they had seen done was not being taken up too much by the industry. The four councils around our area agreed that the expertise that we had gathered at Wide Bay Water, if associated with the university, could perhaps help with the training needs of a far wider area. That would obviously be financially beneficial to the university concerned and perhaps to us. More pointedly, my aim would probably be to make sure that universities are doing some research work that can be taken up by the university that is of direct benefit to them.291
3.363 When attempting to ensure optimal catchment management, for instance, detailed knowledge is required of the catchment concerned. University-industry cooperation on projects benefits both parties, allowing water managers to base their planning on sound local knowledge attained by a specific and detailed university research effort. The university is also able to observe how the knowledge generated by its researchers is used for specific outcomes. An example of the value of detailed scientific research can be found in work by the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership, which, using quantitative measurement devices and a sewage plume map, established after much dispute that a major pollutant originated in two locations, rather than in a single one.292
3.364 The results of water industry research have not always been well communicated, and fresh approaches are required in this sphere. Associate Professor Wong, of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology, told the Committee that:
289 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 98. 290 Wide Bay Water, Submission 20, pp 5, 6. 291 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 209. 292 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 90−1. 144
… we are moving into a new era … in urban water management. Urban stormwater management is now aimed at reducing the impact of urbanisation; it is not just about drainage. In the past, adoption of this integrated approach was slow and sporadic; it is still slow and sporadic. There are a number of reasons for that which we have been able to address. Research outcomes in the past have not necessarily resulted in these beneficial outcomes. A lot has to do with us perhaps thinking a little bit more about how we can facilitate the adoption of our work. It is not just about publications in journals and things like that.293
3.365 There are opportunities for both industry and government to enhance current research and development. Sydney Water, for example, already undertakes joint research and development projects with Australian and international organisations.294 Sponsorshipgovernment and businesscould help to foster the design and production of water independent housing, and small-scale water treatment and recycling plants for domestic, commercial and industrial use.295 Research and development initiatives could also assist in the invention of low-cost, user-friendly water and wastewater technology.296 Environment Business Australia advocates the introduction of a reinvestment taxation concession policy to strengthen the commercialisation of innovation.297 Monitoring 3.366 Monitoring is an important foundation for assessing changes to the environment over time; the effectiveness of policies and projects; and for basing enforcement actions.
3.367 The National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA) judged current monitoring of water industry resources and management and the exploration of new resources to be inadequate.298 Mr Willett, Executive Director of the National Competition Council, argues that evaluation of Commonwealth-State monitoring and adjustment processes was also proving unsatisfactory. Too little was known, for example, about the effect of water industry reform on key players like farmers.299 Notwithstanding these problems, it remains clear that:
293 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 270. 294 Sydney Water, Submission 45, p 15. 295 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 7. 296 Baw Baw Shire Council, Submission 11, p 2. 297 Environment Business Australia, Submission 79, p 2. 298 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 429. 299 Mr Willett, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 294−5. 145
Monitoring is one of those activities like baseline research, that is expensive to conduct properly, may not yield benefits for a decade or more, but is absolutely necessary.300
3.368 Despite the availability of sectional data like that provided by the National Pollutant Inventory on the discharge of pollutants to metropolitan estuaries and coastal waters, no comprehensive national urban water quality monitoring program exists.301 As a partial solution to this, the CRC for Freshwater Ecology has proposed that state governments institute their own monitoring systems.302
3.369 Several shortcomings characterise present water industry monitoring arrangements. The amount of data available is insufficient to enable conclusive monitoring of the effects of stormwater on important tropical environments. Mr Bruce informed the Committee that ‘monitoring, generating useable data and understanding catchment pollution characteristics is critical to managing stormwater quality’.303 Mr McCarthy, of Perth’s Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, emphasises the significance of data to water management planning and administration, and of carefully monitoring the performance of new institutions and practices.304
3.370 Local councils’ practice of scrutinising building proposals to ensure that they satisfy environmental criteria, and of then failing to adequately monitor the implementation of appropriate standards in development projects, also constitutes a serious problem.305 There is obviously a need to monitor progress at all stages of construction, not merely at selected stages.306 Similarly, attempts by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority and several catchment trusts to control the effects of sedimentation on building and development sites have continued to produce positive results only while these sites are regularly inspected.307 Mrs Morris, of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, points out that, in the one area within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area where Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act was activated in order to monitor water qualitythe Trinity inlet around Cairnsthe statutory requirements for water standards have not been met.308
3.371 The difficulties besetting urban water management are balanced by a number of positive developments. The NWQMS has had considerable success in identifying
300 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 7. 301 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 6. 302 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 9. 303 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 81. 304 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 405−6. 305 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 110−11. 306 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, pp 71−2. 307 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 258. 308 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 68. 146 and monitoring progress towards water quality objectives.309 WaterWatch identifies the sources of Australia’s national water quality problems; evaluates water practice and management; and trains individuals in water quality monitoring and measurement techniques ‘in terms of hard-edged outputs’.310 Such community monitoring programs have progressed from being primarily educational in character to becoming a significant element in water industry decision-making. According to Mr Bott, this reflects USA experience:
… there is some very strong information out of the United States where community based water monitoring has been in place for some time. It has very strict quality assurance and quality control protocols which show that the data collected by community groups is not statistically different from that collected by professional contractors. So the message there is that, if it is done with all the appropriate quality assurance and quality control possible, the data can be a very valuable adjunct to state monitoring networks.311
3.372 Monitoring by water organisations is also improving. Sydney Water has instituted an ocean outfall initiative as part of a broader environmental indicators program, monitoring taking place before and after the introduction of the outfalls.312 VicWater’s reporting statistics appear annually in its Urban Water Review, providing a guide to the organisation’s environmental performance.313 The Melbourne Water Corporation monitors the condition of its assets by means of a yearly audit. It also prepares annually a twenty-year capital program containing an assets renewal component.314
3.373 Queensland’s Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership monitors the effect of its management practices through an ‘Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program’. It is based on conventional indicators such as nutrients and sediments as well as state-of-the-art indicators that examine ecosystem response. A yearly report card rating is published indicating whether or not targets have been reached in the relevant estuary and bay waterways (a pilot exercise is under way for freshwater environments).315 NHT funding for monitoring$500,000 to the Townsville City Council in north Queensland, for instance316has assisted with traditional forms of monitoring and, in Townsville’s case, with developing innovative approaches to
309 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 6. 310 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 589. 311 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 18. 312 Ms Meeske, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 172. 313 Victorian Water Industry Association, Submission 42, p 10. 314 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 324. 315 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 94−5, 98. 316 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 81. 147 monitoring artificial wetlands and gross pollutant traps.317 Mr Bruce pointed out that ‘water quality monitoring and analysis is exceptionally expensive’.318 As a result, the TCC has sought to combine its resources with those of organisations like Citiworks and the James Cook University of North Queensland. The Water Corporation of Western Australia published its first Community and Environment Report on its performance in this field in November 2000.319
3.374 Other monitoring successes have been Environment ACT’s joint venture with the CRC for Freshwater Ecology and the regulation of drinking water quality via the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (1996) and a drinking water code of practice.320 Mr Bott signalled Environment Australia’s commitment to detailed monitoring of the performance of the projects it funds.321 Progress is also occurring in relation to the role of aquifers, with more frequent provision being made for aquifers in development plans,322 and closer monitoring to ensure that the quality of water being recycled to an aquifer system is safe to return. In South Australia, for example, where Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) began more than a century ago,323 Environment Protection Agency guidelines for this purpose are currently being finalised.324
3.375 Prospects for continued monitoring reform also appear promising. The QEPA’s Mr Wiskar indicated the Agency’s preparedness to improve its monitoring and assessment mechanisms.325 Mr Campin made it clear that, in the case of stormwater management, a report due for release in 2003 will set out the degree to which local councils have succeeded in satisfying the requirements of the QEPA’s Environment Protection Policy for Water.326 In Western Australia, Mr Hill advocates ‘improved governance and accountability’ through legislation, specifically, the production of annual reports containing water management assessment information.327
3.376 Monitoring is of vital importance to water management. The Australian Infrastructure Report Card, produced by the Institution of Engineers Australia, conducted an exhaustive water asset monitoring exercise, which will serve as a valuable tool in future industry planning.328 The Nature Conservation Council of
317 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 86. 318 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 86. 319 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 24. 320 Ms Fowler, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 547. 321 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 12. 322 Mr Pierson, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 530. 323 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, pp 17 and 18. 324 Mssrs Allen and Wills, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 460−2. 325 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 141−2. 326 Mr Campin, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 148. 327 Mr Hill, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 445−6. 328 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 6. 148
NSW recommends that an independent environmental ombudsman be appointed to monitor the responsiveness and consistency of government departments in addressing community concerns about water issues.329 Evaluation 3.377 Parallel with monitoring the performance of water management and delivery systems is the process of evaluating the structure of the management and supply frameworks themselves. As Dr Essery put it:
We supply water, we get rid of the effluent, but we do not actually know how and why the people use the water. Sydney Water, Melbourne Water, every utility, will spend a fortune measuring the performance of their system, but they do not measure their users. Therefore, if you do not know your user then, like anyone who is marketing any product, how do you know to meet their requirements and, particularly, how do you know to amend their activities?330
3.378 Dr Essery also provided an instance of the importance of effective evaluation, as distinct from monitoring, machinery. He cited:
… a study which I was involved in where we actually thought our instrumentation was totally wrong and replaced the meters. We monitored the consumption of every tap in 10 houses for a year and replaced some meters four or five timesand we had 300 meters in this small, intensive area. … it turned out that there was nothing wrong with the meters. It was the fact that the family that occupied that housenot the owner of the house, but the people who rented it … was basically using the hot water tap all the time to flush everything down the sink. They had three times the water consumption of everyone else in that block of 10.
That sort of behaviour not only affects water consumption but also affects future planning, because it is the variability in human consumption and production of anything that actually causes problems in the ability to meet demand. So to understand how our consumers use water is fundamental. Once you understand how they use it you can target your strategies, which could be educational, technologicalAAA rating devicesor whatever. But how do you know how effective your strategy is if you do not actually have a means of assessing who you are trying to change and how effective you are being at changing them? It is to me a fundamental flaw in our approach.331
3.379 Sophisticated evaluation and cost-benefit analysis also needs to be done in relation to demand management programs. Mr Wiskar points out that:
329 Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Submission 29, p 15. 330 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 188. 331 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 196 and 197. 149
We have set up an evaluation framework which operates at two levels. It operates at the level of evaluating specific programs. Let’s say we are going to do a leakage activity or a shower rose program: we will evaluate that activity alone and see whether that has had any impact on demand. Overall demand trends … provide another way to monitor programs.332
3.380 Mr Bott argues that reducing pollution discharges to coastal waters can best be achieved by systematically gathering information and combining it with financial analysis in order to determine the cost-effectiveness of water management initiatives.333
3.381 An influential mechanism in the evaluation process is the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA), an NHT program established in 1997 for the purpose of improving land, water and vegetation management by providing better information to water resource managers. The NLWRA is a partnership between the Commonwealth, States and Territories based on the sharing and exchange of information. Its Australian Natural Resources Atlasa web-based document containing all Audit information and findingscontains material encompassing its seven main areas of inquiry and the whole Audit output. Between 2000 and 2002, the AWA evaluated and reported on Australia’s water industry infrastructure.334 Environment Australia is currently evaluating its approach to water management and the dissemination of information about its activities and achievements.335 Some commercial organisations, such as CDS Technologies, manufacturers of gross pollutant traps, have undertaken extensive evaluation of the effectiveness of their products.336
3.382 Evaluation machinery should be Australia-wide in scope and familiar to the community. Dr Essery has called for the creation of industry performance reporting mechanisms that would be administered federally. These could include indicators for improved sustainability such as triple bottom line reporting, performance and assessment. He describes the evaluation process as being akin to ‘a nationally based, balanced score card, performance target set … something that is fully understood by the community … it must be there to assist in future decision makingin other words, a national framework of some sort or guidance, endorsement or support’.337
332 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 141. 333 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 589. 334 Mr McCrae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 220. 335 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 11. 336 Mr Diprose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 375; and CDS Technologies, Submission 63, p 1. 337 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 187 and 198. 150
Future directions 3.383 Several developments and reform proposals augur well for urban water research and practice. Wide Bay Water, the first local government owned water corporation in Queensland, has also become the first Australian water body to introduce stormwater harvesting for use within its systems.338 The authors of a Botany Bay plan intend to reintegrate the land use within an existing urban area with its urban water managementan example of ‘planning on a regional catchment basis’.339 The Water Foruman amalgam of the five CRCsidentifies opportunities for water industry collaboration in research, education and training, technology transfer, communications and international activities.340 In April 2002, at an International Water Association congress held in Melbourne, the Global Water Research Coalition was formed. Two Australian organisations were among the twelve foundation members: the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment and a peak body of major water utilities, the WSAA.341
3.384 The Western Australian Government’s water conservation strategy, announced in August 2002, is an encouraging development.342 In recent years, as Associate Professor Wong contends, there has been a marked increase in water practice and research cooperation between government, research institutions and industry.343
3.385 The water industry’s professional organisations must also adopt a more practical approach to improving research and development standards by taking a proactive stance.344 The WSAA, for example, has already indicated its intention to serve as an industry forum in order to stimulate WSUD innovation.345 Successful demonstrator programs can also be emulated more often, for instance, the Australian Water Quality Centre’s Customer Service Unit; awards for excellence in the realm of technology transfer; GreenSmart Villages, which blend well into the existing urban and rural environment (such as that at Kellyville, Sydney);346 urban stormwater and catchment initiatives;347 and the St Kilda (Melbourne) EcoHouse Project.348
338 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 199. 339 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 37. 340 Brochure, The Cooperative Research Centres’ Water Forum, dated 2000. 341 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 535. 342 West Australian, 5 August 2002, p 7. 343 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 270. 344 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 2. 345 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 18. 346 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 255−7. 347 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 404. 348 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354; and City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, p 5. 151
3.386 Sections of the community are also beginning to display a more positive attitude to water management reform. In the case of farmers, Mr Timothy Waldron explains:
It was interesting that, once we had our research farm set up, we needed a farmer to collaborate with us to do tests, and we could not get one farmer to do it; we actually had to pay a farmer to assist with the research. But, once we got the results of the sugarcane yields, they had increased by approximately 50 per cent per hectare; the income to the farmer increased by approximately 85 per cent, because of the geared way that they received money for sugar. Following those results, every farmer in the area then put their hand up wanting to use our effluent. This is a natural way of using the nutrient value that is in the waste water for benefiting a crop.349
3.387 Initiatives like Queensland’s WaterGuide, an expert decision support system designed to support stakeholders during the early stages of planning a recycling project represents an important advance in water resource management.350
3.388 While Australians will continue to benefit greatly by collaborating with international water delivery and research bodies, a cooperative approach to martialling Australia’s existing practical knowledge, information and research may well allow its people to deal with many of the nation’s water dilemmas themselves. According to the CSIRO’s Dr Peter Dillon:
Water will be in critically short supply for more than a third of the earth’s population during the 21st century, so by solving our own problems we will not only help Australiawe can also contribute ideas and technologies for addressing one of the most vital aspects of human survival.351 Conclusions 3.389 Community-based water monitoring programs should be reinforced within the framework of appropriate controls. The Commonwealth Government should undertake the ultimate responsibility for monitoring Australia’s water management and delivery systems and evaluating the nation’s water industry and supply structures. Government, industry and research institutions must also engage in detailed analysis of the cost-benefit of water industry practice. Water industry organisations should play a more active role in industry management and representation.
3.390 It is evident that best practice solutions will generally be very site specific, and their implementation principally a local government responsibility. For this reason, the Commonwealth’s focus must be on building the foundations of effective programs: developing the required skills base across Australian professions in order to
349 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 202. 350 Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland), Submission 43, p 14. 351 The Australian, Waste not, want not: CSIRO, 19 July 2002, p 6. 152 effectively plan and implement local solutions, as well as establishing the necessary bases of technical and scientific knowledge. 153
Chapter 4
Stormwater
Introduction 4.1 Light rain falling in natural, undisturbed catchments is generally totally infiltrated or absorbed into the ground. In urban areas rainwater is referred to as stormwater and impervious surfaces such as roads, roofs and pathways prevent its absorption. To avert flooding it is piped and channelled to watercourses or constructed stormwater drains which discharge onto beaches and into rivers, streams and the bush:
The construction of large impervious surfaces through urbanisation has created traditional urban stormwater conveyance systems such as pipes and kerbs and gutters to relay water away from the urban areas as quickly as possible to minimise flooding potential. As a result, there is decreased groundwater recharge and lower base flows resulting in an imbalance in the water cycle.1
4.2 Natural pre-development catchments can absorb and infiltrate up to 90 per cent of precipitation falling upon them, whereas dense urban catchments can, in extreme instances, only hold as little as 10 per cent of precipitation.2
4.3 The average annual volume of stormwater discharged nationally is about 3,000 gigalitres and the quantity of stormwater shed by an urban area is a function of climate, geology, topography, degree of imperviousness, and stormwater drainage practices. Urban areas usually cover part of one or more catchments, and in the case of Australia’s many coastal settlements, the urban area is located at the lowest reaches of these catchments. Stormwater flowing from a catchment therefore originates in both the undeveloped and urbanised areas, making it difficult to separate stormwater from either source.
4.4 In the past, point sources of pollution such as factories were the principal targets for water quality improvement programs but stricter regulation has generally seen progress in that area. Consequently the focus is now shifting to stormwater management as the priority issue in water quality management. Additionally, as Chapter 2 showed, cities are exhausting their current water supplies and so stormwater is increasingly being regarded as a hitherto undervalued resource.
4.5 Future stormwater use is therefore likely to be of significant environmental benefit through minimising the need to augment traditional water supplies,3 a fact recognised in the COAG Water Reform Agenda.
1 Hornsby Shire Council, Submission 6, p 2. 2 Stormwater Industry Association Inc, Submission 37. 154
4.6 In this context, and in comparison to sewage effluent, stormwater may appear to be much more suitable for urban use because of its perceived higher quality. However, wider use of stormwater can be complicated by the intermittent nature of rainfall and the variable quality of stormwater run-off.
4.7 This chapter examines some of these problems as well the many opportunities for making better use of stormwater, including on-site rainwater tanks, community collection and storage for irrigation, aquifer storage and recovery, and habitat restoration such as for wetlands and streams.
4.8 The chapter concludes with an examination of Water Sensitive Urban Design theory, and how it has been successfully applied in sites around Australia. Problems with stormwater 4.9 The stormwater drainage system was designed on the assumption that stormwater was benign in nature. However we now realise that stormwater can be extremely polluted. The problem is exacerbated by the traditional drainage infrastructure and hard urban surfaces which were designed with the purpose of conveying the water from built-up areas as quickly as possible. The resulting fast flowing water causes erosion and silt build up, as well as pollution problems. Stormwater pollution 4.10 During its passage, stormwater collects contaminants and litter from urban surfaces such as roads, roofs, pathways and gardens, and deposits them into rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. These receiving water have some capacity to cope with the changes of flow and pollutant load brought on by urbanisation, but beyond a certain point, the changes cause major environmental damage.
4.11 Despite its high pollutant loads stormwater enters waterways without undergoing any treatment. The contaminants comprise fine particles and dissolved materials (micro-pollutants), as well as litter and vegetation (gross pollutants). Natural sources of stormwater contaminants are derived from the atmosphere, from organics in the soil, and from decaying organic debris. Sources of contamination which can be attributed to human activity include: sediment transmission from construction sites, pesticides and fertilisers, litter, weeds, faecal matter, vehicle emissions, metal particles from corrosion and abrasion, spills of substances like oil and paint on land surfaces, cigarette butts, and air pollution emissions.4
4.12 Research by the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology shows that stormwater becomes polluted in two phases – build-up and wash-off.5
3 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 51. 4 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 42. 5 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Urban Stormwater Pollution, Industry Report, 97/5, July 1997, pp 8-9. 155
4.13 The build-up occurs as pollutants accumulate on pavements and other surfaces during dry weather through: the settling of fine particles from the atmosphere; the accumulation of fine particles and gross pollutants from local sources; and the redistribution of surface pollutants by wind and traffic.
4.14 Roads have high pollution loads because of vehicle and road wear, particularly heavy metals from brakes and clutches, and oil (hydrocarbons) from leaking engines.
4.15 The level of pollutant build-up depends on the rate of deposition; the length of the dry period; and any removal by redistribution, decomposition, street sweeping or wash-off. Build-up of pollutants increases with time until it reaches a certain point where it stabilises. This is because the removal rate of surface pollutants increases as the buildup increases, and it eventually equals the input rate.
4.16 Wash-off is where the accumulated pollutants are removed from surfaces by rainfall and run-off. Rainfall not only dislodges and dissolves pollutants from surfaces, but also washes them out from the atmosphere, adding to stormwater pollutant loads. Typically only a small proportion of surface pollutants are washed off in a single rainfall event and most of the pollution in urban catchments is generated during heavier storms.
4.17 In general terms though, the most heavily polluted stormwater is the run-off from the initial rainfall, and the water containing this high initial pollutant load is called the ‘first flush’. Stormwater then becomes cleaner as the rain ‘cleanses’ the catchment.
4.18 After stormwater enters the drainage system, its quality can be further reduced by sewer overflows and the infiltration of poor quality water leaching from landfill or septic tank sites. In periods of high rainfall, sewage overflows into the stormwater system from both leaks in the sewerage system as well as from in-built relief valves that prevent sewage backing-up into buildings when there is an accumulation of pressure in the pipes. Transfers between the two systems can also occur from groundwater infiltration as well as illegal septic or industrial connections on individual properties.
4.19 There is also some concern over the cumulative effects of small unlicensed industries releasing waste into the stormwater system, although the extent of this practice is unknown.6 Atmospheric deposition 4.20 Another source of water pollution is the deposition of airborne pollutants onto urban surfaces or directly into waterways. These can come from unburnt fuel of older cars, and from all other particulates in smog.
6 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 409. 156
4.21 The Moreton Bay Study7 estimates that an average of 69 tonnes of nitrogen and 25 tonnes of phosphorous are delivered via atmospheric deposition to Moreton Bay each year. The study notes that these model estimates for atmospheric deposition of nitrogen appear to be quite low when compared with measured loads from other locations, such as from the Richmond River Catchment in coastal northern New South Wales. Atmospheric inputs of nutrients into waterways will not be affected by programs to reduce nutrients from sewage and stormwater discharges and atmospheric inputs may be increasing due to nitrogen oxides from car and truck emissions. Accelerated run-off from sealed urban catchments 4.22 The speed with which stormwater flows, as well as its turbidity,8 scours the water courses it enters and erodes river banks and beds, preventing the growth of vegetation which could provide habitat as well as assist in removing pollutants.
4.23 Some watercourses in cities have been smoothed, straightened and concreted to accelerate stormwater removal from the cities. This effectively destroys riverine ecosystems that, in their natural state, have some capacity to filter pollutants and allow the capture of contaminants in sediment.
Flooding 4.24 Natural systems are designed to flood and when this happens rivers collect nutrients from the land which support aquatic ecosystems. Many ecosystems on the land also depend on periodic inundation for their health. These systems have adapted to both small floods as well as larger but more infrequent flood episodes, and many ecosystem and breeding patterns are linked to these flood cycles.
4.25 As is explained in more detail below, by building on floodplains, cities incur significant risks of inundation and cities often find themselves in a double bind. By creating dense urban areas, they leave no room for the flooding that is the natural way of dealing with stormwater. At the same time, the increased density and corresponding increases in impermeable surfaces, greatly increase loads on stormwater infrastructure, making flooding more likely. In some areas it is even becoming more cost effective for authorities to purchase properties than attempt to use flood mitigation methods to protect them.9
Impacts of urban infill 4.26 Greater urban densities worsen the impact of stormwater run-off and increase the quantity of water as buildings, paving and concrete cover pervious areas and the
7 Moreton Bay Study, A Scientific Basis for the Healthy Waterways Campaign, William C Dennison and Eva G Abal, South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, pp 50-51. [Tabled document, 4 April 2002] 8 Turbidity is a measure of the concentration of particles. It is also referred to as total suspended sediment. 9 Committee briefing, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, 5 April, 2002. 157 water cannot then be slowed in its passage and infiltrate the soil. Instead efficient hydraulics force it into channels, where the volumes rapidly increase:
Until recently in Australia … the low-density development that we have had has permitted this reasonable control of urban stormwater run-off, through gardens. As cities start to be in-filled, we are increasing the urban run-off. As I keep stressing, we do not really know what is happening in the long term. If we keep doing that, groundwater levels will possibly drop, and that will have an effect on tree growth in our cities.10
4.27 The prospect of flooding, particularly from smaller, more frequent storms, as a consequence of urban consolidation is elevated:
Our stormwater drainage system has been in place for many years. In fact, our city has developed on its infill housing which is adding to the population. It is true to say that our stormwater drainage system would probably not be able to cope with the return of a one in 10-year flood. Melbourne Water has put an overlay on 4,500 properties in the city. For the one in 100-year return storm, many properties would be flooded and there would be flooding at normal ground level over the area. Our stormwater drainage systems, designed up to 100 years ago, were designed for perhaps a one in five-year return flood or a one in 10 at best. That has caused a lot of concern within the city over the issue.11
4.28 Increases in run-off provide additional stress to aging infrastructure that was not designed to cope with the greater flows:
With Port Phillip being so close to the bay, when we get a high tide and only a moderate downpour of rain, we can get the stormwater drains filling up to the point that there is just no more capacity, and we get localised flooding that can last for several hours, and that must not be exacerbated as a result of further development.12
4.29 Professors Troy and White note that the major stormwater drainage problems now occur in areas undergoing redevelopment to higher densities and site coverage that increases the run-off, frequently resulting in flows above those for which the original developments were designed.13
4.30 The effect of the increase in run-off from redevelopment projects is magnified because the area available for soakage and water retention is reduced. The resulting nearly ‘instantaneous’ run-off frequently leads to peak localised flooding as the runoff exceeds the design capacity of the drainage systems. The costs of amplification of the stormwater drainage system are high and are rarely born by developers.
10 Prof Taylor, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 36. 11 Cr Beadle, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 305. 12 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354. 13 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 3. 158
Impact of stormwater on receiving waters 4.31 Stormwater has become the single most important source of pollution of the water bodies around or on which cities are developed.14 The accelerated runoff from sealed urban catchments increases erosion, contributes to flooding and increases transport of litter, nutrients, toxicants and other pollutants to receiving waters. The associated impacts on the waterways include:
• increases in peak discharge and frequency affecting scouring; • increases in nutrient loads with associated risk of eutrophication and impacting on primary production as a result of nuisance algae; • increases in toxicants (heavy metals, pesticides, ammonia) accumulating in estuarine and near shore sediments and impacting on aquatic biota; • increases in sediment and suspended solids; • oxygen demanding substances impacting on dissolved oxygen (aquatic animals) and sediment redox processes (water quality); • bacteria impacting on recreation and water supply suitability; • rubbish and debris impacting on visual quality of waterways; and • reduction in biodiversity within the waterways and increased risk of algal blooms and other ecological perturbations.15 4.32 Research by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology has led to a better understanding of key in-stream processes in urban waterbodies. The high levels of suspended solids, nutrients and toxicants in stormwater are rapidly adsorbed16 onto the surfaces of suspended particles during high flows, and which then settle as sediments during low flow periods.
4.33 Bacteria and other biota play an important part in stream processes. Organic carbon (essentially from decaying vegetable matter) triggers the release of nutrients from sediment through microbial processes, and these nutrients then stimulate algal growth. These understandings highlight the importance of managing organic carbon inputs as a significant driver of algal blooms. This has implications for catchment management strategies, licence setting and wastewater treatment.17
14 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU, Submission 50, p 2. 15 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 2; and Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 9. 16 Adsorption is the bonding of metals and nutrients onto the surfaces of suspended particles, by way of physical, chemical and biological processes, and their removal by a process of sedimentation of the suspended particles. 17 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 2. 159
Lack of clarity in roles, responsibilities and reporting requirements of public agencies 4.34 Unfortunately, any attempts to deal with these problems of pollution in stormwater are frustrated by the lack of clarity in the management arrangements in relation to stormwater. To begin with, stormwater flows through a number of jurisdictions between where it falls and its arrival into receiving waterways. Thus, agencies with the responsibility for maintaining water quality in a river, may have no control over the quality of the stormwater that flows into that river. Similarly, responsibility for stormwater infrastructure is shared between developers, local authorities, roads and traffic authorities, trunk drainage utilities and many others.
4.35 This fragmentation is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, but at this point, it can be concluded that the result is often a mismatch between the regulatory authority with responsibility for an outcome, and those with the authority to do something about it. Best practice stormwater management 4.36 Increasingly, efforts are being made to address the negative effects of urban stormwater on receiving waters and there have been significant advances in technologies for improving the quality of urban stormwater to either support its ultimate reuse or to protect and sustain the environmental values and health of urban aquatic ecosystems.18
4.37 Contemporary urban stormwater management objectives now encompass issues beyond the traditional stormwater drainage objective of efficient conveyance of stormwater to the receiving waters for local flood protection, and they include such management objects as:
• stormwater quality improvement; • stormwater as a resource (for meeting both human and environmental demands); • protection or rehabilitation of ecosystem health of urban aquatic systems; and • incorporation into urban landscapes for promotion of aesthetic and passive recreation attributes.19 4.38 Essentially the technical solutions to the problems are available and best practice aims to reduce the impacts of stormwater on receiving waters by reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flows, slowing the speed of the water, retaining water on site, trapping pollutants at appropriate points and cleansing the water.
4.39 Better urban design that minimises impervious areas and allows for infiltration throughout the catchment can achieve this. Grassed waterways and creek
18 CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25, p 3. 19 CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25, p 2. 160 restoration can replace concrete drains and slow run-off, help filter contaminants and at the same time provide the community with amenities such as bikeways and footpaths. Erosion and sediment control measures, particularly at building and construction sites, can prevent sediment being washed into waterways. Artificial wetlands can be constructed at appropriate points in the urban catchment to capture run-off, slow down water flows, allow sediment to settle out, and nutrients to be absorbed by plants.
4.40 However, there are different management techniques for different climatic regions and for different sites within regions. Solutions will depend on the nature of the soils, impervious areas, terrain and climate. For example, the Committee found that North Queensland in particular faces the challenge of managing tropical catchments with heavy, intensive rainfall and a long dry season.
4.41 To accommodate these regional differences, the Stormwater Industry Association has been developing a new manual, Water sensitive urban design: basic procedures for stormwater source control—a manual of Australian practice which is a design manual for stormwater management for every climatic region in Australia.20 It provides engineering design methodologies for water sensitive urban design systems and gives engineers a systems approach with formula calculations that gives substance to integrating water sensitive urban design principles into conventional engineering practice.
4.42 However, there are insufficient funds available to complete the graphic drawings necessary to illustrate the various design and management techniques or to print the edition. The Committee considers that it is important that this manual be widely available to assist in stormwater management solutions. First flush targeting 4.43 The existence of a first flush of pollutants provides an opportunity for controlling stormwater pollution from a broad range of land uses. First flush collection systems can be employed to capture and isolate this most polluted runoff, with subsequent runoff being diverted directly to the stormwater system.21 For example, the Townsville City Council makes no attempt to retain and treat the entire flow from large rain events, for this would be an impossible task. Instead, it limits its efforts to treating the first flush.
4.44 However, a toxic first flush does not occur in all cases. Intensive monitoring of stormwater runoff from some (usually larger) catchments has shown no evidence of
20 Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 159. 21 Stormwater First Flush Pollution, NSW Environment Protection Agency site, at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/mao/stormwater.htm 161 a ‘first flush’ and this can have a major influence on the design of stormwater pollution controls.22 Some of the reasons for the absence of a first flush may be:23
• the drainage characteristics of the catchment may prevent it. In larger catchments, the time taken for pollutants from different parts of the catchment to reach a given outlet may be some time after a storm starts, resulting in a less detectable first flush. This time lag is rarely an issue for smaller, individual catchments; • the pollutants may not be very mobile. For example, bare soils or vegetated surfaces are generally not ‘cleansed’ as easily or effectively as sealed surfaces; and • pollutant sources that are effectively continuous may exist within the catchment. First flush is generally seen only where the supply of pollutants is limited. Sediment washing off from soil erosion, for example, will not give a first flush because the supply of soil particles is (for all practical purposes) unlimited. 4.45 Other pollution discharges that are not directly related to stormwater runoff may mask any first flush associated with the runoff. For example, in urban catchments during large storms, there can be continuous discharges from sewer overflows. Treatment trains 4.46 One of the best ways to address the problems of urban water management is to use treatment trains, or the sequencing of best management practices:
… commonly, best management practices work better when they are used in concert with other complementary practices rather than in isolation. Commonly, the practices are applied sequentially to address the sources, transmission and removal of pollutants to maximise their effectiveness.24
4.47 This series of treatment processes can be designed to collectively meet prescribed water quality objectives. Stormwater may be managed using a combination of source control, mid-pipe and end of pipe measures, depending on the circumstances and the management requirements for the catchment. To design an effective, economical and robust stormwater system requires planning and engineering expertise. In order for it to be effective, an urban stormwater management plan must address the following issues:
• stormwater quantity – flood and drainage management, stormwater reuse;
22 Stormwater First Flush Pollution, NSW Environment Protection Agency site, at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/mao/stormwater.htm 23 Stormwater First Flush Pollution, NSW Environment Protection Agency site, at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/mao/stormwater.htm; and Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Urban Stormwater Pollution, Industry Report, 97/5, July 1997, p 9. 24 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 6. 162
• stormwater quality – litter, nutrients, chemicals and sediment; and • aquatic ecosystem health – aquatic habitats, riparian vegetation, stream stability and environmental flows.25 Stormwater improvement devices 4.48 There are many options for improving the quality and quantity of stormwater and they range from engineered systems to landscaping methods that control the way water flows. The options chosen will depend on the limitations of the area being treated. For example options that are available to treat established urban areas will be limited by the open space available, and solutions to dense urban areas will differ from those for suburban or rural residential areas.
Pollutant traps 4.49 In many cases, improvements in stormwater management have been prompted by aesthetic imperatives, and communities have urged their local councils to address unsightly consequences of stormwater drains – such as scouring, and deposition of leaf and other litter on beaches and in waterways. Gross pollutant traps are designed to prevent the visual pollution of litter from entering waterways.
4.50 Gross pollutants are large (more than five millimetres) pieces of debris that get flushed through urban catchments and stormwater systems.26 Gross pollutant traps come in various designs that provide a physical barrier to the pollutants while allowing water to flow through. The appropriate type of trap will depend on whereabouts in the catchment it is to be installed, and what are the targeted pollutants.
4.51 Typically, gross pollutant loads in Australia’s urban areas lie between 20 and 40 kilograms per hectare per year of dry mass.27 The largest proportion of gross pollution load (about three-quarters of all stormwater gross pollutants) is vegetative matter such as leaves, twigs and garden refuse, however this is not a major source of nutrients compared with other sources.
4.52 Most of the human-derived material is paper and plastics and these enter the drainage network as street litter mainly from commercial areas. There are also large quantities of food, drink and cigarette refuse, which suggests that fast food consumers and smokers are a significant source of litter in urban streams.28
25 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60. 26 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Stormwater Gross Pollutants, Industry Report, 97/11, December 1997, p 1. 27 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Urban Stormwater Pollution, Industry Report, 97/5, July 1997, p 10. 28 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Stormwater Gross Pollutants, Industry Report, 97/11, December 1997, pp 3-4. 163
4.53 Some of the most common types of pollutant traps include:29
• side entry pit traps (SEPTs). These are baskets fitted below the entrance to drains from road gutters and they retain any material larger than the size of the basket mesh. By fitting them at many locations throughout the urban catchment, they can trap up to 80 per cent of litter. They need to be emptied every four to six weeks; • litter control devices (LCDs). These are large baskets that are placed below the entry point of an inlet pipe to collect litter from the pipe. As debris builds up in the devices, it allows smaller material to be caught as pore sizes in the baskets are reduced. Their efficiency ranges from 30 to 80 per cent depending on the frequency with which they are cleaned out; • trash racks. These consist of vertical or horizontal steel bars placed 40-100 mm apart, fitted across stormwater channels that are up to 10 metres wide. As water passes through the trash rack, large material is caught and as it builds up, finer material is collected. They require manual, usually monthly, cleaning; • continuous deflective separation (CDS) units. These are installed in stormwater channels and work by diverting the incoming flow of stormwater and pollutants into a pollutant separation and containment chamber. Solids are kept in continuous motion which prevent them from blocking the screen. Water passes through the screen and flows downstream. All gross pollutants are retained except for flows that overflow the by-pass weir during large floods. Floating objects are kept in continuous motion on the water surface while heavier pollutants settle into a containment sump from which they can be removed; • gross pollutant traps (GPTs). These are large concrete-lined wet basins upstream of weirs that slow down the water flow to encourage coarse sediments to settle to the bottom. Gross pollutants are retained by trash racks usually made from vertical steel bars at the downstream end of the basin; and • floating debris traps (FDTs). Also called litter booms, these traps are made by stringing partly submerged floating booms across waterways. They collect floating objects as they collide with them. Some use floating polyethylene boom arms with fitted skirts to deflect floating debris through a flap gate into a storage compartment. These traps are best suited for gathering highly buoyant materials in slow-moving waters, as they will miss most of the gross pollutant load which sinks. 4.54 In general pollutant traps can be effective in preventing visual pollution from entering waterways but their installation may instil a false sense of environmental security as less visible, but equally damaging, sources of pollution such as nutrients,
29 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Stormwater Gross Pollutants, Industry Report, 97/11, December 1997, pp 8-10. 164 sediment and chemical elements will continue to flow to the environment. It is this area that needs to be tackled:30
The fine sediments are generally not captured because of the filtering mechanism and the fine sediments, unfortunately, are the ones which lead to the turbidity in the rivers and the bay, causing the seagrasses to die.31
4.55 However, the Committee received evidence that CDS units were collecting more than just gross pollutants. Some preliminary work in which Dr Peter Fisher is involved suggests that the litter in such units becomes contaminated with heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides by up to three times more than the liquid in which it is immersed. This suggests that the litter is acting as a filter within the trap by adsorbing contaminants from the catchment,32 which also implies that in catchments that do not have traps, these substances are freely entering waterways.
4.56 There is also a suspicion that wet vault pollutant traps of this type, which are not cleaned out regularly enough, re-contaminate the water that flows through them during and after downpours,33 thereby becoming sources of pollution themselves.
4.57 Mr Diprose raised concerns that the claims made by various manufacturers of pollutant traps are not independently evaluated. He recommends that there should be some kind of accreditation for them:
My suggestion would be that anything that is going to be installed on a stormwater outfall to prevent the discharge of pollution into the marine environment should go through the same form of evaluation process. Unfortunately, all that needs to happen is that the supplier says, ‘We are nearly as good as a CDS unit, but we are much cheaper.’ … If we spend money on anything which is designed to protect the environment, we should have some assurance—as we do with washing machines, televisions and cars—that that thing does what it says it does. At the moment, there is no regulatory structure anywhere in Australia that requires that to be so.34
4.58 Without wishing to see more impediments such as increased costs and bureaucracy placed in the way of the installation of stormwater improvement devices, the Committee supports the idea that manufacturers’ claims as to their products’ efficacy is independently verified. These issues are dealt with in Chapter 6.
Artificial wetlands 4.59 The term ‘artificial wetland’ is loosely used to describe a self-sustaining filtration and water treatment system designed to maximise removal of pollutants from
30 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 351. 31 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 92. 32 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 368. 33 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 369. 34 Mr Diprose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 377. 165 water. It consists of various combinations of reed beds, open water, sedimentation ponds and gross pollutant traps.
4.60 Wetlands have shallow water that is less than 2 metres deep, although their water levels often fluctuate in wetting and drying cycles ranging from regular to very erratic. Ponds are more permanent, deep, and open water bodies with narrow, steep edges that may be fringed with emergent macrophytes (plants such as rushes, reeds and sedges. These macrophytes often have algae growing on their surface, known as epiphytes). They may also contain submerged aquatic plants. 35
4.61 Wetland systems exhibit seasonal variability but have the potential to remove suspended solids, nutrients and toxicants. They can remove pathogenic bacteria by sedimentation, predation, and natural die-off. Open water sections in wetlands allow ultraviolet radiation to kill pathogens and significant die-off rates have also been demonstrated for viruses.
4.62 A typical stormwater management system includes:36
• gross pollutant trap (GPT)—to trap artificial and natural litter and coarse particles such as gravel and sand; • pollution control pond/constructed wetland inlet zone—to trap sand-to silt-sized particles and improve water quality. This component of the system can have additional benefits such as aesthetic value and slowing down flows; • an area of plants such as rushes, reeds and sedges (macrophyte zone)—to improve water quality through the trapping of fine particles and soluble pollutants. Secondary benefits include wildlife habitat and slowing down flows; • lake/island—to provide passive recreation, landscape enhancement and wildlife habitat. Depending of their construction, lakes can significantly slow down water flows, and they can also provide water quality benefits. However if the lake attracts large populations of wildlife, water quality can be degraded by the addition of such things as bird droppings and other organic matter; and • flood retarding basin—to protect downstream areas from flooding and to control stream hydrology. 4.63 Periodic harvesting of material from constructed wetlands may be necessary to remove nutrients and pollutants from the system.
4.64 It is important that constructed wetlands are correctly designed, placed and sized, otherwise there is potential for downstream pollution to be worsened.37 The
35 T Wong, P Breen, N Somes and S Lloyd, Managing Urban Stormwater Using Constructed Wetlands, Industry Report 98/7, November 1998, vii. 36 T Wong, P Breen, N Somes and S Lloyd, Managing Urban Stormwater Using Constructed Wetlands, Industry Report 98/7, November 1998, pp 1-2. 37 I Lawrence and P Breen, Design guidelines: Stormwater pollution control ponds and wetlands, p 4. 166
Committee notes the concerns of Professor Wong, from the CRC for Catchment Hydrology, in relation to the current drive for councils to spend large amounts of money to construct wetlands, that he considers are often not properly thought out.38
4.65 Mr Diprose makes a similar point when he told the Committee that stormwater guidelines do not recommend specific solutions and it is left to councils, who lack the expertise, to be able to judge between the different merits of solutions.
4.66 Professor Wong also raised the issue of the importance of developers and related professionals understanding how wetlands operate:
If you have $100 million and everybody is building wetlands, how many contractors can really understand the intent of what they see on a drawing of wetlands? I suggest to you that it is not many. I also suggest to you that there are also not many engineering consultants that would fully appreciate the operation of the construction of wetlands. We have a problem where wetlands could well be built out there by contractors who simply believe that building wetlands is digging a hole in the ground, and we have that. It is really about progressively building capacity in all the various sectors in the industry to ensure that we have this flow from technology and science to construction that reflects the intent of technology and science.39
4.67 In relation to this point, the Committee was concerned that some developers are filling in or draining natural wetlands in order to instal water features that, despite their being named as such, are not wetlands but instead are ornamental ponds that cannot maximise water treatment.40
Stormwater detention basins 4.68 Stormwater detention or retardation basins temporarily store stormwater to reduce the peak discharge rate of the storm runoff. They are commonly used to alleviate flooding of downstream areas. They include such features as lakes, ponds and wetlands, but can also be an excavated area or concrete structure that remains dry until it rains. They can reduce the speed of water flows and encourage sedimentation. The longer the water is detained, the more efficient the pollutant removal.41
Permeable surfaces 4.69 Permeable surfaces allow water to infiltrate into the soil and prevent it from running off a site. Depending on the soil type, garden beds and lawns absorb water but hard surfaces do not. However, porous paving is an alternative to conventional
38 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 272. 39 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 273. 40 Committee briefing, Water and Rivers Commission, Perth, 29 April 2002. 41 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Urban Stormwater Pollution, Industry Report, 97/5, July 1997, p 10. 167 impermeable pavements with many stormwater management benefits. It allows water to percolate to a sub-base course, from where it infiltrates to the soil.42
4.70 Porous paving options include:
• pavements made from special asphalts that allow stormwater to filter through the pavement surface; • concrete grid pavements that allow stormwater to filter through voids in the concrete; • plastic modular block pavements that allow stormwater to filter through voids in the plastic matrix. 4.71 Early porous paving, typically asphalt, relied on percolation of stormwater through the pavement and storage in the sub-base prior to infiltration to the soil. These porous asphalt pavements were often subject to failure by clogging with sediments and are generally not as effective as newer methods of paving.
4.72 More recent porous paving designs use concrete grid or plastic modular block pavers which contain void areas that are filled with grass, sand or gravel to cleanse stormwater. The pavers are placed on sand or gravel layers that filter stormwater before infiltration to the soil. These layers are sometimes laid over gravel retention trenches which include overflow pipe systems.
4.73 Porous paving can be used to promote a variety of water management objectives such as:
• reduced (or even zero) peak stormwater discharges from paved areas; • increased groundwater recharge; • improved stormwater quality; and • reduced area of land dedicated solely to stormwater management. 4.74 They can also be used in streets with low traffic volumes, in car parks and for paving within residential and commercial developments.
4.75 Porous pavers may have their drawbacks though. Mr Gersbach, from the Housing Industry Association, felt that porous pavers have higher maintenance requirements than regular paving or concrete, as they would be less effective at suppressing weed growth and the gravel between the joints would be prone to being washed away.43
4.76 Governments are increasingly setting targets for minimum levels of permeability. In Melbourne developments are required to retain 20 per cent of permeable surfaces, and Bayside City Council is modifying this general standard in its
42 Melbourne Water site, at: http://stormwater.melbournewater.com.au/ 43 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 257. 168
Planning Scheme to require at least 30 per cent permeable surface.44 Dr Johnstone explained that this 30 per cent requirement is an interim step towards adopting a more flexible stormwater performance requirement which will allow the 30 per cent to be achieved with a combination of options such as permeable surfaces, rainwater tanks and infiltration devices:
I mentioned the project we are engaged in with the Association of Bayside Municipalities. The goal for that project is to have a very robust basis for requiring stormwater management, and retaining a percentage of pervious surface land is just one measure. Through that project we are hoping to be able to establish a standard for stormwater performance and certainly the stage 1 report, which came out after our submission was put into this project, sets the first stage for a very strongly based standard for stormwater performance. It also allows flexibility so you could achieve it by having a certain percentage of pervious surface. You could also supplement that with some tank rainwater, so you have storage of rainwater; infiltration devices et cetera. The proposed 30 per cent requirement in the planning scheme is almost an interim step towards this much more objective and more flexibly achieved stormwater performance requirement.45
4.77 Professors Troy and White also suggest that by changing gardening practices, stormwater runoff could be reduced:
Using garden and green kitchen waste to produce compost that is then applied to the soil in domestic gardens not only improves the tilth of the soil it reduces the water needs of gardens and improves the ability of the garden to absorb rainfall thus reducing the runoff or attenuating the peak. Planting gardens with more consideration of their water demands would also reduce the demand for irrigation water thus reducing demand for water from either the reticulated systems of from domestic capture.46
Swales 4.78 Swales, either grassed or vegetated, receive rainwater at or near the place it falls. Driveways, paths and roads can be constructed to direct runoff into the swales which then direct the water flows and slow them down allowing time for some water cleansing through filtration and sedimentation. Grassed swales look similar to any grass verge except they have a gentle depression at the centre and gentle incline to give the flow of water direction:
There is nothing new about grass swales. We see them in a lot of our regional cities. They can look as simple as what you see there. When we started to do our research on those grass swales, we determined that there are some beneficial outcomes in terms of water quality. We started talking to landscape architects about how they could integrate grass swales into
44 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 307. 45 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 307. 46 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 4. 169
their designs and we have results that look very much like this. These designs are now adding value to the private ownership of that estate and at the same time serving water quality treatment functions.47
4.79 Beneath the surface of the swales can be a system of perforated pipes and gravel filled trenches which maximise infiltration and carry excess water through the system. An advanced example of this is the Lynbrook Estate, which is described in detail below.
Creek naturalisation 4.80 In the past many urban creeks and waterways were concreted and straightened (to create what are referred to as ‘trapezoidal drains’) which allow rapid removal of stormwater from built-up areas. Various jurisdictions are now considering removing the concrete and returning the drains to a more natural state. Mr Wood from the Stormwater Industry Association told the Committee of the efforts of Fairfield Council in this regard:
They have actually converted an existing concrete channel to a naturalised creek. In doing this, they have been able to slow down the water flows and improve the water quality as a treatment train process. Obviously, it is very expensive. The community have to understand that, having already paid as their rates enormous sums of money to build these concrete channels and straighten the creeks, they are now being told their money is being used to naturalise it again. I think what has happened has been a paradigm shift.48
4.81 The Committee was impressed with the efforts in Canberra of the Sullivan’s Creek Catchment Group Inc (SCCG) which is a volunteer, community-based organisation. Its ultimate goal is to restore what are currently, concrete-lined urban sections of Sullivans Creek to a more natural and effective system of wetlands and vegetated channels. The group, in consultation with the catchment community, government agencies, scientific and technical experts and corporate groups, has developed a catchment management plan which has a 20 year horizon.
4.82 The group recognises that concrete channels cannot simply be ripped out because this would increase the hydraulic load downstream, resulting in flooding. It therefore concentrates on carefully designed stages and has identified 14 sites for tributary located wetlands.
4.83 One wetland has currently been completed on open space that is publicly owned land managed by the urban services department. This wetland was retrofitted into a densely populated and developed urban area. The private sector largely funded the project in combination with some Natural Heritage Trust funds and volunteers did the landscaping component. The amenity value of the new wetland translated into
47 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 269. 48 Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 167. 170 higher prices for the properties facing the site, allowing the developer to recoup its contribution to the project.49
4.84 Another creek naturalisation project brought to the Committee’s attention is the Bannister Creek’s living stream project in Perth. This creek was originally a series of wetlands, but had been used as a main drain since 1979, conveying stormwater from the urban and industrial catchment into the Canning River.
4.85 The project aims to transform a straight section of the drain into a living stream and enhance its aesthetic values as well. Steep streambanks have been reshaped to a gentler slope and the creek has been allowed to meander. The group has built riffles in the water to aerate flows and create habitat, and sections of the banks have been stabilised and revegetated.
4.86 The success of these works became apparent during a large storm event during 2001 when the living stream was able to withstand increased flows that caused severe damage to a conventional main drain structure upstream.
4.87 It is not just community groups that are looking to return drains to more natural settings. The Committee was told that Sydney Water has introduced a stormwater environmental improvement program that includes de-channelisation of concrete channels into more natural streams; along with the installation of pollutant traps and natural wetlands.50
Maintenance 4.88 An important issue that arises in relation to stormwater management devices is the ongoing maintenance and management they require to remain effective. It was made very clear to the Committee that many of these installations are not ‘set and forget’ but require planned, ongoing funding.
4.89 Pollution control assets, whether active or passive require a management strategy and funds in order to operate as designed. For example: active end of pipe treatments utilise gross pollution traps that must be emptied and the polluted materials safely disposed. Passive constructed wetland treatments require water quality monitoring and macrophyte maintenance plus periodic cleaning out of sedimentation build up. Surrounding park lands require weed and pest control, and management of safety elements where there is community access. Some tertiary treatment systems for example, bio-filtration swales51 may need complete removal and replacement over time, due to neutralisation and/or clogging.
49 Mr Wilkinson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 556. 50 Ms Meeske, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 178. 51 A bio-filtration swale is a grassed swale with a trench of bioremedial soil mix which is designed to capture particular target pollutants. 171
4.90 If pollutant traps are not emptied regularly they can increase pollutant loads to waterways as the rubbish breaks down releasing more concentrated toxins than would be the case if they had not been installed. For these reasons some jurisdictions are moving away from installing such traps, saying that pollutants should be intercepted at source.
4.91 A related issue is that although artificial wetlands may be constructed primarily for the purpose of cleaning stormwater, they can also have great amenity value. For proper maintenance, the build up in sediments will eventually require dredging. It may come as a shock to the local community when it observes its attractive recreational facility being dug up. It is important therefore that the community understands the function of these areas and why the work is necessary.
4.92 Professor Wong was supportive of an environmental levy on ratepayers being used to provide ongoing maintenance funding:
[Councils are] continually pressured with the operating budget and, if there is a tied levy to specifically look at maintaining and ensuring that some of the innovative or sensitive urban design elements are maintained, I think that will provide the certainty.52
4.93 In July 2000, the Mosman Municipal Council introduced one such environmental levy. It received almost unanimous community support, and the requisite approval of the State Government, to impose the 5 per cent levy over 12 years onto residents’ rates to fund a program called the Community Environmental Contract (CEC). Prior to the introduction of the levy, the Council recruited a group of prominent people from the area to promote the idea and a flyer was sent to residents explaining the concept. People who objected to the levy were involved in more detailed consultation and at the end of the day there were fewer than 10 objections.
4.94 The levy is projected to earn $6.8 million, and is complemented by an additional $2.2 million in grant monies received from such programs as the Coasts and Clean Seas Program under the Natural Heritage Trust. The Council has established a CEC project team and CEC projects concentrate on stormwater management, bushland management, creek rehabilitation and seawall reconstruction.
4.95 CEC Stormwater Projects are targetted at improving the quality of stormwater discharging at Balmoral Beach and Mosman Bay. The Council has adopted a flexible approach, using both structural and non-structural solutions. Works at Balmoral include the installation of four stormwater quality improvement devices (SQIDs), creek rehabilitation, and comprehensive education programs, including drain stencilling, general media awareness campaigns, and awareness campaigns for retail food businesses and their customers. In Mosman Bay, the Council has installed five SQIDs, and undertaken creek rehabilitation works.
52 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 272. 172
4.96 In addition to funding maintenance programs, there is also a role for the community in maintaining elements of water sensitive urban design. For example:
I think, given that some more progressive stormwater treatments are going to be landscape treatments, the ongoing maintenance and management of them is going to be critical for them to remain effective. That means that people need to understand that the swale—that is their front yard perhaps— has a function and not just an aesthetic value. Carrying that forward will be difficult and will require database management and information management. So as solutions become more dispersed, then there will be a need for capacity in hand so those custodians of that information are able to monitor and ensure that they are effective in the long term.53
4.97 A number of witnesses were concerned that water sensitive urban design would be more expensive to build and maintain than conventional drainage54 but this was by no means a unanimous view. According to Professor Wong:
The data we have to date suggest that, in terms of capital cost, it is usually not any more than for conventional design. In terms of beneficial returns to property values, we have been able to demonstrate true data that there is clearly an increase in the property value as a result of water sensitive urban design.55
4.98 Similarly in relation to maintenance:
I believe the jury is still out on maintenance costs, because this is all very new. But we have one set of data, which is a water sensitive urban design project that has now run for seven years—albeit at a very small, local, street level—and after the first two years, where the bulk of the maintenance is very intensive, we find that we actually have a maintenance budget that is less than for a conventional design. That is a very positive outcome. The question is whether that can be scaled up to a much larger area. We are doing research to deal with that. The common response by a lot of local governments and, in some cases, private industry is that the maintenance is very high. I think it is more due to lack of information and nervousness about the whole thing compared to the conventional way of doing things, rather than based on fact.56
4.99 Furthermore:
Currently, it is being demonstrated that it is just a different way of doing maintenance, not necessarily a more expensive way of doing it. I think that
53 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 360. 54 See for example Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 405-406. 55 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 272. 56 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 272. 173
is a clear example of how that relationship we have with Brisbane City Council has led to fairly rapid adoption on the ground, at the policy level.57
4.100 In any case, conventional drainage works also require ongoing maintenance for which Councils are required to set aside funds in their budgets. Other actions 4.101 Dr Humphries from the Water Corporation of Western Australia emphasises the point that treating water at the bottom of the catchments needs to be done in conjunction with other measures to improve water quality upstream and there are often jurisdictional problems associated with implementing these:
Basically our difficulty is that we cannot control the quality of the water that is given to us. We have been continually put under pressure from the community and from environmental and water resource regulators to spend large amounts of public money putting in things like constructed wetlands at the bottom end of the drainage system, when there needs to be better governance on a catchment scale to ensure, for example, that rubbish collections, street sweeping, fertiliser management and so on all happen in a properly integrated way and that gully traps are cleaned out and better drainage designs are put in place.58
4.102 This problem goes to the fragmented jurisdictional arrangements which are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
Street sweeping 4.103 Modern street sweepers can effectively improve stormwater pollution as they vacuum up the debris for later disposal. Therefore, regular programs of street and footpath sweeping, especially targeting critical areas such as shopping centres and in autumn the streets with deciduous trees, are an integral part of good stormwater management.
Leachate treatment plants 4.104 Old landfill sites can be a significant source of pollution that finds its way to waterways. While modern landfills incorporate liners in their design to contain leachate as waste decomposes, there is a legacy of older sites that do not include this technology.
4.105 Brisbane City Council has developed a method of controlling leachate and the Committee visited its Chandler landfill site where this was demonstrated.59 The Chandler landfill was operational until December 1991 and accepted predominantly
57 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 275. 58 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 425. 59 D Solley, L Don, S Watts, J Doyle and J Keller, Nitrogen removal from landfill leachate using high rate biological nitrification and sewer denitrification, paper. 174 domestic waste. The leachate currently produced is high in ammonia and low in carbonaceous matter and it is estimated that 40 megalitres per year of leachate needs to be removed to minimise its infiltration into the surrounding groundwater and waterways.
4.106 Brisbane Water built a pretreatment plant on the site which would remove the high nitrogen concentrations in the leachate so it could be discharged to the sewer, where it would combine with raw sewage. It then undergoes conventional treatment at the Gibson Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4.107 The plant was designed to be compact and unobtrusive because of its proximity to residential development; it is transportable to allow for relocation to other landfill sites; and it operates automatically with low maintenance requirements.
Pipe liners 4.108 During its visit to Townsville on 3 April 2002 the Committee was shown a drain lining project under the railway yards. This involved the trial use of sewerage technology to retrofit an existing stormwater pipeline with a polypropylene liner in an attempt to stop contaminated groundwater from the railway yards seeping into the stormwater network and from there to the creek and ultimately the Great Barrier Reef.
Drain stencilling 4.109 Many local councils have drain stencilling programs to highlight the connection between city streets and rivers, creeks, beaches and bays. For example Townsville City Council is marking “No waste – Flows to creek and reef” on its stormwater drains to emphasise the fact that the contents of the drains will ultimately end up on the Great Barrier Reef. Stormwater management plans 4.110 New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, now require local councils and relevant state agencies to develop Stormwater Management Plans that specify strategies for improving the management of stormwater in their jurisdiction.
4.111 The main objective of a plan is to provide a strategic basis for a council to improve its environmental management of urban stormwater, both in the short and the long term.60 Specifically they are intended to:
• generate commitment to and awareness of best practice environmental management of urban stormwater; • identify priority issues using a risk-based approach;
60 Victorian Environment Protection Agency site, at: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/Programs/Stormwater/swmp.asp 175
• develop management strategies to address both the priority risks and priority management issues; • establish a basis for ongoing cooperation and coordination between different departments of the council and between different agencies; and • ensure the effective integration of actions and use of investment by all key players. 4.112 The plans should consist of actions and recommendations that feed directly into the council’s business and strategic planning. Actions will impact on planning schemes, educational and environmental services, as well as engineering, operations and maintenance programs. They would be expected to incorporate principles of water sensitive urban design including:61
• source control, for example removal or prevention of impervious surfaces; • soak away zones and spoon drains; • retention of natural creeks, as opposed to transforming them into ‘chanellised’ drains; • retention and detention devices to slow the flow of stormwater and allow some settling of particulate matter; • appropriately designed wetlands; and • end of pipe controls such as trash racks, screens and separation facilities. 4.113 The Committee is supportive of the development of these plans. It considers that at the very least, the process of formulating them will focus councils’ attention on stormwater issues and lead to management improvements.
4.114 By 2005, the Government of South Australia, in conjunction with local government and other stakeholders, will prepare a stormwater management statement to set out a consistent management framework for major stormwater systems.62 Equivalent percentage treated areas63 4.115 The City of Port Phillip discussed the concept of equivalent percentage treated areas (EPTA) which has been adopted by the Association of Bayside Municipalities of which the City of Port Phillip is a member. A developed site will increase the rate of peak stormwater flows and carry a larger volume of pollutants than an undeveloped site, and the adverse stormwater impacts generally increase as the area of impervious site cover increases.
61 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 47. 62 Government of South Australia, State Water Plan, Volume 1, p 63. 63 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 353; and Association of Bayside Municipalities Stormwater Implementation Project Stage 1: Statutory Framework and Standards Environment & Land Management and Ecological Engineering, pp 5-6. 176
4.116 A developed site can improve its environmental performance through using constructed stormwater measures that retard peak stormwater flows and provide a reduction in pollutant loads carried by that stormwater. Developers are able to incorporate stormwater management measures such as on-site retention, stormwater re-use, and diversion to a landscaped area into their projects to ensure that the drainage profile of the site remains the same post-development, or at some level specified by the local council.
4.117 EPTA provides a mechanism to assess how well the developed site meets standards found in Victorian Environmental Protection Policies and included in Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines.64 If the site can achieve a 100 per cent EPTA, that is, if it treats all developed areas using best practice techniques and accrues an allowance for remaining pervious surfaces, then it is deemed to meet the guidelines.
4.118 Sydney Water has adopted a similar concept in its Rouse Hill estate for which it was nominated as the authority responsible for trunk drainage. Its system aims to ensure that post-development stormwater flows from the area are no more than the pre-development flows and so the actual amount of water that leaves the area will not change. The water is being captured and treated through stormwater management systems including gross pollution and sediment traps, grass channels and artificial wetlands.65 Stormwater harvesting 4.119 Despite the fact that stormwater can be highly polluted, its capture and use in some cases can be preferable to using treated effluent as the potential issues in relation to recycling endocrine disruptors and other such contaminants do not apply. There is also the downstream benefit of reducing contaminated runoff to receiving environments.66
4.120 However, the CSIRO puts urban stormwater utilisation at less than 3 per cent nationally.67 Domestic scale rainwater tanks currently make only a small impact on runoff in most capital cities. Larger scale schemes for storing stormwater in aquifers commenced in 1993 in Adelaide. As yet no other aquifer storage and recovery schemes for stormwater have been installed in other Australian states. Costs of water from these schemes, where wetlands are built for flood mitigation and amenity value, are approximately half the cost of mains water. This water is currently used only for irrigation.
64 Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, 1999, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Compiled by Melbourne Water, Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority and Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Municipal Association of Victoria and CSIRO. 65 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 182. 66 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 57. 67 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 55. 177
4.121 Dr Nicholas Fleming notes in his submission that while many States are now focussing on improving the quality of stormwater and reducing its ecological impact, the potential for productive use of stormwater is not being pursued as strongly as it should be.68
4.122 The City of Salisbury in Adelaide provides an exception to this claim. This Council in particular is noted for its innovative approach to improving urban water management and it has installed wetlands to treat stormwater from its catchments prior to the water flowing into Gulf St Vincent.
4.123 The Committee visited the Council’s Parafield Partnerships Urban Storm Water Initiative. This project diverts stormwater from existing drains to a system of constantly flowing, bird-proofed reedbed ponds on Parafield Airport land, where it is filtered, cleansed and supplied directly to users, with the surplus water injected into underground aquifers for extraction during dry periods.
4.124 The benefits of the project are to:
• prevent polluted stormwater flowing to Gulf St Vincent; • reduce the amount of water pumped from the Murray River for use by industry (one company uses approximately 1 billion litres of Murray River water per year); and • provide to users a better quality water with lower salinity levels than water supplied from the Murray River. 4.125 Another quite different stormwater harvesting scheme has been introduced by Wide Bay Water which uses stormwater to flush its sewerage system at night, which aims to remove odours from the system that are indicative of corrosion taking place. Mr Waldron told the Committee that most water companies or councils spend a lot of money on odour control, usually through the use of chemicals. By utilising stormwater in this way there is an economic benefit in extending the life of the asset and an anticipated target of reducing operational costs by about $300,000 a year in odour control. The effluent then becomes available for agricultural use through the company’s effluent reuse system.69
Rainwater tanks 4.126 Many people favour domestic installation of rainwater tanks which provide benefits for improved water management in terms of both curtailing demand for potable supplies and reducing the amount of stormwater runoff. The drawbacks of rainwater tanks are their expense and the measures that are required to ensure human health is not put at risk if the water is used for drinking.
68 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 7. 69 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 200 and 210. 178
Health risks
4.127 Domestic rainwater tanks used to be standard in all cities established in the nineteenth century, but once reticulated water supplies were developed, the perceived need to secure the finances of the water supply authorities led to the disappearance of backyard water tanks.70 Professor Troy provides an interesting historical perspective on this point:
The stormwater drainage systems were designed on the assumption that people collected a lot of rainwater. But a bit over 100 years ago we started to make it illegal for people to have rainwater tanks. There is a general understanding that that was for health reasons. That is in fact wrong. The major reason for it being introduced was that when they started to put reticulated water supply systems into the cities there was a need to make sure they were financially viable. The decision to charge people for water whether they used it or not—that was the first stage—meant that the disincentive for being connected to the water supply system was removed. A little later those tanks were made illegal. For a long period—about 90 years—water collection in tanks became illegal, allegedly for health reasons. That was always a phoney, as I think anyone who gets into the history of these water authorities begins to understand.71
4.128 Water companies are responsible for the quality of the water that they supply, but once people start using rainwater tanks, suppliers have little control over the quality of water from those tanks:
When augmented by devices such as tank water, you introduce a leak into our ability to secure the water supply, because the source is something that we do not have a great deal of control over.72
4.129 Drinking rainwater from improperly maintained tanks and surfaces on which the rain falls may increase health risks. For example, bird droppings and other detritus on roofs can contaminate water supplies. However, modern water tanks can include devices to overcome these risks if the water is to be used for drinking:
Modern water tanks do not have the disadvantages of the older household tanks. Moreover, the simple devices now available to ensure that detritus or dust collected on roofs is washed off before water enters the tank removes the dangers once claimed to be associated with household tank water supplies. The insertion in the line from the tank to house of a modern simple but sophisticated filtration device such as that designed to eliminate cryptosporidium, legionella, giardia, ecoli and all the known harmful bacteria as well as any suspended particles would result in the delivery of
70 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 4. 71 Prof Troy, Proof Committee Hansard, 22 March 2002, p 26. 72 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 172. 179
water of a quality higher than that currently delivered by the reticulated systems.73
4.130 The Committee visited Michael Mobbs in his sustainable house in Chippendale in the heart of Sydney where the quality of the rainwater was sufficiently good to comply with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. This house uses rainwater for its water supply and through the use of enclosed guttering to prevent bird droppings and leaves entering the tank; a couple of mesh traps and a first flush device to direct the initial rainfall (that contains the most pollutants) to the garden, the resultant water quality is good. Tests carried out by the University of Technology Sydney, demonstrate consistently low turbidity and faecal coliform counts and, importantly, the highest level of lead ever measured recorded in the tank water was 0.03 mg/litre - below the safety threshold of 0.05 mg/litre recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The drinking water compares favourably with that of Australian town water supplies.74
4.131 The Nature Conservation Council is of the view that rainwater tanks provide a superior source of drinking water than the reticulated supply:
When installed in accordance with the Australian standards it in fact is a much safer source of potable water than existing mains water. There are a whole range of chemicals which are added to our existing water supply system whose impacts on human health have not been fully explored. Sydney Water currently has a number of research projects with the CSIRO looking into the rates of bladder and bowel cancer and relating that back to chlorination of our drinking water supply. I would suggest that there are a number of reasons why people may want to provide their own drinking water supply, and water health is a significant reason, as is security of supply.75
… the Australian standard for rainwater tank design is very specifically geared to removing the contaminants that come down in the first flush. From an engineering perspective, it is specifically designed to cope with that problem.76
4.132 Adelaide arguably has the need to use a higher level of treatment on its water than any other capital city and, as a likely consequence, has the highest use of rainwater tanks in Australia.77 In other States people may also have a preference for drinking tank water:
73 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 4. 74 Sustainable House, Michael Mobbs, CHOICE Books, 1998, p 43. 75 Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 248. 76 Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 251. 77 Almost half of South Australian households have rainwater tanks, whereas the figure is only 15 per cent for the rest of Australia. 180
Quite a lot of people in our councils have a connection to the state water supply but also have their own water tanks and collect water off their roofs, mainly for drinking water. In a lot of the areas in the hills where there is no water supply, catching water off roofs and bores and things is probably the only source of water. So those sorts of things happen in our region both as a requirement and also when people want to use less water and have better control, particularly over the quality of their drinking water.78
4.133 Restrictions on installing urban rainwater tanks are not insurmountable and some water authorities are considering their use as part of demand management strategies:
There are means of controlling the water quality. … As part of the demand management strategy and other initiatives, we are looking at rainwater tanks in such a way that we could see a definite role for them in the urban environment. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of how. There is a considerable amount of knowledge that already exists to suggest that they can exist quite effectively in the urban environment.79
Non-potable use of rainwater
4.134 While there are steps that can be taken to ensure that water from tanks in urban areas is safe for drinking, the issue can easily be sidestepped by only using the collected water for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, garden watering and in hot water systems:
The health side of things is a very interesting problem and consequently the [Stormwater Industry Association] has not wanted to get involved with the health applications of water tanks for potable use. What we say is that water tanks and water retention on-site should be used for nonpotable use. Although we have various contentions that water tanks are actually safer than potable water supply systems that is a different exercise. We are not advocating water tanks for water supply retention for potable use; we are advocating that you use the tank water for toilets, irrigation and hot water— hot water systems, of course, sterilise the water—and in that way you meet all the health and regulatory guidelines.80
4.135 As with many findings of this inquiry, rainwater tanks will not be suitable in all regions of the country. In Perth, for example, for about 10 months of the year there is little rain and householders would require too large a tank than is feasible to provide sufficient water for their needs.81
78 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 407. 79 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 172-173. 80 Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 168. 81 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 420-421. 181
4.136 Some councils are beginning to require that rainwater tanks be included in new developments but the Housing Industry Association was not in favour this. It calculated that a 5,000 litre tank would add $6,064 to the cost of each house:
The basic premise of our objection to that is that new home owners, probably those in our society who can least afford an additional cost of this amount, should have to bear the cost of what is really a societal issue. It is not that we do not think that they are a good idea, it is just simply that the cost impost of that extent on new home owners is quite significant.82
4.137 Rather than imposing this additional cost on the homeowner, Mr Gersbach suggests that controls on, provision for, and recycling of, stormwater could be incorporated in the actual subdivision design. The cost of those provisions could then be incorporated into the overall land package and sold to the consumer as part of that:
Some of those solutions may well be that you have a single collection system, which is offline. That might be located either adjacent to a golf course or other community facility which actually requires water usage and that way recycle back into the system, rather than the impost on the home owner.83
4.138 However, HIA was more in favour of a rebate being offered to install rainwater tanks.
4.139 While some authorities are not actively encouraging installation of rainwater tanks, there are attempts being made to remove barriers to their installation.84 Water sensitive urban design 4.140 The concept of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) was originally developed in Western Australia and it is an holistic approach to the management of water in urban environments. It views the urban water cycle as a whole rather than by its individual sectors such as wastewater, stormwater and water supply, and their interactions with each other and attempts to incorporate water management systems into buildings, urban transport routes and public open spaces. It is based on the principles of water efficiency and reuse. Most importantly, used water is treated as a resource rather than as a waste product.
4.141 The focus is on addressing pollution problems at the source rather than constructing expensive engineered add-ons further downstream, and so it incorporates the options for best practice water management (outlined above) in various combinations to suit the particular constraints and challenges of individual sites.
82 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 253. 83 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 254. 84 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 607; and NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Submission 36A. 182
4.142 Water sensitive urban design is also commonly referred to as Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) and the Australian Water Association explains the connections between these two concepts as follows:
The concept of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) has gained currency in recent years and it neatly encapsulates the holistic approach to reducing the environmental footprint of urban infrastructure. The broader notion of integrated urban water management (IUWM) really means much the same thing, but different groups of professionals have tended to appropriate one or other name, according to their cultural orientation. Planners, architects and lateral-thinking developers are probably more aligned to WSUD, while water practitioners as such lean towards IUWM.85
4.143 Water sensitive urban design principles are meant to minimise the effects of development on the total water cycle while maximising the multiple use benefits of the stormwater system. To achieve this, water sensitive urban design aims to:
• preserve existing natural features and surface water/groundwater resources; • integrate public open space with stormwater drainage lines, • minimise impervious areas and the use of formal drainage systems, and 86 • encourage infiltration and stormwater reuse. 4.144 According to Professor Mein, to date Australian cities have generally been well served by the arrangements relating to water management: they have had reliable water supplies, they have had good public health and they have had good drainage. However, the time is now ripe for a new approach to be much more effective in terms of water use, and for much more useful environmental outcomes.87 This is what water sensitive urban design aims to achieve.
4.145 Brisbane City Council, for instance, has changed its City Plan to include water sensitive urban design.88 The onus is now on developers to demonstrate why they should not use water sensitive urban design rather than the other way round. This change is underpinned by the fact that there are now demonstration projects that show how it can be done and that it will not necessarily impose additional costs.89
4.146 Examples of water sensitive urban design demonstrated for the Committee how attractive this type of design can be, and developers too have found that by incorporating water sensitive urban design into their projects, they can command higher prices for amenity value. There are also suggestions that because water
85 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 11. 86 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60. 87 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 267. 88 The City Plan is Brisbane City Council’s planning scheme which is a document that describes the Council’s intentions and outcomes for the city’s future development. 89 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 275. 183 sensitive urban design incorporates less concrete and hard engineering elements, it is cheaper to construct.90
4.147 Some examples of developments incorporating elements of water sensitive urban design that the Committee visited are described below.
Lynbrook Estate, Melbourne 4.148 The Lynbrook Estate claims to be the leading showpiece for water sensitive urban development in Melbourne. The CRC for Catchment Hydrology provided the scientific underpinning for its development.
4.149 The local streets at Lynbrook are the main component of water sensitive urban design. Conventional kerbing and guttering have not been used, and instead stormwater is directed into swales that channel it to wetlands where it is further filtered and purified.
4.150 Driveways at Lynbrook are slightly ‘dished’ in design and aligned to follow the contours of the adjacent swales so that water can flow across them. A small grated pit in each driveway crossover is also included to prevent water ponding. ‘Breaks’ in the kerb and channel on the streets direct stormwater runoff into the swale drains.
4.151 The grass swales slow down runoff, allowing seepage into the ground, and filtering out of pollutants. These swales act as drainage channels in periods of rain, transferring road runoff to an underground system of perforated pipes and gravel filled trenches, to the main boulevard which acts as a bio-retention system with underground gravel filled trench and a 150 mm perforated pipe which allows infiltration and conveyance to the wetlands and Lynbrook Lake. Water from house roofs is piped to the stormwater system and pipes under the swales carry the excess water through the system. Drainage pits at low points in the development also collect surface runoff.
4.152 Beyond the wetlands is Lynbrook Lake and a floodway which provide more water quality improvement as well as an aesthetic and recreational amenity for residents. Lake water is used to maintain groundwater levels around a stand of remnant river red gum trees. A gravity fed infiltration system provides subsurface irrigation to those trees and the surrounding landscape.
4.153 Professor Wong drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that any litter at the Lynbrook Estate remains close to where it is deposited and ends up on the grass swales. It does not get carried by stormwater to rivers and lakes which is a benefit to the environment and also saves on cleaning out costs for lakes.91
4.154 Several early stages of the Estate were designed with a conventional stormwater system and the CRC for Catchment Hydrology is in the process of carrying out a three year monitoring program to compare the performance of these
90 Mr Robertson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 557. 91 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 269-270. 184 areas and the WSUD systems. The study will look at the quantity and quality of runoff, as well as costs of construction, ongoing issues of maintenance and community acceptance of WSUD.92
4.155 The Urban and Regional Land Corporation (the Estate developer) is now planning for all remaining stages of Lynbrook to incorporate WSUD and is reviewing the design of stormwater systems in all its estates with a view to adopting WSUD as standard practice.
Cairnlea Estate, Melbourne 4.156 Cairnlea is another Urban and Regional Land Corporation housing development that incorporates elements of water sensitive urban design, although not to the same extent as does the Lynbrook Estate. Four major artificial lakes will be constructed at Cairnlea, along with numerous wetlands and sediment ponds to treat the stormwater from the estate. Gross pollutant traps and macrophytes will assist in improving water quality and the lakes will act as storage ponds for irrigating public spaces.
4.157 The two creeks on the site will benefit from improved stormwater flows and Jones Creek will be rehabilitated from a polluted drain to a living creek. The Kororoit Creek corridor will also be protected and improved with weed eradication and replanting of vegetation.
No. 48 Ormond Road, Elwood, Melbourne—Stormwater retention demonstration project 4.158 The Committee visited 48 Ormond Road, Elwood which is a multi-unit demonstration project consisting of seven apartments. It was funded by the Coasts and Clean Seas program. At this development, rainwater is collected from the roof, undergoes ultraviolet treatment, and is used for toilet flushing in the units. It incorporates a monitoring system to gauge the amount of water that overflows into the stormwater drains, the amount used for toilet flushing and the amount supplemented from the reticulated supply during dry periods. This information will guide the implementation of policies in the future.93
4.159 One of the drivers for the project is the need to address the localised flooding effects of increased urban infill. As discussed previously, it is possible to retain stormwater flows from a site at their pre-development level, even though the amount of impervious surfaces becomes greater. This development is a demonstration of what can be done and through the monitoring system will provide valuable information for future developments:
92 Melbourne Water site, at: http://www.stormwater.melbournewater.com.au/content/wetlands_4.asp 93 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp352 and 356. 185
the aim of the 48 Ormond Road project was to address one of the real problems that we have in Port Phillip and elsewhere, I am sure, with ageing infrastructure and the fact that, as urban development becomes more intense, the amount of pervious surface reduces—hence the rainfall that is caught and runs off to stormwater drains increases and that stresses the critical and ageing infrastructure. So avoiding a net increase despite an increase in catchment is one of the cornerstones of that policy.94
Bridgewater Creek Constructed Wetland Project, Bowie’s Flat, Brisbane 4.160 Bowie’s Flat wetland in the suburb of Bridgewater was constructed on a site that had previously consisted of a stretch of grass with a large concrete drain. Stormwater flowing into the wetland first passes through a gross pollutant trap to collect litter, vegetation and sediment, followed by a series of shallow ponds to, firstly capture coarse particles of sand and soil, before passing through wetland plants where fine particles and microscopic nutrients are trapped. The wetland is kept to a maximum depth of one metre to ensure plant growth. In heavy rain excess water bypasses the wetland via an overflow channel.
4.161 Despite its functionality, the site is an attractive amenity for local residents, who were extensively consulted during the planning stages. The wetland has transformed a featureless, barren, concrete channel-bisected park into clear pools, reeds, ephemeral marshes with large wetland trees and an ecological haven for aquatic wildlife. With its interpretive signage describing its functions and value, and abundant wildlife, the wetland also becomes a useful educational resource for local schools and other interested groups. A path and boardwalk system provides movement in and around the park and access to nearby community facilities. A deck adjacent to the boardwalk provides a quiet place to sit and observe the wetland.95
Windermere housing development, Brisbane 4.162 This housing development incorporates a wetland along the creek in the centre of the development. The wetland is based on a natural design concept with water flowing over gravel and rocks and through reed beds and was installed in lieu of concrete pipes. The Committee was told that the presence of the wetland has added 20 per cent to the value of surrounding houses.
Keith Boden Wetlands, Brisbane 4.163 The Committee visited the Keith Boden Wetlands in Brisbane which were constructed in 1998 on a former drain. They receive stormwater from two major channels, parts of which have been buried to improve the amenity of the immediate area. Prior to the wetlands’ installation, flooding in the area was an ongoing problem and was exacerbated by an estimated 76 tonnes of sediment that came from the drain each year. Additionally, levels of nutrient in the stormwater from the area are quite
94 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354. 95 N4c site, at: http://www.n4c.org.au/Projects.htm 186 high because of residential overuse of fertilisers and the installation is designed to absorb these nutrients to prevent them from ultimately entering Morton Bay.
Ascot Waters, Perth96 4.164 The Ascot Waters development in Belmont, Perth has the Swan River running through it. The stormwater management system is designed to control stormwater volume and peak discharge rates in a treatment train of best management practices to prevent the river and protected areas from the effects of urban runoff. Pollution in the runoff is reduced through physical containment or flow restrictions designed to allow settling, filtration, percolation, chemical treatment or biological uptake and assimilation of nutrients. Direct runoff into an environmental protection area is avoided.
4.165 Runoff is dealt with in three zones. Zone A, which includes the commercial/marina area and extensive hard surface parking areas, directs runoff into a series of gross pollutant traps and then into wetlands that strip out pollutants before the water enters the Swan River. A horse faecal runoff problem from the nearby Belmont Racecourse has also been addressed by creating a retention pond in the middle of the racetrack.
4.166 Zone B runoff is directed into a shallow, landscaped infiltration basin where it is temporarily held before it seeps into the edge of the saltmarsh area. This basin is designed for rapid infiltration of inflowing stormwater and for additional subsurface conveyance an underdrain is included. This structure removes all sediment and most of the contaminants contained in the runoff.
4.167 Zone C runoff is directed down the central open space corridor within the residential development to an artificial wetland via a perforated pipe. This allows the water to be aerated and stripped of some sediment load. Entry to the wetland is through vegetated swales and detention basins to finally remove solid particles. An overflow into the main water body operates during extreme events.
4.168 The stormwater improvement devices have been attractively landscaped to improve their amenity and incorporate clever multi-use ideas. For example, one of the detention basins has been designed for use as an amphitheatre, while another doubles as a children’s playground.
4.169 The stormwater management system deals with both the major and minor storm events by:
• providing a flow path for major events so that flooding of property is prevented; • limiting the volume and peak flow rates of runoff to predevelopment conditions for minor storm events; and
96 Ascot Waters Stormwater Management Plan, PPK Environment and Infrastructure Pty Ltd, April 2002. 187
• treating 90 per cent of storm events per year via detention for a minimum of 72 hours or retention of the runoff via infiltration and/or reuse. Conclusions 4.170 Modern stormwater systems are the inefficient legacy of an out of date mindset that regarded rain water falling on cities as a problem to be dealt with by removing the water as quickly as possible into streams and rivers. These became dumping grounds for the various pollutants that are collected by the stormwater system, derived from vehicles, gardens, rubbish and sewage overflows.
4.171 Techniques are now available that are vastly more efficient and which sustainably reintegrate stormwater flows into urban water cycles, making effective use of this water as a resource. Developments such as the Lynbrook Estate demonstrate the techniques of water sensitive urban design and also show that the associated costs of construction and maintenance are comparable with conventional methods. At the same time, they offer surrounding communities increased levels of utility and aesthetics.
4.172 However, the application of water sensitive urban design principles remains very much the exception rather than the rule, even in new developments, while it is even rarer in existing suburbs.
4.173 Some developers are adopting only the features of WSUD that are attractive to buyers. The Committee was told that it was still common for natural, functioning wetlands to be drained for housing with small ornamental lakes put in their place that provided no filtering or purifying role in stormwater management.
4.174 Nevertheless, much of Australia’s stormwater infrastructure will reach the end of its useful life over the coming twenty years and this provides Australia with a rare opportunity to replace this infrastructure with best practice systems. Accordingly, the Commonwealth must take a strong leadership role to ensure that state, and particularly local, governments, have both the resources and the expertise to take this opportunity. How this can be done is the focus on Chapter 6. 188 189
Chapter 5
Effluent
Introduction 5.1 Although water is vital to our biological survival, human societies have also become reliant on water as the principle vehicle for transporting and removing waste products. Water that passes through urban centres becomes contaminated with a wide range of undesirable pollutants, which for many people, is a problem only until it vanishes down the sink, toilet or drain. However, for the waterways that are on the receiving end of these waste flows, the consequences can be severe.
5.2 This chapter examines this final part of the urban water cycle – the water that has been used by towns and factories and has become contaminated. The chapter begins with an overview of sewage treatment systems with particular examination of some of the innovative treatment processes that the Committee saw during the inquiry. The types of pollution and their effects on the receiving environment are then considered. Treatment systems 5.3 Fortunately, emerging technology is providing many of the answers to the problems posed by these contaminants.
5.4 The processes used to treat wastewater varies, but can be generally divided into four stages, outlined below. The latter three – primary, secondary and tertiary – are also used to describe the standard of the treated water.1 However, it should be noted that the meaning of these descriptors can vary from place to place. A useful ‘star rating’ guide that explains levels of treatment and water quality has been developed by the Australian Water Association.2
5.5 As wastewater goes through successive levels of treatment, increasingly types and quantities of pollutants and pathogens are removed, since no one system of treatment, disinfection or filtration can remove everything. Thus, for example, protozoa and helminth cysts are both resistant to chlorine disinfection, but can be killed by exposure to UV or ozone, or filtered out by membranes.
5.6 These levels of treatment are described below.
1 The following description of the phases is largely taken from Simpson and Oliver, Water Quality: From wastewater to drinking water to even better and The Dilemma of Watter Quandary, 1996, pp 17-26. 2 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 128. 190
Screening/pre-treatment 5.7 When sewage arrives at a plant, it is first put through a preliminary screening which removes larger solids and rubbish and protects pumps and other plant equipment. Common items that people put down the sink and into drains, like cigarette butts, cotton wool buds and the small brand stickers on apples, cause particular problems for treatment plants, jamming filters and causing blockages.3 Primary treatment 5.8 In the primary treatment stage, effluent is put into a settling tank, where solids settle to the bottom, allowing the cleaner water to flow over into the next stage. In a process called flocculation, chemicals such as alum (aluminium sulphate) and ferrous chloride are added which act as a coagulant to make suspended matter aggregate into larger, heavier particles that settle into the sludge at the bottom of settlement tanks. This process also captures much of the phosphorous and heavy metals.
5.9 Often water also has to be treated to remove iron and manganese which are common in Australian water (Perth groundwater, for example, is naturally very high in iron which causes discolouration4). Lime, sulphuric acid or sodium bicarbonate may also be added to alter the pH (acidity or alkalinity of the water). Effluent treated in this process therefore has some reduction in the amount of pollutants and pathogens, but a great deal remains.5 Secondary treatment 5.10 At the secondary stage of treatment, effluent receives biological treatment. In the biological reaction tanks, bacteria in the sludge is recycled continuously through the treatment plant. Different bacteria can then be used to consume organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorous. This is done in separate aerobic, anaerobic, and anoxic phases, which successively reduce levels of organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorous in the effluent.6 Tertiary treatment 5.11 The final ‘polishing’ level of water treatment will often involve running the water through filters consisting of coal, sand, fine gravel, anthracite (finely divided high carbon coal) or zeolite (a fine clay) to remove any remaining suspended solids. The water may then be disinfected by means of chlorine dosing or UV exposure, while shallow lagoons (know as maturation ponds, and allowing exposure to natural
3 Sydney Morning Herald, Sink sins make it fruitless being green, 17 June 2002, p 3. 4 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, 2002, Perth 29 April, p 417. 5 Water treated to this level can be referred to as Grade 1 wastewater. 6 Water treated to these levels can be respectively referred to as Grades 2, 3 & 4 wastewater. 191
UV in sunlight) or artificial wetlands may also be used for this effluent polishing role.7 Advanced treatments 5.12 Several other advanced techniques are available to treat wastewater.8 In membrane filtration, water is forced through membranes made of polymers or ceramics with very fine pores, which vary in size depending on the type of membrane used.9 There are four basic categories of membrane, which in decreasing size are: microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. The particulate matter and contaminants collected by the membrane are removed in a periodic backwash process. These improved membrane treatment technologies are particularly valuable for their ability to remove viruses from water, but they are expensive in terms of both capital and energy to run.10
5.13 Dosing with ozone or advanced oxidising agents can be used to disinfect and break down organic compounds. Activated carbon filters are made with a highly porous form of carbon, and are used to remove cyanobacterial toxins and chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides and pharmaceuticals.
5.14 In the Dissolved Air Flotation process, air saturated water is introduced into wastewater and forms millions of micro air-bubbles which attach to grease or tiny solids present in the effluent. This then floats to the surface forming a scum, which is skimmed off.11 By-products 5.15 When wastewater is treated, what is often forgotten is the problem of managing the waste products filtered from the water, which emerge as a sludge, high in pollutants. The quantities of sludge are quite substantial, and the most common solution is to dispose of it into landfill. However, other solutions are possible, such as incineration, and associated processing of ashes into fertiliser (see the example of Canberra, below), while there is also the possibility of turning dewatered biosolids into heating fuel12 or oil for use in generators.13
7 For example, Sydney’s Cronulla Sewage Treatment Plant received a $90m upgrade to tertiary and UV treatments. Melbourne Water, The Peninsula Project – Working towards a sustainable marine environment, July 2001, section 5. 8 The following description is a summary based on Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, pp 173-179. 9 Used at the water treatment plant at the Sydney Olympic Park site at Homebush Bay, Sydney. See also Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Submission 48. 10 Mr Ringham, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 472. 11 This technique is used at the Bolivar waste water treatment plant in South Australia. Committee briefing, SA Water, 1 May 2002. 12 Sunday Mail, Sewage solution, 14 April 2002, p 20. 192
Sewage treatment plants 5.16 In the course of the inquiry, the Committee visited a number of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) around Australia, each reflecting slightly different approaches to the same problem. Site visits included:
• Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre (ACT) • Bolivar Waste Water Treatment Plant (SA) • Moa Point Waste Water Treatment Plant in Wellington, New Zealand • Gibson Island Waste Water Treatment Plant (Qld) • Western Treatment Plant in Werribee (Vic) • Bendigo Waste Water Treatment Plant (Vic) • Water Treatment Plant at the Sydney Olympic Park site at Homebush Bay (NSW) 5.17 Several of these are discussed in greater detail below. Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre, ACT 5.18 The LMWQCC,14 as the treatment facility for Canberra has a number of particular characteristics. As Australia’s largest inland city, wastewater is discharged into the Molonglo River and from there, into the Murrumbidgee River and the Burrinjuck Reservoir. With the importance of the rivers to downstream urban and rural use, it has been necessary to ensure the highest levels of treatment before discharge of water. One aspect of this requirement is that discharges must not have any significant levels of phosphorous, due to the danger of algal blooms.
5.19 These requirements have been recognised in the ACT where a high standard of tertiary treatment was adopted for the LMWQCC, which has also gained certification under the ISO 9002 and 14001 standards,15 and conducts ongoing surveys up and downstream of the plant. In addition, the ACT Legislative Assembly resolved on 5 June 2002 that as far as possible, the water leaving the ACT via the Murrumbidgee River should be of no less a quality than the water flowing into the ACT.16
5.20 Interestingly, the LMWQCC also produces about 4 tonnes per day of incinerated ash from the sludge by-product which is high in phosphorous and
13 A prototype of this system was constructed in West Australia, but has not yet been successful. West Australian, Sewage has $30m stink, 14 May 2002, p 3. 14 ACTEW, Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre, fact sheet. 15 For more detail on the ISO standards, see Chapter 9. 16 ACT Government, Submission 75A, p 2. 193 nitrogen. This is then sold as a product called Agri-Ash, which is used as a soil conditioner in the region.17 Western Treatment Plant in Werribee, Victoria 5.21 The Werribee plant, run by Melbourne Water, is one of the largest STPs in the world, and offers an excellent example of best practice and sound environmental management.18
5.22 The plant covers 10,850 hectares and processes more than 500 megalitres of sewage per day, amounting to about 54 per cent of Melbourne’s sewage including the major proportion of the city’s industrial waste. The plant then discharges into the enclosed Port Phillip Bay, via four outlets. Werribee, which has been in operation more than 100 years, treats sewage with a mixture of lagoon treatment, land filtration (irrigation) and grass filtration (overland flow).
5.23 Port Phillip Bay is of vital economic, recreational and environmental importance to Victoria, and there were concerns over the effects of the high nutrient discharges for long term health of the Bay. Consequently, Melbourne Water commissioned the CSIRO to undertake the $12m Port Phillip Bay Environment Study, leading to nutrient reduction targets of 800 tonnes per year. The other major environmental driver for Werribee was the 1983 inclusion of the entire site as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention.
5.24 In 1998, Melbourne Water developed the Environment Improvement Project, which involved upgrading of the lagoon based treatment systems with an activated sludge plant and membrane covers over all the anaerobic processes to contain odour and capture the methane gas. This gas is then used for power generation, which will allow the plant to become almost energy self sustaining. Up to 50 per cent of the plant’s effluent flow will be able to be sold as recycled water. Potential for fish farming 5.25 A further possible method for dealing with sewage is fish farming in ponds filled with wastewater treated to secondary standard or better. Trials conducted at the Bolivar plant in Adelaide, in association with the South Australian Research and Development Institute, have suggested that carp bred in these ponds enjoy high growth rates and low mortality, while at the same time are effective at ‘polishing’ final effluent by removing nutrients. The resulting fish harvest can then be sold as fish meal used in animal feeds.19
17 Committee briefing, ACTEW, Canberra, 10 August 2001. 18 Much of the information on the Werribee STP is drawn from Melbourne’s Western Treatment Plant – Innovation and cooperation the keys to upgrade, B McLean and P Scott, Water, March 2002, p 78. See also Western Treatment Plant – A vision for the future, Melbourne Water. 19 Correspondence to the Committee from Ernest Manley, 26 April 2002. 194
Small scale treatments – Michael Mobbs’ Sustainable house 5.26 At the other end of the spectrum is the house level of wastewater treatment. There are a range of systems available for individual houses that safely and effectively treat grey and black water. Some of these systems also produce high quality water available for reuse.
5.27 The Committee visited one such example in Chippendale in Sydney, created by Michael Mobbs. The renovation of this inner-city terrace house aimed to create a sustainable house, designed according to three criteria:
• no rainwater or sewage would leave the site; • all water needs would be met from rainwater falling onto the roof; and • over 12 months, the house would be a net exporter of clean, solar electricity to the main electricity grid.20 5.28 Of particular interest to this inquiry is the system used to treat water from showers, toilets, washing etc as well as vegetable and compost waste from the household. The wastewater tank contains a wet compost system21 capable of handling 1200 litres of waste water per day. The system uses a ‘biolytic filter’ which operates through a series of filter beds housed within the tank, consisting of sandy and peaty material filled with worms, bugs and various micro-organisms which treat the water in an aerobic process. Particulate matter is filtered out by the compost beds and the cleaned water then passes through an ultraviolet lamp, designed to kill pathogens, and into a holding tank. From this tank, water is either used for toilet flushing or clothes washing, or discharged into reed beds and a miniature wetland detention basin.22
5.29 The solution used in the Sustainable House is one of a number of on-site disposal systems for wastewater that are available, including dry composting, chemical, combustion, hybrid, biofilter, or sandfilter methods that can be used in association with constructed wetlands that can give a final ‘polish’ to the processed water.23 Sources of water pollution from urban areas 5.30 Urban areas produce large quantities of wastewater, comprising domestic waste from toilets, showers, washing machines and drains, and industrial, or trade waste. The sewage treatment plants are the most important point source of nutrient
20 Sustainable House, Michael Mobbs, CHOICE Books, 1998, p 12. 21 Sustainable House, Michael Mobbs, CHOICE Books, 1998, pp 106 – 111. 22 Sustainable House, Michael Mobbs, CHOICE Books, 1998, p 123. 23 Mission Beach Sewerage Report, prepared for the Cardwell Shire Council (Qld) by Sinclair Knight Merz, 1999. Manufacturers include Clivus Multrum, Wheelie-Batch, Poo-Lution Buster Dunny, Nature-loo, Separett, Envirolet, and Rota-Loo. 195 pollution from metropolitan areas, constituting around 99 per cent of phosphorous and nitrogen, with stormwater runoff constituting the major non-point source.24
5.31 Trade waste can be divided into organic compounds which include pesticides and solvents, and inorganic compounds which come from industries that use metals such as copper and lead. Examples of such industrial sources include copper from the electronics industry; chromium from electroplating works; lead and nickel from the battery shop; silver from jewellers; and mercury from the dentist.25 Wastewaters from urban areas may also include organochlorines and dioxins.26
5.32 The Committee saw several examples of this first hand. In Townsville, accumulated pollution of soils from the railway maintenance facilities, such as oils, paints and solvents, poses a significant threat to downstream waterways, as they leach into the stormwater systems,27 while the old railway yards in Brisbane are the major source of pollution into Breakfast Creek, which is a tributary of the Brisbane River.28 Also in Brisbane, old landfill disposal sites, constructed prior to modern requirements to line and cap landfills, are leaching a cocktail of contaminants as their contents decompose.29
5.33 Similar problems were encountered by Sydney Olympic Park Authority in preparing the Homebush site for the Sydney Olympics. Various parts of the site had been contaminated with a ‘bewildering range and types of pollutants’30 by previous users, including an abattoir, a brickworks and an armaments depots, as well as in extensive landfill of surrounding former wetlands.31
5.34 A further significant source of sewage pollution affecting waterways is the release of often raw sewage from vessels. This has been identified as a particular problem in Queensland’s Moreton Bay,32 and Sydney’s Hawkesbury River,33 where thousands of leisure craft, houseboats, yachts, and recreational fishing boats operate. A recent Queensland Transport survey found that more than forty per cent of the
24 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, pp 7-8. 25 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 121. 26 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, pp 8-9. 27 Committee Briefing, Townsville City Council, Townsville, 3 April 2002. 28 Committee Briefing, Healthy Waterways, Brisbane, 5 April 2002. 29 Committee Briefing, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, 4 April 2002. Chandler Recycling and Waste Transfer Station. 30 Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Submission 48, p 3. 31 Homebush Bay Development Guidelines, Vol 1 Environment Strategy, p 2. 32 Courier Mail, Councils call for cleaner bay, 16 May 2002, p 5. 33 Sun Herald, Up the creek without an excuse, 19 May 2002, p 42. 196 state’s boaties regularly discharge untreated waste into the water, with twenty five percent admitting to also discharging bilge water.34
5.35 But even where wastewater is fully treated to potable standards, prior to discharge, large influxes of freshwater into the marine environment of coastal waters may itself cause environmental problems. According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority:
Reef corals exist in seawater salinities ranging from 25 to 42% […]. Many examples exist of lethal and sublethal effects of lowered salinities following storm and flood events[…]. Symptoms of coral stress caused by lowered salinities include excessive mucous release and loss of zooxanthellae (bleaching).35
5.36 Bad land management practices are also a major source of contaminant, with destruction of the vegetation along rivers and streams (riparian vegetation) and poorly planned urban developments causing erosion of soils into the waterways, raising sediment loads.36 This problem is complicated in many of the coastal regions of Eastern Australia which have acid sulphate soils. Land clearing and developments in these regions can trigger leaching of acids into the waterways.37 Pollution from septic tanks 5.37 Although sewage systems can certainly create problems for the environment, perhaps a worse problem is areas of higher density population which have remained unsewered. The septic tank systems on individual blocks can become a major problem, particularly if the tanks are leaky or not properly maintained.
5.38 A recent study in South Australia conducted by SA Water, the Environment Protection Authority and local councils, of septic tanks in the Adelaide Hills, Mt Barker and Onkaparinga councils found that of the 1,449 tanks examined, 44 per cent did not work correctly. Leaking effluent is pooling on the surface and leaching into the stormwater systems, creeks and rivers.38 Failure rates are highest from older tanks, as would be expected, however 24 per cent of newer aerobic systems are also
34 Sunday Mail, Boaties pumping sewage into sea, 11 Aug 2002, p 20. 35 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, p 8. 36 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 8. The submission gives the example of urban expansion along Perth’s south east and north-east corridors increasing ‘nutrient loads to the already highly eutrophic Swan- Canning system.’ 37 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, pp 6 and 11. 38 Advertiser, Septic tanks leaking into the waterways, 7 June 2001, p 29. 197 failing, while even systems installed after the introduction of the SA Health Commission Standards in 1988 are failing at a rate of almost 22 per cent.39
5.39 Given that there are 12,000 septic tanks in the region, the magnitude of the problem is evident.
5.40 These factors have seen programs to extend areas covered by main sewage systems taking priority for water authorities. In 1994, for example, the Water Corporation in Western Australia commenced the Infill Sewerage Program, worth $800 million over ten years, to replace most domestic septic systems in the Perth area and in many country urban areas with reticulated sewerage. Prior to that, twenty-five per cent of the Perth area was unsewered.40 Pharmaceutical products and endocrine disruptors 5.41 Perhaps the most alarming of the evidence received by the Committee is that relating to the presence in the water of active pharmaceutical products and endocrine disruptors. These chemicals enter the water systems through effluent, and derive from natural hormones in the body, as well as medicated drugs and plastics.41 According to Dr Fisher:
up to 90 per cent of oral medications actually pass straight through the body and come out in urine or excrement. Even those parts of the medication which are used by the body have a tendency to recombine and form the original substance once they are outside the body.42
5.42 These chemicals include thyroid growth regulators, the contraceptive pill, baldness treatments, blood pressure and heart drugs, anti-depressants, and antibiotics. A less obvious source are soft plastics like Gladwrap and Tupperware, which produce a substance called phthalate, a very strong female hormone mimicker. Dr Fisher argues that Australian sewage treatment plants are generally ineffective at removing these chemicals from the wastewater stream:
When we get to sewage treatment plants, early British research shows something like 38 to 83 per cent of pharmaceutically active chemicals, or PACHs, are actually removed by sewage treatment plants. In the case of Sydney, there is virtually zilch removal.43
5.43 The presence of these chemicals is compounded by two factors. First, these drugs may survive in the waterways for several years. Second is the problem of synergism, in which the chemical compounds interact with other chemicals in the
39 Advertiser, Hills septic tank pollution alert, 14 November 2001, p 27. 40 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 13. 41 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 246. 42 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne 23 April, 2002, p 365. 43 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne 23 April, 2002, p 365. 198 receiving environment, in the process creating wholly new compounds, with effects that are not tested for because the number of possible interactions are too complicated:
Most of the toxicology tests are done in labs on single chemicals. When they are out in the wild, there are all sorts of possible interactions—even with herbicides and pesticides.44
5.44 The consequences of these chemicals in the environment can be frightening, including bisexual or altered gender fish, spawning boosts in shellfish, and potentially, the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.45
5.45 These concerns are described by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, which argues that endocrine disruptors:
have a very insidious chemical impact on the environment because they attack ecosystem function—the very basic processes of life, the ability of species to reproduce and the ability of species to effectively give birth.46
5.46 The Nature Conservation Council of NSW also comments that endocrine disruptors cause these effects at very low levels:
It is almost at below detection limits where you start to see problems emerging in relation to endocrine disrupting effects on species such as fish and reptiles. Put simply, it is much safer to keep them out of natural ecosystems because to go around and try and clean them up once they have been discharged to those environments is very expensive.47
5.47 The extent to which pharmaceutically active chemicals constitute a problem in Australia is difficult to ascertain. The CSIRO acknowledges that they are potentially a very significant issue and one that has been largely overlooked due to lack of knowledge.48 According to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW though, what little research that has been done in Australia does little to allay fears:
There have been some isolated investigations carried out by Dr Lim in South Creek catchment, which receives effluent from the St Mary’s sewage treatment plant.
He found that the male Gambusia, which is a feral fish, also called the mosquito fish, … . All of the Gambusia that were being sampled had secondary sexual characteristics. The length of the male gonads had shrunk.
44 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 367. 45 Dr Fisher, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne 23 April, 2002, p 367; and Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 245. 46 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 245. 47 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 246. 48 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 10. 199
He carried out an experiment which linked that back to the level of oestrogen coming out of the St Mary’s sewage treatment plant.49
5.48 In contrast, Mr Ringham of the South Australian Water Corporation told the Committee that:
There has not been a lot of long-term studies on endocrine disruptors. There has been some work done in South Australia by the Department of Human Services – before I arrived here – which gives a fairly good indication that it is not a significant issue at this point in time.50
5.49 This view is cautiously supported by Professor Bursill:
Most of us feel that the risks to public water supplies will be close to zero, but we have no evidence at the moment to prove that.51
5.50 Several things are evident from the evidence presented to the inquiry. Although there is limited evidence available in Australia of the effects of pharmaceutically active chemicals, overseas research does give a clear indication that the problem is a serious one. It is likely that Australia, by reason of its lower population density, will be slower to feel the effects of these problems than Europe or North America, however the Committee believes that this should not induce any complacency. Accordingly, the Committee strongly endorses the recent creation of the Global Water Research Coalition, and its planned research into the issue, which will include the participation of the Water Services Association of Australia and the CRC for Catchment Hydrology.52 Effects of pollution – receiving waters 5.51 This section examines the effects of pollutants on the receiving waters: the rivers, creeks, estuaries, bays and other coastal waters into which they flow. Each type of pollutant causes a particular range of effects on the ecology. These are examined together with more detailed consideration of pollution effects on the health of waterways such as the Great Barrier Reef, Moreton Bay and Port Phillip Bay.
5.52 Sediments in water reduce the penetration of light, restricting the growth of seagrasses and corals. Seagrass requires light penetration of 1.7 metres, and the Committee found that in parts of the Brisbane river, turbidity from sedimentation has reduced penetration to 0.6m.53 The implications of this can be far reaching, as
49 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 246. See also: Daily Telegraph, Fish sex life up the creek, 9 June 2001, p 7. 50 Mr Ringham, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide 30 April, 2002, p 472. 51 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April, 2002, p 536. 52 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April, 2002, p 535. 53 Committee Briefing, Healthy Waterways, Brisbane, 5 April 2002. 200 damage to the seagrass ecosystems may also affect the breeding of a range of fish species, excessive algal growth and plagues of starfish and sea urchins.
5.53 Excess nutrient levels in water cause a process called eutrophication, which is an unnatural proliferation of growth of macrophytes (large water plants), algae, diatoms and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). This process can lead to the death of fish and bottom dwelling (benthic) organisms, and reduced biodiversity, through bloom collapse and rapid deoxygenation.54 The Committee was shown an example of this in the Ross Creek catchment, Townsville, where over 10,000 fish of more than nineteen species died in an urban lake after rain washed a high in nutrients through the drainage system.55
5.54 Faecal contamination from sewage outfalls, or leaking septic tanks may also have serious effects on fisheries. As Professor Troy told the Committee:
the sewage effluent finds its way into the rivers, lakes, estuaries and small coastal bays to the detriment of the natural systems, the oyster farms and fish breeding grounds … The recent disaster in the Forster-Tuncurry region on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales is an illustration of the process and the consequential dramatic economic costs of that process.56
5.55 Pollution from sewage has had similar damaging effects on oyster beds in the Sydney region. Professor White gave the example of the Sydney rock oyster which is an estuarine feeder, living on particulate and dissolved matters in brackish waters, and which has been declining steadily in numbers since the early 1970s.57 This has had a catastrophic effect on the industry reliant on the oysters:
I want to emphasise how significant this is. The Georges River was once a major oyster production area in Sydney. It drains southern and western Sydney. The Georges River, in 2001, ceased all production of Sydney rock oysters. The last farmer there was a fifth generation oyster farmer.58
5.56 Equally, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and hydrocarbons (oil) leaking into the waterways from industry and stormwater can destroy marine organisms. In Brisbane, for example, new termite treatments used in urban areas have been implicated in the loss of benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms in the intertidal and estuary area of the Brisbane River, leading into the sensitive waters of Moreton Bay.59
54 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 55: and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 7. 55 Mr Bruce, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra 22 March, 2002, p 80. 56 Prof Troy, Proof Committee Hansard, 2002, Canberra 22 March, p 23. 57 Safeguarding Environmental Conditions for Oyster Cultivation in New South Wales, Report for the NSW Healthy Rivers Commission by Professor Ian White, Jack Beale Professor of Water Resources, CRES, ANU, August 2001, p 5. [Tabled document, 22 March 2002] 58 Prof White, Proof Committee Hansard, 2002, Canberra 22 March, p 25. 59 Committee briefing, Healthy Waterways, Brisbane, 5 April 2002. 201
Chemicals such as organochlorines and dioxins are implicated in reproductive and immunological abnormalities in various species.60 Algal blooms 5.57 As noted above, algal blooms are a significant problem in both inland and ocean waters resulting from high levels of nutrients and associated eutrophication. One such organism is Lyngbya majuscula, a toxic marine cyanobacteria found in estuarine and marine environments which grows as strands attached to seagrass, rocks, and coral. In the right conditions, it grows rapidly to form large mats which can have destructive ecological impacts. These include smothering seagrass beds, and when floating mats are deposited on beaches, smothering mangrove seedlings resulting in mangrove dieback. Lyngbya blooms have also been associated with dugong death and infertility in turtles.61
5.58 Another toxic algae called Pfiesteria produces a toxin which can kill fish and cause brain damage and organ failure in humans if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Pfiesteria has been found in three locations in the Brisbane River, although not in dangerous concentrations,62
5.59 It is often after algal blooms dissipate or die, that further problems arise, as the dying algae can release virulent toxins, which may linger in the waterways and requiring ongoing treatment:
We also have a problem with our urban communities, and that is why we are carting tonnes of activated carbon to take the toxins out, because even if you can get rid of the algae you still have a lingering toxin problem which you have to manage by activated carbon.63 Land based discharges to the Great Barrier Reef 5.60 The problem of land based discharges to the Great Barrier Reef is typical of the types of problems affecting many of Australia’s waterways. By reason of its enormous significance and sensitivity, it has been subject to detailed research,64 and so gives a clearer picture of the impacts of human activities.
5.61 The Great Barrier Reef catchment covers 22 per cent of Queensland’s land area, and contains 23 per cent of its population, including over 100 urban centres, many of which, like Cairns, have high growth rates. This amounts to almost one
60 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, p 9. 61 Healthy Waterways - healthy Catchments, Synthesis of scientific results of the South East Queensland Study, p 8. [Tabled document, 4 April 2002] 62 Courier Mail, River breeds ‘cell from hell’ killer algae, 28 May 2002, p 1. 63 Dr Blackmore, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May, 2002, p 564. 64 The Great Barrier Reef has, for example, a dedicated Cooperative Research Centre, the CRC for Reef Research. 202 million people living within the catchment, nearly half of whom live in six coastal cities.65 In addition, the catchment area includes thirteen heavy industry operations including: alumina, zinc, copper and nickel refineries; aluminium and zinc smelters; a power generation station; and a trade waste facility.66 Water supplies for these urban and industrial areas include 123 dams and weirs.67
5.62 In overall terms, urban centres account for only a small proportion of wastewater discharges relative to agricultural uses, however these effects are still significant, and create localised problems up to five kilometres around the discharge area.68
5.63 Whilst these pollutants cause the general problems outlined above, an issue of particular significance to the reef is the phenomenon of ‘marine snow’:
When you combine sediment and nutrient, it causes ‘marine snow’, which is a sticky polysaccharide exudate. It is a sticky substance that forms big globules. That comes down and it will settle on barnacles and coral polyps, … They cannot clean themselves, they cannot move it away, and they tend to die.69
5.64 Despite the amount of research done on the reef, officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) warned that a great deal is still unknown, and the overall state of the reef is difficult to assess, in large part due to the relatively recent nature of most research (ie the last twenty years) and the corresponding difficulty of knowing what the reef was like before human impacts. In this context, there are also problems in trying to identify what damage can be attributed to urban run-off as distinct from other impacts such as agriculture, or coral bleaching, or the cumulative effects of low impact stresses.70
5.65 Officers of the GBRMPA warned that:
There is a tendency to want to break everything up: ‘Is this urban run-off?’ ‘Is this run-off from a cane farm?’ and so on. The reality is that these reefs see all of it. They see hot water, they see run-off coming off land, they see high sediment loads, they see high nutrient loads, they see pesticides – and they are seeing it all at once. The synergism of those factors is what causes
65 Brochure, Land Use and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage, Current state of knowledge, November 2001. 66 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, pp 2-3. 67 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, p 8. 68 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, pp 66, 67 and 69. See also Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, p 6. 69 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April, 2002, p 70. 70 Brochure, Land Use and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage, Current state of knowledge, November 2001. 203
the impacts and that is why there is considerable concern at this point in time.71
5.66 What is certain is that land based discharges do cause damage to corals and seagrasses.72 GBRMPA estimates that 750 reefs lie within ten kilometres of the coast in the area strongly affected by land runoff, and are thus at risk. Of particular concern are reefs between Port Douglas and Gladstone.73 Damaged waterways in Moreton Bay 5.67 Moreton Bay, a listed Ramsar site that lies off the coast of Brisbane, offers another example of the damage associated with urban runoff. Although still in good condition overall:
Moreton Bay was continuing to degrade, with 38% of catchments and rivers showing a continued decline, 38% unchanged and only 24% improving. Of the catchments, 37.5% are in decline and 38% of our rivers are likewise. Only 1 catchment had improved (Waterloo Bay). Of those rivers and catchments showing no change in their scorecard result in 2000 to 2001, 62.5% of these are still rating a fail.74
5.68 The causes of these problems are a range of discharges from industrial and urban uses. Three quarters of the total discharge load into Moreton Bay comes from the Brisbane River, including the discharges from the Luggage Point and Oxley Creek Sewage Treatment Plants.75
5.69 Moreton Bay is also illustrative of the way in which geographical factors influence a particular waterbody’s capacity to cope with pollutants. Moreton Bay has a high catchment to bay ratio – the area of the catchment is about fourteen times as large as the area of the bay, and has only three major entrances through which water is exchanged with the ocean. This results in a ‘residence time’ for water in the bay of about 120 days.76 The implication of this is that a large area of land is draining into a small and largely confined body of water, and pollutants will not be able to dissipate into the open ocean.77
71 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville 3 April, 2002, p 70. 72 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 67. 73 Brochure, Land Use and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage, Current state of knowledge, November 2001. 74 Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Submission 7a, p 5. 75 Moreton Bay Study, Healthy Waterways, p 46. 76 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane 4 April, 2002, p 90. 77 The Great Barrier Reef has similar characteristics but on a larger scale. Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville 3 April, 2002, p 66. 204
Ocean outfalls and Gunnamatta 5.70 For Australia’s coastal cities, the most common solution to effluent disposal is to discharge it to the sea. According to the Clean Ocean Foundation, there are a total of 142 ocean outfalls around Australia which collectively discharge 1,325 gigalitres of water.
5.71 Of particular concern to the Clean Ocean Foundation is South East Outfall at Boags Rocks, Gunnamatta, which is 83 kilometres south of Melbourne and inside a national park. The outfall discharges at the shore, 135 gigalitres per year of Class C effluent from the Eastern Treatment Plant,78 from the approximately 1.4 million people of Melbourne’s South Eastern suburbs and the Mornington Peninsula, amounting to around 42 per cent of Melbourne’s sewage. Prior to discharge, the water receives secondary treatment, and disinfection.79
5.72 The Clean Ocean Foundation claims that this discharge is responsible for damage to marine ecosystems,80 adverse health effects for swimmers and surfers including sore throats, infected abrasions and earaches, as well as degrading the use of the region for activities such as walking, surfing and swimming.81 On this basis, it is further claimed that the outfall puts Melbourne Water in breach of the Victorian State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).82
5.73 The Clean Ocean Foundation points out that water reforms have led to groundwater being available for $1.40 per megalitre which means that reuse is not currently viable for effluent treated to Class A standard at a cost of $300 per megalitre. The Foundation argues that the effluent should be treated to potable standard which would open up more markets for the reclaimed water.
5.74 In responding to these concerns, Melbourne Water commissioned a $1.5m CSIRO research project which has led to an environmental improvement program that aims to reduce flows to the plant through water conservation; reduce ammonia discharge water by more than 75 per cent; and introduce tertiary filtration and enhanced disinfection.83 Melbourne Water has also increased monitoring of waters and has proposed to pipe the outfall 1.5km offshore and into deeper water.84
78 Mr Morehead, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 380. 79 Melbourne Water, The Peninsula Project – Working towards a sustainable marine environment, p 4. 80 Mr Graham Quail, quoted in: Herald Sun, Surfers cry foul over outfalls, 30 March 2002, p 22. 81 Clean Ocean Foundation, Submission 76, pp 9-10. 82 Clean Ocean Foundation, Submission 76, p 3. See also Mr Morehead, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 379 and following. 83 Sustainable Resource Management at the Eastern Treatment Plant, Boags Point, Power-point presentation slides, Melbourne Water. 84 Melbourne Water, The Peninsula Project – Working towards a sustainable marine environment, pp 6-8. 205
5.75 Ocean outfall is also the principal form of effluent disposal for Sydney, with ninety per cent of Sydney’s wastewater being discharged from ocean outfalls at Bondi, North Head and Malabar, after undergoing primary treatment. The use of these deep ocean outfalls has substantially improved the quality of water around Sydney’s beaches and harbour, however, as Sydney Water comments:
floatable grease from the treatment plants can still be detected at some nearby beaches, particularly the northern ones.85
5.76 The deep ocean outfalls also stand in contrast to the combination of low level treatment and shoreline discharges, such as at Cronulla, Port Kembla and Bellambi:
This can regularly affect bathing water quality and have an impact on the biodiversity of marine species close to the discharge points. In addition, local weather and current conditions play a role in bringing wastewater releases from the Cronulla plant back to the beaches.86
5.77 The extent of the damage caused by outfalls is unclear. In general terms, outfalls certainly cause some degree of degradation to the marine environment. From the human perspective, deep ocean outfalls are also much preferable to onshore outfalls, and result in higher water quality and less damage to shore based ecosystems. According to the Australian Water Association:
Ocean outfalls can work efficiently and may be a satisfactory solution to effluent management. Under the right conditions, properly treated effluent discharged into deep ocean water with strong currents will have little or no environmental impacts.87
5.78 Sydney Water also claims that continued monitoring of its outfalls has not revealed any significant environmental impacts,88 with the AFFA/EA submission noting that sediment monitoring at twelve sites off the NSW coast has shown few effects from the deep ocean outfalls.89 Similarly, the Water Corporation of WA submissions states that:
Treated water in Perth is discharged through ocean outfalls at distances between 1 and 4 kms offshore. World class studies continue to show no adverse impacts of this method of disposal. This is a sustainable solution to
85 Sydney Water, Waterplan 21 site, at: www.sydneywater.com.au 86 Sydney Water, Waterplan 21site, at: www.sydneywater.com.au 87 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 211. 88 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 174. 89 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 11. 206
the challenge of managing increasing loads associated with population growth … .90
5.79 Other scientists are less optimistic about the sustainability of deep ocean outfalls. The two key limitations with assessments that find ‘no significant impacts’ is that, first, little is known about the ecology of deeper marine environments so there is inadequate baseline data to monitor effects. Second, deep ocean outfalls are (almost by definition) relatively inaccessible making effective monitoring of the sites difficult.91 The concern is therefore that we have not yet noticed any impacts, rather than there are no impacts. Options for improved effluent management 5.80 The problem of waste disposal is, as always, best dealt with at source, by reducing the quantity of effluent through more efficient practices and greater recycling. Second, as is discussed below, society has the technology to treat wastewater to a very high level, so this technology should be used wherever possible to ensure that water discharged to the ocean does not contain harmful pollutants.92 Third, where ocean discharge is inevitable, deep ocean outfalls are preferable to shore discharges, and can be sustainable where they are carefully planned and managed, taking into account water depth, distance from shore, currents, exchange rates and residence time in the receiving waters.93 Optimum scale for treatment 5.81 An emerging question that stems from the range of available techniques for wastewater treatment, is whether treatment needs to be done by large centralised facilities such as those at Werribee or Bolivar.
5.82 Some evidence to the inquiry has argued that the optimal point for treating wastewater is on-site at the individual block level, and this is certainly borne out by the success of Michael Mobb’s house described above. The submission from the Centre for Resource and Environmental Study states that:
Domestic sewage is relatively benign. That is, it is relatively simple to process. The development of small scale biological treatment plants that
90 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 14 91 Private briefing, National Science Week, Canberra, May 2001. 92 Australian Water Association, We all use water … A users’ guide to water and wastewater management, p 212. 93 Dr Abal, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April, 2002, p 90. One such example is the outfall from Moa Point in Wellington New Zealand. The outfall, using diffusers, discharges into the Cook Strait and is rapidly dispersed and diluted by the very strong currents flowing through the strait. This is in contrast to the confined waters of Moreton Bay. 207
can be installed in single houses or small groups of houses now makes it feasible to introduce recycling systems for small scale subdivisions.94
5.83 This view is supported by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW:
We believe that innovation in urban water cycle management is very much needed and that decentralised solutions, stage treatment and resource recovery, demand management and distributed storage in Sydney need to be raised from the boutique status they have within current water management planning and given a place at the table along with traditional water supply and sewerage solutions.95
5.84 Household or suburb level treatments have four further, and very significant advantages. First, they allow a dramatic reduction in the capital costs of the piping systems to convey wastewater, as well as the energy required to pump it. The scale of savings becomes apparent when it is considered that these systems represent about 80 per cent of the overall cost of a sewerage system, with only 20 per cent spent on the treatment plant itself.96 These savings are ongoing as well, since the water infrastructure only has a life of around 100 years, and consequently requires constant investment in repairs and renovations.
5.85 Second, numerous smaller wastewater treatment plants dispersed over an entire urban area provides multiple sources of water available for various local reuse projects. This would do much to mitigate one of the current barriers to widescale reuse, which is the cost of transporting recycled water to where it can be reused (see Chapter 3).
5.86 Third, the sewage systems themselves are large users of water required for ‘self-cleansing flows for systems’.97 Although some systems make extensive use of recycled water for this purpose, these flows represent a further possible water saving from localised systems. 98
5.87 Finally, reducing the need to transport wastes also reduces the extent of leakage from the system with the pollution that it causes to groundwater and streams, as well as the resources needed to track down and rectify these leaks. (See the discussion in Chapter 3).
94 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Submission 50, p 4. 95 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney 18 April, 2002, p 245. 96 The following description of the phases is largely taken from Simpson and Oliver, Water Quality: From wastewater to drinking water to even better and The Dilemma of Watter Quandary, 1996, p 17. 97 Mr Ringham, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide 30 April, 2002, p 484. 98 Mr Woolley, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April, 2002, p 605. 208
5.88 Other evidence suggests that these systems are not yet mature enough to replace the large scale treatment systems currently in use. As the Water Corporation of Western Australia argues:
it is about $7½ thousand to $10,000 for a household system, which then becomes the responsibility of the householder. The energy used per house is much higher than the energy used per capita from a reticulated system. Where you have big waste water plants like we do, there are major economies of scale in the treatment, and of course the professionalism, of their running rather than a bulkanised, dispersed system. So all of the pros and cons need to be objectively looked at.99
5.89 There are also doubts over the capacity and inclination of individual householders to maintain on-site systems, especially given that individual failures in urban areas can result in severe health threats to surrounding houses and waterways.
5.90 According to evidence, currently the optimum cost effective number of connections to a sewage treatment plant is between 1000 and 10,000 connections.100 Nevertheless, it is clear that the optimum scale for sewage treatment is falling, and it is likely that in the next decades, treatments will increasingly be viable at the suburb or individual development level.101
5.91 Given the advantages of smaller scale treatments, the CSIRO identifies research in this area as a priority, especially in relation to systems to remove nitrogen and phosphorous.102 Conclusions 5.92 As this chapter shows, our actions in cities have direct consequences on the health of our environment. Our culture tends to believe in the unspoken myth that when we make a mess, we can wash it away. Water managers though, understand what the rest of society needs to learn. Every pollutant that leaves our cities goes somewhere, and most often, where it ends up is in rivers and then on into bays and coastal waters. While natural ecosystems can absorb a certain amount of these pollutants, the sprawling and high density metropolitan centres produce waste streams that are too concentrated to be assimilated. The results of this are becoming increasingly apparent: algal blooms, fish kills, closed beaches and shrinking fisheries, all of which have direct effects on the health, prosperity and lifestyles of our society.
5.93 However, as this chapter also shows, we already have the knowledge and skills to fix many of these problems – the most important ingredient lacking is the
99 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth 29 April, 2002, p 430. 100 Mr Woolley, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April, 2002, p 598; and CSIRO, Submission 47, p 5. 101 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 5. 102 CSIRO, Submission 47, p11. 209 commitment across society as a whole to take responsibility for our waste. In practical terms this means minimising the amount of waste flows and dealing with wastes as close to source as possible, as well as a readiness to make the investments needed to upgrade all sewage treatment plants to the highest tertiary standards, so that discharge water is at least as clean as the receiving waters.
5.94 At a more strategic level, it also means making the investment in research and science to make sure that our planning decisions are informed by a detailed understanding of the surrounding environment and its particular characteristics, to ensure that our actions cause the minimal possible harm. 210 211
Chapter 6
Institutional arrangements and policy
Introduction 6.1 Institutional arrangements in water management are complex and involve all three levels of government, plus the private sector, across each of the six states and two territories. Adding to that complexity are the many aspects of water management, such as drinking water quality, public health, effluent disposal, urban planning and environmental protection. Water also flows across many jurisdictional boundaries and water management in cities is affected by catchment management and land use in rural areas, and must increasingly take account of river, estuarine and coastal environments that are often distant from urban users.
6.2 As the CRC for Freshwater Ecology put it, the current institutional and policy arrangements for managing urban water are significant barriers to good practice:
Our current institutional arrangements for managing water in urban areas have proved to have significant weaknesses in terms of delivering on [these] community expectations. The division of responsibilities between agencies and levels of government has ensured that each takes a single purpose view of the problem and we are not getting cost-effective solutions.
The separation and isolation of land planning from water planning has been costly. We have largely different organisations or sections of individual organisations responsible for land use planning, catchment management, water supply, sewerage provision and stormwater management. Local governments are important parts of some of these elements, but they rarely manage whole catchments so they have to live with the decisions made by neighbouring local governments. Other elements are managed by regional catchment authorities. We have separate regulators responsible for assurance of human health, assurance of ecosystem health and for financial management, and these regulatory aspects appear to operate in complete isolation.
The separation of water supply, drainage and wastewater utilities has inhibited integrated thinking and solutions to the challenges of urban water management.
This has been a major institutional impediment to capturing the economic and environmental benefits of recycling opportunities.1
1 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 6. 212
Commonwealth legislation and powers 6.3 The Commonwealth’s powers to legislate are defined by the Australian Constitution, which does not confer on the Commonwealth any specific powers to regulate either water in particular, or the environment generally and all powers not expressly granted to the Commonwealth are retained by the States.2
6.4 The High Court has held3 that the Commonwealth may use:
various heads of power to regulate activities in order to protect and conserve the environment, even when those heads of power did not necessarily have any apparent environmental purpose behind them. So long as Commonwealth environmental legislation rests on some head of power – even though not directly touching the environment – the Commonwealth is entitled to act for environmental reasons alone.4
6.5 A number of the heads of power can underpin Commonwealth legislation in relation to the environment and water:
− trade and commerce power (s.51(i)); − taxation power (s.51(ii)); − quarantine power (s.51(ix)); − fisheries power (s.51(x)); − corporations power (s.51(xx)); − external affairs power (s.51(xxiv)); − incidental power (s.51(xxxiv)); − power over customs, excise and bounties (s.90); − financial assistance power (s.96); and − territories power (s.122). 6.6 According to Professor James Crawford, an authority on Australian constitutional law, in the light of the Murphyores case these enumerated powers grant the Commonwealth wide constitutional authority to legislate environmental matters:
The lesson of a careful study of the last fifteen years experience is that the Commonwealth has, one way or another, legislative power over most large scale mining and environmental matters.5
2 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Section 107. 3 Murphyores Inc. Pty. Ltd. v Commonwealth (1976) 136 CLR 1. 4 Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Commonwealth Environment Powers, May 1999, p 7. 5 Crawford J, The Constitution and the Environment, (1991) 13 Sydney L.Rev. 11 at p 30. See also the discussion in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Coordinating Catchment Management, Dec 2000, p 28. 213
6.7 The scope of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers over environmental issues is generally decided by negotiation between Commonwealth and state governments and, ultimately, by a High Court decision on the validity of a specific Act. For practical purposes though, the potential for Commonwealth activity in this area is very wide.
6.8 There are three pieces of Commonwealth legislation relevant to urban water management. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (EPBC) creates (among other things) a regime of environmental impact assessment for actions by the Commonwealth or on Commonwealth land which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment; or actions that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. These are specified as world heritage areas; Ramsar listed wetlands; listed threatened species and communities; listed migratory species; nuclear actions and the marine environment.6
6.9 The EPBC gives the Commonwealth power to become involved with many aspects of urban water management issues, including the building of dams; clearing of wetlands; and pollution of receiving coastal waters.
6.10 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act 1975 establishes rules for the Commonwealth management of the park and world heritage area and the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
6.11 Last, is the National Environmental Protection Council Act 1994, discussed in Appendix 4. Commonwealth water policy 6.12 According to Commonwealth officials, the Commonwealth roles in urban water management are primarily in national leadership, standard setting, intellectual contribution and financial investment.7
6.13 The principle vehicle for Commonwealth activity is the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) which has been evolving since 1992. So far, nineteen of the proposed twenty-one guidelines under the strategy have been published. This includes:8
• three general policy documents; • four water quality benchmarking documents (including the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring & Reporting);
6 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, Chapter 2. 7 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, pp 3 and 17. 8 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 29. 214
• guidelines for Groundwater Protection; • Australian Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management; • five Guidelines for Sewerage Systems; and • six Guidelines dealing with aspects of effluent management. COAG Water Reform Framework and the National Competition Policy 6.14 The overarching framework for water reform in the last decade has been the 1994 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Water Reform Agreement, made in response to concern about the condition of the country’s water resources and the impact that their continuing deterioration would have on economic activity.
6.15 The Agreement comprised a package of measures designed to link both economic and environmental objectives by improving the efficiency of water use as well as the environmental management of the nation’s river systems.
6.16 The main elements in the Water Reform Framework included a range of interlinked market based measures involving pricing water for full cost recovery, establishing secure access to water separate from land and providing for permanent trading in water entitlements. There was also specific provision of water for the environment, water service providers to operate on the basis of commercial principles, improved institutional arrangements and public consultation and education.
6.17 In 1995 the package of water reforms was included in the national competition policy so that competition payments would provide a financial incentive for all states and territories to achieve the water reforms.
6.18 The key aspects of the urban water reforms were the move to two-part tariffs and in particular volumetric pricing of water to consumers as part of the second part of the tariff; volumetric pricing for metropolitan bulk water and for wastewater services, that pricing to include environmental costs; and the phasing out of cross-subsidies between customer classes and any remaining cross-subsidies in water service provision to be made transparent.
6.19 Urban water reform under national competition policy is now largely complete according to the National Competition Council.9 Typical results to date have included improved efficiency in water supply with reduced costs of around 20 per cent and reduced urban consumption Australia wide generally by around 20 per cent.
9 Mr Willett, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 290. 215
6.20 However, few urban water service providers have considered how to account for externalities in their water charges10 and the National Competition Council considers that this represents the next stage in urban water reform.11
6.21 Introducing consumption based pricing for urban water has clearly been a significant driver in reducing urban water consumption. Additionally, creating more transparent lines of accountability and avoiding conflicts of interest improves the efficiency in water service provision which frees up resources that can be used in other areas such as better environmental management, demand management programs and education. Commonwealth funding programs 6.22 Funding provision is an important Commonwealth role, and one that offers powerful policy leverage.
6.23 The principal Commonwealth funding mechanism is the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). The first NHT program (NHT 1), contained four relevant programs relevant to water:
• Coasts and Clean Seas program – 38 projects, $25.6 million over five years; • Living Cities Cleaning Our Waterways Industry Partnership Program – $2.9 million over two years; • Living Cities Urban Stormwater Initiative – seven projects, $6.8 million over two years; and 12 • Waterwatch: a national community based water monitoring network. 6.24 In July 2002, the second program of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT 2) commenced, with funding of one billion dollars over five years, across three levels, four programs and ten priorities. The four new programs (down from a total of 23 programs under NHT 1) – Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and Coastcare – will deliver the funds according to ten priority objectives.13 Problems with competitive grants allocation 6.25 NHT funding is awarded on the basis of competitive bids. While there are advantages in competition, bidders with the best resources and expertise tend to be more successful than for instance councils with low rates bases or groups without incomes who cannot compete on the basis of matching funding quality of bid or in-
10 National Competition Council, Annual Report 2000 - 2001, September 2001, AusInfo, Canberra, p 28. 11 Mr Swan, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 296-297. 12 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, pp 15 - 16. See also www.waterwatch.org.au 13 Natural Heritage Trust site, at: www.nht.gov.au 216 kind effort. This can obviously result in an inequitable and non-strategic distribution of funding and whilst the Committee made this observation it did not seek or receive enough evidence to allow it to reach a conclusion that this was or was not the case.14
6.26 Officers of Environment Australia provided the Commonwealth’s justification for the competitive approach:
funding should go to the best equipped organisations. There have been instances in the past where groups have obtained funding and in effect the project has been beyond them. The harsh reality is that the better project applications are generally a good indication of the capacity of an individual organisation to have thought through what the issues are and to have come forward with a coherent approach and a submission to address the problem.15
6.27 Environment Australia did acknowledge that this was an issue and said three administrative measures had been introduced, designed to minimise the problem. Firstly, the second round of NHT funding, includes a new component called the Envirofund:
which is looking at providing relatively small grants for community groups as almost entry level to get into the funding cycle, gear themselves up, develop their skills and hopefully later in the piece become part of an organised regional application for funding.16
6.28 $20 million will be provided overall under the Environfund.
6.29 Secondly, the networks of Bushcare, Landcare and Waterwatch facilitators exist in part to assist community groups in making applications. Thirdly, project applications are assessed first by regional, then state, then national assessment panels, that aim to ensure that projects are considered in the context of local issues and priorities.17 EA advise that this will be further enhanced by the linking of NHT funds to projects identified under accredited regional natural resource management plans.18 The Committee was not in a position to assess the effectiveness of these measures. Time frames of funding 6.30 There is also the problem of the ‘one-off’ or fragmented nature of the project funding. The principle of the Commonwealth programs is generally to provide ‘catalytic’ funds:
14 This problem was raised in several places: Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 405; and Committee briefing, Mosman City Council, 19 April 2002. 15 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra 23 May 2002, p 584. 16 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 584. 17 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 585. 18 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 5. 217
The intention has been that the Commonwealth should not be the permanent solution to addressing natural resource management. This is about capacity building, not just at the community level but also at state agency level, to get them to recognise a problem and be skilled up.19
6.31 The plan to ‘kickstart’ projects is not always successful, since in practice, the projects initiated may not have any alternative source of funding, so that when the Commonwealth funds run out, the project stops. The Western Australian Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council stated that:
A lot of catchment projects and landcare projects have folded. There is the two- or three-year funding period from the federal government and after that period the project stops.20
6.32 In South Australia, Trevor Daniell told the Committee that the Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering:
were monitoring urban stormwater quality in the very large Barker Inlet wetlands to see what the wetlands were doing. The funding was cut before we could actually do the outflow measurement. We did a lot on the inflow measurement. The wetlands were in place for about a year and then there was no funding, and therefore the effectiveness of the wetlands was not measured.21
6.33 The Sullivans Creek Catchment Group in Canberra had similar problems when it was unsuccessful in its bid for a second round of NHT funds.22
6.34 Again, officers of EA indicated their awareness of the problem, and explained that the project often turns out to take longer than expected:
The problem has been that the targets keep moving out; we have had to keep following the targets, and the only way we have been able to bring the community up to the next level has been through continual injection of funds.23 The problem of fragmentation 6.35 A fundamental problem identified during the inquiry is the fragmentation that occurs in relation to the management of water.
19 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 585. 20 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 412. 21 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 502. 22 Ms Gilles, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 64; see also Sullivans Creek Catchment Group, Submission 58A, p 3. 23 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 585. 218
Water cycle fragmentation: Stormwater and the rest 6.36 The jurisdictional separation of the urban water supply and wastewater system from the stormwater system does not reflect the theoretical water cycle. As Mr Davis of the Australian Water Association comments:
in a city like Sydney, for example, the water authority manages the water supply and the sewerage but the local councils manage the stormwater. In today’s climate of trying to manage water holistically, if you have different agencies managing different facets of the water cycle, you cannot integrate it.24
6.37 Professor Wong, of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology comments that:
Generally speaking, we are running our water supply and sewerage systems completely separate from the stormwater systems, and they are run by different organisations in Melbourne.25
6.38 Our stormwater management originally had as its principal objectives drainage and the avoidance of flooding. It was not considered necessary for stormwater to be related to water supply or effluent disposal. This has left us with parallel infrastructures, and an institutional heritage that is difficult to budge.26 Jurisdictional fragmentation 6.39 Water catchments may be in different local government areas or even States to that in which the water they collect is actually consumed. Sewage may then be piped to a treatment facility in a third area, while stormwater collected in one jurisdiction becomes the waterways of a lower catchment which may have its outfall pipes on a beach in yet another jurisdiction.
6.40 Three examples illustrate this.
6.41 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has statutory responsibility for the environmental health of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area. However, the major source of pollution to the reef is land based discharges which are the responsibility of the Queensland government.27
6.42 In Canberra, care of the Cotter Catchment area is the responsibility of Environment ACT, while the quality of drinking water is that of ActewAGL. If water quality from the catchments deteriorates, it is ActewAGL which must pay extra treatment costs.
24 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 219. 25 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 273. 26 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37, p 4. 27 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, pp 11-12. 219
6.43 Likewise, in Western Australia, there are different agencies tackling water quality in catchments, wetlands and drainage. The Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council comments that:
In most cases, the catchment management is not an integrated activity of the local government; it really sits on the outside as a part federally funded/part their funding/part community funded project. … There is a bit of a difference in perspective in terms of how water should be managed, with the local governments focusing on the conveyance flood control aspect and the catchment management projects focusing on at source projects. We really need to bring those two things together28
6.44 In Western Australia, the Water Corporation is responsible for reticulated water, while the Water and Rivers Commission administers private groundwater use.29
6.45 The same problem applies to stormwater. The CSIRO provides this example of a drain in Sydney’s North Western Suburbs:
Its source is the carpark of a shopping mall. It runs in pipes under the urban area and is controlled at this point by a local council. These pipes discharge to a creek, maintained by the same local council. The creek is not channelised. It then flows to a channelised drain under the control of Sydney Water. Sydney Water’s Operating Licence includes requirements that the drain be maintained and cleaned regularly. It then flows to another channelised creek under control of a different council and then to a further section, that is not channelised, but which the same council controls. The creek ultimately discharges into an estuarine area of Sydney Harbour under control of another State Government body. Needless to say, the maintenance programs of the two councils are likely to differ from that of Sydney Water, despite the introduction of catchment based Stormwater Management Plans. Further, accountability for outcomes must naturally remain most unclear. With a multiplicity of players who, ultimately, is responsible for achieving management and environmental outcomes?30
6.46 Thus, around Australia the overall stormwater infrastructure is owned by local governments, trunk drainage authorities, and roads and traffic authorities. In Perth, the Water Corporation owns and operates twenty per cent of all stormwater drains, local government owns seventy-five per cent, with Main Roads and Westrail controlling the remaining five per cent. The Stormwater Industry Association summarised the problem in this way:
Problems occur where there is multiple Local Government control for sections within the same catchment. Catchment boundaries do not coincide with local government boundaries. Local agendas vary, and works
28 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 403; see also Mr Young, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 336. 29 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 417. 30 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 47, quoting Dr Andrew Speers. 220
constructed in one [local government] area may be in conflict with strategies in an adjoining area, giving poor or inefficient or inequitable outcomes to the community and/or the environment.31
6.47 In Melbourne, the experience of the Bayside City Council is the same:
We have in fact one major outfall at the very north of our city from the Elster canal which does drain a fairly large part of central Melbourne. Our beaches are certainly affected by litter and other pollutants that come down that canal.32
6.48 The Committee heard numerous examples of such fragmentation.
The Yarra catchment … I think has 38 different municipalities within it. … we have learned very quickly that many of our problems originate upstream, as do most of our solutions.33
6.49 Several studies have concluded that:
… arrangements for integrating stormwater management (both flood control and drainage) are generally chaotic. Control is generally very fragmented and there is a lack of clear accountability for various parts of the water cycle. Furthermore, the relationship between the various operator, regulators, and councils is often blurred, and in many cases the operating agencies are also involved in standard or target setting.34
6.50 The Water Corporation of Western Australia sums up the problem:
Basically our difficulty is that we cannot control the quality of the water that is given to us.35 Agency fragmentation 6.51 Even water in a given location is subject to regulation by a number of institutions. Different government agencies have responsibility for natural resource management; human health; environmental protection; and price setting.36
6.52 This was illustrated by Mr Head of the Planning Institute of Australia:
Because of the health regulators and the environmental engineers being different groups in different states and there being a whole bunch of states,
31 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37, p 6. 32 Cr Beadle, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 303. 33 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 350. 34 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 47, referring to studies by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and IEAust. See also Hawkesbury City Council, Submission 53, p 1. 35 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 425. 36 See Table, Appendix 4. 221
there are just too many people around the country all doing different things or having different approaches, when clearly if you are going to improve water management you have to solve use and reuse of greywater – recycled water. It needs somebody to bring all the parties together, knock their heads together and say, ‘Okay, what are we going to do?’37
6.53 Addressing water quality in the Brisbane River may involve negotiation with five agencies, representing all three levels of government responsible for water in the Brisbane river:
• Brisbane City Council to the high water mark (local government);
• the Department of Primary Industries for flora and fauna (Qld government);
• the Environment Protection Agency for water quality (Qld government);
• the Brisbane Port Authority, covering all the port facilities (regulated by the Commonwealth); and
• the Department of Transport for navigation issues (Qld government).
6.54 Dr Essery told the Committee that in NSW:
… we actually have four regulatory models for the water industry. It is not as bad as it sounds. It is just that Sydney Water and Hunter Water have their own form of operations and it is in their own Acts. We have the Water Supplies Authority Act, which looks after Broken Hill, Cobar and some big irrigation industries, and we have the local governments which all operate under the Local Government Act. The minister regulates local government utilities through the Local Government Act, in which we administer that section.38
6.55 As Professor Cullen at the CRC for Freshwater Ecology explained:
We have largely different organisations or sections of individual organisations responsible for land use planning, catchment management, water supply, sewerage provision and stormwater management. Local Governments are important parts of some of these elements, but they rarely manage whole catchments so they have to live with the decisions made by neighbouring local governments. Other elements are managed by regional catchment authorities. We have separate regulators responsible for assurance of human health, assurance of ecosystem health and for financial management, and these regulatory aspects appear to operate in complete isolation.39
37 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 38. 38 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 192. 39 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 6. 222
6.56 Where the approval of more than one agency is required for a project, different priorities,40 processes or timeframes can be frustrating.41 Councillor Johnstone of the City of Port Phillip gave this example:
… when council commenced its thinking on the Inkerman Street depot project,42 we said we did not just want grey water reuse; we also wanted black water reuse. The EPA said, ‘You can’t do that,’ … The EPA told us reasons why not, rather than how to manage those risks and get around them. That is because their charter is to protect the receiving waters rather than to have dispersed treatment throughout metropolitan Melbourne, which is a headache for anyone to manage.
So I think there are barriers when objectives are not shared.43
6.57 The Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council in Western Australia voiced similar views about the need to rectify current fragmentation:
At the moment we are all talking different speak. All the different agencies are looking after the area that they control; hence the lack of both coordination and institutional arrangements.44 Vertical fragmentation 6.58 Agencies managing water must manage complex relationships with other agencies at their own level, and deal with a vertical hierarchy of regulatory agencies across the three levels of government, and inter-governmental groups such as COAG. Councillor Ferrara of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils comments on the:
complex agency interactions which affect planning outcomes, and the poor integration of these agencies with respect to information and objectives, with regard to water management. There is a current paucity of interaction at a strategic level between the three levels of government and their various agencies.45
6.59 Even large centralised councils such as the Brisbane City Council can find it a complex task to negotiate this hierarchy of plans and laws. Brisbane City Council:
40 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 270. 41 Cr Ferrara, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 236. 42 This project is described in Appendix 5. 43 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 356. 44 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 404. The WA Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, has had planning decisions to implement water sensitive urban design principles occasionally overridden by the state government Western Australian Planning Commission. Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 406. 45 Cr Ferrara, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 235. 223
is certainly pushing these kinds of principles, but there is a way to go with the impediments that you have to deal with: local government, state government, the supply authorities, the taps and toilet authorities and the head works authorities.46 Planning fragmentation 6.60 There is also significant fragmentation in planning around Australia, and although planning is closely related to the other aspects of fragmentation discussed above, it should be discussed separately for two reasons. Firstly, once planning decisions are made and developments are in place, the costs of fixing mistakes or retrofitting solutions is generally high and for this reason the problems may continue for the lifespan of the infrastructure.47
6.61 Secondly, there is an important relationship between land use and water quality, catchments and water treatment, and stormwater controls and water quality in receiving waters. Changing lands use in ways that are likely to degrade water quality, should be prevented, particularly in areas prone to erosion, high salinity,48 or acid sulphate soils.49 Similarly, wetlands, estuaries and mangrove ecosystems are important for water treatment and quality, and their destruction for urban and waterfront developments should be avoided.
6.62 Very often, the agency that grants the planning permission is not the one that must cope with the consequences. The Committee heard evidence from both the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and the Australian Water Association concerning the development of Western Sydney:
A classic case is the development of Western Sydney. If Sydney Water had had its druthers there are certain areas out west that would have been quarantined for development simply because the pressures on the water cycle are unsupportable but the political imperative from the planning people was that you had to develop. … you really need a very high-level planning oversight which is sensitive to this business of sustainability and takes transport, water and all the other factors into account. I think that is lacking.50
6.63 The Nature Conservation Council of NSW, described how the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning makes a population projection, and identifies which areas will be developed to meet that projection. Sydney Water must then provide water,
46 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 274-5. 47 Mr Wilkinson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 556. 48 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, Submission 62, p 10. 49 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, p 5. 50 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 229. Similar comments were made by Cr Ferrara, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 234 & 236. 224 stormwater and sewerage supply solutions, while the local councils inherit the legacy of managing these systems.51
6.64 According to the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group, similar problems of planning fragmentation occur even between elements of a single agency:
There is an apparent lack of coordination and strategic planning across Department of Urban Services agencies to enable the department to seek sustainable outcomes through stormwater and waterway management.52
6.65 In Western Australia, the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council has found that within councils, the environment, engineering and planning sections do not come together as team to plan for the best outcome for a parcel of land. Instead, all the other decisions have often been made by the time environmental ones are considered.53
6.66 Representatives of Environmental Business Australia have had similar experience:
The most important issue, though, is lack of integration in our decision making processes. Many of the vital decisions at the policy level, particularly on urban water strategies and projects, are often made without thorough definition of, firstly, the objectives, secondly, the evaluation of options and, thirdly, consideration of the consequences. Urban planning activity is fairly rarely closely linked to urban water management planning activity.54 Social fragmentation and poor consultation 6.67 In some instances the professionals who do the planning and implementation of water management projects, can be trying to lead change by implementing best practice initiatives, without having successfully ‘sold’ the idea to the surrounding community. Mr Daniell of the University of Adelaide, said:
We get a group of consultants in that develops a plan, but the people within the catchment do not own the plan – and that is a problem we have always had with big planning documents.55
6.68 A contributing factor to poor consultation is the culture in some water authorities, as described by Mrs Simpson of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council:
51 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 245. 52 Ms Gillies, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 58. 53 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 407. 54 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 574. 55 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 511. 225
They have never had to consult with the community. It has been a very closed culture and they keep their cards very close to their chests. They are used to making the decisions themselves and not having to actually relate to the community at all. I think to myself that the medical profession was a bit like that not so many years ago. The condition of a patient was discussed in absolutely unfathomable terminology by his doctors and nurses, and he himself was the last one to know how it was going to be managed. That has changed, but in the water industry it has not changed.56
6.69 Obscure jargon and a lack of transparency in decision making often result in a lack of community understanding or interest in water management or conservation. According to the Bayside City Council:
For most urban residents the hidden nature of plumbing means that there is little, if any, connection between the catchment and the tap or between the toilet and a wastewater outfall into Bass Strait.57
6.70 It is also the case that communities sometimes drive the reform process. The Committee saw an example of this where the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group has led an innovative plan to rehabilitate one of Canberra’s inner city streams.
6.71 The CRC for Freshwater Ecology argues that community desires for environmental outcomes should drive decision-making on infrastructure:
Urban planners have often not understood that the location and form of urban development has a serious impact on the health of the receiving waters. Both urban planners and the engineers designing infrastructure have often failed to appreciate that the community wishes for the health of the receiving waters determines the appropriate infrastructure, rather than some manual of best practice. The outcomes required must drive the community investment. There are interactions between the various elements of water management in urban communities and there are trade-offs that have often not been appropriately recognised by many of the single purpose solutions that have been adopted.58
6.72 Changing the way people use water and dispose of waste will involve significant changes to mindset and culture, without which, reforms are doomed to fail. As Ms Gilles told the Committee in Canberra:
In terms of engaging people to change their individual behaviour, it is very important that the community get involved, and community groups are a good vehicle to engage the broader community to change their behaviour.59
56 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 126; see also Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 3. 57 Bayside City Council, Submission 34, p 5. 58 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 7. 59 Ms Gillies, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 56. 226
6.73 Water reform will also change the form and function of urban streetscapes. Best practice may mean changing drainage and guttering, installing rainwater tanks, creating less water-dependent gardens, using permeable surfaces, and installing wetlands and naturalised creeks instead of trapezoidal concrete drains. These changes will not always be understood or popular. The Committee heard how planners in Canberra,60 Townsville61 and Brisbane62 have had to work at convincing local residents of the merits of naturalised creeks over neatly mown drainage courses, due to concerns about child safety, breeding of insects and snakes, and ‘untidiness’.
6.74 People will also need to be convinced that expensive investment in gross pollutant traps, rehabilitation of creeks and similar projects is worth additional rates or taxes. The Mosman Municipal Council,63 and Brisbane City Council were able to do this very effectively.
6.75 In order to implement best practice, changes will be needed in the law and in regulations at all three levels of government and political representatives are unlikely to pursue this agenda without the support of their electors.
6.76 A further advantage in enlisting community support is the wealth of detailed knowledge that local communities can provide to planners and researchers as well as the volunteer labour that is often required to carry out on-the-ground projects, such as planting and weeding.64
6.77 However, there are also limits to what communities can, or should be, expected to do. As Mr Humphries of the Water Corporation of WA told the Committee, the community cannot take over operational aspects of management:
The community definitely has a very strong role in terms of defining the services and standard of drainage they want and their willingness to pay, but I do not think that you can put day-to-day operational management responsibilities on to unincorporated community groups who can only do it on the weekend. It simply will not work.65
6.78 It is clear that there must be a good working relationship between professional water managers and the communities they serve. As the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group argues, ‘It is impossible for governments to achieve sustainable stormwater management alone’66 It is important to ensure that community engagement occurs
60 Ms Gilles, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 61. 61 Committee briefing, Townsville City Council, Townsville, 3 April 2002. 62 Committee briefing, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane, 5 April 2002. 63 Sydney NSW, where it created a Community Environment Contract. 64 Such volunteer work is the linchpin of the Natural Heritage Trust and the Landcare movement. 65 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 427. 66 Sullivans Creek Catchment Group, Submission 58A, p 2. 227
early in the decision making,67 and that the process is underpinned by a genuine commitment to communication, and not merely adherence to a procedure. As Mrs Simpson explained:
there was a lack of genuine community consultation around the Moreton Bay area. There is what we call ‘consulted to death’ in Queensland, where you go through the motions but there no actual practical or observable outcomes as far as the community is concerned.68 Industry fragmentation 6.79 The water industry itself varies wildly in scale and resources, as well as in the populations it supplies and the geographical environments in which it supplies water. The Victorian Water Industry Association, describes the range of water businesses in its state:
Yarra Valley Water with 198,000 megalitres of urban water supplied per annum – to, at the other end of the scale, Glenelg Water supplying 2,000 megalitres. So there are huge scale differences in the context of the types of businesses, presenting hugely different challenges for the various authorities69
6.80 Other variables include infrastructure concentration, water sources and rainfall. Lower density areas generally have much higher infrastructure costs than inner city suburbs, and an area that has large changes in elevation where gravity does much of the work may have lower pumping costs than flat areas. These and many other factors are illustrated by the Australian Water Association’s Australian Non Major Urban Water Utilities Performance Monitoring Report 1999-2000, which sets out performance against a range of criteria.70
6.81 Mr Davis, Executive Director of the Australian Water Association argues for consolidation in the industry:
there are 300 water utilities for a population of 20 million people and the rump of those utilities is very small so they are marginally able to survive economically, technically and in their environmental performance. If you were really brutal you would have to say that there should be a serious consolidation along the lines of what has happened in Victoria …71
6.82 The committee has some sympathy for this view given the range of pressures and cost drivers facing utilities around Australia and the associated variability in the
67 Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee, Submission 19, p 3. 68 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 104. 69 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 280. 70 See also the discussion of these figures: Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 279-281. 71 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 219. 228 resources, expertise and technical capacity of smaller utilities in particular to adopt best practice. Fragmentation and the implications of the COAG reforms 6.83 One of the key drivers of institutional change in Australia since 1995, has been the COAG National Competition Policy reforms.
6.84 Historically, Australia’s water authorities tended to be single, government owned entities – the Water Boards – that managed all aspects of water supply and wastewater. The COAG reforms triggered a restructuring of the public sector monopoly businesses, separating the policy, regulatory and service delivery functions,72 – a process that has been substantially implemented around Australia.
6.85 This restructuring aimed to create competitive markets that would achieve a more efficient allocation of resources within the economy.73 However, critics have suggested that in practice the reforms have increased the number of institutional players in the water industry, with all of the problems discussed above, further complicating the task of achieving integrated catchment based management. According to Professor Cullen, of the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology:
The National Competition Policy with its separation of function and the outsourcing of key functions has exacerbated this fragmentation. It has led to serious loss of technical expertise in agencies. While the separation of purchasers and providers may have led to some economic benefits, it has also led to purchasers buying the wrong things because they lack the technical knowledge to assess what is available.74
6.86 Ms Gilles of the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group, also comments on the consequences of the multiplication of separate business units replacing a single public entity:
governments are fragmented into business areas, and when you are trying to manage a landscape that makes it very difficult. So the planning, construction and maintenance management components are often separated – or in the ACT they are separated into different agency groups. Therefore there is a decreased ability for each agency to appreciate dependencies between the different areas and there is a decreased control over managing ecological systems across a catchment landscape …75
72 For greater detail see attachments to National Competition Council, Submission 13. 73 Parliamentary Library, Australia’s National Competition Policy: its evolution and operation, June 2001, p 2. 74 CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Submission 52, p 7. 75 Ms Gillies, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 57. 229
6.87 This can have practical consequences, where for example one agency does infrastructure planning and construction, and another is responsible for maintenance. The former agency may have little regard for the costs associated with maintenance. This is likely to detract from accurate life cycle costing, and hamper the efficiency of stormwater infrastructure such as gross pollutant traps.76 As officers of Environment Australia comment on this point:
Quite commonly, the people who construct the drainage systems are not necessarily those that operate or manage them or charge for those services; that is another fragmentation issue.77
6.88 Mr Trevor Daniell says COAG has also been responsible for stalling some aspects of ecologically sustainable management, absorbing enormous amounts of administrative time and resources to put in place the necessary new legislation and structures.78
6.89 COAG of course has its defenders. Mr Williams, of the Water Corporation in South Australia, endorses the splitting of the policy and service delivery functions,79 and the President of the National Competition Council, Mr Samuel, writing in the AWA magazine, argues that:
The resulting clarification of roles and responsibilities allows water providers to focus on their business and not face conflicting objectives or unclear goals, and there is better regulation by specialised and professional regulators.80 The implications of fragmentation 6.90 The provision of water services to urban regions is a complicated business involving complex relationships between many players, however the Committee has concluded that the extent of the fragmentation in Australia’s urban water industry, is undermining the capacity of Australia to achieve genuine reform and sustainable urban water use.
6.91 The Committee acknowledges that there is good understanding and acceptance of the principles of sustainable water use, recycling, and water sensitive urban design within industry and government but the lack of take-up suggests that labyrinthine organisational arrangements, complex and often contradictory incentives,
76 Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, Ms Gillies, p 60; see also Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 272. 77 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 19. 78 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 514. 79 Mr Williams, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 485. 80 Graeme Samuel, Water, Innovation in water: Case studies and special reports, AWA, March 2002, p 107. 230 blocked communication channels, buck-passing between organisations, and conflicting agency agendas are the barriers to its implementation.81
6.92 It is clear that there is a gap between action and effect; cost and benefit; polluter and polluted; and power and responsibility. Agencies often end up working at cross purposes with each other, with one trying to fix problems created by another, and in the process wasting scarce resources. Mr Baltais in Brisbane, gave this example of Bushcare groups, funded by the Redland Shire Council:
working on rehabilitating bushland areas under council control. They are very much aware that there has been a problem caused by council by allowing a developer in one area and then federal money being used to fix up that problem.82
6.93 Similarly:
On one hand they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in things such as SQIDS in waterways, but on the other hand they are allowing poor building and development practices, which allow those waterways to be polluted. They are committing public money to fix a problem that could have been fixed by something like enforcement and proper development practices in regard to silt management and things of that nature.83 The problem of managing risk and liability 6.94 A significant obstacle to best practice systems is managing risk and liability associated with new technologies. New designs, equipment or techniques, must be approved by the local council, health and sometimes planning authorities which are obliged to satisfy themselves that they would not result in public health problems, pollution, flooding or damage to property, which may expose the authorities to political damage, criminal sanctions or civil liability. In the absence of standards, local authorities, particularly the smaller ones, are understandably cautious and conservative in approving unfamiliar systems and they may not have access to suitably trained technical expertise to do so.
6.95 In Melbourne, Mr Bartley explained that:
there are engineering and health professionals who will have their own views but tend to be conservative about these things. We really need to push through some of these barriers and open it up so that industry – both
81 For discussion of these issues, see for example: Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 221; and Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 325. 82 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 105. 83 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 107. 231
manufacturers and developers and builders – can implement these systems with some confidence. At the moment there are no standards around.84
6.96 Mr Bartley gave this example, in relation to installing a greywater recycling system:
you have to talk to the local council health inspector and get a permit. With all due respect to local council health inspectors, the problem is that, if you do that, they are going to look at you and say, ‘What exactly are you doing? I have never seen this before. This all looks a bit dodgy. Where is the standard? Show me an EPA standard that establishes that you can do this.’ And you cannot. You are not going to get over the baseline.85
6.97 Ms Gilles of the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group referred to the:
apparent perception by developers of an increased liability in using these new approaches, because of the fact that it has not been specified exactly what these approaches are and what their maintenance requirements will be.86 Principles for system reform 6.98 Given these problems and the apparent need to reform regulatory and management arrangements for urban water, there are perhaps three principles which should guide that reform:
• prioritisation; • total water cycle management; and • local solutions. Prioritisation 6.99 Mr McRae, of the Australian Water Association told the Committee that:
The question could be asked where water fits on the scale of policy priorities for Australia and for the Commonwealth. Organisational structures, arguably, should reflect those priorities. You then manage for the extremities and the externalities afterwards. If water is an issue of critical import, then it is certainly worth evaluating that idea of whether or not there should be a single point of responsibility at the Commonwealth level to advise on water policy.87
84 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 314. 85 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 316; see also Mr Bartley, Submission 69, p 4. 86 Ms Gillies, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 60. 87 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 216. See also Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 415. 232
Total water cycle management 6.100 The concept of Total Catchment Management (TCM) or Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) is already well established and accepted in Australia. As Mr Boyden of the Stormwater Industry Association told the Committee, twenty- five years ago, no one bothered about what went downstream in NSW. Twenty years ago, awareness emerged of quantity issues, and in the last five years, awareness of quality.88
6.101 Although progress has been made in endorsing catchment based management, few places appear to have achieved it in practice. One of the few jurisdictions claiming to have done so is the ACT:
the ACT has pioneered an integrated catchment approach to land use planning in a predominantly urban area, linking downstream water quality with land use management and guiding the city’s layout from single block to city-wide consideration of stormwater. As a result, the ACT has instigated an integrated system of water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater management and at-source controls which protect downstream waters, particularly the Murrumbidgee River, delivering water quality and flow regimes which approximate pre-development conditions.89
6.102 However, Professor Jones, Chief Executive of the CRC for Freshwater Ecology, also cautioned that this approach is frequently incorrectly applied:
We hear a lot about the importance of taking an “integrated” approach to research and management. I find that, in practice, this means rivers and catchments are seen as a collection of numerous separate pieces that can be pulled apart, examined, then reassembled. Conceptually, holism is different from integration. With a holistic approach, you start to recognise that there are properties of river systems that only exist at the whole-of-river scale.90
6.103 The Committee strongly endorses the theory of TCM, and considers that it must form the basis for all future water management. Local solutions 6.104 Australia’s water institutions must reflect the diversity of conditions across Australia, including climate, rainfall patterns, consumption rates and population densities. The Stormwater Industry Association made this point to the Committee:
the management of water is local. It should be local. … the funding mechanism and management mechanisms must be more closely related to
88 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 163. See also Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 185. 89 Ms Fowler, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 546. 90 Professor Gary Jones, WaterShed, August 2002, p 2. 233
the local effects in the state, catchment or local council area where the water falls.91
6.105 Mr Holdsworth from the City of Port Phillip, pointed to the:
unique role that local government can have in achieving objectives – whether they be education, policy demonstration or implementation and enforcement – because local government is that much closer to its community and that much more able to understand the local situation, however you might describe it.92
6.106 Ecologically sustainable solutions to water use must be tailored to the particular circumstances and ecology of each place, right down to individual bays, waterways, and urban developments. Institutional reform options 6.107 The necessity for integration was summed up by the Australian Water Association:
There is growing recognition of the need to understand and proactively manage activities occurring within a catchment for the purpose of mitigating detrimental impacts to water resources. The difficult part of catchment management is integrating all of the relevant stakeholders and factors; water is affected in many ways, presenting a true management challenge.93 Institutional consolidation: centralising authority 6.108 A reduction in the number of agencies through amalgamation or rationalisation could produce a more unified administration that deals with all aspects of water treatment, better coordinates activities, and pursues shared objectives. Canberra and Brisbane have largely unified arrangements, which have been successful in implementing reforms that make them among the leaders in water management.
6.109 The Brisbane City Council, is the largest local government body in Australia and has charge of all water-related functions, unlike the smaller council areas elsewhere. Similarly, in the ACT, a single entity, ActewAGL, controls operations and maintenance of stormwater and road drainage on behalf of the Department of Urban Services.94
6.110 The Water Corporation of Western Australia discussed other advantages of larger scale:
91 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 154; see also Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 267. 92 Mr Holdsworth, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 351. 93 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 5. 94 Mr Dymke, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 550. 234
I think the advantage is that, in a geographically large state such as ours with small centres of population, you need to concentrate the expertise to manage such a large system and concentrate your scarce resources. So one of the advantages of being centralised and vertically integrated is that you can cover the whole state and deploy that scarce expertise in the best way possible; whereas, if you split it up or had a disintegrated system to manage the process, you would have duplication and not the best use of those scarce resources.95
6.111 In Western Australia, the Water Resources Commission has been merged with the Department of Environmental Protection to form the new Department of the Environment, Water and Catchment Protection,96 and the separate portfolios of water resources minister and an environment minister have been brought together.97 According to Mr Till, this consolidation may go further:
We are looking at whether we should go down a regulatory path so that the regulation, the strategic planning and the overall management would reside in the new department. There would be a partnership arrangement between the regulator/strategic planner, the state government, and the local governments but the service delivery role would be entirely with the local government councils.98
6.112 Similarly, in South Australia, officials see the advantages of their new centralised department, which was three weeks old at the time of the Committee’s hearings:
Part of the advantage of establishing a department dedicated to water was that we were able to collaborate with and bring together sometimes fractious parties. We had a clear goal to manage water sustainably and effectively, whereas previously there was not a department that was dedicated in that way; it was previously attached to the Department of the Environment and we were probably seen as greenies. Then there was the engineering department, which built water supply systems, and there were some turf wars over that.99
6.113 In NSW:
The Healthy Rivers Commission has looked at the Georges, Hawkesbury- Nepean and Woronora river systems and has recommended that a more integrated approach is needed for water management within the boundaries of those river systems, which is basically Sydney. They have recommended
95 Mr Addison, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 423. 96 Mr McCarthy, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 408. 97 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 397. 98 Mr Till, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 392. 99 Mr Wills, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 459. 235
that there is a need for a stormwater trunk drainage authority to move stormwater forward and integrate it into the water cycle.100
6.114 Dr Humphries of the Water Corporation of WA also indicated that there is:
enormous enthusiasm to transfer to the Water Corporation the schemes that remain with local government and have them upgraded at broader community cost because the local community simply cannot afford them.101
6.115 There have also been suggestions for the consolidation of control at the Commonwealth level into a single agency, although as Mr Davis of the Australian Water Association explained, this would have both advantages and disadvantages:
There is a campaign being waged in Canberra to try and encourage the establishment of an ‘Office of Water’, a la the Office of Oceans, but the current feeling is that water is just one of the natural resources that has to be managed … rather than splitting out water as a special case. Brian has a point in that you have AFFA and EA both managing water from different angles and, in some respects, having competition amongst the ministers, which is not really productive. I think a multi-departmental or bipartite team is tackling that in the national action plan, but there is a lack of attention and I am not sure that we can drag water out as a special case. It probably still belongs in with Natural Resources.102
6.116 The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage report Co-ordinating Catchment Management recommended the creation of a national catchment management authority
The Committee recommends that the Government work towards an agreement through COAG that requires each jurisdiction to enact complementary legislation to establish an independent statutory authority, the National Catchment Management Authority (NCMA). This authority should have a division corresponding to each of Australia’s catchment systems …103
6.117 Dr Peter Dillon, from CSIRO Land and Water, argues for a national body or funding organisation dedicated to water reuse. The current fragmented and uncoordinated approach heightens the risks of a public health or environmental failure of a reuse project. Dr Dillon is concerned that a failure, especially in protecting public health, would seriously undermine the community’s confidence in water reuse.104
100 Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 179. See also Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 224. 101 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 424. 102 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 228. 103 House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Co-ordinating Catchment Management - Inquiry into catchment management in February 2001, p xvi. 104 CSIROnline media release, Call for national bid to save water, 18 July 2002. 236
The lead authority 6.118 The Committee has seen that some of the most successful programs around Australia have been driven by the knowledge and commitment of one individual. The work of Sunshine Coast Environment Council, in association with the Australian Water Association has been ascribed to the efforts of Mrs Jennifer Simpson.105 In Wide Bay, the expertise of Mr Tim Waldron, and his wide international experience, has been a driving force in the best practice programs developed by the Hervey Bay Council. The Committee was told that the ongoing support of Brisbane’s Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, has been fundamentally important in getting reform into place.
6.119 None of this should be taken to suggest that these individuals have been the sole contributor to these successes – they are clearly dependent on the hard work and commitment of many people. Nevertheless, this leadership is a key element in these examples of best practice.
6.120 The emergence of someone with the personal commitment to drive long term change can however be a matter of luck. The challenge is to find ways to institutionalise the champion phenomena, and the establishment of a lead or coordinator agency with direct political supervision and responsibility may be the best way to do this.
6.121 Options put to the Committee include the creation of an ‘office of special projects’ located in the Premier’s Department, which can coordinate a whole of government approach focusing political support, and managing all aspects of the government approval process.106 A similar concept has driven the creation of the Office of the Sydney Harbour Manager, who reports to a senior Cabinet Minister.107
6.122 Nationally, the creation of the new Natural Resources Management Council, comprising the key ministers at the state and federal levels, should better focus and coordinate government resources. As Mr Hooy explained:
it is early days in the life of that ministerial council and a number of things are still shaking down. But what we are hoping to do there is to more holistically integrate the issues of natural resource management and, shall we say, issues arising from agricultural production, issues of legacy of history – such as vegetation clearance et cetera – with issues such as biodiversity conservation and environmental flows. In the past, they have been somewhat compartmentalised.108
105 Mr Oliver, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 132. 106 An example of this is the Strategic Projects Division of the NSW Premier’s Department at: www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/about/spd/regional.htm 107 Sydney Harbour Management site, at: www.bearings.nsw.gov.au 108 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 8. 237
6.123 Mr Neil Head, of the Planning Institute of Australia suggested that this development could be further strengthened by including a program of national meetings of all planning and local government ministers,109 noting the importance of planning laws and land use to water quality. He also recommends the creation of a unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to focus on the development of policies for sustainable cities.110 Sharing information 6.124 Sharing information is critical to achieving best practice and the peak national institutions play a crucial role in publishing materials and providing forums for discussions among professionals.
6.125 Mr Wiskar of the Queensland Environment Protection Agency commented that WaterWise was a good vehicle for disseminating information:
One of the good things about people involved in water efficiency is that there is a very strong national network of people. In some part, WaterWise has had a role in enhancing the communication that goes on between various states about what they are doing. We are very involved in, say, the Sydney program and in programs that the Western Australian Water Authority have implemented and the research that they have done. Likewise, they are involved and learning from what we are doing.111
6.126 Mr Wiskar explains further:
The way I would describe it is that there is an interested and passionate group of people within a range of agencies who are working together on these issues. It probably lacks at some level some formalised structures, but, on one hand, that is not all that important as long as the information gets shared, and ideas and learning can move forward.
… The situation basically is that all states – bar South Australia – have adopted the WaterWise program. The basic principle of the WaterWise program is that information gets shared freely – ideas, brochures, materials, booklets, fact sheets or whatever it is. If you have got a water authority somewhere and you want to rebadge some of my material to use, then you freely have access, because you are part of WaterWise, to that artwork, materials, photos and whatever to do with as you will. But, likewise, if you do something that I want, you have got to give it to me so that I do not have to spend money doing stuff that you did and vice versa.112
109 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 43. 110 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 40. 111 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 140-141. 112 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, pp 145-6. 238
6.127 The newly launched Landcare Australia website113 is an overall information resource, and includes twenty-eight regional landcare sites, a discussion forum, and case studies. Partnership arrangements 6.128 Taking the information sharing approach one step further partnering can integrate the efforts and expertise of all levels of government, industry, science and the community. Each group contributes its own particular expertise, and solutions agreed to by the group take account of the priorities of all stakeholders. Collective planning and decision making can also shorten long periods of consultations and prevent the different players from working at cross purposes to each other.
6.129 The Committee has seen several outstanding examples of the effectiveness of this approach.
6.130 In Queensland, the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership was formed out of the Brisbane River Management Group and the Water Quality Management Strategy, as a cooperative arrangement including local governments and the Queensland Environment Protection Authority, and the departments of Primary Industries, Transport, Natural Resources and Mines. Funding comes from the state agencies and the local authorities that make contributions based on their populations. The Commonwealth has also funded particular projects through the Natural Heritage Trust.114
6.131 The partnership is said to be based on an overall planning vision for the region, underpinned by the fact that the receiving waters of Moreton Bay are a Ramsar listed site of international significance.115
the partnership structure is somewhat Byzantine. However, there are all the elements of key involvement plus a recognition that there is a hierarchy of decision making that needs to be addressed. So we have an overall policy council. The interesting attribute of the policy council is that it is a mixture of state government, local government, community, industry and traditional owners. There is a cascade effect with input from a range of advisory committees and also a suite of specific issue-focused working groups that are strongly linked to the science team.116
113 Landcare Australia site, at: www.landcareaustralia.com.au 114 Ms Tarte, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 95. 115 Ms Tarte, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 88. 116 Ms Tarte, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 88. 239
6.132 The partnership has produced a Waterways Management Plan, The Moreton Bay Catchment Scientific Report, the ‘Crew Members Guide’ and Healthy Waterways campaign implementation Programs.117
6.133 The Melbourne Association of Bayside Municipalities, comprising the ten councils around Port Phillip Bay, has developed a cooperative project to improve the quality of stormwater running into Port Phillip Bay.118 The Port Phillip Coastal and Marine Planning Program (CMPP), funded under the Commonwealth Coasts and Clean Seas Program, aims to strengthen the local planning framework for all of the municipalities around the Bay, and integrate their management decisions into the overall strategy of the Victorian Coastal Strategy.
6.134 Through a Steering Committee, all main stakeholders were involved in the planning process, including the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Infrastructure, the Municipal Association of Victoria, and the Central Coastal Board.119 Products of the partnership include a symposium and various training programs.
6.135 The Sydney Harbour model is an interesting way to manage institutional arrangements and is said to be:
a new approach to managing complex places (and complex issues) which provides procedural clarity, equality of access to decision making, and maximises the possibility of achieving place-based outcomes.
This form of governance – which we call the ‘Sydney Harbour model’ – rewards collaboration and encourages a strategic consensus on policy issues.
It is characterised by enabling clusters of stakeholders and interest groups to develop joint positions and to then enter into a dialogue with the other main players. The ‘Sydney Harbour model’ is a network of clusters …120
6.136 These ‘clusters’ bring together state agencies, environmentalists, indigenous groups, and maritime users in both recreational and commercial fields. The model recognises formal structures and complex informal relationships; ‘place based outcomes’ and the fostering of community engagement.
6.137 In Canberra, the Sullivans Creek Catchment Group built a strong cooperative approach among community, business and government,121 and formed a technical advisory committee comprising technical specialists from research institutions,
117 South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, p 15. 118 Dr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 303. 119 City of Port Phillip, Submission 71, Appendix 3. 120 http://www.bearings.nsw.gov.au/SHmodel.html (note that this website is no longer operative) 121 Sullivans Creek Catchment Management Plan 2000, List of stakeholders, pp 15-16. 240
government and community representatives.122 A more specific collaboration was then formed to create a wetland along the main drainage route in partnership with the Natural Heritage Trust; the ACT government; the commercial housing developer; and Community Housing Canberra. Each member of the partnership offered resources to the project, including volunteer effort from Sullivans Creek Catchment Group members in planting and maintenance.123
6.138 Active engagement of the community has the benefit of delivering higher awareness of issues124 and a preparedness on the part of the community to pay for programs to achieve environmental outcomes.125 The Water Corporation of WA adopts another proactive method:
we have regular and structured dialogue with the Western Australian Conservation Council. We part fund, jointly with the Water and Rivers Commission, a water policy officer at the council on the simple basis that the corporation is very willing to be either praised or criticised for its performance but that we would prefer it to be informed.126
6.139 It is also evident that effective management arrangements do not need to be based on either centralised agencies or formalised relationships. The ACT government explained the Canberra system:127
While a range of government agencies have responsibilities which have an impact on water management, the critical factor is that there are strong partnerships and links between the different interests. That is why several of us are here today. In the ACT, responsibilities are as follows: Environment ACT has responsibility for resource management and environment protection, Urban Services for stormwater, Planning and Land Management for urban design, ACTEW Corporation for water supply and
122 Sullivans Creek Catchment Group, Submission 58, Attachment 2. 123 Ms Gillies, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 57. See also the example of Brisbane’s western catchment implementation group: Ms Tarte, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 100. 124 Such as the River Murray Urban Users Committee: Mr Charter, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 487. 125 Such as the Community Environment Contract in Mosman (Committee Briefing, Mosman City Council, Sydney, Friday 18 April 2002. See Appendix 5). For other examples of communities that are prepared to pay more for environmental outcomes, see Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 158; and Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 189. 126 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 429. 127 ACT Government, Submission 75, p 3. 241
sewerage services, Treasury for utility regulation and pricing, and Health and Community Care for regulating drinking water quality.128 Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) 6.140 In bringing together stakeholders and developing catchment management plans, catchment management groups also play an important role in creating the layers of planning needed at national, state and local levels.
6.141 The powers and responsibilities of CMAs differ across jurisdictions,129 but generally, they are limited to the preparation of Catchment Management Plans, and educative and catchment repair functions. Arguably, to be effective in protecting and repairing catchments, and ensuring water quality, CMAs must have control over land use planning within their areas, and the right to prosecute companies or individuals that cause damage to catchments or waterways.
6.142 As Chapter 7 discusses in detail, in most cases around Australia, prices of water do not include ‘resource extraction’ costs. CMAs could be given great effectiveness by allocating to them ownership of all water resources within a catchment. The CMA can then sell the water to irrigators, water companies or industries, at prices that reflect the actual management costs of the catchment. The Sydney Catchment Authority, established after the cryptosporidium outbreak in 1999, has gone some way towards this model:
Its task is to manage and protect Sydney’s catchments and supply bulk water to its customers, which include Sydney Water and a number of local councils.
These customers then filter the water and distribute it to households, businesses and other users.130
6.143 In New Zealand water and environmental protection is a principal responsibility of the Regional Councils, which operate as a parallel level of government to Territorial Authorities.131 However, this is limited as a model for Australia because Regional Council boundaries do not necessarily correspond with those of catchments.
128 Ms Fowler, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 546. Note also the example of the PATHE (Partnership Advancing the Housing Environment) between the Housing Industry Association, Environment Australia and the Australian Greenhouse Office. 129 See Appendix 4 for details. 130 Sydney Catchment Authority website, at: www.sca.nsw.gov.au ‘About SCA’. 131 Which creates a somewhat ‘triangular’ model of government with local and regional government having management responsibility for different aspects of what is essentially local government. This contrasts with Australia’s three tiers in a linear arrangement. For further detail, see the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, New Zealand/Australia Committee Exchange Program – Report of visit to New Zealand 15-17 April 2002, p 4. 242
Conclusions and recommendations 6.144 Any institutional solution to urban water management will be complex and, as the CSIRO comments, there must always be awareness of the fundamental barriers to achieving truly integrated management:
in trying to apply the concept of integrated urban water management, at least three obstacles will be met (Geldof, 1997), being:
• the number of component parts is large and their interactions complex;
• the information required to make sense of the complex system will be, in part, subjective; and
• there will be uncertainty due to incomplete information.132
6.145 Melbourne Water offered similar comments about the complexity of future systems:
The future will be quite different from the past in that we will be looking at an area of greater complexity. … We will be looking at government, regulators of both a technical and economic variety, developers – a whole range of people – to help support a sustainable future.133
6.146 The Committee considers there is significant scope for rationalising the number of institutions involved in water management and recommends that the Commonwealth government raise it as a matter for discussion at COAG. Typically, water supply and treatment is dominated by a relatively few, generally publicly owned, corporations, but stormwater management is highly fragmented. Reforms should address this fragmentation, and seek to integrate institutions that manage catchments, water supply and treatment, and stormwater. The experience of Victoria is indicative of some of the benefits. According to the Victorian Water Industry Association:
the structure of the industry in Victoria is pretty good because of a change we went through in 1995. The provision of urban water, particularly in regional areas, was once the responsibility of small water boards, often attached to councils … Now, larger regional water providers are responsible for providing water and waste water services. I think that provides us with a far better opportunity, and it has been of great benefit to Victoria and to water authorities in Victoria in being able to provide for sustainable water management.134
6.147 An important part of this is the active inclusion of authorities responsible for receiving waters, such as environment protection agencies and the Great Barrier Reef
132 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 34. 133 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 322. 134 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 284. 243
Marine Park Authority, into the management framework. Stormwater and other diffuse source pollution will continue to be almost impossible for the EPAs to police so long as they do not have input into the planning and land use decision making.
6.148 The Committee also strongly endorses the role of institutional ‘champions’ or lead authorities. Governments at all levels should have mechanisms in place to identify ideas that will lead the way in achieving sustainability and provide dedicated support at the political and administrative level.
6.149 The experience of Mr Michael Mobbs in Sydney, discussed above, is instructive: he faced obstacles and delays in gaining official approval for aspects of his sustainable housing projects because he wanted to use new and unfamiliar techniques, and succeeded largely by reason of his experience as an environmental lawyer, and sheer persistence.135 The Committee strongly believes that implementing best practice sustainable building and design should not be so difficult.
6.150 Further refining the role of the CMAs will also be crucial. CMAs should have overall legislated responsibility for the health of catchments, and the quality of the water within them, and flowing out of them. They must also be given the powers that accompany such responsibility. However, it is impossible to generalise about the exact roles of CMAs across Australia, or how their responsibilities would be shared with the existing responsible authorities, such as local government planning agencies, National Parks services, and state natural resources portfolios.
6.151 It also remains to be resolved whether there is a need for a national policy and coordinating authority, which would take responsibility for a National Water Policy and, crucially, work to resolve the problems in the relationships between the competing uses of water in Australia. The question is whether existing arrangements within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, and Environment Australia are already sufficient; or whether a National Water Office or National Catchment Management Authority should be created. Creating a new bureaucratic organisation may complicate the regulatory landscape even further, unless it has a clear role and mandate. The recent creation of the new Ministerial Councils, and the Cabinet Committee is arguably of greater significance for focusing resources on water management issues.
6.152 As witnesses to the inquiry noted, there are also advantages in retaining an integrated natural resources management structure, rather than separating water. Running counter to this though, is the priority principle. Water is of such fundamental importance to Australia’s cities and agriculture that it arguable deserves dedicated policy and management institutions.
6.153 The Committee concludes that in view of the urgency of reforming water management in Australia, both urban and rural, there is justification in establishing a National Water Office.
135 Sustainable House, Michael Mobbs, CHOICE Books, 1998, p 135. 244
Legislative and policy solutions 6.154 There are seven principal areas in which the Commonwealth could act in improving the legislative and policy framework for better water management:
a) mandatory and enforceable water quality standards;
b) legislating to control land use and land clearing;
c) amending the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999, to better deal with cumulative impacts;
d) stronger model planning provisions using the Building Code of Australia;
e) mandating the use of water efficient devices such as low flow shower heads;
f) mandating policies and standards; and
g) mandating environmental management system processes and triple bottom line reporting. A National Water Policy 6.155 The NWQMS is a comprehensive and worthy exercise, that has produced an important set of national benchmark documents. However, the limitation of the Strategy is its failure to set the necessary aggressive and overall policy objectives that are needed to force the pace of change in Australia.
6.156 In this context, it is useful to look to the example of the National Oceans Policy, which sets in place a national framework for integrated ecosystem based management for the entire Australian marine environment. It contains both a vision and key management principles.136
6.157 The Committee, while commending the valuable policy work already done by the Commonwealth, considers that there is still a need for a National Water Policy, that, like the National Oceans Policy, clearly establishes goals and objectives for achieving ecologically sustainable water use in Australia, and embeds the underlying management principles to do this. Importantly, this policy should not be restricted to urban water policy, but should address the complex but still unresolved relationships between competing water uses across all Australian landscapes: rural, urban and industrial.
136 National Oceans Office website, at: http://www.oceans.gov.au/home.jsp 245
Mandatory standards for drinking water? 6.158 For many communities, especially those in rural areas, the quality of the domestic tap water is an issue.137 The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) provide an authoritative source of information to Australians on what constitutes good quality, safe water.138 It has been suggested that the Commonwealth government could move to make these guidelines mandatory, creating a legal obligation for all domestic water suppliers around Australia to supply water that meets the standards set out in the ADWG.
6.159 In its April 2000 report Arrangements for Setting Water Quality Standards – International Benchmarking, the Productivity Commission found that, by separating the creation of scientific standards from legal obligations, Australia’s methods for setting standards were below best practice. Because the ADWGs are not legally binding, individual states and territories use a variety of instruments such as operating licences and memoranda of understanding, which determine how and to what extent the Guidelines are to be implemented.139 This leads to considerable differences in regulation and water quality across Australia.
6.160 In contrast, the US has legally enforceable legislative standards developed by the National EPA using a detailed cost-benefit analysis.
6.161 Professor Bursill, who is the Chair of the NHMRC Drinking Water Review Coordinating Group reviewing the ADWG, argued strongly against this approach. According to Professor Bursill, there is a fundamental need to retain the distinction between voluntary guidelines and mandatory regulations:
It is a very challenging and complex process to assess the scientific, toxicological, epidemiological and other health-related information available in order to derive guideline values that define good quality water. It is my view that it would be entirely counterproductive to attempt to introduce social, cultural, political economic and other factors in to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
There is an essential, legitimate, and in my view, entirely separate process involved in deriving water quality regulations (that is, standards) in the various jurisdictions in Australia. It is this latter activity where cost-benefit trade-offs are made. Consequently, this needs to be transparent to the communities affected by the eventual decisions.
137 See for example, West Australian, Water in towns below par, 15 June 2002, p 3; and The Examiner, Water worry; Warnings to boil in 37 State areas, 16 June 2001, p 1. Note also the discussion of salinity threats to urban water supplies in Chapter 2. 138 CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25, p 5. 139 Productivity Commission 2000, Arrangements for Setting Drinking Water Standards, International Benchmarking, AusInfo, Canberra, p xxvi. 246
In some other countries, such as the United States, the above two processes are really combined into one. The result is often neither a good guideline nor a good standard.140
6.162 During the Committee’s hearings in Adelaide, Professor Bursill gave a practical example of this point, relating to the salinity levels in drinking water, which according to the ADWG should be below 500 mg per litre. Between 500 and 1,000 is still acceptable from a health perspective, but people can taste salt in the water once it goes above 500:
You can have a debate whether Perth people want to desalinate their water because it is often up in the 600 to 700 milligrams per litre over there, especially with this extended dry period they are having. The implementation of desalination would probably double the price of their water at the present time. It certainly would not make any difference to the health outcomes, and it would only make relatively minor impacts on even the aesthetics at the current level it is at.141
6.163 This view is supported by the CSIRO:
The regulation of drinking water quality in Australia is the responsibility of the states and, in particular, the state health authorities. It is their role to set up acceptable standards for the quality of water supply and to oversee the processes which are put in place to deliver such water. Clearly, the ADWG provide a benchmark in this area, but it would be a mistake and a misunderstanding of the intent of the ADWG to simply translate the water quality numbers contained therein directly into operating standards. Indeed the ADWG document itself goes to considerable length to emphasise the importance of local conditions and community consultation in arriving at such standards.142
6.164 The Committee agrees that it is preferable to retain the separation of setting scientifically based guidelines, and enforceable standards. Legislating land use 6.165 Australians have a strong preference for living close to water, whether it be next to the sea, rivers, or lakes, and housing developers are quick to take advantage of this market preference. However, developments in these areas often result in the destruction of wetlands and riparian vegetation, which have acted as purifying mechanisms for water flows. Building on river flats also brings the need for flood
140 CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, Submission 25, p 4. 141 Prof Bursill, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April, 2002, p 533. 142 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 73. 247 mitigation works which often further damage natural systems and increase erosion in waterways.143
6.166 As the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland submission argues:
Government authorities continue to allow development within flood prone areas, floodplains and natural drainage lines. Such areas are important for their aesthetic and ecological values, and assist in the natural treatment of stormwater. There has been a failure to learn from past and recent events, resulting in loss of public and private property and environmental harm.
… Local authorities are allowing ecologically unsustainable development within catchments, resulting in vegetation clearance and subsequent destruction of natural systems appropriate to the treatment of stormwater and water flows and adding further pollution and increased flow rates into the remaining ecosystem.144
6.167 Mr Hill notes his concerns over:
The very poor response to developing legislation or using what we have to adequately protect wetland basins, flats and channels and their foreshores…, [and] with the absence of a legislative framework to require best practice water management as a prevention rather than cure approach.145
6.168 Such clearing of vegetation continues in the Perth region, according to the Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee:
Of most concern has been the loss of very high biodiversity wetlands in Perth and the South West region of Western Australia. These wetlands have been aptly described as the kidneys of the catchment. Their nutrient stripping effectiveness was demonstrated by Paul Lavery on the Peel Harvey wetlands area named the Spectacles.
… Recent State Regional Planning Schemes in all of the above areas are giving low priority to wetland protection eg Peel Harvey and Greater Bunbury Region Schemes, missing the opportunity to protect wetlands at a low price for the Community.
Development has not been limited to the most degraded wetlands but has been allowed to continue on wetlands from outstanding condition wetland types to totally cleared and degraded wetlands.146
143 Mr Alan Hill, Submission 24A, p 10. See also CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Submission 25, p 2. 144 Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Submission 7, p 2. 145 Mr Alan Hill, Submission 24, p 2. 146 Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee, Submission 19, p 1. 248
6.169 The solution to this problem is essentially to create planning laws that prevent urban developments in these areas. The Committee recognises that planning laws are the jurisdiction of state and local governments and urges state and territory governments to work with local government in undertaking an urgent review of these laws, coupled with the necessary mapping of remaining wetland and riverine areas to ensure proper protection of wetlands and water courses. Cumulative damage and the Commonwealth EPBC Act 6.170 It has been put to the Committee that the EPBC Act is limited by the fact that it will tend not to be triggered by the cumulative changes of numerous small projects over a period of time. As officers of the Commonwealth government explained:
the EPBC Act was not put in place fundamentally to deal with cumulative impacts or diffuse source pollution. The triggers within it are somewhat limiting to the point where actions which could impair or adversely affect a nationally environmentally significant waterway are not direct triggers. So it has to have a demonstrable impact on a World Heritage listed area like the reef.147
… The key words there are ‘an action’ and ‘a significant impact’. There is no doubt there are problems with cumulative impacts – that is something we have to deal with. …
Hypothetically, if a Ramsar site is downstream from a major housing development and that development was going to have a significant impact then there is a potential for the act to be triggered. The issue …. is the gradual expansion over time of a suburb around a particular site. That is more a planning issue than a straight guillotine decision.148
6.171 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority gives further detail of this problem, noting that it has been involved with the assessment of 23 such developments in the past two years:149
This method of staging development submissions where assessment is done on each stage is clearly inconsistent with the intent of both the [Queensland planning legislation and the EPBC] however, neither legislation encourages or requires a consolidated approach.150
147 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 17. 148 Mr Hooy, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 17. 149 Details of which were provided to the Committee on a ‘commercial in confidence’ basis. 150 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60A, p 2. 249
6.172 Furthermore:
[M]uch work is undertaken both by government and the proponent before there is any indication that the proposed development may not be appropriate.151
6.173 The Committee considers this to be a serious flaw in the current Commonwealth regime. It is arguable that the existing broad definition of ‘action’ in the EPBC Act, which includes ‘an activity or series of activities’,152 already covers cumulative impacts, however it would appear from the evidence received that the Department does not currently interpret the Act in this way. This problem deserves immediate clarification, particularly in view of the serious threats facing the Great Barrier Reef from land-based pollution. Solutions could include an amendment to the definition of ‘action’ to explicitly include cumulative activities or projects, linked to a more assertive use of the EPBC Act by the Commonwealth to ensure proper environmental impact assessment of any projects that through cumulative impacts, could harm areas that have National Environmental Significance.153 Model planning laws and codes 6.174 There are different building, planning and zoning laws across the States, Territories and more than 700 local governments. According to the Housing Industry Association, this is the principal barrier to rapid implementation of best practice:
Scores of planning jurisdictions around the country have acted unilaterally to develop their own versions of energy efficiency codes for residential building at the cost of:
• unpredictable results across local government boundaries;
• wastage of resources through the reinvention of the codes in each jurisdiction;
• no regard for the impacts of the codes in the affordability of homes; and
• complex and rigid rules that are not universally applicable.154
6.175 It has been suggested to the Committee that a suitable vehicle for regulating best practice water efficiency is the Building Code of Australia. The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is produced as a model national set of design rules, which has been adopted into building regulation by all States and Territories. The BCA is a
151 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60A, p 2. 152 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, subsections 523(d and e). 153 Note that the Minister for the Environment is still able to grant a declaration under Division 2 to exempt an action from the approval process. 154 Housing Industry Association, Submission 59, p 4. 250 performance based standard which established a set of objectives, functional statements, performance requirements and certain compulsory specific rules.155
6.176 The Australian Greenhouse Office identified the BCA as the natural place to address minimum energy requirements for new buildings and major refurbishments and, in association with the building sector, has moved to incorporate national energy efficiency performance standards into the Code.156
6.177 Melbourne Water,157 South Australian government officials,158 and the Housing Industry of Australia159 all support the idea of a wider role for the BCA, especially in achieving consistency across Australia.
6.178 Another alternative is the Plumbing Code of Australia (PCA), which was developed by the National Plumbing Regulators Forum, and is currently in draft form. The development of the PCA was driven by the findings of several reports, which highlighted the disparities between the regulatory regimes between the various States and Territories. The draft PCA includes installation requirements for on site plumbing services and systems, and processes for certification and authorisation of plumbing products.160
6.179 Both the building and plumbing codes offer significant opportunities to ensure the institutionalisation of water efficient building practices. Accordingly, the Commonwealth should sponsor negotiations to strengthen the Codes, and consider giving them legislated pre-eminence over other conflicting rules.
6.180 Two issues would need to be addressed in formulating these model codes. First, there is a danger that the negotiation process would result in a lowest common denominator standard, which might undermine best practice.
6.181 Second, the enormous diversity of Australia’s climatic conditions, would pose practical difficulties in standardising planning laws:
traditionally that has been the domain of the states. They provide the licensing regimes, the regulation regimes and what have you. Whilst the Commonwealth could, and has been seeking to, facilitate the whole area of water reuse and appropriate direction of stormwater, we really cannot unilaterally move into that area without the states’ complete agreement. As
155 About the Building Code, BCA Board site,at: www.bcab.gov.au 156 Australian Greenhouse Office website, at: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/energyefficiency/building/code.html see also: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54A, Attachment C. 157 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 5. 158 Mr Wills, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April, 2002, p 466. 159 Housing Industry Association, Submission 59, p 4. 160 Regulatory Impact Statement – Plumbing Code of Australia, p 3. 251
I said, they have the regulatory inspection regimes and what have you, and we really would need to bring them on board.161
It is also the simple matter of the use of the term ‘standard’ as well. Standardising those sorts of technologies nationally may not be practical. For operational reasons, you may have low mains pressure and not be able to use a low-flow showerhead, for example. Although the notion is supported, there would need to be a degree of flexibility within that system so that you could customise what you were using in any specific location.162 Mandating equipment 6.182 One option for government is to legislate to either require the use of water efficient appliances or prohibit the sale of appliances deemed to be wasteful. The Commonwealth arguably has the power to regulate at the point of sale under its corporations powers, and such laws could extend to dual flush toilets, low flow shower heads, or aerated taps.
6.183 This approach has the advantage of immediate effect across all new building developments, without the patchy take-up of voluntary schemes. There are other advantages in only allowing water-efficient devices on the market. Mr Bartley explained to the Committee how:
Dual-flush toilets came in about 15 or 20 years ago. They were an option which some builders or architects or home owners might adopt, and it took us some years for them to be mandated. Once they were mandated, the manufacturers could make them on a mass-produced basis and they became the standard, and everybody uses them.163
6.184 This view was echoed by Mr Wiskar of the Queensland EPA:
A critical mass of local governments adopted it and then the industry responded by saying, ‘Given that X number of local governments are enforcing this, we are now not going to make … single-flush systems any more. The regulation forced industry transformation …164
6.185 Adoption of a national regulation at point of sale for water efficient appliances was recommended by both Sydney Water and the Brisbane City Council.165
161 Mr Hooy Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May, 2002, p 593. 162 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May, 2002, p 593. 163 Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 313. See also Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 322. 164 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 135. 165 Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 170; and Brisbane City Council, Submission 28, p 2. 252
6.186 Conversely though, the Planning Institute of Australia submission noted that mandating any particular solution can have the effect of embedding out-of-date technology:
Best practice in three years’ time with urban water management and water sensitive urban design, is likely to be different to today …166
6.187 Regulations should also avoid creating standards that do not keep pace with technological advances in best practice.
6.188 However, the Committee is also mindful that there can be technical difficulties in using some of these appliances, such as low flow shower heads with the low pressure that comes with instantaneous gas hot water, or for some older fittings. Mandating outcomes – policies and standards 6.189 Performance based standards which prescribe an outcome and do not attempt to impose any particular method to achieve that outcome have the advantage of enabling a range of approaches to be adopted to meet the standards, encouraging innovation and adaptation to the needs of local conditions. These standards can be progressively tightened over time and reflect outcomes offered by emerging technology.
6.190 This approach has been a standard tool of pollution controls. Environment Protection Agencies impose licence conditions on companies governing the levels of pollutants that can be released. Over several decades, this has resulted in considerable gains in water quality particularly in relation to point source pollution. As Mr Bott of Environment Australia points out:
Most of the toxicants, being industrial in origin, have been regulated to some extent over a protracted time through state legislation, most of the states having had environmental legislation come into being in the seventies or early eighties. So there has been 10 to 20 years of regulation of industry. A lot of the dominant sources have now been brought under control through licensing or have phased reduction programs in place.167
6.191 The Committee notes that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has adopted this method to improve water quality. From 1993, the Authority stipulated that all sewage discharges from islands within the Marine Park had to be of tertiary standard, coupled with the application of an environmental management fee for discharge. A review in March this year showed that most discharges are now fully compliant. The EPA in Queensland is working closely with GBRMPA and has
166 Planning Institute of Australia, Submission 61, p 3. 167 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 4. 253 upgraded its licence requirements for most of its coastal facilities to tertiary standard by 2008.168
6.192 According to the CSIRO, regulation of itself will not be effective unless supported by credible enforcement policies, with compliance monitoring, prosecutions and appropriate penalties:
There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that restriction policies are effective. However, Nancarrow, et al (1996) found that the effectiveness of such policies declined once the sense of ‘crisis’ has passed. That is, use of restriction policies without enforcement and penalties on a permanent basis may prove ineffective.169
6.193 Finally, standard setting is often not effective at addressing diffuse sources of pollution.
6.194 However, there are several opportunities for setting tighter standards, including:
• requiring all appliances sold in Australia to comply with stipulated water efficiency guidelines;170 • mandating minimum water efficiency standards for all new buildings and developments; and 171 • including water consumption targets in operating licences for businesses. Mandating process 6.195 An alternative to mandating standards of equipment or outcomes is to mandate the decision making or planning process.
6.196 This concept has application to urban water management and water quality in relation to water utilities and businesses involved in building construction and facilities management, but has not generally been applicable to individual domestic residences. The concept can be applied in two ways – Environmental Management Systems (EMS), and triple bottom line reporting.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) 6.197 An EMS is based on the ‘continuous improvement model’, establishing environmental objectives (which at a minimum should comply with legal requirements), determining how these are to be met and regularly reviewing the effectiveness of actions to meet these targets. Features of this approach include:
168 Mrs Morris, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville 3 April, 2002, p 67. 169 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 40. 170 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 8. 171 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 5. 254 documenting a process; articulating objectives; allocating responsibilities for compliance; communicating these requirements to staff with associated training; and developing emergency contingency plans.
6.198 Companies can seek accreditation of formal standards such as the Environment Management Standard ISO 14001 published by Standards Australia.172
6.199 Sydney Water is currently developing a corporation wide EMS, and points out that EMS ensures that environmental management processes are consistent, within a flexible framework.173
6.200 This process approach requires those at the ‘coalface’ of business operations to actively consider environmental outcomes in their planning process and operations, whilst allowing them the flexibility to design solutions that are relevant to their particular circumstances.
6.201 A further advantage is that creating systems to prevent problems occurring is both cheaper and more effective that attempting to police problems after they occur. As the previous section discussed, enforcement action is often impractical where there are diffuse sources of pollution or sedimentary runoff (such as, for example, from building sites). A well designed process will set up a sequence of measures to ensure that problems do not occur.174
6.202 As Mr Crocket of Environment Business Australia commented in relation to EMS:
Environmental management systems … including triple bottom line reporting [ – ] provided they are an integral part of business and quality management systems [ – ] have already had and will continue to have an effect of causing a rapid advance in identifying problems and solutions in the urban water sector.175
6.203 The Committee also notes the development of the National Water Quality Management Framework will aims to reduce the emphasis on simple water quality numbers contained within the existing ADWG, and instead place more emphasis on the quality assurance processes.176
6.204 While the use of environmental management systems have their strengths, they mandate a process, not a result. Therefore, a company may implement a range of good processes, but these might fail or set goals that are not best practice or are environmentally inappropriate which means they should not replace fixed standards.
172 Standards Australia site, at: www.standards.com.au 173 Sydney Water, Submission 45, p 20. 174 Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, Mr Bott, p 6. 175 Mr Crockett, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 575. 176 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 74. 255
6.205 Finally, the process of developing and certifying an EMS is time consuming and expensive and less likely to be done by the smaller companies who are currently difficult to police anyway. One solution to this is to legally require certification, however this would be profoundly unpopular within the business community. An alternative is to require or encourage businesses to become compliant with standards such as the ISO 14001, without requiring accreditation.
Triple bottom line reporting 6.206 There is also scope to improve best practice water efficiency and protection against pollution of waters through Triple Bottom Line (TBL) reporting. Under these rules, a company must include information in its corporate accounts addressing its performance against not only financial, but social and environmental criteria.
6.207 Water use and management would be one element of general measures of environmental sustainability, and this is already becoming widespread:
The Victorian government … has set triple bottom line thinking as an important element of all government business enterprises. This element is, to my way of thinking, particularly important in the context of the water industry, because of the nature of the resource that we are dealing with, its importance to society and its value to all Victorians.177
6.208 The Victorian Water Industry Association (VicWater) is about to publish a reporting guideline for water businesses and it explained the advantages of the process:
once you are reporting on the triple bottom line … it starts to infiltrate your thinking further up and your policy making and decision making when you are making business planning decisions on where you are going to commit resources and what activities you are going to carry out.178
6.209 The central advantage of these process systems is therefore that they place the environment, and in this case water, squarely in the heart of business planning and accountability. Mr Daniell sees this as fundamental to future sustainability:
At the moment, there is no process in the planning system that allows this. … There are very few companies around that are marking sustainability or triple bottom line reporting the essence of their planning cycle. It will happen and it will happen in the next five years.179
6.210 It is likely though that this process will only occur if it is required by legislation. Currently the Corporations Act 2001 requires Directors to include in the Annual Report details of the entity’s performance in relation to environmental
177 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 280. 178 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 285. 179 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 502. 256 regulation if the entity’s operations are subject to any particular and significant environmental regulation under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.180 The Committee notes that, notwithstanding these limited environmental reporting requirements, voluntary take-up rates of TBL reporting have been quite small. A recent Westpac Investment Management survey of S&P ASX200 companies, found that 91 per cent of companies have not made public statements committing to greenhouse gas reductions; only 16 per cent participate in energy reduction schemes, and only 6 per cent are reducing greenhouse gas emissions below Kyoto targets.181
6.211 The Committee considers that if Australian companies are to operate in a sustainable way, it is fundamental that this reporting performance be improved. Enforcement of legal standards 6.212 A common criticism of many of the laws relating to water pollution, and environmental protection laws generally, is that government enforcement agencies rarely prosecute. As Mr Diprose told the Committee:
We have the potential to use best management practices, but because nobody actually checks, nobody regulates and nobody is responsible, it is not always being done.182
6.213 The key areas for enforcement are: discharges of pollutants from industrial sources, release of untreated sewage from utilities, failure to comply with sediment control measures at building and construction sites, breaches of the laws relating to activities within catchments, domestic use of water for garden watering, hosing down driveways, and washing of cars where it is contrary to local laws; and failure to comply with planning laws.183
6.214 Several witnesses drew the Committee’s attention to this lack of enforcement action. Mr Baltais of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, gave the Committee a number of examples in the Brisbane region where laws appear not to have been monitored or enforced by regulatory authorities.184
the developer goes off and does what he wants because in most cases he is not being monitored. The state government legislation is certainly not enforced in developments, and there are plenty of examples. I could take you to today and show you umpteen building and development sites where
180 Corporations Act 2001, Section 299 – Annual Directors Report – General Information. 181 Weekend Australian, Greedy times cry out for more stickybeak shareholders, 20 July 2002 p 33. 182 Mr Diprose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 374. 183 These are prohibited in some jurisdictions, usually by local temporary water restrictions. 184 Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Submission 7a, generally, but see for example p 14. 257
there is either no silt management or very rudimentary silt management in place. It is a piecemeal approach. It is delegated down to the developer or to the builder to do the right thing rather than strategically looking at, ‘How does this all fit together and how do we manage it?’ from construction right through to ongoing management.185
6.215 According to Melbourne Water:
Public policy directions in recent years have sought solutions in self- regulation by industries, backed up by accreditation of approved management systems. There is no evidence that these approaches are working, with large numbers of small operators working in generally unsupervised conditions where there is little chance of being caught for violating the regulations.186
6.216 In Western Australia, the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council commented on the lack of licensing or regulation of small industrial operations, which cumulatively, have a major impact. These companies:
depending on what they are, are not licensed by the DEP, therefore they are not inspected and there is no regular environmental audit done of those industries. There has been a project through the Swan River Trust to establish a working group of local governments to do that. That group did a survey in 1997-98 which indicated that there certainly were causes for concern.187
6.217 In Tasmania, a recent Auditor General’s report found a pattern of lenient treatment of private companies for environmental offences, with only seven companies prosecuted since the 1997 inception of the Environment and Pollution Control Act.188 Similarly, Mr Hahn cites the example of Spring Creek in the NSW Shire of Campbelltown. He claims that neither Council nor the EPA have responded to complaints made about rubbish in the creek system.189
6.218 There are several reasons for this problem.
6.219 Effective monitoring of building sites, road construction areas, waterways and industrial facilities is costly, requiring enough officials to patrol and investigate all complaints and incidents. If the matter is to be prosecuted it will be necessary to hold a formal investigation to compile evidence, which for environmental offences may also include scientific testing to determine the origin of pollutants. Legal action may last for several years.
185 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 108. 186 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 10. 187 Mr Ryan, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 412. 188 Mercury, Law ‘too soft’ on polluters, 20 Jun 2002, p 6. 189 Mr Hahn, Submission 39, pp 1-2. 258
6.220 Many agencies, especially at the local government level, will not have the staff, financial or legal resources to effectively police all of their laws.190 Accordingly, many agencies will only prosecute major and flagrant breaches of the law. As Councillor Johnstone of the City of Port Phillip in Victoria explained:
Enforcement action generally is costly for councils. It is difficult and it has limited success. Often a final conviction is like a little tap over the knuckles, so you have to question whether that is the best use of our resources.191
6.221 In the case of diffuse source pollution, enforcement action is not the most effective way to achieve compliance with best practice. As Mr Campin of the Queensland EPA told the Committee:
there are obviously regulated sites like sewage treatment plants where we have strong control and more than enough resources to deal with that. But then there is also the issue of diffuse point source pollution and that tends not to be an area where there is regulation. It is more a case of putting in place planning instruments …
If we go down the street here, there is obviously run-off off the road that potentially ends up in the creek. You can deal with that by setting in place guidelines with Brisbane City Council about how they manage that stormwater, but it is obviously fairly difficult to regulate because the stormwater can enter the river from all sorts of places whereas in terms of the sewage treatment plant and what it discharges it is obviously very easy to set up a regulatory system and for us to then effectively resource that.192
6.222 Mr Bott of Environment Australia voiced a similar view:
broad scale urban development, management and regulation of the emissions from those activities generally slip between traditional land and water regulation responsibilities. … You cannot regulate a household. You cannot regulate a down water pipe off a roof or off a hard surface. This is not just unique to urban development but also to agriculture, in a peri-urban sense. Those emissions are often sporadic and, as the name suggests, diffuse. There is no point of discharge often. It makes regulation and management of those discharges quite difficult.193
190 See for example Henley & Grange Residents Association, Submission 14, p 4 in relation to the SA Environment Protection Agency; and the comments at: Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 111. 191 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 361. 192 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 137. 193 Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 6. 259
6.223 Obviously, the most effective way to prevent harm is through programs that develop management practices that prevent the pollution in the first place.194
6.224 A cooperative approach that seeks to achieve good working relationships with industry, encouraging it to voluntarily report incidents, and work with the agency in managing bad practice may be more effective and less costly. The Melbourne Water submission, for example, explains that:
Another important feature of the Victorian system is the way EPA Victoria works with potential polluters in a non-adversarial way. The EPA defaults to punitive measures only as a last resort. Melbourne Water supports this approach and believes that this leads to the best long-term outcomes.195
6.225 Another reason for not taking action was advanced by officers of the Commonwealth government:
You can have all the regulations but in some cases they are not being enforced. They are not being enforced because they are a threat to industry and employment, especially in some of the states that are struggling economically.196
6.226 Mr Baltais also commented on this issue:
I would not say that councils are working with the developer as such, but they seem to be more concerned about how the development goes ahead. Right up to the approval process they will go through all the motions of looking at environmental issues and approve the development but, once the approval has been given, the follow-up monitoring of those conditions that have been applied to that development is not done, in general. They go through the motions of applying these conditions—and some of them are very good—but putting them into practice does not seem to happen.197
6.227 Where this occurs, it is likely to undermine those companies that do spend resources on achieving best practice. It also undermines the market for newer, more expensive technology. This issue was raised by Dr Vivian Robinson:
We continually hear from potential customers that they know appropriate legislation exists, but nobody enforces it, so why should they worry. … the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is not prepared to act against any but the most severe polluters because of fear of causing unemployment.198
194 This point was made by officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in relation to diffuse source pollutants into the reef area. Mr Yorkston, Proof Committee Hansard, Townsville, 3 April 2002, p 75 195 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 8. 196 Mr Reynolds, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, p 12. 197 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 110. 198 Electropure Industrial Australia, Submission 77, p 2. 260
6.228 The Committee has also seen evidence of agencies enforcing their laws. This example was given by the WA Water and Rivers Commission:
We had a successful prosecution against somebody who illegally cleared a conservation category wetland a couple of months ago. It was a test case; it was the first one of its kind. We are hoping that that will be some deterrent at the moment because it cost the clearer – not the landholder – $47,000 in a fine and associated court costs, not including what he would have paid on his own lawyers. I think he is probably looking at $70,000 total cost, which is reasonable. The problem is that rehabilitation of the wetland will cost over $100,000, so we are currently looking at the possibility of maybe having a court order to rehabilitate as well.199
6.229 Other examples include:
• in Victoria, a fertiliser producer was fined $48,000 for leakage of chemicals into Stony Creek;200 • Shell’s Geelong refinery was fined $15,000 over three oil spills into Corio Bay;201 • WA Water Corporation officials issued twelve on the spot fines or formal warnings for people watering their gardens outside the rostered times;202 • a new enforcement campaign is underway by the SA EPA against polluters of the Port River in Adelaide;203 • there is an overall increase in the number of fines being issued in Victoria: 8523 Victorians were fined for littering in 2001-2002 compared to 7507 in 2000-2001 and 6400 in 1999-2000;204 and • a Melbourne manufacturer was fined $52,000 for allowing hydraulic oil to leak into Merri Creek. Interestingly, the company was also ordered to publicise its offence in newspapers and list it in its annual report.205 6.230 Mr Gersbach of the Housing Industry of Australia also made this comment on the enforcement of sediment controls on NSW building sites:
We have the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997, which empowers councils to impose on-the-spot fines for the lack of sedimentation control on building sites. So, whilst the builders may not be very good at practising control – some are, some are not; and the ones that are not would
199 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 389. 200 Herald Sun, Polluter fined $48,000, 17 Aug 2002, p 13. 201 Age, Refinery fined for ‘totally unacceptable’ spills, 3 Aug 2002, p 14. 202 Blitz nets water wasters, West Australian, 20 Jun 2002, p 4. 203 Advertiser, Toxic avengers target Port River, 22 May 2002, p 9. 204 Sunday Herald Sun, Gutters flow to rivers of shame, 21 July 2002, p 10. 205 Herald Sun, Polluter tells all, 4 Jun 2002, p 2. 261
blame the subcontractors that come to sites on an infrequent basis – they certainly are exposed to some quite hefty fines for not having a system in place.206
6.231 The fact that the majority of submissions from councils and state governments are silent on the subject of enforcement programs and that these do not seem to feature in the urban water management strategies of many agencies is significant.
6.232 An effective enforcement policy is a necessary underpinning of any regulatory strategy. While prosecution should be used carefully and appropriately, a failure to enforce the law undermines both the legitimacy of the laws, and the credibility of the agencies responsible for enforcing them. Businesses and individuals should know that a failure to obey the law is likely to be costly for them, while members of the public who report incidents should be confident that regulatory agencies will promptly investigate these reports and where appropriate, prosecute.
6.233 In the experience of the City of Port Phillip, prosecutions can be most successful if teamed with a media strategy, which ensures not only fines, but bad publicity for errant companies and operators.207 Public interest litigation 6.234 Taking legal enforcement action may also be done by members of the public. This can take the form of a reporting system, as the Nature Conservation Council of NSW suggests:
The public should be employed as a government ‘watchdog’ through developing a sense of ownership for the environment in the community to encourage them to report incidents. This initiative must be supported by a reliable response system within government that addresses community concerns. An independent environmental ombudsman could be instated to mediate on behalf the public on specific matters and ensure that government departments address issues in a consistent manner.208
6.235 The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland gave this example of citizen initiated litigation in which it was involved:
We will use things like the Nature Conservation Act and local government policies. A recent case was a wetland area down on Hilliards Creek. They wanted to put something like 140 houses on that land. It is right next to a Ramsar site and it forms a boundary with a marine park. In that instance council rejected it and we supported council by going to court with them and supplying a barrister. We supplied our own expert witnesses…209
206 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 258. 207 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 361. 208 Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Submission 29, p 15. 209 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 111. 262
6.236 This type of action is often limited by many current laws, which provide limited, if any, rights for private actions. Cost is also a major disincentive:
The problem with those sorts of courts is that they are still very expensive. It will cost us around $6,000 and it might cost the developer $70,000. We are lucky in that we have got barristers and solicitors and experts out there willing to do work for us for nothing or at cost. That is luck. Otherwise we would have been up for $70,000.210
6.237 Mr Baltais comments that in general:
the courts are very much behind the times. … So there is a lag time in the court to catch up with community expectations. We reinforce that by helping councils in court by backing them up and supplying our own legal team. That then shows the judge that the community have a genuine concern and are willing to put in that mileage.211
6.238 The Committee notes that private court actions are more a feature of the environment protection in the United States, where the Clean Water Act empowers third parties to bring an action in US courts to seek remedy for statutory and regulatory violations where the permitting authority fails to act.212
6.239 Since most of the relevant laws are those of the States or Territories, the Commonwealth has a limited role in enforcement. However, one area of direct Commonwealth interest is the funding of the Environmental Defenders Office Network around Australia under the Attorney-General’s Department Community Environmental Legal Program. EDOs may not use these funds to assist clients in environmental litigation-related activities.213
6.240 The Committee considers that this unnecessarily limits the role of the EDOs, and prevents the fulfilment of a useful and central function. Making informed choices – ratings schemes 6.241 A ratings scheme that compels producers to provide information on the performance of their product is an important element of public education schemes. It is also a necessary foundation for regulations that phase out appliances that do not meet prescribed minimum standards.
210 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 111. 211 Mr Baltais, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 112. 212 Mr Diprose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 374. See the website of the US Riverwatch organisation for more information on the Clean Water Act at: www.riverwatch.org 213 See the Environmental Defender’s Office network website, funding arrangements, at: www.edo.org.au 263
6.242 The concept of performance ratings is well established in Australia, with an energy efficiency star rating system for all appliances, and more recently, a fuel efficiency rating must be displayed on all new motor vehicles.214 The ACT government requires an energy efficiency rating prior to a property being offered for sale, while all new residential properties are required to meet minimum energy efficiency standards.215
6.243 There is also a national water efficiency rating scheme for domestic appliances in operation, but it is not mandatory. The National Water Conservation Labelling Scheme aims to encourage greater uptake of water efficient products, and provides consumers with reliable information on the relative water efficiency of various appliances through rating labels displayed on appliances at the point of sale. It classifies a product’s water saving properties from moderate to excellent, using a droplet symbol carrying one to five As and upgrades the Triple A scheme to more clearly differentiate between water efficient products whilst at the same time encouraging further improvements in performance and water efficiency.
6.244 The five A ratings are:
1A 2A 3A 4A 5A
A moderate level A good level of A high level of A very high level An excellent level of water water efficiency water efficiency of water efficiency of water efficiency efficiency
6.245 Eligible products must be tested by an independent approved laboratory for both water efficiency and conformance to appropriate Australian Standards for performance. The scheme currently covers washing machines, dishwashers, shower roses, toilet suites, taps and commercial urinals with other appliances to be added in the future.
6.246 Mr Wiskar of the Queensland EPA told the Committee:
A lot of work has been done at a national level, trying to get major manufacturers to alter the amount of water that those types of machines use. There has been a level of success, probably more driven by the energy rating people, strangely enough, because the energy rating scheme is mandatory, whereas the water conservation scheme is non-mandatory and voluntary – by driving energy efficiency, it actually drives water efficiency as well, because the two are linked.
214 On 1 January 2001, Australian Design Rule (ADR) 81/00 Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles commenced, requiring that all new vehicles up to 2.7 tonnes gross vehicle mass (GVM) carry a fuel consumption label on the windscreen at the point of sale. Australian Greenhouse Office, Energy & Transport, at: www.greenhouse.gov.au 215 For details of the scheme, see the ACT Government, Planning and Land Management site, at: www.palm.act.gov.au 264
… You have had a strong federal government body that has driven the energy rating scheme and a limited involvement from the federal government to drive federally the water efficiency rating scheme, because it is mostly seen as a state and local government responsibility.216
6.247 Various submissions have suggested that the Commonwealth government should act to mandate these standards in the same way as energy efficiency.217
6.248 A similar ratings system could also be used for the water efficiency of buildings and developments, although it would generally be desirable to place water use as one measure in an overall environmental efficiency rating, rather than create a confusing multitude of different ratings systems.
6.249 The ratings scheme could also usefully be extended to water sensitive urban design equipment such as prefabricated Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs). As Dr Jago of CDS Technologies, which produces GPTs points out, GPT systems are not currently rated and that they vary considerably in performance.218 A comprehensive rating system of this type would assist community members, designers and building industry professionals to make more informed choices. The rating system also provides an important benchmark to enable governments – whether Commonwealth, state or local – or businesses, to set minimum performance standards for equipment or buildings. Mandated water efficiency in Commonwealth buildings 6.250 The Commonwealth could boost the uptake of best practice by mandating high standards of water efficiency in all new Commonwealth government buildings, whether built or leased. Existing Commonwealth buildings could also be modified to comply with these higher standards within a stipulated period.
6.251 The Commonwealth has an enormous portfolio of properties and facilities across Australia. The non-Defence property portfolio for instance comprises over 180 properties valued at around $720 million.219 Defence operates some 370 properties and 25,000 facilities, spread across approximately 3 million hectares of land and valued at around $15 billion.220
6.252 A portfolio of this size gives the Commonwealth enormous leverage over the property market. Requiring these properties to attain high levels of water efficiency immediately creates demand for these services, equipment and expertise all over
216 Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 144. 217 See for example: Mr Charter, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 488; Mr Wiskar, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 145; and Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 24. 218 CDS Technologies, Submission 63, p 1. 219 Department of Finance and Administration, Property Group, at: www.dofa.gov.au/property 220 Department of Defence, Corporate Services and Infrastructure Group Infrastructure Division site, at: www.defence.gov.au/demg 265
Australia. As such, it would be an effective step in kick-starting demand, entrenching standards, developing industry expertise, and demonstrating the workability of such designs.
6.253 Such leadership is necessary in encouraging water efficiency in other parts of the Australian community. Water efficiency in the Australian Parliament House 6.254 In this context, it is appropriate to examine the record of the Australian Parliament House.
6.255 Total consumption of water in the building is 95,041 kilolitres (41 per cent), with a further 136,647 kilolitres (or 59 per cent) used to water the gardens. A number of initiatives have been implemented to improve these consumption figures.
6.256 In the 23 hectares of gardens, there is monitoring of moisture and nutrient levels, so that water and fertilisers are only applied when necessary. This minimises both the amount of water used, and the nitrogen run-off into the stormwater system.
6.257 Parliament House has an automated paint separation facility:
the new facility provides for paint and water in mixture to be received by the tank wherein it is chemically treated. The paint and sludge sinks to the bottom of the tank. A probe in the tank senses the level of the clean water in the tank and activates the automated valves which bleed off clean water to the sewer system.221
6.258 Two new projects also plan for an assessment of greywater for on-site irrigation, and installation of coalescing plate separators in two on-site washdown bays to prevent grease and oil from entering the sewerage system. In response to the current drought conditions, there have also been significant reductions in garden watering, especially in the outer gardens.222
6.259 However, there is room for improvement. None of the many toilets or showers in the building use twin flush cisterns, or low-flow shower heads. All of the showers produce very hot water, with water wasted in temperature adjustment.
6.260 The Joint House Department (JHD) has a comprehensive Environmental Management Plan (EMP), based on the requirements of the ASO 14001, tied to an Environmental Action Plan, and monitoring system (the Environmental Condition Index).
221 JHD Environmental Presentation to National Conference of Parliamentary Environmental Committees, p 4. 222 Staying green: House in survival mode, Canberra Times, 28 Nov 02, p 3. 266
Accreditation of people 6.261 A fact that has become apparent in this inquiry is that successful implementation of water efficient practices in Australian urban centres will depend not only on planners and administrators, but the builders, plumbers, engineers, landscapers and other professions that actually put these ideas into practice. Many of the planning instruments, laws and policies are likely to be ineffectual if those on the ground do not understand their purpose.
6.262 Obviously the keys to this are the education and professional training programs that are the subject of Chapter 3. However, a corollary to this process is the creation of accreditation programs for skills in water efficiency. The Conservation Council of South Australia calls for a national scheme,223 while the Committee notes that South Australia is already developing a system for accrediting plumbers under the Watercare program.224
6.263 Another example of this is the GreenPlumbers program which is an initiative of the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia (MPMSAA) in association with Melbourne Water and RMIT. It has developed training programs to enhance plumbers’ skills and knowledge about the environmental considerations of their work. The training helps plumbers to advise customers about energy efficiency or water conservation, and the most appropriate and cost effective appliances to suit individual needs. Since its establishment in 2001, 500 plumbers have been accredited as GreenPlumbers.225
6.264 The Committee endorses these programs and considers that they should provide the model for similar accreditation programs targeting all professions with roles in water management. The Commonwealth as underwriter 6.265 As discussed, the Commonwealth already plays an important role in advancing best practice urban water management through various funding programs, including demonstrator projects. One opportunity for extending this role is by acting as an underwriter for best practice projects.
6.266 The Lynbrook Estate project in Victoria (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) offers a good example of how effective this can be. This best practice development only proceeded because Melbourne Water was prepared to underwrite the risks, by undertaking to bear the cost of retrofitting a conventional drainage system if the water sensitive urban design features were shown not to work. This action created an
223 Conservation Council of South Australia, Submission 35, p 4. 224 Mr Allen, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, p 468. 225 Green Plumbers, Media Release 4 October 2002. See also website, at: www.greenplumbers.com.au 267 environment of certainty for the local council.226 Without Melbourne Water’s undertaking, the risks of adopting the new technology could have been too great for the Council, which would not have approved the development:
My view is that some strategic funding really ought to be directed at providing that certainty to local government. They do not have the capacity, in terms of skill to assess these things, but they ultimately inherit those assets. It is to provide that certainty to allow some of this newer technology to be adopted.227
6.267 The Committee sees merit in the Commonwealth developing a program along these lines. It would cost relatively little, providing the Commonwealth guarantee operated in conjunction with an adequate assessment of the projects. Funding options – rebates, grants and subsidies 6.268 Three funding tools that have been successfully applied to encourage adoption of water efficiency are rebates, grants and subsidies.
6.269 Rebate programs involve the repayment by the government to the purchaser of a proportion of the purchase price of specified items. Rebates can apply to rainwater tanks, low flow shower roses, dual flush toilets, or water efficient plants.228 According to Mr Gersbach of the Housing Industry Association, these can be very effective:
If you knew that you could do that and end up getting $1,500 back in your hand, it would reduce the upfront costs and reduce significantly the period of payback. A GreenSmart builder would be aware of those incentives. For the hot water systems, for instance, there is the SEDA rebate and the renewable energy certificates rebate—and they mean quite a substantial reduction in the cost of a hot water system, adding up to about $800 or $900. It is a significant plus. It is the upfront cost of these sorts of provisions which would turn a lot of consumers off, other than those who are educated and have decided that that is the way that they wish to go.229
6.270 A variation of this approach is a revenue neutral fee and rebate system that applies on the sale price of appliances: a fee is paid on the cost of less efficient models
226 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 271. 227 Prof Wong, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 271-272. See also Mr Bott, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra 23 May, 2002, p 586. 228 Currently, for example, both ActewAGL and Brisbane City Council offer a rebate for installation of a rainwater tank. Matthew Franklin and Lachlan Heywood, Top-up incentive for rainwater tanks, Courier Mail, Thursday, 6 June 2002, p 15. 229 Mr Gersbach, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 262. 268 and a rebate is offered on the more efficient ones, with the fees collected paying for the rebates.230
6.271 Subsidies can be used in a similar way to reduce the cost of items that are deemed more water efficient relative to inefficient items, thereby making them relatively more affordable. This can be most effective in situations where water efficient appliances are more expensive and a subsidy makes them price competitive, and could be targeted at appliances such as more efficient garden watering systems, washing machines or dishwashers.
6.272 Grants are conditional payments to be used for a particular purpose. One suggestion made to the Committee was that the existing First Home Buyers grant be tailored to include environmental criteria, which could include requiring either some proportion of the money to be spent on water efficient design elements, or only using the money to purchase a house of stipulated minimum water efficiency standards. Mr Gersbach of the Housing Industry Association argued against this:
It is a big call to say that $6,000 of your $14,000—which is soon to be reduced to $10,000—for new homes has to go to water sensitive principles. That is an economic call. The reason for the First Home Owners Grant was the government’s recognition of the importance of the industry to the overall Australian economy. It was seen to be a bit of an impetus to continue that injection that the home industry brings to the economy. If part of that was going to be diverted to another environmental cause, we would certainly say: ‘Great, but let’s up the grant so that the impact overall is not lost.’
… It is an idea, but I would tend to think that it would undermine the very reason for the grant in the first place. It was just to prime the economy, and it has been doing that quite successfully.231
6.273 However, the introduction of these sort of incentive schemes would be administratively complex and, as the Stormwater Industry Association argues, if the price of water reflected its true value, there would be no need to offer rebates as economics would be the driver:
Let us say there was a price on water—and this is a dollar sign on water per litre—and it was shown to be world parity, even half of world parity pricing, because of the volume of water. I know in Sydney, we are running short of water as it stands. If that price reflected the true value of water, people would make their own economic decision to put in a tank.232
6.274 Similarly, according to Mr Davis:
230 Water Services Association of Australia, Wise Water Management, A demand management manual for water utilities, Research report no. 86, November 1998, p 98. 231 Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 264-265. 232 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 158. See also Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 158. 269
A lot of people espouse reuse, but if you are selling sparkling clean potable water for only a dollar, why would anyone pay 50c for some used water that they think is a little bit suspect? It is difficult. The reuse fraternity would love to see the price go up because then they could raise the cost of reused water and they could invest that money in getting, effectively, potable quality and then the whole system would drive itself to a logical outcome environmentally.233
6.275 There is also potential for rebate systems to be undermined by the providers of the rebated items simply increasing their prices to the amount of the rebate.234
6.276 A final cautionary issue of particular relevance to the Commonwealth relates to grants to fund the capital costs of installing infrastructure such as Gross Pollutant Traps that don’t extend to cover the ongoing costs of maintenance.235 As was discussed in Chapter 4, without proper maintenance many of these facilities not only become ineffective, but may even exacerbate the problem. The Commonwealth must therefore ensure that when making grants, adequate checks are made to ensure that provision has been made for long term maintenance funding.
6.277 As with all of the regulatory tools that are discussed in this report, financial incentive schemes have their strengths and weaknesses. The key to successfully using them is therefore to start with a detailed understanding of the problem and a clear objective. This provides the foundations for a cost benefit analysis to determine whether a subsidy, grant, or rebate will be effective. Mr Davis commented that:
There is some very good work being done by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney. They have ranked a whole lot of demand management initiatives against the return and the cost. Rainwater tanks were probably at the bottom of the list, but at the top of the list were things like shower roses. A shower rose has the double benefit that it saves energy as well, and you actually save more money on the energy than you do on the water. It is a double whammy. They have certainly ranked all these things.236
6.278 For these reasons, the Committee concludes that grants, subsidies and rebates are useful options in a wider framework to promote water efficiency, but is also aware that they need to be applied selectively and intelligently if they are to achieve cost effective benefits. Accordingly, while the Committee considers that they be actively considered by the Commonwealth government, it does not recommend any particular application.
6.279 More generally though, the Commonwealth distributes money to states, local governments, associations, and individuals across numerous programs. It is important
233 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April, 2002, p 227. 234 Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 265. 235 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 360. 236 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April, 2002, p 227. 270 that these grants are not used in ways that have adverse environmental effects. For example, there is little benefit making an NHT grant to build a best practice stormwater management demonstrator project, while a new highway nearby built with a Federal grant, ignores such principles. 271
Chapter 7
Economic Instruments
Introduction 7.1 Even after reform in the urban water industry, water is generally said to be underpriced. This is because conventional economics disregards externalities and many of the costs of supplying water. The environmental cost of disposing of used water is generally not calculated nor apparent to water users. In consequence, the market forces that underpin major economic reforms of the past decade, cannot be relied on to encourage the changes needed for water consumption or use of alternative water sources. Factoring in externalities 7.2 Water users are generally not charged for the water resource itself, but only the infrastructure costs of pipes and pumps as well as the costs of water treatment:1
The current cost analysis for providing potable water supplies to cities, only considers infrastructure and distribution costs, maintenance and capital costs. The water resource itself is considered to have no value. The change of the flow regimes for the water resource and how it effects the receiving environment is not costed. The pollution input to the water resource, by storm runoff and sewage discharge, is not costed.2
7.3 When we harvest water; use waterways for waste transport; turn a wetland into an urban development; cause greater runoff of stormwater or dump effluent in the ocean, the costs are not recorded in the urban water management balance sheet. These costs are generally referred to as ‘externalities’.
7.4 There may be costs to fishing and tourism, and cost shifting to future generations by, for example, increased future water treatment costs resulting from degraded catchments.
7.5 Past practices of separately managing the various water grades has meant that the economics of the system have been inefficient, and the economic values placed on the different grades has been flawed.3 As the Stormwater Industry Association points out:
1 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 332. 2 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 3 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 272
unless one views ‘stormwater’ within the dynamics of the total water cycle, it is not possible to understand the economic and sustainable management of urban stormwater in our catchments. Stormwater is just one grade of water available to the community, and must rank in economic value with all the others. The value ranking is determined by economics, which is lead by the value of first quality potable water, with the lowest value being given to blackwater (sewage).4
7.6 Healthy ecosystems provide a vital ‘service’ in purifying water and absorbing waste.
7.7 These services are not acknowledged by our cost structures nor adequately recognised in economic markets, government policy and land management practices which can lead to their decline. Typically ecosystem ‘services’ are not rewarded for the benefits they provide, while those who deplete ecosystem services do not bear the costs.5
7.8 A number of witnesses pointed out the difficulties in including externalities in costs:
If you look at externalities, you would have to say, ‘Well, what impact has your water system had on the surrounding water regime by withdrawing water and interfering with rivers? What effect does your water system have on the environment with what you do with by-products and the waste water that you have produced?’ Valuing those externalities is very difficult. There is work being done, but it is pretty intangible.6
7.9 The CSIRO is currently undertaking a major research program into ecosystem services with a collaborative natural resource management project between five CSIRO divisions and a number of other partners. The project’s ultimate aim is for scientists and communities to learn together about how to deliver the right information to policy developers and decision-makers so as to move towards more sustainable land management practices.7 Implications of externalities 7.10 If the true costs of supplying and disposing of water were taken into consideration, improved management of urban water could occur as alternatives would become more feasible:
4 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 5 G Murtough, B Aretine, and A Matysek, Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services, Productivity Commission Staff Research paper, AusInfo, Canberra. 6 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 225. 7 Ecosystems Services project site, at: http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/aboutus/index.htm 273
There has been a school of thought that the cost of water should include all the costs of supplying the water right through to final release to the environment, and that the cost should encapsulate all those costs rather than just the cost of supplying to a house. The belief is that if you did that, you would be able to see what the real benefits were of recycling and it would fall out of the equation. It is not really done that way in costing, but it would be something worth looking at. Some schemes fall down because, in isolation, they do not look economic as a recycling scheme. However, when you take into account the whole water cycle it becomes quite an attractive proposition.8
7.11 In the WRAMS project referred to in Chapter 3, the reuse of effluent is not justifiable on a strict economic basis. However, its cost disadvantage over conventional infrastructure is significantly lessened if the true cost of environmental externalities is taken into account. Despite reducing demand for potable water by over 50 per cent, reducing sewage discharge by 850 megalitres per year and stormwater pollution by 70 to 90 per cent, the WRAMS scheme cannot compete because Sydney Water is able to dump sewage into the ocean free of charge.
7.12 According to the Stormwater Industry Association, if water were given a true economic value, we could better understand and manage the total water cycle and approach a system equilibrium, which would be sustainable.9
7.13 Price increases will also increase the feasibility of other technologies:
The impact of increasing the potable price of water means that in most Australian cities, wastewater re-cycling can immediately become an economic reality. With large volume water users quickly moving to a cheaper alternative supply source (both sewer mining and stormwater re- use) the volume of water processed at the sewage treatment plants reduces. This reduces or eliminates the impact of sewage overflows, reduces the cost of treatment and eliminates the need to amplify the main trunk sewers. It reduces the impact of secondary and tertiary treated sewer discharges to our rivers and ocean. It also opens up the commercialisation of sewage treatment, because private enterprise can tap into an economic resource, and hence sell both the water and the sludge. Private enterprise should be allowed to compete with utilities, to give a competitive return for the consumer.10
Costs of rainwater tanks 7.14 Chapter 4 examines the benefits of using rainwater in urban areas however, once the cost of the tank, pump and installation are calculated against a reasonable pay-back period, tank water is much more costly than reticulated water.
8 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 227. 9 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 10 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 226. 274
7.15 Professor Mein points out though, that analyses showing rainwater tanks to be uneconomic are simplistic because they do not consider the additional benefits upstream from reduced loads on the water supply system and downstream from reduced amounts of stormwater run-off.11 This point was also made by Councillor Ferrara from the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils:
rainwater tanks not only reduce the input of water required to a property— and if pricing was an issue that, as previous speakers have mentioned, might make that more of an incentive to the individual owner—but also local council areas are discovering that, apart from not having to build another dam, for instance, up in the Hunter Valley to provide extra water for new urban development, by using rainwater they also made an estimated saving of over 50 per cent in their stormwater run-off. That means that there is a double saving: there is a saving on the input side and a saving on the output side.12
7.16 State government subsidies provided for reticulated water infrastructure are generally not taken into account when comparing costs.13
7.17 The Australian Water Association told the Committee:
we looked at a project in Queensland, just south of Brisbane, where the use of rainwater tanks was, in fact, economic because there was such a shortage of water. It got the development over the line, which would not have happened without the use of rainwater tanks. We looked at it from the total project point of view—the cost of water and sewerage together—and it did come out as a good solution. Sometimes I think things get dropped because they are only looked at as a water project or a sewerage project. When studies are done, they really need to look at the total water cycle in evaluating costs. That is one of the problems.14
7.18 The cost for rainwater supply (annualised capital and ongoing costs) is in the order of $2 to $6 per kilolitre. Although this is more than the present price of residential mains water, it is lower than the cost for bottled water. Furthermore the running costs for rainwater tank systems can be very low: the University of Newcastle, for example, has reported that the running cost of rainwater tank systems is 2 to 6 cents per kL.15
7.19 The size and (therefore the cost) of an integrated rainwater tank varies widely across Australia and must be calculated on the basis of rainfall distribution. The Alternative Technology Association suggests that a 20 kilolitre water tank will adequately supply the water needs of a family of four in Sydney and that around
11 Prof Mein, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 274. 12 Cr Ferrara, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 241. 13 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 13. 14 Mr Lehmann, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 227. 15 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 24. 275
Australia the range will be from 10 to 50 kilolitres. These tanks sizes cost between $2,000 and $5,000 installed.16
7.20 A part solution to the high cost of tanks is to develop standardised, ‘all- inclusive’ systems that encompass treatment, storage and use components for rainwater tanks, which helps to reduce unit costs. A collaborative partnership between Government, manufacturers and researchers would improve the profile of rainwater tanks and encourage development of complete rainwater tank systems.17
7.21 The Alternative Technology Association says that:18
Preliminary cost estimates for [an] integrated rainwater tank arrangement … demonstrate a payback period of less than 10 years. …
However, the full cost benefits of an integrated rainwater tank … will not be realized until water utilities and property developers are willing to offer discounts for reduced disposal and supply charges to those households with water tanks. Discounts should be: 33 per cent reduction in stormwater runoff and related infrastructure; 50 per cent reduction in peak sewer flows and related infrastructure; 75 per cent reduction in reticulated and transfer pipe sizes; 100 per cent reduction in minor service reservoirs; 50 to 74 per cent (average Melbourne figures) reduction in major dam costs; and 50 to 74 per cent (average Melbourne figures) reduction in water consumed from the reticulated system.
7.22 The Queensland Government’s ‘Local Governing Bodies’ Capital Works Subsidy Scheme provides funds for local government to offer a rebate program for rainwater tanks provided it can be clearly demonstrated that they will result in the deferral of capital works and provided they are part of an overall water management approach.19
7.23 Many local councils and water authorities are encouraging the use of rainwater tanks by offering rebates and incentives to encourage residents to instal them. Some examples include:
• Brisbane City Council is offering a $500 cash back rebate for the first 1,000 residents who have purchased and installed tanks from 1 July 2002. Additionally it will waive Council approval fees that relate directly to rainwater tanks;20
16 Alternative Technology Association, Renew, Oct-Dec 2002. 17 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 25. 18 Alternative Technology Association, ReNew, Issue 81, October –December, 2000, p 61. 19 Queensland Water Recycling Strategy October 2001. 20 Brisbane City Council site, at: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/home_garden/water_sewerage/rainwater_tanks/index.shtml 276
• Sydney Water is offering a $150 rebate for tanks between 2,000 and 3,999 litres in capacity; $400 between 4,000 and 6,999 litres; and $500 for tanks greater than 7,000 litres. If a toilet and/or washing machine is connected to the tank, Sydney Water will refund an additional $150;21 • ActewAGL in Canberra offers a rebate of between $200 and $500 depending on the tank’s size;22 and • Barwon Water in regional Victoria offers 12 month interest free terms on the purchase of tanks.23 Pricing 7.24 The COAG water reforms resulted in a two-part water supply tariff in all states except Tasmania.
7.25 For two part tariffs to be charged, water meters were installed and these allow water users to be charged on the basis of consumption. Meters give water managers the capacity to manage demand by raising the price of water.
7.26 The cost of 200 kilolitres24 of water (including the fixed annual charge) in capital cities currently ranges between $191.80 and $264.00 a year, with an average cost of about $230.19.25 Several witnesses point out that there are not many products that will be delivered to the household so cheaply.26
7.27 In spite of the difficulty in finding up-to-date comparative figures, it would appear that potable water in Australia is cheaper than in many other countries, as can be seen in the following table:
21 Sydney Water site, at: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/html/wcr/garden/rainwater_tanks_rebates.cfm 22 ActewAGL site, at: http://www.actewagl.com.au/environment/rainwater.cfm 23 Barwon Water site, at: http://www.barwonwater.vic.gov.au/index.cfm?h2o=customer.marketing.outside.tanks 24 Because water suppliers impose different fixed and variable charges, the cost of 200 kilolitres of water is used to enable comparisons to be made between various suppliers. 1 kilolitre = 1,000 litres. Water practitioners also refer to a tonne or a cubic metre of water. 25 Costs in place as at 1 July 2002 taken from capital city water authorities web sites: http://www.actewagl.com.au; http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au; te http://www.citywestwater.com.au; http://www.nt.gov.au/powerwater; http://www.sawater.com.au; http://www.sewl.com.au; http://sydneywater.com.au; http://www.watercorporation.com.au/; and http://www.yvw.com.au 26 See for example Mr Willett, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 292. 277
Table 1
Household tariffs27 Country Year US$ Czech Republic 1997 -0.68 Korea 1996 0.34 Canada 1994 0.70 Hungary 1997 0.82 Italy 1996 0.84 Luxembourg 1994 1.01 Austria 1997 1.05 Spain 1994 1.07 Greece 1995 1.14 US 1997 1.25 Switzerland 1996 1.29 Scotland 1997-98 1.44 Turkey 1998 1.51 Australia 1996-97 1.64 Germany 1997 1.69 Brussels 1997 2.06 Japan 1996 2.10 Wallonia 1997 2.14 Flanders 1997 2.36 Sweden 1998 2.60 Finland 1998 2.76 France 1996 3.11 Eng&Wales 1998-99 3.11 Netherlands 1998 3.16 Denmark 1995 3.18 Average price 1.67 Notes to table 1: • Practices in countries vary considerably in terms of the costs that are included in these tariffs. For example, charges occasionally reflect some of the costs of connecting a property to the public water supply or sewerage system. Also, rainwater collection, treatment and disposal costs are frequently, but not invariably, included in sewerage and sewage treatment charges.
• Water abstraction and discharge charges, as well as other water levies, are reflected in tariffs.
27 OECD, Household Water Pricing in OECD Countries, Working Party on Economic and Environmental Policy Integration, May 1999, p 38. 278
• The Japanese consumption tax (5%) is also included; but VAT is excluded.
• High inflation rates in some countries (eg Turkey, Hungary and the Czech Republic) reduce the precision of cross-country price comparison.
7.28 Using price as a tool to encourage conservation is more complicated for water than for other products because firstly water is a fundamental necessity of life (and some even argue that for this reason, it should be free) and secondly it is low as a proportion of total household expenditure and only a significant increase would likely have a long-lasting effect on behaviour.
7.29 One of the clearest messages from this inquiry is that reticulated water is underpriced and funding for better water management practice and new technology is not readily available.
7.30 The low price of water is an impediment to recycling and utilising stormwater, it does not discourage wastage nor encourage the take-up of water efficient devices and it does not reflect the vulnerability and variability of supply:
We live in a highly variable and unpredictable climate but this is not reflected in the way water is supplied to us. We must understand about the NEED to better manage our water − we scarcely receive any indication that water is scarce. It is very cheap (1 kilolitre − 2,333 stubbies − of reticulated water sells for approximately $1, whereas 1 kilolitre of bottled water sells for $1,000) and restrictions on its use in times of drought are rare and politically resisted.28
7.31 In Western Australia which is experiencing a prolonged drought, the Water Corporation concurred:
Yes, we do think that water is undervalued. With the current range of pricing, we do not see very much evidence at all of there being any economic dampening of water use, and that is partly relating perhaps to the billing cycle as well.29
7.32 Mr Davis from the Australian Water Association suggests that the price of water should be $2 or $3 a kilolitre instead of the current average of around $1 a kilolitre: an amount that would send a much better demand signal to the consumer:
So there is a thought in the industry that water on the retail market should be somewhere around $2 or $3 a cubic metre to really make people think before they squander it on the driveway or in long showers.30
28 Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Submission 17, p 4. [emphasis in original] 29 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 418. 30 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 218. 279
7.33 The Stormwater Industry Association suggests that even if the price of water were raised by as little as 10 per cent, this would be enough to allow alternative supplies such as recycled effluent to become more feasible:
One of the problems is that we have new technologies and we have new approaches to treat and manage our good quality waters and recycling our grey waters and stormwater. It is absolutely marginal at around 90-odd cents a kilolitre in our major cities for that water to be treated. But we are very close to reaching a point where the economic balance will be tipped. All we are saying is that a small change—and we believe 10 per cent is probably not insignificant—will tip that balance. If industry in particular or large water users have to pay, say, a dollar for their potable supply and if they have to use large volumes of water which do not require potable water treatment, these people would find immediately that it would be much better to use recycled water.31
Awareness 7.34 Dr Essery told the Committee that water usage in non-metropolitan urban areas had dropped without significant price rises and this could be attributed to a greater understanding of the issues of water shortages in those areas:
I am not saying that price is not the main driver, but a lot of people, particularly economists, will think price is the key driver. I would reiterate that the reason is that the [non-metropolitan] community is more aware, they are closer to their decision making, they can grab the Mayor in the local pub and they can actually express themselves and complain about particular things. That is one simple thing. But, in reality, they are closer to understanding the issues of shortage. They are closer to understanding the impact because they are closer—they do not have an outfall that discharges it somewhere 80 metres deep offshore; they know the impact downstream, they know the impact a discharge will have on a local swimming hole. So that awareness is one of the reasons. Awareness and scarcity are more important drivers. Equally, there has been a certain degree of better understanding of the system because they have had to start with a septic tank and a rain tank and then moved on to a luxurious water supply and an effluent reticulation system, so they actually have experience of the practical realities of water and effluent.32
7.35 The Government of South Australia notes that past practices in developing major potable water supply infrastructure have given many urban communities a perception that there is an over-abundance of high quality water and that water is freely available from year to year and season to season. Despite public awareness campaigns, and water use statements in mail-outs, most home owners continue to have little concept of how much water they use, how much they use in comparison with
31 Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 156. 32 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 189. 280
other water users in ‘similar’ circumstances, or how much they should be using to water efficiently.33
7.36 Mr Woolley from the Brisbane City Council also points out that:
In some jurisdictions we are running into the wealth syndrome, which means—I have seen it happen—that people do not care about the cost of water or whether a dam is running out; they will just use it. You see the same in motor vehicles: we know that oils cannot go on for hundreds of years, and what do people do? They go out and buy a 5.7- litre Commodore just for fun. The wealth syndrome in this community is a real barrier, and that is where I see the cost leverage is probably quite important—but also the psychological change that rainwater tanks can bring.34
7.37 Mr Harvey from VicWater is more optimistic that people’s perceptions are changing. He told the Committee:
I would not underplay the benefits of education and the willingness of the public to change the way in which they deal with things. Water consumption is price sensitive to a point but also the value of water and the need to conserve water is increasingly in people’s minds. The figures for metropolitan Melbourne were that, up to five or six years ago, water usage per capita was increasing at about three per cent per annum. Since we have introduced volume charging, but also since we have done a lot of work in terms of education, that is now increasing at about one per cent per annum. So the rate of increase has declined and that demonstrates that we can make a difference.35
7.38 In general, it is said that users in the large cities do not value water as highly as people living in rural areas perhaps because there is a more acute awareness of the risk of water shortages in communities economically dependent on natural cycles.
7.39 Installing rainwater tanks in urban areas could change those perceptions. Mr Woolley observed:
The other thing that rainwater tanks do … is change your mind structure as to how you treat water. Jenifer Simpson’s comments about education and changing people’s mindsets about water are extremely important. Right now, I do not think we value water.36
7.40 Dr Fleming suggests:
There is also a need to change people’s perceptions of risk, so that the benefits of a slightly lower security of water supply can be explored. Many
33 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 23. 34 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 608. 35 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 285. 36 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 608. 281
Australian cities have a remarkably high security of supply when compared to other cities around the world. Accepting a slightly lower level of risk, and conveying that risk to consumers, provides the basis for more informed decisions by consumers about how they will manage that risk. It is likely to serve as a driver for change, leading people to adopt more efficient water use practices, and to value water more highly. It will also provide substantial economic benefits through lower operating costs and deferral of infrastructure augmentation.37 Solutions 7.41 Options for increasing the cost of water to take account of externalities include setting a charge for resource extraction; raising the price of water; applying charges for water that provide greater incentives for conservation; varying rates regimes and charges for development; and using the taxation system to implement more sustainable water management. Charging for resource extraction 7.42 State governments could charge a royalty on water which would be passed on to consumers. Dr Humphries from the Water Corporation of Western Australia remarked:
If there were, effectively, a royalty for bulk water out of the environment which then simply got factored into the water charging for billing, reticulation, asset replacement and all those sorts of things, it would not be particularly difficult; it would just cause a stepped jump in people’s costs. It would probably be quite a good mechanism for the state to get the revenue it wanted for other purposes. There is underfunding of water resource management in this state, and nationally there is no doubt about that; the national land and water auditors recorded extremely strongly that there was insufficient monitoring and insufficient exploration of new sources and so on. I think it is a major national issue and it has happened here too.38
7.43 The Stormwater Industry Association also called for a natural water resource charge on potable water, calculated by independent arbitration, using financial modelling that takes into account externalities. All funds collected would be directed to the stormwater manager (that is: local government, utility or stormwater/catchment authority) for catchment maintenance and repair. Additionally, an independent catchment authority would coordinate stormwater works, funding and distribution, so that the nexus between the utilities’ vested interests and the local government urban development approval authority is broken.39
7.44 In some parts of Australia, this is beginning to happen.
37 Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 8. 38 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 429. 39 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 282
7.45 According to the National Competition Council, in New South Wales natural resource management costs are included under the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Pricing Tribunal process of setting water prices in the urban area. However, more work is needed to quantify what the level of costs is and to build them into full cost recovery. The National Competition Council is currently undertaking that work and told the Committee that fully accounting for externalities in urban pricing represents the next stage in urban water reform.40
7.46 The Committee also notes that the ACT has introduced such a charge for water abstraction:
A water abstraction charge on all water use has also been implemented, which ensures that all costs of water supply and use are faced by consumers. This charge covers catchment management costs, a component to reflect scarcity of water and a component for environmental costs.41
7.47 Prior to the introduction of the charge, the cost of water abstraction and the catchment management costs were being absorbed by government.42 When the amount was determined, it was based on the price at which water was trading in the Murray-Darling Basin and is currently 10 cents per kilolitre.43 However, because the ACT draws high quality raw water from protected catchments, its treatment costs are low, and even with an abstraction charge, the water prices in the ACT are among the lowest of the capital cities. Price increases 7.48 The most obvious solution to the underpricing of water is to increase retail water charges. While the COAG water reforms are supposed to be based on full cost recovery including externality costs, the underfunding of infrastructure upgrades, improving reuse opportunities, and better managing stormwater with water sensitive urban design, would suggest they are not.
7.49 Revenue collected by increased prices could be invested in environmental improvements or demand management to send a signal to consumers that water should not be wasted.44
Elasticity issues 7.50 The relationship between changes in price that result in changes in consumption, is referred to as price elasticity. If a large percentage rise in the price of
40 Mr Swan, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 296. 41 Ms Fowler, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 547. 42 Mr Robertson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 554. 43 ACTEW website at: http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/network/charges.cfm 44 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 225-226. 283
a product does not produce a comparable reduction in consumption, the relationship is said to be ‘inelastic’:
The only other issue which must be flagged is price elasticity – that is the expected decrease in water consumption from a given price increase. Various studies have attempted to estimate this relationship and have concluded that it is inelastic – that is a given percentage price increase will result in a somewhat smaller percentage decrease in water consumed.45
7.51 Melbourne Water has studied water price elasticity and found:
Although [the studies] are old, I still think the study that was done in Melbourne, which was a contingent evaluation study, is probably one of the better ones. We were able to show there that there is a range of prices over which people will respond. At the time, if I recall correctly, the range was somewhere between 50c per kilolitre and $1 per kilolitre—which might translate today to something like 75c to $1.50—where people really do have opportunities to respond to price signals. Beyond that, there are few things that can be done. Price becomes inelastic beyond that point. I think that makes sense.46
7.52 The industry notes the phenomenon of ‘bounce back’. According to Mr Woolley from Brisbane City Council, when two-part tariffs were introduced, consumption levels dropped by 30 per cent within one to two years. However, subsequent consumption patterns five to six years later, began to drift back to the initial levels.47 This may be attributed to the overall cheapness of water relative to other household costs.
Equity issues 7.53 The Public Interest Advocacy Centre says water prices should not be increased to achieve lower water consumption, arguing that price increases are crude devices that often fail to deliver their stated goals while damaging the interests of the most vulnerable in the community.48 Furthermore, price increases may have little impact on the water consumption levels of those on higher incomes.
7.54 The social equity issues were raised by a number of witnesses but the general conclusions were that other essential services are subsidised for people on low incomes and water could be added to these.49 Holders of Health Care, Pensioner Concession, Gold Repatriation TPI and War Widows cards in Victoria are already
45 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 11. 46 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 333. 47 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 596. 48 Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission 10, p 3. 49 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 225-226; and Mr Bartley, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 318. 284 entitled to claim a 50 per cent concession on water usage charges up to a maximum of $67.50 a year and the same applies to sewage disposal charges.
7.55 The water reform framework supports concessions to community groups, pensioners and those in rural or remote communities, and governments continue to provide substantial assistance to these groups. The framework aims to make this assistance transparent with clearly defined and separately funded Community Service Obligations.50
7.56 Councillor Johnstone advocated a mechanism similar to a step tariff:
I suppose a sensible point would be for there to be an amount of water at an affordable price that is broadly accessible and that, over and above that, the price accelerates rapidly.51
7.57 Stepped tariffs could be based on a calculation of the average basic water needs of a household and consumption beyond this level be charged at progressively higher rates.
7.58 The Australian Conservation Foundation however, cautions that the mechanisms required to ensure that low income families and large families are not penalised may mean that the social and economic downsides of this approach outweigh the positives in water conservation terms.52 Smarter water charging systems 7.59 The proportions of fixed and volumetric charges vary across water providers. However, a common feature of two-part pricing has been an increased reliance on the volumetric component in an effort to reduce demand and this adjustment can be made revenue neutral.53
7.60 Mr Rose from Melbourne Water noted that there would be impacts for various groups of customers that would need to be considered and addressed, but from a revenue point of view it is possible to increase the volumetric charge as a percentage of the total charge without putting too much of the revenue of the business at risk.54
7.61 Melbourne Water told the Committee that in relation to two-part pricing:
the variable charge is based on forward-looking costs, so it reflects the additional costs that we will incur in meeting future demand growth. We
50 National Competition Council, Second Tranche Assessment of Governments’ Progress with Implementing National Competition Policy and Related Reforms, Volume Two: Water Reform, 30 June 1999, p 268. 51 Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 358. 52 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 11. 53 Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55, p 10. 54 Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 323-324 285
are only recovering what we have spent; we are not recovering what we have not spent. But what we try to do in the pricing structure is to reflect future costs, and the increasing costs incurred by growth in demand, to give a proper signal around the impacts of increased water consumption. That is the theoretical basis for a two-part tariff.55
7.62 The Australian Conservation Foundation strongly supports replacement of two-part tariffs with a single volumetric water and infrastructure tariff where this is applicable. Price signals to consumers would be more direct in that reductions (or increases) in water consumption would have a marked impact on bills overall. The ACF argues that while the task of averaging revenue may be difficult it is not impossible, and should be seen as a normal risk of doing business.56
7.63 Some water companies use step tariffs where successive blocks of water consumption are charged at higher prices. ActewAGL, in the ACT, attributes its step tariff, introduced in 1993 as being the most significant contributor to reducing water consumption, and to date this reduction has been maintained at 20 per cent below 1993 levels.57 The ACT charges a low rate for the first 200 kilolitres of water and above this level the rate more than doubles. The volume of water that attracts the lower charge has been gradually reduced by about 25 kilolitres per annum for a number of years. Given current technology, the ACT expects 175 kilolitres per annum to be a reasonable consumption level for residential use and once this threshold is reached, it anticipates that the annual reductions will cease.58
7.64 SAWater employs the same approach but has set its first block of water consumption at 125 kilolitres. The Water Corporation of Western Australia has six steps in its tariff structure.
Seasonal pricing 7.65 Because the bulk of water consumption at the residential level occurs outside of the house and is somewhat discretionary, there is scope to influence that level of use through seasonal charging. Prices can be increased during periods of low rainfall and high consumption, and the higher charges could be offset by lower charges in other seasons for revenue neutrality.
7.66 Seasonal pricing is supported by Mrs Simpson:
We should be possibly thinking about putting the price of water up in dry periods so we get a feeling that we have some times when water is abundant
55 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 332. 56 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, p 11. 57 Mr Dymke, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 553; and Ms Fowler, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 547. 58 Mr Robertson, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 554. 286
and relatively cheap, and other times when it is not and we need to be careful.59
Billing systems 7.67 Research undertaken in South Australia shows that consumption patterns are linked to the receipt of water bills.60 When water usage was mapped in relation to the billing cycle, lower consumption followed the receipt of ‘excess’ water bills. The majority of water suppliers send bills four times a year. It is argued that consumption levels in Western Australia where bills are sent twice yearly, could be reduced by more regular billing.
7.68 A shorter billing cycle provides an additional tool for demand management, although the additional costs involved in reading meters and processing bills may deter some utilities from this approach.
7.69 Other methods of billing may also affect consumption. For example, in South Africa people prepay their water. The Committee was told that this method of billing reduced consumption by approximately 40 per cent.61
7.70 With greater knowledge of consumer behaviour, billing systems could be made more sophisticated to enable customers to select a plan that better reflects their usage patterns and creates a discipline to stick to that plan, in a similar way to mobile phone plans.
Stormwater charges 7.71 In its Land and Water Research Position Paper 1 which is one of a series of studies on Water Resources of ARMCANZ, the CSIRO suggests that:
There should be reform of existing drainage rating systems, which should be replaced by charges on households and organisations which more accurately reflect the costs of planned stormwater management programs …
More attention should be given to the design of polluter-pays systems under which the owners of urban stormwater systems should pay state governments according to the level of pollution discharged to receiving waters.62
59 Mrs Simpson, Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 128. 60 Mr Daniell, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 30 April 2002, pp 504-505. 61 Committee briefing, CSIRO, Canberra, 8 August 2001. 62 JF Thomas, J Gomboso, JE Oliver, and VA Ritchie, Wastewater Re-use, Stormwater Management, and the National Water Reform Agenda, CSIRO Land and Water Research Position Paper 1, 1997, Reprot to the Sustainable Land and Water Resrouces Management Committee and to the Council of Australian Governments National Water Reform Task Force, at: http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/position/rpp1.pdf 287
7.72 The cost of maintaining current stormwater serviceability in Sydney is more than $300M per year and another related cost is that of road maintenance.
7.73 According to the Stormwater Industry Association,63 the dominant reason for road maintenance expenditure is stormwater impact on pavements and roads. The vast majority of stormwater is discharged directly to road gutter systems for collection in pits. The lifecycle damage of streets from current stormwater practices is estimated to cost NSW over $500M per year.64
7.74 The Stormwater Industry Association points out that the real problem with stormwater asset management, is the lack of funding. The prioritisation of funding for infrastructure repair and maintenance is generally driven by a reactive response, and not strategic planning. Furthermore, funding for maintenance under the current system is not necessarily transparent and can be driven by political and socio- economic considerations, meaning that resources are not necessarily spent to best effect.
7.75 The Stormwater Industry Association says there are currently a number of methods adopted in different states and cities to fund urban stormwater infrastructure and management.65 Generally however, stormwater charges do not take into account the area of the allotment, or the extent of the impervious surfaces on it. Such factors will largely determine how much stormwater flows from allotments and the extent of the pollution that may be swept from or intercepted on the site.
7.76 Currently, funding methods include:
• an annual levy charged by the authority/utility, often by way of a ‘drainage charge’ on the utility water supply and sewage rate notice to each landholder; • local government levies for drainage services, charged as a flat fee or as a percentage of the property valuation; • an annual fee per allotment, paid to a separate trust or commission to coordinate and carry out stormwater works; • state government allocations or grants, drawn from consolidated revenue; • developer levies; charges levied by local government on new development, to fund drainage infrastructure; • subsidised funding allocated by authorities from revenue sources unrelated to drainage; • statutory requirements placed on public and private infrastructure and service industries (main roads, railways etc); and • federal government grants for special works or programs.
63 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 64 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 65 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 288
7.77 As can be seen from this list there is presently no relationship between land use and drainage costs. Current charges do not provide any incentive for responsible and sustainable water management. Where fixed charges are levied, the small allotment pays the same rates as the large, and the allotment with high impervious surfaces generating maximum and polluted discharges pays the same as a landscaped pervious lot with minimum or nil stormwater discharge.
7.78 The Stormwater Industry Association argues that rates regimes could be based on impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater loads using the following information:
• the zoning for use: the activity can be rated for potential pollution generation; • land area: generally this is already calculated or shown on current rate notices; and • impervious surface areas: these can be taken from geographic information systems (GIS) generated mapping. 7.79 GIS mapping has been completed for Auckland, New Zealand through a series of aerial flights. Mr Boyden from the Stormwater Industry Association explained the value of these maps as follows:
They can nominate an area, point to it and tell you exactly what impervious area is on that site. Relatively speaking it might cost, say, $150,000 but that is so cheap for a city that it is just not worth not considering. In terms of being able to manage impervious areas, with this system—let us say the Ku- Ring-Gai Council in Sydney has a 60 per cent site cover—it could tell whether it was 62 or 63 per cent without going within two kilometres of the site. So it is a way of managing, certainly from an external point of view. I know it tends to be Big Brotherish but that same information would also be extremely useful from an engineering point of view because impervious area does give a very good indication of the quantum of available water, be it water to be discharged to the street or water to be reused. So that particular system is currently available.66
7.80 Mr Bulstrode from the Water Corporation of Western Australia noted the difficulty in getting public support for reform of stormwater charges:
Whereas we have a very good pricing structure for water and wastewater, that same pricing structure cannot be transferred to drainage in quite the same way, particularly as the community do not see themselves getting a service like the one they get when they turn on their tap and water comes out of the sink.67
7.81 However, the township of Dubbo did support funding to improve water management:
66 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 168. 67 Mr Bulstrode, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 426. 289
They went from a $50,000 allocation for stormwater management to $500,000 in one year because people—if you explain it to them, if they see the reasoning behind it, and it is local so that they can see the investment— have no real problem in paying for it.68
7.82 As previously mentioned, the introduction of the Mosman Municipal Council Community Environmental Contract provides another example of ratepayers supporting a levy for improved environmental works.
Development charges 7.83 Charges are levied on developers, usually by local councils, as a contribution towards the cost of providing water or sewerage systems to the area being developed.
7.84 The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) advocated that these charges more accurately reflect infrastructure costs, and that a rebate be provided for water sensitive design based on reductions in stormwater infrastructure costs that result:
a developer who simply wants to take from a tap and send down a drain would pay the calculable proportion of the cost that that creates, and a developer who either does not want to take from the tap, or wants to send less down the drain and can accommodate it on-site somehow, would be freed up from those charges. Maybe there is a pricing mechanism that can work. Development charges apply to all developments now, so they can be tweaked one way or another. The mechanism already exists.69
7.85 The PIA says planners and urban developers should assess water inputs and outputs and apply headworks charges that are realistic.70
7.86 The Australian Conservation Foundation argues that it is possible to move further towards full cost recovery and eliminate cross-subsidies and that this could result in more creative on-site water supply and/or augmentation initiatives. This same principle would also apply to sewerage, encouraging more localised treatment and reuse.71 Taxation 7.87 Governments may also use taxes and levies to improve water management. The South Australia Select Committee on the Murray River recommended in July 2001 that:
68 Mr Boyden, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 158. 69 Mr Head, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 March 2002, pp 37 and 41. 70 Planning Institute of Australia, Submission 61, p 4. 71 Australian Conservation Foundation, Submission 68, pp 11-12. 290
The Commonwealth Government introduce tax changes that will permit private investment in accredited water saving devices and technology to be 100 per cent tax deductible in the year of expenditure.72
Environmental levy 7.88 The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in its report of the inquiry into Catchment Management recommended:
The Government examine the feasibility of introducing an environmental levy to pay for the public contribution to implementing the policy of ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s catchment systems.73
7.89 Several municipalities have introduced environmental levies on their ratepayers. The levy funds environmental improvements, catchment repair and installation and maintenance of stormwater improvement devices. One example is the Community Environmental Contract which the Mosman Municipal Council has with its ratepayers where a 5 per cent levy is charged over 12 years and the revenue spent on major environmental infrastructure and asset management works that would not otherwise be funded out of the Council’s core budget.
7.90 The Committee is supportive of levies being imposed in urban areas with the revenue used for better local stormwater management. However, it is also mindful of the comments of Dr Baden Williams, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist, that until a successful strategy for spending funds from an environmental levy is devised, there is little justification in introducing such a levy. He suggests that present taxpayers are not getting a very good return on the money spent on natural resource management, and the environment is continuing to degrade. He argues that the two main reasons for this is that: governments are tied to a philosophy of not using taxpayer money for the private gain of landholders; and the so-called ‘incentives’ for change in land management practices are of relatively little value to the majority of landholders.74
7.91 The Committee sees a role for the Federal Government in providing assistance and encouragement for local governments to develop long term stormwater management strategies, funded through ratepayer levies and Commonwealth grants.
Potable water levy 7.92 The Stormwater Industry Association (SIA) supports a potable water levy. Using Sydney as an example it estimates that if the cost of catchment repair were
72 South Australian Select Committee on the Murray River, Final Report, July 2001, Pp 222, p 6. 73 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Co-ordinating Catchment Management, Report of the inquiry into catchment management, December 2000, p xxi. 74 Dr Baden Williams, Government fiddles while environment burns, Canberra Times, 6 June 2002, p 20. 291 arbitrated to be approximately 10 per cent above the current cost of potable water supply, the current domestic price of water in Sydney would be approximately $0.99 per kilolitre. Upon its rough calculations, this catchment repair cost should bring in approximately $100 million per annum, to be spent on stormwater services.75
7.93 The SIA says water utilities should be required to redirect funds that they currently allocate and provision for water supply amplification and augmentation, to a new strategy for balanced demand managed distribution. It estimates that this would amount to around $100 million per annum and could be used, for instance, to subsidise the installation of rainwater tanks.
7.94 Mr Wood emphasised that it would not be necessary for such a levy to be applied across the entire country:
The problems out in rural areas and in a lot of rural towns are not the problems we are facing in major urban centres. There need to be different approaches and we recognise that.76
Political imperatives in increasing water charges 7.95 While there was almost universal agreement among participants in this inquiry that the price of water is too low, it was also pointed out that political imperatives prevent water prices from being increased to reflect its true value.77
7.96 Mr Davis from the Australian Water Association, told the Committee that:
The problem of course is that it is politically unpalatable to put the price up because a lot of governments measure their success by constraining prices. So you have environmental and demand management imperatives to charge more realistic prices that take into account externalities, but you have a political imperative not to charge too much more.78
7.97 Sydney Water’s research shows that there is a willingness to pay for environmental impacts associated with water management. However, according to Ms Howe from Sydney Water, there needs to be more work done to understand willingness to pay relative to other services such as health, education and other needs.79
75 Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 76 Mr Wood, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 166. 77 See for example: Mr Gellibrand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 170; Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 286; Cr Johnstone, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 354; Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 418; and Dr Nicholas Fleming, Submission 8, p 5. 78 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 218. 79 Mr Gellibrand and Ms Howe, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 177. 292
7.98 Dr Essery suggests that by engaging the community, the political difficulties in raising water prices may be overcome:
In a comment on politics, I would suggest that the community is the way to resolve the blockage in the relationships with politics and sensitivity of price. Community awareness will remove that particular problem and, in many cases where I can give you examples, it has actually driven the decision and changed, in a truly democratic way, the mindset of some politicians, which I think is a good idea.80 Sunk costs of existing infrastructure 7.99 Radical changes in our water systems could deliver major improvements in water conservation and environmental repair but many billions of dollars have been invested in the existing infrastructure which is locked into nineteenth century technology. Mr McRae explains:
The concept of sewer design was a sort of 19th century concept. You had to have a very big pipe that was idiot proof. If people put any imaginable item down the pipe, it was not allowed to block. It had to be gravity driven so that it would flow reliably under any conditions, so we have these huge systems of leaky pipes with manholes so that you can get in them to sort them out and the manholes leak. We have inherited this network, but who wants to chuck the whole network out and start from the beginning because that is too expensive? There is a real catch-22. You know that the system is really unsustainable, but nobody has the courage to actually break the loop and say that enough is enough, we are not going to do that any more.81
7.100 Urban water infrastructure in the older parts of our cities is reaching the end of its life and water managers must decide how it is to be replaced:
When we do the reinvestment we have to think about whether we are going to reinvest wholly in what we have done before or whether we should be looking at doing some things differently. The work that we are doing out of the small group of people that we have is to challenge those options. In some cases we will deliver those systems in the same way or we may elect to do things in a different manner, and that could include rainwater tanks.82
7.101 Mr Davis from the Australian Water Association told the Committee:
If you were serious you might go and put a small bore plastic pipe down the middle of an old sewer and then pump the sewage down that pipe so that it did not leak. But that is the sort of breakthrough that is quite a paradigm shift that a lot of utilities do not want to take. That is the whole issue. … If we really want to be sustainable, there are a few paradigm shifts that have to
80 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 186. 81 Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 221. 82 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 599. 293
be made, but the industry is not structured in such a way that it is encouraged. There really needs to be some serious discussion now. Greenfield sites are fine, because you can go and do something a bit innovative if the council is amenable and the developer is courageous. In the massive urban infrastructure, we are stuck with all this old gear that is breaking down and is inappropriate, but where and how do you start changing? That is the dialogue that we need to have.83
7.102 Peak consumption levels are a significant driver of reticulation system design and cost. At non-peak times, therefore, reticulation systems are significantly under- utilised.84 If demand management and other measures are successful at reducing these peak consumption levels, there may be scope to replace existing infrastructure as it breaks down, with smaller pipes and less capacity. Firefighting 7.103 Water for firefighting places constraints on changing to lower pressure, smaller pipe systems.
7.104 The Australian Water Association notes that it is difficult to balance firefighting needs against other goals. Ideally, other means should be found for firefighting.85
7.105 According to Mr Woolley from Brisbane City Council consideration is being given to alternative methods of fighting fires:
It may be that you can get better fire protection at a household level, with a rainwater tank or a facility at each house that could be appropriately used, and change the risk profiles of a house. Our current system works, you could say, fairly well, but you could quite well argue that different protection systems could perhaps work better. If you look around a room, you often find there are sensors and pop-down sprinkler heads. That is universal in high-rise buildings—or even low-rise commercial buildings— and that was not there 10 to 15 years ago. Already there is a recognition that we can fight fires better and we would like to explore that further.86 Perverse incentives 7.106 The Committee found that there were some systems operating in the urban water industry that could perversely encourage greater consumption of water, in spite of the stated conservation policies of governments and water corporations. These are
83 Mr Davis, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, pp 221-222; see also Mr McRae, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 220; and Mr Till, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 393. 84 CSIRO, Submission 47, p 21. 85 Australian Water Association, Submission 41, p 12. 86 Mr Woolley, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 4 April 2002, p 604. 294 the dividend payments made to governments by the water companies, and the simple fact that water utilities earn their revenues from selling water.
Dividend payments to Governments 7.107 Although corporatised, water utilities in Australia remain in government ownership. As the principle shareholders, State Governments receive a dividend that is negotiated between the government and the corporation. In 2000/01 these contributions to government, derived from both tax equivalent regimes and dividend payments, amounted to approximately $1.04 billion from the Australian urban water industry.87
7.108 The Nature Conservation Council suggests that if the dividend payments were reinvested in infrastructure, we could move to a more sustainable future very quickly.88
7.109 Other witnesses are more sanguine about the payments:
as a commercial business it is probably our shareholders’ prerogative to require some dividend paid on the investment that is made in that business. You can argue the toss about what the level of that should be, but it is very hard to argue that no dividend should be payable.89
7.110 Mr Harvey from VicWater considers that the new economic regulatory regime in Victoria will go some way to address this issue in that State. The Essential Services Commission will manage the 2004 price review, taking into account the economics but also the social and environmental obligations that water authorities are required to implement.90 Part of the charter under which the Commission will operate requires that consideration of long-term needs, such as long-term infrastructure investment, be taken into account in the pricing of water. Currently VicWater has concerns that not enough money is being invested in the long-term infrastructure assets, or there is not a price path that enables it to be done.91
7.111 The Committee did not receive sufficient information to be able to make a judgment on the merits or otherwise of arrangements relating to dividend payments. However, the practice is a perverse incentive in that greater water consumption and lower spending on infrastructure results in increased dividend payments.
87 The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, pp 123 and 126-127. 88 Ms Ridge, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 250. 89 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 332. 90 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 285. 91 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 286. 295
Impact on revenue of reducing water consumption 7.112 A perverse incentive also exists with water supply agencies: the more water they sell, the greater the revenue flow. Successful implementation of demand management measures will reduce revenue to the business and may have an impact on funding for long-term infrastructure investment.92 Dr Essery noted:
Obviously, if you reduce demand, then you have to have a sustainable income stream for the infrastructure, replacement costs and operations so you have to increase price. So it is a matter of getting that balance correct. I would say the only structural or process step that prevents that is that sometimes people try to separate price from the demand. They have to be managed as a suite.93
7.113 The report of the Victorian Auditor General on non-metropolitan urban water authorities identifies the following as a constraint to better performance:
Little financial incentive for authorities to practise water conservation. Revenue is tied to the amount of water sold and reduced usage will, at least in the short to medium-term, reduce the financial performance of an authority.94
7.114 The Committee was told of the significant decrease in revenues to government as a consequence of the prolonged drought in Western Australia:
… the Water Corporation in fact lost a fair amount of revenue this summer. Because of the water restrictions, there was less water used. The Water and Rivers Commission has been very strongly pushing for an increase in the amount that people pay for water, which could have the added benefit of perhaps bringing the Water Corporation’s revenue back up to what it was before. I do not know how to answer your question. It certainly is an issue for the Water Corporation because, as a corporation, it has to return money to the government. Of course, with water restrictions, its income drops but it recognises that, in order for long-term water resource management, that needs to occur.95
7.115 Another area where this perverse incentive has an impact is in leakage management:
Pressure control provides water managers with a paradox. I think I heard this morning from Senator Tierney that obviously there is a financial interest in this for water supply managers. If areas that are on very high pressure
92 Mr Harvey, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, p 285. 93 Dr Essery, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 198. 94 Auditor General Victoria, Non-metropolitan urban water authorities: Enhancing performance and accountability, November 2000, Executive summary, p 2, at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_par/agp6601.html. 95 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 399. 296
reduce it that affects the income that they receive from these areas but the total cost of running the operation is still there. The outcome for the industry of better controlling water pressures and losses can be exactly predicted.96
7.116 Deferred augmentation of new water supplies arguably provides a counter- balance to incentives to sell more water. Mr Waldron told the Committee:
It has really only been the deferment of capital expenditure on expanding the water needs for putting into a system that has been a driver for European and American water industry people. If you can prove a capital deferment on that then they tend to believe it is worthwhile doing demand management on your own system.97
7.117 This point was echoed by Mr Bulstrode from the Water Corporation of Western Australia who also noted that delaying capital expenditure can lead to lower water prices:
I think it needs to be appreciated in that sort of costing model that it is a total water efficiency or system efficiency model that we are looking for. One of the system’s efficiencies is being able to delay bringing on capital works. If you can get the right mix, so that you meet your customer’s demands and needs without having to bring on those works, then that is a partnership where everyone benefits because you can keep the water price down. That is often forgotten: that the ability to hold back capital investment can be quite substantial.98
7.118 An option to deal with this perverse incentive would be to set conservation targets in operating licences and price regulation. Sydney Water’s operating licence does this, requiring reduced per capita consumption, more water efficient plumbing appliances and the development of the market for recycled water.99
7.119 Revenue caps are another option that can be considered. They work by prohibiting the business from retaining revenues beyond a certain level100 and effectively decouple the revenues earned from the volume of water sold. Business efforts to improve profit are then focused on reducing costs, whereas price caps may create an incentive to increase volumes.101
7.120 Revenue caps can assist water conservation by not financially penalising the water businesses when consumption is reduced. The business can increase prices to
96 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 201. 97 Mr Waldron, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 18 April 2002, p 208. 98 Mr Bulstrode, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 421. 99 Sydney Water Corporation, Demand Management Strategy 2000-2005, December 1999, p 2. 100 Mr Rose, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 23 April 2002, pp 326-327. 101 Melbourne Water, Submission 46A. 297 continue to achieve the revenue specified by the cap providing an incentive to decrease water sales where this is consistent with reducing costs.
7.121 However, the disadvantages of revenue caps include:102
• they may not provide sufficient revenue if volume growth is in excess of forecast and which then leads to additional capital and operating expenditure requirements; • volume risk is shifted from the company to the customer. If consumers reduce their consumption below forecast or volumes change for external reasons (say because of variability in weather), then the company is allowed to vary unit prices. This may be of questionable acceptability to consumers; • if the revenue cap applies to a bundle of services, then there are also incentives to provide fewer services, not just to sell less water; and • there may be incentives to provide less service to customers in areas with low average utilisation and high marginal costs. 7.122 Revenue caps alone are not enough to drive conservation outcomes and should be considered as part of a broader conservation strategy.
7.123 To overcome incentives to sell more water, the objectives of water supply companies need to shift from simply selling water to selling water services and meeting the water-related needs of people and businesses. According to Gary Wolff and Peter Gleick:
People do not want to “use” water. People want to drink and bathe, swim, produce goods and services, grow food, and otherwise meet human needs and desires. Achieving these ends can be done in different ways, often with radically different implications for water.103
7.124 This approach encourages water companies to identify and satisfy their customers’ demands for water-based services. The shift in focus would ensure that they promote water use efficiency as an essential task rather than in response to political whims and pressure from environmentalists.
7.125 Dr Humphries from the Water Corporation of Western Australia told the Committee that there has been much debate about improved pricing models and regulatory methods in that State but his view is that water utilities should make their money from providing water services, which would include water economy services and water use efficiency services. However, he acknowledged the difficulty in
102 Melbourne Water, Submission 46A. 103 P Gleick et al, The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, 2002-2003, p 1. 298 earning revenue for that under the current model and any new regime would firstly require state government approval.104 Conclusions 7.126 It is fundamental that prices reflect the costs of providing urban water from the catchment, and treating the water in receiving waters. They must therefore include the costs of catchment and riverine, estuarine and coastal waters maintenance and repair. Water is currently effectively supplied free to water suppliers.
7.127 While the Commonwealth does not have the power to impose higher prices, it recommends that State authorities give serious consideration to raising water prices, and linking such increases with education campaigns to ensure community support for and understanding of this action.
7.128 The Committee considers that while COAG and the national competition policy reforms have achieved efficiency gains, there is still a need for policies that will push the next generation of change in the industry.
7.129 If environmental sustainability is to be achieved, recognising the real environmental costs of resource extraction must be the central driver of this next generation of economic reform. The most effective way of making the connection between these real costs and urban water use is to vest ownership of water supplies within a catchment in a statutory Catchment Management Authority (CMA) which would be given responsibility for the sustainable management of the water resource. Water utilities would then purchase their water supplies from the CMA, and prices would be calculated by the CMA according to the costs of funding catchment maintenance and repair. Prices would reflect the need to support research into local catchment hydrology, and community Landcare groups.
7.130 The Committee also strongly encourages States and Territories to adopt sewage and stormwater rates that reflect the loads placed on them (including pervious surfaces) rather than flat rates.
104 Dr Humphries, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, pp 419-420. 299
Appendix 1
List of Submissions
1 Ms Gabrielle Stannus 2 Associate Professor Frank G. Fisher 3 Mr Danny Burton 4 EcoMusic 5 Mr Peter Brock 6 Hornsby Shire Council 7 Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 7a 8 Dr Nicholas Fleming 9 Local Government & the Shires Association of NSW 10 Public Interest Advocacy Centre 11 Baw Baw Shire Council 12 Water and Rivers Commission of Western Australia 12a 12b 13 National Competition Council 13a 14 Henley & Grange Residents Association 15 Doctors for Native Forests (Victoria) 16 Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council 16a 17 Sunshine Coast Environment Council 18 Mr Brett Whittle 19 Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee 20 Wide Bay Water 21 Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment 22 Mr Russell Cadman 23 Swan Catchment Council 24 Mr Alan Hill 24a 25 Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology 26 Friends of Malabar Headland 27 Mr Michael Bland 28 Brisbane City Council 29 Nature Conservation Council of NSW 30 Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering 31 Mr Paul Totterdell 31a 32 River Murray Urban Users Committee 32a 33 Ms Eve Eidelson 34 Bayside City Council 300
35 Conservation Council of South Australia 36 NSW Department of Land & Water Conservation 36a 37 Stormwater Industry Association Ltd 37a 38 D J Stroud 39 Mr Karl Hahn 40 Dr Peter Fisher 41 Australian Water Association 42 Victorian Water Industry Association 43 Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland) 44 Ms Coleen Greene 45 Sydney Water 45a 46 Melbourne Water 46a 46b 47 CSIRO 48 Sydney Olympic Park Authority 48a 49 Water Corporation of Western Australia 49a 50 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies 50a 51 Government of South Australia 52 Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology 53 Hawkesbury City Council 54 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia Environment Australia 54a 55 Water Services Association of Australia 56 Local Government Association of Queensland Inc 57 Water Resources Strategy for the Melbourne Area Committee 58 Sullivans Creek Catchment Group Inc 58a 59 Housing Industry Association 60 Water Quality and Coastal Development Group Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 60a 61 Royal Australian Planning Institute/Planning Institute of Australia 62 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Limited 63 CDS Technologies 64 Chairman Barton Group 65 Queensland Environmental Law Association Inc 66 Mr Bill Tait 67 Mr Robin Friday 68 Australian Conservation Foundation 69 Mr Mark Bartley 70 Knox City Council 71 City of Port Phillip 72 Visy Industries 301
73 Columbus Group 74 Australian Political Ministry Network 75 ACT Government 75a 76 Clean Ocean Foundation 77 Electropure Industrial Australia Pty Ltd 78 SA Water 79 Environmental Business Australia 80 Sydney Coastal Councils 81 EPA Victoria 82 Mr Fred Craven 302 303
Appendix 2
Witnesses at Public Hearings
22 March 2002
Environment Australia Mr Geoff Bott Mr Theo Hooy Mr Garry Reynolds
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia Ms Louise Hunt Mr Michael Martin
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU Professor Patrick Troy Professor Ian White
Planning Institute of Australia Mr Neil Head Professor Ken Taylor
Mr Paul Totterdell
Sullivans Creek Catchment Group Inc Ms Jennie Gilles
3 April 2002
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Mrs Sheriden Morris Mr Hugh Yorkston
Townsville City Council Mr Greg Bruce Mr Adam Sadler
4 April 2002
Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership Dr Eva Abal Ms Diane Tarte
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Mr Simon Baltais
Sunshine Coast Environment Council Mrs Jenifer Simpson Mrs Jacqueline McGregor 304
Mr Peter Oliver Dr Helen Stratton
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency Mr David Campin Mr David Wiskar
Brisbane City Council Mr Ralph Woolley
18 April 2002
Stormwater Industry Association Mr Mike Boyden Mr John Wood
Sydney Water Corporation Ms Carol Howe Mr Tom Gellibrand Ms Judith Meeske
NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation Dr Charles Essery
Wide Bay Water Mr Tim Waldron
Australian Water Association Mr Chris Davis Mr Brian McRae Mr Roderick Lehmann
Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Counsellor Margaret Ferrara Mr Colin Kandan-Smith
Nature Conservation Council of NSW Ms Kathryn Ridge
Housing Industry Association Mr Wayne Gersbach
23 April 2002
CRC for Catchment Hydrology Professor Russell Mein Associate Professor Tony Wong
Victorian Water Industry Association (VicWater) Mr Mark Harvey 305
National Competition Council Mr Mick Shadwick, Mr Paul Swan Mr Ed Willett
Bayside City Council Dr Phillip Johnstone Councillor Ken Beadle
Mr Mark Bartley
Melbourne Water Corporation Mr Howard Rose Mr Ross Young
Royal Australian Institute of Architects Mr Peter Williams Ms Ceridwen Owen Ms Catherine Ramsay
City of Port Phillip Mr Jim Holdsworth Councillor Liz Johnstone
Dr Peter Fisher
CDS Pty Ltd Mr Peter Diprose
Clean Ocean Foundation Mr Michael Morehead Miss Sally Mitchell
29 April 2002
Water and Rivers Commission of Western Australia Dr Marnie Leybourne Mr Bill Till Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) Mr Mick McCarthy Mr Greg Ryan Water Corporation of Western Australia Mr Roger Bulstrode Dr Bob Humphries Mr Peter Addison Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee Mr Alan Hill 306
30 April 2002
Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (formerly SA Department for Water Resources) Mr Martin Allen Mr Stephen Wills
South Australia Water Corporation Ms Anne Howe Mr John Ringham Mr John Williams
River Murray Urban Users Committee Mr Carl Charter
Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Unviersity of Adelaide Mr Trevor Daniell
Henley & Grange Residents Association Mr Paul Laris Mr Mark Pearson
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Professor Don Bursill
23 May 2002
ACT Government Ms Elizabeth Fowler Mr Brian Wilkinson Mr Asoka Wijeratne Mr John Dymke Mr John Robertson
Murray Darling Basin Commission Dr Don Blackmore
Environmental Business Australia via teleconference Mr Jonathan Crockett
Mr Brett Whittle via teleconference
Environment Australia Mr Geoff Bott Ms Joy Garland Mr Theo Hooy 307
Appendix 3
Exhibits
Canberra, 22 March 2002 Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University For the public health: The Hunter District Water Board 1892 - 1992, by Clem Lloyd, Patrick Troy and Shelley Schreiner;
Description of the Biological Aquatics System by Pryme Wastewater Treatment P/L, 28 pages
Safeguarding Environmental Conditions for Oyster Cultivation in New South Wales, Report for the NSW Healthy Rivers Commission by Professor Ian White, Jack Beale Professor of Water Resources, CRES, ANU, August 2001.
Planning Institute of Australia
List of Sustainable Urban Land & Water BMP Design Guidelines, prepared by the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra
Mr Paul Totterdell
"Buried dams" help clean recycled water, by Simon Toze, CSIRO Land and Water, downloaded from http://www.clw.csiro.au
Sullivans Creek Catchment Management Group
Sullivans Creek Catchment Management Plan - Draft for public comment, May 2000 Townsville, 3 April 2002 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Three GBRMPA-produced CD-ROMs:
• Great Barrier Reef Catchment Water Quality Action Plan: A Report to Ministerial Council on targets for pollutant loads;
• Flood Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef: Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Composition and Distribution, Research Publication No. 68, November 2001;
• A review of Water Quality Issues Influencing the habitat quality in Dugong Protection Areas, Research Publication No. 66, January 2002 308
Brochure: Land Use and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Current State of Knowledge November 2001, published by CRC Reef Research Centre;
Brochure: Water Quality: A threat to the Great Barrier Reef, published by GBRMPA;
Brochure: The current level of scientific understanding on impacts of terrestrial run- off on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, produced by CRC Reef Research Centre.
Townsville City Council (TCC)
Monitoring Water Quality and Gross Pollutants, flyer produced by TCC;
Monitoring Toxic Heavy Metals in Urban Stormwater, flyer;
NHT Louisa Creek Project, flyer produced by TCC;
Urban Stormwater Initiative, flyer produced by TCC;
Soil Erosion Fact Pack: A comprehensive kit aimed at control of erosion and sediment on residential building sites (contents: Erosion and sediment control on residential building sites trifold produced by TCC; 7 pages of Soil Erosion Fact Pack information sheets);
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning for North Queensland, Background material for a 5 day course, produced by TCC;
Extract from Australian local government environment yearbook 2002 relating to environmental management in TCC;
Please help our waterways, trifold produced by TCC. Brisbane, 4 April 2002 Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchment Partnership
South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, September 2001, published by Healthy Waterways (CD-ROM);
Moreton Bay Study: A Scientific Basis for the Healthy Waterways Campaign, by William C. Dennison and Eva G. Abal, published by Healthy Waterways;
Ecosystem Health Report Card 2001, South East Queensland Waterways, pamphlet published by Healthy Waterways;
Healthy Waterways - Healthy Catchments: Synthesis of scientific results of the South East Queensland Study, published by Healthy Waterways;
Healthy Waterways Happenings, Issue 12, December 2001;
Copy of overhead projections shown at hearing. 309
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Bayside Branch (Qld) Inc.
Volume containing 32 photographs, copies of an exchange of correspondence with the Queensland Minister for Environment and Heritage, a related CD-ROM, an extract headed Good science, legal advice and persistence from an unidentified paper, and a newspaper extract dated 22 August 1995 relating to the clearing of protected flora on the Bay Islands.
WPSQ submission to Environment Australia in relation to the Redcliffe Seaside Estates urban and commercial development, 1 March 2002
WPSQ submission to Redland Shire Council about development proposals for South Street, Cleveland, 10 July 2001
Environmental Report Re: Proposed Residential Development 65-89 Duncan Street, Wellington Point, by Lynn Roberts, 19 June 2001
Queensland Environment Protection Authority
Managing and Reducing Losses from Water Distribution Systems: Manual 8 - Case Studies in Water Loss Management, Environmental Protection Agency (Queensland) and Wide Bay Water, 2002
A Water Pricing Strategy for the City of Gold Coast, Volume 1 Report of the Water Pricing Advisory Committee, 10 January 1997
Final Report: Minimum Performance Standards for Showerheads in Australia: Strategy Development, prepared by Institute for Sustainable Futures, November 2000
Wise Water Management - A Demand Management Manual for Water Utilities, Water Services Association of Australia, November 1998
WaterWise Manual of Best Practice: Water conservation in large hotels and resorts, by Sally MacKinnon, Wet Paper Consultant to the Gold Coast City Council Water Wise program, June 1996
The Water Wise School: How to save water and money by involving the whole community, by Sally MacKinnon, Wet Paper Consultant to the Gold Coast City Council, 1998
WaterWise Information Guide: Water Conservation in Caravan Parks, by Sally MacKinnon, Wet Paper Consultant to the Gold Coast City Council Water Wise program, June 1997
Brisbane City Council
Overhead projections used at hearing, Brisbane: Water for the Future, April 2002. 310
Sydney, 18 April 2002 Stormwater Industry Association
Towards Continuous Simulation: A Comparative Assessment of Flood Performance of Volume-Sensitive Systems, a paper presented by George Kuczera and Peter Coombes at the Stormwater Industry Association Conference on Urban Stormwater Management, 23-24 April 2002.
NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation
NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation Annual Report 2000/2001.
Australian Water Association
The Australian Water Directory 2002
We all use water - A users' guide to water and wastewater management (consisting of a set of 30 trifold flyers)
Community Involvement Presenters' Manual for We all use water program
We All Use Water - PowerPoint Presentations Community Involvement Presenters Manual (CD Rom)
The Coetanger River Catchment, by Jenifer Simpson (booklet as part of the We all use water program)
Brochure: Water in a Dry Land - issues and challenges for Australia's key resource
Performance Monitoring Report 1999-2000 - Australian Non Major Urban Water Utilities, published by the Australian Water Association, 2001
Water (Journal of the Australian Water Association), February 2002
Water (Journal of the Australian Water Association), March 2002
Australian Junior Water Prize - flyer
Ripples & Reflections - Celebrating a Decade of Waterwatch - The Third National Waterwatch Conference, University of Tasmania, July 2002, Registration and Information Brochure
Innovations in Water - AWA 20th Convention & Exhibition, Perth, April 2003: First Announcement
Innovations in Water - AWA 20th Convention & Exhibition, Perth, April 2003: Call for Papers 311
Melbourne, 23 April 2002 Victorian Water Industry Association
Urban Water Review 2000/01, published by the Victorian Water Industry Association, 2001
National Competition Council
Assessment of Government's Progress in Implementing National Competition Policy and Related Reforms, June 2001, by NCC (on CD ROM)
The 2002 NCP Assessment Framework for Water Reform, by NCC.
Bayside City Council
Council reports on Water Pollution (No. 300) and Water Conservation (No. 301), February 2002
Port Phillip Coastal and Marine Planning Program - Stormwater Implementation Project: Statutory Framework and Standards, Association of Bayside Municipalities, September 2001
Mr Mark Bartley
Reuse Options for Household Wastewater, Copy of Information Bulletin by EPA Victoria, November 2001.
Melbourne Water Corporation
Waterways and Drainage - Operating Charter by Melbourne Water, June 1999
City of Port Phillip
Port Phillip Coastal and Marine Planning Program, September 2001 (CD ROM)
Dr Peter Fisher
Trade Notice - Research & Field Evaluation of SQIDs, by Bell Environmental
CDS Pty Ltd
A Comparative Analysis. Storm Water Pollution Policy in California, USA and Victoria, Australia, by Xavier Swamikannu and Dan Radulescu (California Environmental Protection Agency) and Ross Young and Robin Allison (Melbourne Water Corporation).
Clean Ocean Foundation
• Funding the Gunnamatta Outfall Closure Potable Treatment (pie chart) 312
Perth, 29 April 2002 Water and Rivers Commission
Summary of Water and Rivers Submission
Sheet of four photos headed The new form of Urban Water Management in WA.
Mr Alan Hill/Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee
Water Conserving Design for Gardens and Open Space, Water Authority of Western Australia, December 1989
Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain Volume 2A: Wetland Mapping, Classification and Evaluation, by AL Hill, CA Semeniuk, V Semeniuk and A Del Marco, 1996
Wetlands of the Perth to Bunbury Region: Coastal Wetlands from Wedge Island to Mandurah, a broadsheet published by the Water Authority of Western Australia, circa 1992
Encouraging Wise Use of Perth's Wetlands: Wetlands of the Perth to Bunbury Region, a broadsheet published by the Water Authority of Western Australia and the Department of Environmental Protection, circa 1993 Adelaide, 30 April 2002 Department of Water, Land and Bioconservation
Water Proofing Adelaide - Urban Water Quality Initiative (draft)
State Water Plan 2000 - Volumes 1, 2 and Explanatory Documents (and on CD ROM)
South Australia Water Corporation
Presentation to the Senate Inquiry into Urban Water Management (slides)
River Murray Urban Users Committee
Conserving River Murray Water in South Australia - Investigations to develop an Education Kit for Local Government, by QED Pty Ltd, July 2001
Changing Water Behaviour by Shona Batch, November 2001
Mr Trevor Daniell
An extension to his original written submission.
Henley and Grange Residents Association
Hard copy of their overheads presentation material. 313
Canberra, 23 May 2002 ACT Government
A set of slides relating to the ACTEW Corporation
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
Presentation to the Senate Inquiry into Urban Water Management (slides);
Review of Cap Implementation 2000/01, Report of the Independent Audit Group, published by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, March 2002;
Integrated Catchment Management in the Murray-Darling Basin 2001-2010, published by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, June 2001;
Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001-2015, published by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, August 2001; and
Murray-Darling Basin Initiative, published by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2001. 314 315
Appendix 4
Overview of Commonwealth institutions, agencies and programs
National water institutions Key national level institutions (involving representation of several governments including that of New Zealand) are listed alphabetically below, followed by more detailed descriptions: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)1 The natural resource management components of ANZECC were transferred to the newly created Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC).
ANZECC provided a forum for member governments to exchange information and experience and develop coordinated policies in relation to national and international environment and conservation issues. Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) ARMCANZ is now defunct and its functions were transferred to the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council.
ARMCANZ consisted of the Australian Federal, State/ Territory and New Zealand Ministers responsible for agriculture, soil, water (both rural and urban) and rural adjustment policy. The Council aimed to develop integrated and sustainable agricultural and land and water management policies.2 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) COAG comprises the Commonwealth and State/Territory heads of government. While it addresses all inter-governmental issues, over the last decade, COAG has negotiated several major agreements setting out principles for allocating responsibility for management of environmental issues in Australia. These include the:
• Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment (1992);
1 www.ea.gov.au/cooperation/anzecc 2 www.affa.gov.au/docs/operating_environment/armcanz/home.html 316
• Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment (1997); and • National Water Reform Framework (1994, extended in 1996). In relation to water, the focus of the COAG framework is to ‘explicitly link economic and environmental issues within a coherent and integrated reform package’, through:
• water pricing regimes based on the principles of full cost recovery and consumption based pricing; • separation of water property rights from land title; • providing for permanent trading in water entitlements; • specific provisions to ensure water flows for environmental purposes; • water service providers to operate with a commercial focus; • planning for conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources (where appropriate); • improved institutional arrangements; and 3 • public consultation and education. Environment Protection and Heritage Ministerial Council (EPHMC)4 The EPHMC was created by the amalgamation of the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), the environment protection components of the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), and Heritage Ministers’ Meetings.
The objective of the Council is to develop integrated and sustainable agricultural, land and water management policies, strategies and practices for the benefit of the Australian community.
In 1994, EPHMC also set up the inter-governmental Task Force on COAG Water Reform, which is tasked with coordinating the COAG water reform program.
Previously ANZECC, and now EPHMC (and with respect to public health matters, the NHMRC), developed the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) covering effluent and sewerage system management, urban stormwater and drinking water, fresh and marine water quality and groundwater protection. The 19 published guidelines are listed in the AFFA/EA submission.5
3 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 19. 4 www.ephc.gov.au 5 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 29. 317
High Level Steering Group on Water (HLSGW)6 The HLSGW was established by ARMCANZ in July 1998 to assist in the development of a national approach to water management.
The HLSGW comprises representatives of the agriculture and environment agencies of the Commonwealth and Australian State Governments. The Group’s role is to maintain the impetus of the COAG Water Reforms process by reporting to NRMMC. In addition to this reporting role, the HLSGW assists jurisdictions in implementing water reforms by commissioning research and focusing on key water reform issues.7 Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC)8 The Murray Darling Basin covers 1.06 million square kilometres of the States of Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia, including the major cities of Adelaide, Canberra, Albury-Wodonga, and Wagga Wagga. Management of the water resources of this area is the responsibility of two main institutions: the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council, comprising Ministers holding land, water and environment portfolios in each participating government; and the Murray Darling Basin Commission.
The Commission is an independent agency established by the inter-governmental Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, signed in 1992, and given full legal status by the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 passed by all the contracting governments.
The Commission comprises a President and Commissioners representing resource and environmental management agencies of participating governments. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC)9 The NEPC is now part of the Environment Protection and Heritage Ministerial Council.
The NEPC arose out of the Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) (1992), and is established under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth), and corresponding legislation in the other jurisdictions.
Under the Act, the primary functions of the Council are: to make National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs); and to report on their implementation and effectiveness.
6 The Australian Water Directory 2001, Australian Water Association, p 51. 7 AFFA website www.affa.gov.au printed on 8 January 2002 8 http://www.mdbc.gov.au 9 www.ephc.gov.au 318
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)10 The NHMRC is the national organisation coordinating medical research funding and development of advice on health standards, and is created by the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1972 (Cth).
The Council comprises nominees of Commonwealth, State and Territory health authorities, professional and scientific colleges and associations, unions, universities, business, consumer groups, welfare organisations, conservation groups and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
The NHMRC plays an important role in the development of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS), and in particular the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. These were discussed in greater detail under EPHMC above. National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA)11 The NLWRA is a program of the Natural Heritage Trust, set up in 1997 to improve land, water and vegetation management by providing better information to resource managers. The Audit is a partnership between all States, Territories and the Commonwealth. The principal ‘product’ of the NLWRA is the Australian Natural Resources Atlas. Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC)12 The NRMMC is a national forum comprising Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resource Ministers from the Commonwealth, State and Territories. Federal Agriculture Minister Warren Truss and Environment Minister David Kemp will jointly chair the Council.
The NRMMC will take responsibility for sustainable management of land, water, vegetation and other natural resource issues, as well as environmental flows, conservation of endangered species and ecological communities, migratory birds and wetlands. The NRMMC makes high level decisions in relation to the National Action Plan on Water Quality and Salinity, and the Natural Heritage Trust. It has taken over the natural resource management components of ANZECC and ARMCANZ. Commonwealth government institutions According to the government submission, Federal activity to date has been focused on national leadership and standard setting.13 Commonwealth government institutions
10 www.nhmrc.health.gov.au 11 http://www.nlwra.gov.au 12 Senator Robert Hill, Press release, Australia’s first national body to manage natural resources, 30 August 2001. 13 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 3. 319
(those which are the direct responsibility of the Federal government) involved in urban water management are listed below. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)14 The ACCC is an indirect player in the water industry and administers the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Prices Surveillance Act 1983. It has an overarching role in preventing anti-competitive behaviour such as price fixing, which will increasingly have implications for the water industry under the National Competition Policy restructuring discussed below. Department of the Environment and Heritage – Environment Australia (EA)15 Commonwealth responsibility for matters of national environmental significance rests with Environment Australia, through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. EA’s responsibilities in respect to urban water management include developing and implementing a planning and management framework for marine and estuarine water quality protection and implementation of water protection programs.16
EA shares responsibility for a number of matters with AFFA. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia (AFFA)17 Commonwealth responsibility for major aspects of natural resource management, agriculture and food rests with AFFA and includes lead responsibility for the Commonwealth Government’s water policy reforms under the Council of Australian Governments, and has the role of chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. AFFA also has joint responsibilities with EA for managing the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)18 and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.19 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) GBRMPA was established by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. It manages both the marine park and world heritage listed areas under the principles of
14 www.accc.gov.au 15 www.ea.gov.au 16 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 3. 17 www.affa.gov.au and Submission No 54 18 www.nht.gov.au 19 AFFA/EA, Submission No 54, p 3. 320 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983, the Great Barrier Reef Section Zoning Plans and Plans of Management.20 National Competition Council (NCC)21 The NCC provides national oversight of the National Competition Policy (NCP) and undertakes assessments of governments’ progress in implementing the policy. The NCP emerged in 1991 out of a series of Special Premiers Conferences, and is underpinned by the Commonwealth Competition Policy Reform Act 1995.22
The focus of the NCP in relation to water is reforming the pricing regimes so that they are based on consumption based pricing, full cost recovery and the removal of cross subsidies. The other major focus is the separation of responsibilities for standard setting, regulatory enforcement and service provision in water management.23
Implementation of the reforms is tied to payments to the states (National Competition Payments), and based on NCC assessments conducted in 1999 (Second Tranche) and 2001 (Third Tranche). Sustainable Environment Committee of the Cabinet The Howard Government’s third-term Cabinet also saw the creation of the Sustainable Environment Committee, with a membership chaired by the Prime Minister and including the Ministers for Transport and Regional Services; Environment and Heritage; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Education, Science and Training; Industry, Tourism and Resources; and Forestry and Conservation.24 State and Territory regulatory agencies Most aspects of urban water regulation are the responsibility of state and territory government. In each jurisdiction, there are generally four regulatory tasks: environmental protection; natural resource management; public health, and price setting.
Table 1 summarises these arrangements, together with the relevant legislation administered by the various agencies.25
20 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission 60, pp 9-10. 21 www.ncc.gov.au 22 For a general overview of the NCP, see Parliamentary Library Current Issues Brief, Australia’s National Competition Policy: Its Evolution and operation, June 2001. 23 National Competition Council, Submission 13, p 2; and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry−Australia and Environment Australia, Submission 54, p 19. 24 Prime Minister, Press Release: Cabinet Committees, 13 Dec 2001. 25 Adapted from The Australian Water Directory 2001, Australian Water Association, p 8; and The Australian Urban Water Industry, 2001 WSAAfacts, Water Services Association of Australia, p 14. 321
Table 1 State Legislation Natural Public Environmental Price Resource health regulator Setting manager regulator authority
Australian Water and Department Department of Environment ACT Independent Sewerage Act of Urban Health, Pricing and Capital 2000 Services Housing and Regulatory Territory Community Commission Water Resources Planning and Care Act 1998 Land Management
Northern Power and Water Dept of Territory Dept of Lands, Pricing Authority Act Lands, Health Planning & control held Territory Planning & Services Environment by Water Supply Environment government. and Sewerage Services Act
Water Act
NSW Local Department Health Environment Independent Government Act of Land and Department Protection Pricing and 1993 Water Authority Regulatory Conservation Tribunal Water (IPART) Management Act 2000
Protection of Environment (Administration) Act 1991
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997
Victoria Water Act 1989 Dept of Dept of Human Environment Pricing Natural Services Protection control held (non Melb) Environment Resources & Authority by Protection Act Environment government 1970
Health Act 1958 322
State Legislation Natural Public Environmental Price Resource health regulator Setting manager regulator authority
Western Water Water & Health Dept Dept of Office of Corporation Act Rivers Environmental Water Australia 1995 Commission Protection Regulation
Water Agencies Pricing (Powers) Act control held 1984 by government
South Public Dept for Health Environment Competition Corporations Act Water Land Commission Protection Commission Australia 1993 & Authority Biodiversity South Australia Conservation Water Corporation Act 1994
Waterworks Act 1932
Sewerage Act 1929
Water Conservation Act 1936
Queensland Water Resources Dept of Department of Environment Queensland Act 1989 Natural Health Protection Competition Resources Authority. Authority Integrated Planning Act Department 1997 of Natural Resources. Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949
Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997
Environmental Protection Act 1994
Health Act 1937
Local Government Act 1993 323
State Legislation Natural Public Environmental Price Resource health regulator Setting manager regulator authority
Tasmania Local Dept of Dept of Health Dept of Primary Government Government Act Primary & Human Industries, Water Prices 1993 Industries, Services & Environment Oversight Water & Commission Environment
Three additional state government agencies are worthy of mention:
NSW Healthy Rivers Commission26 The HRC is an independent Commission set up by the NSW Government in 1996 (as part of the Government’s Water Reform Program) to make public inquiries into selected NSW river systems, and to make recommendations to the Government on appropriate long-term approaches and strategies to achieve environmental, social and economic objectives for the systems.
WA Water and Rivers Commission (WRC)27 The WRC is tasked with the management of Western Australia’s water resources, including wetlands, rivers, estuaries, inlets and groundwater. It was established in 1996, under the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995, however in 2001, the WRC was merged with the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection to form the new Department of the Environment, Water and Catchment Protection.28
WA Office of Water Regulation29 The Office of Water Regulation was formed in 1995, as the regulator of service providers in the water industry, and reports to the Minister for Water Resources. Under the Water Services Coordination Act 1995, the Office of Water Regulation has authority to:
• regulate and license the provision of water services; • coordinate and advise on water services policy; and • perform functions under laws relating to the provision of water services.
26 www.wrc.wa.gov.au/owr 27 www.wrc.wa.gov.au and Water and Rivers Commission, Submission 12. 28 Dr Leybourne, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 29 April 2002, p 391. 29 www.wrc.wa.gov.au/owr 324
State and Territory urban water utilities In general terms, provision of water services can be divided into three functions: provision of water; wastewater (sewage) management; and stormwater management (not including the catchment management function). The following summarises the arrangements for each State and Territory. Australian Capital Territory In the ACT, water supply and wastewater are the responsibility of the joint venture ActewAGL30 although all infrastructure remains publicly owned by the ACTEW Corporation.
Stormwater is primarily the responsibility of the ACT Department of Urban Services31 and the Stormwater Unit of Roads ACT32 (a business unit of the Department).33 New South Wales Sydney Water34 is the largest water company in Australia, supplying water and wastewater services to nearly four million residential customers in Sydney, Illawarra and the Blue Mountains, as well as some stormwater services.35
The Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) is responsible for the management of the catchments, waterways and dams where water is collected and stored and it provides all of Sydney Water’s supply.36
Outside of the Sydney region, non-metropolitan urban water, wastewater and stormwater is the responsibility of 122 local councils,37 as well as the Hunter Water Corporation responsible for water services to around half a million people in the Lower Hunter Valley region.38
30 www.actewagl.com.au 31 www.urbanservices.act.gov.au 32 www.roads-storm.act.gov.au 33 The Roads ACT website notes that Planning and Land Management (PALM) is responsible for the planning and development of the stormwater network at the sub division level. Roads ACT is responsible for planning and maintaining roads and kerbs as part of the stormwater system. Canberra Urban Parks and Places is responsible for the maintenance of grassed floodways, urban lakes and other ‘natural’ physical components of the stormwater network. Private land developers are responsible for constructing the stormwater network within suburbs according to stipulated standards. 34 www.sydneywater.com.au 35 Sydney Water, Submission 45, p 3. 36 Sydney Water, Submission 45, p 3. 37 Local Government and the Shires Association NSW, Submission 9, p 1; and NSW Deptartment of Land & Water Conservation, Submission 36, p 1. 38 www.hunterwater.com.au 325
Northern Territory The NT Power and Water Authority39 is responsible for water supply and sewerage, with local government authorities responsible for stormwater. Queensland In Queensland, urban water supply and sewerage and stormwater are the responsibility of registered water service providers, comprising 125 local governments, two joint local governments, four urban water boards, 32 Aboriginal and Islander councils, 50 rural water and drainage boards. There are around 430 urban water supply schemes and 290 sewerage schemes in Queensland that cater for over 90 per cent and 80 per cent respectively of the population.40 South Australia The South Australian government’s submission explains that the South Australian Water Corporation (SA Water) owns, manages and operates the great majority of South Australia’s water supply and sewerage systems. SA Water is wholly owned by the State Government.
Most of the State’s stormwater infrastructure is controlled and maintained by Local Government drainage authorities. However major urban and rural drainage systems are also maintained by the State.41 Tasmania In Tasmania, three bulk water supply companies (Hobart Water,42 Esk Water,43 and Cradle Coast Water44) sell water to the councils and major industrial users in their respective areas. Sewage and stormwater services are the responsibility of 28 councils around the state.45 Victoria Water services to residential, commercial and industrial customers within the Melbourne metropolitan area are supplied by four businesses. Melbourne Water46 is a statutory corporation wholly owned by the Victorian Government. The organisation’s main functions are to:
39 www.nt.gov.au/pawa 40 Queensland Environment Protection Authority, Submission 43, p 2. 41 Government of South Australia, Submission 51, p 5. 42 www.hobartwater.com.au 43 www.eskwater.com.au 44 www.ccwater.com.au 45 The Australian Water Directory 2001, Australian Water Association, p 34. 46 www.melbournewater.com.au 326
• manage Melbourne’s water supply catchments;
• be a wholesale supplier of water to the retail water companies servicing metropolitan Melbourne;
• manage the treatment and disposal of 95 per cent of Melbourne’s wastewater; and
• manage major drainage services across the greater Melbourne area.47
Three companies retail water in Melbourne: City West Water,48 South East Water49 and Yarra Valley Water.50 In addition, fifteen non-metropolitan urban water statutory authorities provide water services for urban areas across Victoria.51
Local stormwater is the responsibility of local government. Western Australia In Western Australia, the Water Corporation of Western Australia provides water services to 1.9 million people in both urban and rural communities, including more than 300 towns and 89 wastewater treatment plants.52 Another supplier is the Aqwest – Bunbury Water Board,53 which provides water services to the city of Bunbury, with a population of 30,000.
Stormwater services are the responsibility of local government. Role of local governments As shown above, local governments around Australia are responsible for varying aspects of urban water supply, wastewater treatment, and stormwater drainage. Importantly, local government also manages local planning, zoning and approval processes, giving it a key role in land management issues within urban areas. Industry associations A number of associations play an active role in urban water policy in Australia:
• Australian Local Government Association; • Australian Water Association; • Stormwater Industry Association;
47 Melbourne Water, Submission 46, p 2. 48 www.citywestwater.com.au 49 www.southeastwater.com.au 50 www.yarravalleywater.com.au 51 Victorian Water Industry Association, Submission 42, p 2. 52 Water Corporation of Western Australia, Submission 49, p 3. 53 www.aqwest.wa.gov.au 327
• Victorian Water Industry Association; and • Water Services Association Australia. Australian Local Government Association (ALGA)54 ALGA is a federation of associations representing local government across Australia. ALGA’s significance to urban water management also lies in its participation as a signatory of the COAG agreements. Australian Water Association (AWA)55 The AWA is a professional membership organisation formed in 1962 to promote the responsible management of water and its related resources. The association has approximately 4,000 members, including both organisations and individuals. Stormwater Industry Association (SIA)56 SIA is the general membership association for people and organisations involved with, or concerned about, stormwater in Australia. The Association aims to promote the use of more efficient and integrated stormwater management. Victorian Water Industry Association (VicWater)57 VicWater was established in 1996, and is the peak body representing water utilities across the metropolitan urban, non-metropolitan urban, and rural sectors of the Victorian water industry. Water Services Association Australia (WSAA)58 WSAA represents the 21 largest urban water suppliers (those having 50,000 or more connections) who service 64 per cent of the Australian population. The operations of this group are reported in the annual WSAAfacts.
It should be noted that a further 16 per cent of water is supplied by the 66 non- metropolitan (NMU) authorities with between 10,000 and 50,000 connections. Their operations are documented in the annual NMU Report.59
54 www.alga.com.au 55 www.awa.asn.au and Australian Water Association, Submission 41. 56 www.stormwater.asn.au and Stormwater Industry Association, Submission 37. 57 www.vicwater.org.au and Victorian Water Industry Association, Submission No 42. 58 www.wsaa.asn.au and Water Services Association of Australia, Submission 55. 59 The Australian Water Directory 2001, Australian Water Association, p 29. 328
Role of Catchment Management Authorities It is evident that institutional and planning arrangements should reflect the water cycle. In practice, this approach is referred to as Total Catchment Management or Integrated Catchment Management (ICM).
Most jurisdictions have adopted the principles of ICM, and created catchment management groups, although the roles vary around Australia.
In South Australia, there are eight Catchment Water Management Boards operating under the Water Resources Act 1997. The Boards have three main legislative functions:
• prepare and implement a Catchment Water Management Plan;
• provide advice to the Minister and Councils about water resource management; and
• promote awareness and involvement in best practice water management.60
In NSW, 18 Catchment Management Boards operate under the Catchment Management Act 1989 and the Catchment Management Regulations 1999, and focus on five specific tasks:
a) identifying the opportunities, problems and threats associated with the use of natural resources to support rural production and protection and enhancement of the environment;
b) identifying the first order objectives and targets, within the overall legislative and policy framework, for the use and management of the region’s natural resources;
c) developing management options, strategies and actions to address the identified objectives and targets;
d) assisting in developing a greater understanding within the community of the issues identified and action required to support rural production and enhance the environment; and
e) initiating proposals for projects and assess against the targets, all projects submitted for funding under Commonwealth and State natural resource management grant programs.61
60 South Australia Catchment Water Management Boards site, at: www.catchments.net 61 Department of Land and Water Conservation (NSW) site at: www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au Catchment Management Boards. Note also the role of the Sydney Catchment Authority, which operates under its own legislation: www.sca.nsw.gov.au 329
In Victoria the Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) were established in 1997. The primary goal of each CMA is to ensure the protection and restoration of land and water resources, the sustainable development of natural resources-based industries and the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage. Each CMA comprises a board, implementation committees, and staff, and they are responsible for the strategic direction for land and water management in their Region; development of detailed work programs and the oversight of on-ground program delivery.62 Catchment Management Groups in the ACT,63 and the Catchment Coordinating Committees in Queensland64 have similar functions.
The Northern Territory government has an Integrated Catchment Management Plan process, and WaterWatch groups, but does not appear to have established specific agencies to deal with catchment management.65 It is unclear the extent to which Tasmania and Western Australia have adopted catchment based management arrangements.66
The largest example of a catchment management institution in Australia is the Murray Darling Basin Commission, whose role and structure was outlined earlier. The MDBC manages the water resources of the entire basin, including multiple catchment areas, across numerous state and local government boundaries. As Dr Blackmore, the Chief Executive Officer of the MDBC explained to the Committee, integrated catchment management:
is an emerging and poorly understood concept, … we still structure ourselves as a society pretty much on single issues and, unfortunately, our landscapes do not work that way. We are trying to bring about a change in thinking so that all the values that are important to a landscape are taken into account. We are a regional organisation.67
62 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria) site at: www.nre.vic.gov.au 63 See Environment ACT, Integrated Catchment Management Framework for the ACT – Implementation Plan, June 2001–2003 64 See www.landcareqld.org.au/catchment 65 See NT Water Watch site at: www.lpe.nt.gov.au/care/waterwatch/default.htm 66 Western Australia is currently considering creating CMAs: Water and Rivers Commission WA, Submission 12, p 2. The Tasmanian government did not provide a submission to the inquiry. 67 Dr Blackmore, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 23 May 2002, p 558. 330 331
Appendix 5
Site visits, inspections and informal briefings
This Appendix provides an outline of the informal activities undertaken by the Committee in seeking to gain a comprehensive understanding of urban water management, involving a program of site visits, inspections and informal briefings. The site visits in particular were important for the Committee to gain an appreciation of urban water management in practice, and also provided an opportunity for it to be briefed at first hand by the managers and staff working directly on the projects inspected.
The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to everyone – whether publicly elected representatives, public sector officers from Federal, State/Territory or local government agencies, and private sector representatives working in the water management industry - who willingly gave of their time and expertise to ensure that the Committee’s visits were of such great value. 39th Parliament 8 August 2001 - Canberra Officers of CSIRO’s Melbourne-based Urban Water unit made themselves available to give the Committee a comprehensive private presentation on the unit’s research activities, the current state of technical knowledge, and an overview of urban water management issues. The briefing gave Committee members a thorough grounding for the demands of the inquiry that lay ahead. The officers provided the Committee with a hard copy set of their slides presentation, which proved an invaluable resource in support of the Committee’s subsequent inquiries. 10 August 2001 - Canberra Officers of ACTEW Corporation provided the Committee with a briefing on the role and functions of the Corporation and of ActewAGL and an overview of their operational and regulatory arrangements, before escorting the Committee on a series of inspections of several of Canberra’s water treatment facilities. ACTEW Corporation was established in 1995 and in 2000 it formed a joint venture partnership with AGL Limited, which is called ActewAGL. ACTEW Corporation remains the holding company and asset manager of the major water and sewerage assets. ActewAGL provides electricity and gas services to the ACT community and is the contractor to ACTEW Corporation to provide water and sewerage services to the ACT.
The inspections commenced at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre, Canberra’s major wastewater treatment plant and the only one that discharges into a water course for subsequent use by downstream users. The treated wastewater 332 discharged into the Molonglo River flows into the Murrumbidgee and then to the Burrinjuck Reservoir. The impact of its effluent is particularly significant in dry periods and it is crucial that the treatment processes are effective. The Centre, which was constructed in the mid- to late-70s incorporated the best technology available at the time. It is an advanced sewage treatment plant using physical, chemical and biological treatment prior to discharge into the Molonglo River.
The Committee then inspected the Southwell Park Water Mining Facility. This is a demonstration project of re-use of wastewater for the watering of the adjacent sportsgrounds. It supplies water to some 10 hectares of grounds.
Finally, the Committee inspected the Stromlo Water Treatment Plant, Canberra’s main plant for the treatment of potable water. It has a maximum capacity of 320 ML per day although, water sourced from the relatively undisturbed Cotter catchment, requires only low-level treatment including chlorination, fluoridation and pH correction.
The Committee records its appreciation of the efforts of Mr Asoka Wijeratne, Manager, Water Contract & Regulatory Matters, ACTEW Corporation and his colleagues for their assistance with the day’s activities. 40th Parliament 3 April 2002 - Townsville The Committee was accompanied on its site visits in Townsville by Mr Hugh Yorkston, Manager, Strategic Policy and Liaison, for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Mr Greg Bruce, Manager, Environmental Management for the Townsville City Council.
Ross Island Barracks The Committee commenced by inspecting the Ross Island Barracks, which houses elements of the Maritime Wing of the Army Logistics Training Centre, Northern Logistics Group Townsville and 10 Field Support Battalion. The Committee was met by Major Caroline Hall, the Barracks’ 2IC, and environmental officers Ms Jutta Jaunzenis and Ms Penny Clowery, who are part of the team responsible for the environmental management of some 80 Defence sites across northern Queensland. Ross Island was described as the demonstration best practice site.
Ross Island is on a reclaimed land site that was created in 1982 using dredge spoil and is situated in a sensitive environment within the mangrove and saltpan communities adjacent to two creeks that flow into the Ross River. Given the light industrial nature of much of the Barracks’ activities, it is important that runoff and the quality of stormwater exiting the site be carefully controlled. The Committee was shown the specifically designed controls that ensure that stormwater is appropriately treated under EPA requirements before flowing to the adjacent creeks, and that intercept oils, fuels, other chemicals and general refuse on-site for disposal to landfill. The Committee was also told of the ongoing stormwater monitoring program which 333 enables Defence to detect any break downs in the built system or changes in workshop practices.
Problems of siltation of the boat harbour are overcome by annual dredging. The dredged material is placed in a settlement pond and checked under EPA permit conditions before being used as spoil. Mr Yorkston pointed out that small-scale dredging tends to be land-based, but some major dumping is permitted to take place at sea under ANZECC guidelines.
Mr Bruce noted that several of the facilities used at the Barracks for water quality and environmental protection would be of great value for use by local government, but that they were considered too costly to maintain. The Committee commends the Department of Defence for demonstrating its awareness of the need for careful water management in such a sensitive area, especially where tropical rains can lead to significant environmental problems.
Townsville City Council water management projects The Committee then examined several water quality projects of the Townsville City Council (TCC). It was joined by Councillor Ann Bunnell, Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Council’s Environmental Services Committee, for part of the inspection tour. It was also accompanied by Mr Adam Sadler, an environmental engineer with Citiworks, the TCC’s engineering business unit responsible for roads and drainage infrastructure.
It was stressed that while stormwater is a major environmental issue for all urban areas, North Queensland in particular faces the challenge of managing tropical catchments, with heavy intensive rainfall over short, and a long dry season. Townsville’s urban drainage systems incorporate both natural and engineered elements in a series of low-lying essentially flat catchments and the TCC stressed that it is conscious that the stormwater discharge from its urban waterways and creeks ultimately ends up in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, a highly valued and sensitive ecosystem.
The Commonwealth Government’s role in providing assistance to certain projects under the Natural Heritage Trust’s Clean Seas program or Living Cities Urban Stormwater Initiative (USI) was stressed.
The Committee was first shown a drain lining project under the railway yards. At a cost of some $90,000, it involved a trial use of sewerage technology to retrofit an existing pipeline with a polypropylene liner to seek to separate stormwater from the contaminated groundwater of the railway yards. The stormwater drain carried the message "No waste – flows to creek and Reef".
The party then visited Reid Park, a joint TCC/USI initiative. The project was described as the first trial in constructing a wetland in an estuarine area. It was seen as an intuitive attempt at a solution, with an expectation that lessons could be learnt for the future. The Committee inspected the excavation site – with work still in progress – of a gross pollutant trap designed to capture the sediments and first flush of run-off 334 from surrounding suburbs and an old landfill site, but which permitted the higher water levels of a ‘big event’ to pass through unimpeded. Careful native plant selection was seen as a key element in the success of the wetland and the mangroves were cut regularly as a component of the pollution management system.
At Ingham Road, in the middle of a residential area, the Committee inspected the Lakes 2 site which it was told had in 1998 been so polluted that there had been a total fish kill and ducks had died from contacting and eating the toxic algae. Part of the problem was that the site had limited water interchange and, given its shallowness, the water would heat in summer to the point of being oxygen deficient. It also varied between highly saline and fresh. The TCC is trialling a range of water quality initiatives, with apparent success. Being a tropical area, one challenge was to deal with the first flush of a major event, especially after low rainfall periods, while also maintaining water quality at other times. Initiatives included use of floating buoys carrying activated carbon to absorb organic material, use of a swimming pool filter for aeration and cleansing, a floating litter boom, a baffle system to restrain sediments while allowing water to pass through, and maximal use of biomass as biofilters of excess nutrients. Inflowing water runs over rocks as a means to improve aeration. The TCC is also experimenting in conjunction with the Department of Primary Industries with the use of mullet to aid water quality.
One interesting feature was the attitude of local residents, who naturally wished not to have a stagnant pond at their doorsteps, or to be flooded in major events, but who also argued for a neatly manicured grassed area rather than a biomass of reeds, even though they would be a better practical option for both nutrient removal and flood mitigation.
Finally, the Committee was shown the Louisa Creek project, towards which the TCC received some $500,000 of NHT Clean Seas funding. The Creek is a semi-natural waterway which flows through both industrial and residential areas. The Creek also flows directly under the major airport flight path, which means that increased risk of birdstrike has had to be avoided in any attempt to remediate wetlands. TCC sees the Louisa Creek project as a practical chance to study the practice of mitigating urban run-off in a tropical low-lying catchment and to investigate innovative solutions to stormwater pollutant treatment under various scientific, political and social paradigms for managing waterways. A key issue was that site conditions and land availability ruled out use of conventional wetlands and gross pollutant traps (GPTs).
To seek to ensure maximum efficiency and cost reduction, TCC adopted a treatment train approach for the entire length of the creek under its jurisdiction, with a combination of off-stream and in-stream pollutant treatment systems. Two sites in particular, in light industrial sub-catchments at Camuglia and Greg Jabs Court, were selected for the construction of innovative pollution control systems. While intended as experimental, they were first passed by both the Commonwealth’s Technical Advisory Panel and the Council’s own engineering/environmental consultants.
The Committee was shown the project at several locations, the detail of which would be too voluminous to include in this report. It included elements of formal 335 engineering works, vegetative repair of the riparian corridor, and in-stream improvements such as rock ripples to aid aeration. It was an interesting response to the perceived need to manage water quality when it was considered most at risk, in the middle to late dry season, and immediately prior to the ‘first flush’ when accumulated pollutants were mobilised and transported downstream. While some attention is being paid to treating the large volumes of run-off generated in the wet season, TCC formulated the view that it is the low flows that most need to be addressed for overall environment protection. While not stated in these terms, it is assumed that the thinking is that the Great Barrier Reef was unaffected by high flows before urbanisation, but that it is the effects of urbanisation which need to be mitigated.
One clear lesson from the project is the benefit of protection of a whole system - including land and water use policies for contiguous and surrounding sites - rather than simply addressing components of it, such as the construction of ‘end of pipe’ wetlands prior to discharge. Also, it is clear that only the more wealthy councils will attempt such projects without financial assistance. Apart from the project’s direct cost, TCC has foregone revenue from land sales and rate revenue to ensure the project’s viability.
In summation, the Committee was informed by the TCC that little research had been conducted on stormwater quality issues in tropical urban catchments and that it was leading the way in this respect. The information it is gathering will be of value to all councils, and to community and environmental/engineering groups. Much of its research is through trial and error, with a view to identifying which approaches are successful, and which are not. Its work is intended to provide the scientific evidence to support the development of management solutions to tropical urban and industrial run- off. It is seeking to develop modular systems, where different proven approaches can be applied at different sites - rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
The Committee was impressed with the commitment of TCC’s elected representatives and officers. Perhaps even more significantly, TCC’s willingness to experiment and to confront the consequences of failure is, in public life, both brave and refreshing. 4 April 2002 - Brisbane A planned visit to the Luggage Point sewage treatment plant had to be cancelled at short notice when an incident in the immediately preceding days led to the plant’s closure to visitors. Instead, the Committee’s host, Mr Ralph Woolley, Senior Program Officer, Technology for the Brisbane City Council (BCC) made alternate arrangements for the Committee to inspect the Chandler Recycling and Waste Transfer Station and the Gibson Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Chandler Recycling and Waste Transfer Station At Chandler, the Committee was met by Mr David Solley, a Senior Engineer with Brisbane Water, and Mr Evangelos Callipolitis, Supervisor of the Landfill Remediation section, and several of their colleagues, where the Committee was shown 336 efforts to remediate a former landfill for use as a public park, including a criterion bike track, the roads for which would be used to help to trap stormwater.
As part of the remediation, the site had had installed a complex of drains and gas wells before being capped, the former to capture both stormwater and leachate and the latter the methane gas arising from the fill’s decomposition. The Committee inspected the on-site leachate treatment plant, which extracts nitrogen and other elements, before discharging the effluent.
The Committee was told that BCC had hopes to contract with the nearby Chandler swimming pool complex to use the methane for providing fuel for its heating requirements and for surplus power to be loaded into the main power grid. The surplus methane gas is currently flared, which is considered to have less harmful greenhouse effects than its release in gaseous form.
Gibson Island Wastewater Treatment Plant The Committee arrived at Gibson Island after normal closing time and is grateful to Messrs Graham Chapman and Duncan Taylor for their willingness to await the Committee’s arrival despite the relatively short notice of the planned visit. The $40 million plant is fully automated and only four staff are required to monitor its computers, although officers of Council’s Scientific Services Branch regularly take samples of the wastewater at various treatment stages to keep track of plant performance and the chemical make-up of the effluent. It treats mainly domestic sewage from Brisbane’s southern suburbs, received by gravity feed in a specifically constructed $19 million 25 kilometre sewer pipeline.
In 1960 only 38 per cent of Brisbane properties were sewered. That figure is now 97 per cent. Gibson Island is one of several wastewater plants built by the Brisbane City Council in the past 20 years, and its current Stage One is designed to treat waste from a population of around 150,000 residents.
Treatment involves both a primary fine screening to remove all the silt and solids from the sewage and a secondary biological removal of the lighter suspended solids, fats and dissolved organic matter. Gibson Island differs from other major BCC sewage treatment plants by its use of screens to remove heavy or solid matter, rather than primary settling tanks. The treatment includes an extended period of aeration of the sewage and ‘activated sludge’ mixture in a race-track shaped series of channels (called oxidation ditches), before the treated effluent is discharged into the river through an underwater outfall. Sludge not recycled within the process has the excess water removed and the solids waste are transported to landfill.
The Royal Brisbane Golf Club takes a small amount of treated effluent for use on its grounds - which it takes responsibility for chlorinating. Mr Chapman indicated that the effluent discharged into the river is not chlorinated because the river is not considered to have a recreational use, although he expressed a personal preference for ultra violent disinfection rather than chlorination. 337
5 April 2002 - Brisbane The Committee spent the whole day on site visits in the Brisbane area. It commenced the day travelling down the Brisbane River from the South Bank Jetty and then across Moreton Bay on The Moreton, use of which had been donated by the Queensland Department of Transport. The Committee records its appreciation to the boat’s captain, Mr John Bensley, and his crew for their cooperation.
The Committee was accompanied by Dr Eva Abal, Scientific Coordinator of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership, Ms Diane Tarte, the Partnership’s Community, Industry and Government Liaison officer, and Ms Ursula Kerr, Principal Waterways Program Officer in the BCC’s Urban Management Division, which developed the Brisbane River Corridor Management Plan. The Committee observed the several industrial and residential developments and stormwater drain outfalls along the route.
Dr Abal maintained a commentary on water quality issues and, in particular, demonstrated turbidity at several points. One of her principal concerns was the effects of urbanisation and turbidity on the health of seagrass beds on which the Bay’s dugong population relied. She clearly demonstrated by reference to the Sechi turbidity measure that water quality in the river, and even close to its mouth at Moreton Bay, falls below accepted standards for seagrass growth.
Ms Kerr outlined the key elements of the Brisbane River Corridor Management Plan, a comprehensive BCC program to develop a holistic approach to balancing the economic, transport and residential needs of the community with the protection and restoration of the river. The Plan is too comprehensive to detail here, given that it includes recreational, transport and cultural elements, as well as water quality measures. Some of the elements intended to improve river health include: $17 million to upgrade nitrogen removal at the Luggage Point Treatment Plant, the installation of over 30 Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) around the city to stop rubbish and sediment from entering the waterways, actions taken to reduce sediment and run-off from building sites, and the launch of a community education program based on the theme Improving our waterways from Backyard to Bay.
Brisbane City Council water management projects Upon arrival at Manly Boat Harbour, the Committee was met by Mr Stuart Hoverman, Principal Waterways Program Officer in the BCC’s Urban Management Division. Mr Hoverman escorted the Committee to a number of the stormwater projects of which Ms Kerr had spoken. He indicated that BCC had imposed a 0.5 per cent environmental levy on ratepayers which had provided much of the necessary funding for the projects which the Committee would inspect, although some support had been received from the NHT’s Coasts and Clean Seas program.
The first site was the newly completed Bowie’s Flat wetland in the suburb of Bridgewater. It was a constructed wetland on a site which had previously consisted of two traditional concrete culverts. Mr Hoverman stressed that, while the concrete 338 culverts were designed with a view to getting rid of stormwater as quickly as possible, the principle behind constructed wetlands is to slow the flow of water to enable vegetation to filter the system. The Bowie’s Flat wetland train commences with a gross pollutant trap to collect litter, vegetation and sediment from neighbourhood run- off, followed by a series of shallow ponds to, firstly, capture coarse particles of sand and soil, before the water passes through wetland plants where fine particles and microscopic nutrients are trapped. The wetland is kept to a maximum depth of one metre to ensure plant growth. Cleaner water, and in heavy rain excess water, flows into Norman Creek, the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay.
Despite its functionality, the site is an attractive amenity for local residents, who were heavily consulted during the planning stages. Even the potential threat of mosquitos had been overcome with the presence of fish - despite none having been introduced. A problem common to such developments – not only SQIDS – is that the contents of the GPT and the course sediments need to be regularly removed to retain the site’s effectiveness. Mr Hoverman noted that all such works are budgeted for.
The next project was in the new housing development of Windamere, in the suburb of Jindalee. The construction of a wetland along the creek in the centre of the housing development had been a BCC requirement in its DA approval, although BCC has accepted ongoing maintenance responsibility. The wetland was based on a natural design concept with water flowing over gravel and rocks and through reed beds. Mr Hoverman noted – and it was a point that was to be often heard by the Committee during later inspections – that real estate agents had suggested that the presence of the wetland had added 20 percent to the value of the houses. The only residual concern was the possibility of snakes taking refuge in the reed beds.
The Committee then briefly inspected the Keith Boden Wetlands in Cressy Street. This was similar in design concept to the Bowie Flat wetland, although some three and a half years old. It receives stormwater from two major channels, parts of which had been buried to improve the amenity of the immediate area. Situated in the middle of a parkland and readily accessible by cycleways, Mr Hoverman noted that the site was a popular spot for families, which it is hard to imagine would have been the case if the stormwater had been a trickle in the bottom of a concrete culvert. The considerable number of ducks present in the area was also a vote of confidence in the health of the system.
In summary the Committee records its high regard for the efforts of the Brisbane City Council. As with most local government authorities, it clearly has a long history of water quality neglect to address, but it has certainly made an impressive start. 339
19 April 2002 - Sydney The Committee spent the whole day on site visits in the Sydney area.
Sydney’s Sustainable House It commenced by visiting 58 Myrtle Street, Chippendale, the home of Mr Michael Mobbs, his partner Ms Heather Armstrong, and their two children. What is special about the house is that Mr Mobbs has adapted an otherwise ordinary terrace house built in a suburb of inner Sydney in the 1890s into what has come to be known as Sydney’s Sustainable House - a house almost entirely self-sufficient in electricity, water and waste disposal. A comprehensive description of the house is given in the book Sustainable House: Living for our future, first published in 1998 as A Choice Book by the Australian Consumers’ Association.
Mr Mobbs showed the Committee over the main features of the house. Of most significance to the Committee’s inquiry, all stormwater and sewage is retained on site, the former for potable and personal bathing purposes and the latter recycled for non- potable uses such as garden watering and toilet flushing. A first flush water diverter was installed at a cost of only $40. One of Mr Mobbs’ regrets is that he has to pump all water, having failed to get a neighbour’s agreement to install a water tank in the roof, which also means that water supply is a problem when there is an energy failure. The back garden includes a small wastewater treatment system and a miniature wetland, which Mr Mobbs estimates prevents 100,000 litres of sewage going into the Harbour each year.
The house is in a heritage conservation area and from the outside looks much like the others in the terrace. And it includes the standard appliances of modern life. The Committee congratulates Mr Mobbs on his efforts and, while noting that his vision may not be to everyone’s tastes, he has proven what can be achieved with a bit of ingenuity and a lot of determination.
Sydney Coastal Councils Group/Mosman Municipal Council
The Committee then visited Mosman and Balmoral Beach as guests of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and Mosman Municipal Council. The Committee was met by Councillor Jim Reid, Mayor of Mosman Municipal Council, Councillor Patricia Harvey, Chair of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group, and several Council officers. The Committee inspected developments below the Mosman Wharf road, which are the culmination of an extensive drainage re-alignment of the 70 hectare (largely heavily treed) catchment from an original seven drains – five of which were capped – into the current two which were natural watercourses. SQIDS have been installed on both outlets to minimise the flow of litter and sediments into the Harbour.
Mr Paul Davis, Council’s Senior Design Engineer, pointed out that the two GPTs, one using netting and the other a screen, had proven extremely effective in capturing, in particular, the large amounts of leaf litter which were once washed downstream, especially in high rainfall events. He noted that the traps required regular cleaning and that there had been problems when blockages had occurred. 340
The Committee was then shown two of the three CDS units at Balmoral Beach. The Committee was joined by Council General Manager, Mr Vic May. The first unit, set into the gutter in the road above the beach, had effectively eliminated surface rubbish from reaching the Harbour. Councillor Reid noted that the unit cost some $200,000 but that its cost was offset against reduced street sweeping and associated waste removal costs. Some concerns were expressed about its operation, including anaerobic breakdown and the need, every couple of years, to pump out all the sediments which are not caught by the emptying grab mechanism.
The second CDS unit at Balmoral South was the first installed in NSW in 1995 at the bargain price of $40,000. It was installed at the end of a reconstructed creek bed which fed stormwater from hinterland bushland and which carried considerable sediment and leaf litter into the Harbour.
It was stressed that the community had been fully consulted in these processes, which gave it a sense of ownership in its success. Councillor Reid told the Committee that the waters off Balmoral were observably cleaner for swimming in than surrounding areas - but that, of course, his Council could do nothing about pollution from nearby areas.
Over lunch in the Council Chamber, apart from receiving a warm welcoming speech by Councillor Reid, the Committee was shown a powerpoint display of the Council’s stormwater management program by Mr Davis. The Committee was informed that Council had, with almost unanimous community support, and the requisite approval of the State Government, imposed a 5 per cent environmental levy onto residents’ rates to fund a program called the Community Environmental Contract (CEC). The levy is projected to generate $6.8 million and is complemented by an additional $2.2 million in grant monies. One project, the Taylors Bay Stormwater Project, had received funding under the NHT’s Coast and Clean Seas Program, and from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as well as the CEC.
The Council had shown its commitment to the program by establishing inter- departmental and inter-organisational project teams to ensure a cooperative approach. The Council had adopted a flexible approach, using both structural and non-structural solutions. The construction of 13 SQIDS, creek restoration and stormwater diversion were examples of the former approach, with some 50 per cent of Mosman’s catchments now draining through SQIDS, while a comprehensive education campaign, development controls and legislative enforcement were components of the latter. The community now closely identifies with the ‘Mosman CEC’ name and concept.
The success of the program was summarised as being based on: strategic planning; use of multi-disciplinary project teams; use of an integrated approach to stormwater management using structural and non-structural controls; the support of politicians, staff and the community; an innovative approach to funding; and cooperation between all levels of Government. 341
Councillor Reid noted that he had originally taken some persuading about the merits of the program, but that he is now one of its staunchest advocates. This echoed a message that the Committee was to hear with regularity - that a successful program is dependent on a high level of commitment from its political leaders and staff. Mosman Municipal Council obviously has this in abundance.
Sydney Olympic Park The Committee then visited the Sydney Olympic Park complex at Homebush Bay. It was met by Mr Warwick Proctor, Director, Asset Management of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA - formerly known as the Olympic Co-ordinating Authority) and Nicole Campbell, the Authority’s Environmental Policy Manager. The visit commenced with a boardroom and powerpoint presentation in the Homebush Bay Visitor’s Centre in Herb Elliott Avenue, before the Committee undertook a quick tour of the Park’s water recycling facilities.
The Committee was informed that, while the original tender document for the construction of the site included prescribed environmental objectives, of which water quality was but one element, tenderers had put forward numerous imaginative suggestions. The philosophical underpinnings had been: a commitment to environmentally sustainable development; the minimisation of sewage and stormwater; the optimisation of recycled water; and minimal use of water of drinking quality standard. While Mr Proctor gave the Committee a considerable insight into the historical context, the outcome was the Water Reclamation and Management Scheme (WRAMS), which was the first integrated water management scheme of its type in Australia. It provides recycled water to residential, commercial and sporting facilities in the neighbouring suburb of Newington (connected in April 2001) and Sydney Olympic Park and is both a showpiece and model for managing water resources in an urban environment.
The main elements of WRAMS are: a water reclamation plant to harvest water from sewage; a water storage reservoir in the former brickpit to provide extra water for treatment when demand is high; a water treatment plant to filter and disinfect effluent from the reclamation plant and stormwater from storage; and a separate, dedicated supply system, to pipe water from the treatment plant to the sporting venues, parks and to Newington. WRAMS is complemented by other water saving initiatives, such as rainwater collection systems at Stadium Australia and the main arena of Sydney Showground, and the use in all new developments of such water saving devices as low volume toilet flushing systems to reduce demand on water. The grounds are planted with Australian native plants that require very little extra water.
The Water Treatment Plant, which can treat up to seven million litres of water per day from the Water Reclamation Plant and the brickpit reservoir uses two processes: continuous micro-filtration to remove all particles larger than 0.2 microns, and reverse osmosis to reduce salinity. It is then disinfected by chlorine. The Committee was shown a sample of the membrane filtration technology which has the advantage that it can act as a disinfectant by mechanically removing all colloids, bacteria, large viruses and protozoa cysts. 342
The recycled water is pumped from the treatment plant back to Newington and the Park’s major venues and facilities and used where potable water is not required, such as for toilet flushing, irrigation, firefighting, washing cars and construction and industry. It is not intended for drinking, cooking, personal bathing, swimming or for washing clothes.
The price at which recycled water is sold to customers is currently set at about 15 per cent below the standard drinking water price by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which will be reviewed in conjunction with its periodic review of drinking water prices. This price of 78 cents per kilolitre is well below SOPA’s operating cost of $1.40 per kilolitre, which also compares unfavourably with average traditional operating costs of about $1.00 per kilolitre.
During their presentation, Mr Proctor and Ms Campbell noted that there had been some issues between SOPA and State authorities, many of a jurisdictional nature. For example, Sydney Water still charges rates to properties included in the WRAMS scheme on the basis that it still needs to maintain back-up systems in case of a system failure by WRAMS. It is also clear, however, that being the agency responsible for hosting the Olympics had given them some considerable clout to get regulations passed in a timely manner which might otherwise still be being debated.
The Committee congratulates the NSW Government and SOPA for their achievements. The granting of several awards to OCA/SOPA, such as RiverCare 2000 (State Government Category) and the 2001 Banksia Environmental Award (Infrastructure and Services), are testimony to the high regard in which the WRAMS scheme is held by industry experts. SOPA was, incidentally, also awarded the 2000 Gold Banksia Environmental Award for its work in protecting the Green and Golden Bell Frog at Homebush Bay.
While it is clear that the reuse aspect of the project is not justifiable on a straight economic basis, its cost disadvantage over conventional infrastructure may disappear if the true cost of environmental externalities and other surcharges is taken into account. The overall environmental performance of the scheme includes a reduction of demand for potable water by over 50 per cent, a reduction in sewage discharge by 850ML per year, and a reduction in stormwater pollution by 70 – 90 per cent when compared to traditional urban stormwater runoff. The resulting improvements in water quality in Sydney’s rivers and the Pacific Ocean is an obvious environmental benefit which should be taken into account.
Sydney airport/Botany Bay area The Committee had planned to undertake a tour of the Botany Bay area as a guest of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. Because of the late hour, arrangements were made for a briefing to be given instead.
The briefing was conducted in the boardroom of Sydney Airports Corporation Limited, at Level 10 of the Airport Central Building in O’Reardon Street, Mascot. The Committee was met by Ms Lisa Smith, the Corporation’s Manager, Environment 343 and Community, who gave a brief overview of water management at the airport. The boardroom looked south over the runways and Botany Bay, which considerably assisted the Committee’s understanding of the briefings. Ms Smith provided the Committee with two documents: Sydney Airport 1998-2000 Report on Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability and Towards Sustainability,a summary report of the first report. Those reports suggest that the Corporation is paying due regard to the triple bottom line concept, and not simply focussing on economic outcomes.
Ms Smith noted that water management was undertaken under Commonwealth statute, in particular the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations. Sydney airport has two unique water management issues: runway stormwater runoff and aircraft sewage disposal.
The runways have no formal stormwater system. The majority of rainwater simply runs into the adjacent lawned areas where it is absorbed. Water otherwise drains into Botany Bay through the Mill Stream, Cooks River or Alexandra Canal. Ms Smith assured the Committee that tests had shown that local creeks carrying urban runoff were more contaminated than runoff from the airport. There is more risk of contamination around the terminals, but an automated hydrocarbon filter system monitors discharges and in the event of a spill, cuts off stormwater egress from the site. Most routine spills are cleaned up by the Spill Response Team, while the Airport Emergency Plan is triggered by a major hydrocarbon spill situation. The runways are also swept twice daily and scrubbed periodically to collect rubber traces.
Sewage off the aircraft raises a quarantine issue and it is delivered off-site to a special trade waste plant for treatment. Non-quarantine waste is disposed of to landfill.
The Committee was then briefed by Mr Jim Colman, consultant to Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) SSROC on the Botany Bay Program (BBP). Mr Colman’s curriculum vitae demonstrated his longstanding expertise in major projects of this nature. He gave the Committee a copy of The Tide is Turning, the December 2001 report by SSROC on the BBP, an 18-month project funded under the NHT’s Coasts and Clean Seas Program. Botany Bay is Sydney’s ‘second harbour’ with a waterway area of 80 sq km, and catchment of 1100 sq km - which covers a third of the area of metropolitan Sydney. Apart from its role as Sydney’s primary maritime facility, it also provides a setting for aquatic recreation, tourism, industry, housing, commercial and recreational fishing, flora and fauna habitats and public open space.
The report updated the information contained in the July 2001 discussion paper entitled Turning the Tide, which SSCROC had already provided as part of its submission to the Committee’s inquiry. That Discussion Paper presented for public comment, documents the results of the first 12 months of work on the BBP.
The final report represents an integrated and whole-of-government environmental strategy for the Bay, with a view to ensuring that future development and facility expansion is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The project had grown out of community and governmental concerns about what was 344 seen as a continuing decline in the environmental health of Botany Bay and its catchment, with the Botany Bay Basin having been described by the NSW Ministry for Environment Control as an ‘environmentally overstressed region’ as early as 1973.
The main trigger to action was the July 1998 State of the Bay report, a report compiled by a working party of Bay councils, which had highlighted the lack of a Bay-focussed management regime and included historical evidence of the Bay’s steady environmental deterioration. That report had concluded that better planning and management of the Bay was vital if its environment was to be improved, and that it was the responsibility of all three tiers of government and the community at large to take action. In November 2001 the NSW Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Georges River - Botany Bay System (the Healthy Rivers Commission) had also recommended that the Bay be subject to an integrated decision-making framework, while at the same time the Southern Sydney Catchment Management Board was working on a draft catchment management strategy.
Mr Colman briefed the Committee on the project and its major findings. He drew particular attention to the implementation of a recommendation which called for the establishment of a Botany Bay Studies Unit at the University of New South Wales, which would provide a focus for relevant research in the physical and social sciences.
He also stressed the finding that, while the State Government had in 1998 established the Office of Sydney Harbour Manager within the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Botany Bay and its catchment had no such ‘champion’ – a designated organisation whose sole concern is the Bay’s environmental welfare. Some 15 State agencies, 21 local councils and three federal bodies are involved in activities which have direct or indirect implications for management of the catchment. Who is responsible for what is not necessarily a question that is easily answered, and a Botany Bay ‘supremo’ may be able to cut though the bureaucratic maze.
Mr Colman concluded by commenting favourably on the long-term nature of the NHT funding, although he had clearly been perplexed by some of the bureaucratic accountability processes. 22 April 2002 - Bendigo The Committee spent the whole day visiting water management projects in Bendigo.
Coliban Region Water Authority Coliban Water was established in 1992 as the Victorian Government’s State-owned water and wastewater business for North Central Victoria and is based in Bendigo. Its service area is some 16,500 sq kms, with a population of 130,000, and includes 55 towns or service areas. The services provided include water treatment, water harvesting and storage, urban and rural water supply, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. It also provides trade waste disposal services to a large number of businesses, including milk processors, abattoirs, food processors, major laundries, saleyards and a tannery. 345
Sandhurst Water Treatment Plant
The Committee commenced its visit at the newly constructed $50 million Sandhurst Water Treatment Plant in Kangaroo Flat and was met by Coliban Water’s Chief Executive, Mr Geoff Mitchell, and Vivendi Water operational personnel. The plant was due to become fully operational at the end of the month – so the Committee’s visit could not have been more timely in terms of seeing the very latest technology.
Sandhurst is the largest component of Coliban Water’s $80 million AQUA construction project to bring a high quality water supply to the 110,000 residents of Bendigo, Castlemaine and Kyneton. The former Kennett Government had provided $61 million as part of a program to improve water quality in provincial areas. Adjacent to the Plant is the Sandhurst Reservoir, a new 40 megalitre covered clear water storage reservoir, also constructed as part of the AQUA project. All Bendigo’s water is supplied via the Coliban Main Channel from the Upper Coliban, Lauriston and Malmsbury Reservoirs near Kyneton, although some water is also pumped from Lake Eppalock.
The project is being undertaken through a Public-Private Partnership arrangement (also referred to as a BOOT contract: Build-Own-Operate-Transfer) between Coliban Water and international water company, Vivendi Water, using leading edge, Australian developed microfiltration technology. Under the BOOT contract, Vivendi develop and operate the infrastructure before handing it back to Coliban Water after 25 years.
The Plant had proven a popular destination for international water supply practitioners attending the IWA World Water Congress in Melbourne only two weeks earlier, although it was stressed that such technology was only suitable for use in a large scale plant.
The visit commenced with a powerpoint description of the Plant’s operations before the Committee was shown over its main features. The microfiltration technology was similar to the type shown to the Committee by the Sydney Olympic Park Authority, although its use here in a fully submerged environment is claimed to be a world first.
The Committee will not attempt to give a comprehensive description of the Plant’s technical operations. It is a fully automated process using a SCADA computer system. The raw water is subject to a higher than standard level of screening, based on perceived need over a 25 year period, before passing through the microfiltration cells. It then is subjected to another barrier against viruses and cysts such as giardia and cryptosporidium, and treated with ozone and biologically activated carbon filtration to remove any unpleasant taste and odour. It is dosed at various stages with chemicals such as lime, ammonia and chlorine, and fluoridation was to commence in the near future. Not unexpectedly, the final product exceeds the standards set by the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council. 346
Coliban Water Head Office
Over lunch at Coliban Water’s offices, the Committee held informal discussions with Mr Mitchell and Executive Manger, Planning, Mr Greg Sheehan, and a couple of their colleagues. Coliban Water had been subject to a price reduction of 21 per cent in 1998 and a subsequent three years price freeze. During 2000-01 there was a price determination process across the whole Victorian water sector, with approved increases of 4.9 per cent for 2001-02, CPI plus 1 per cent for 2002-03, and CPI only for 2003-04.
Among other matters discussed were the impact of the National Competition Policy agenda, the risk transfer element of BOOT contracts, the perverse incentive to privatised water companies to seek to sell more water in preference to conservation, and Coliban Water’s demand management measures. The point was made that water supply is sufficiently reliable that water conservation is not yet seen as a dramatic issue. It was also noted that the improved water supply will assist the area’s commercial and industrial development and, for example, it was noted that the Bendigo Hospital was already making savings on the cost of replacing filters.
Bendigo Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Committee then conducted a brief inspection of the Bendigo Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by Coliban Water. It was told that when built 12 years ago its biological nutrient removal plant had been the first of the type in use in Australia. Consideration is now being given to its upgrade to meet new EPA Licence requirements. Construction of an additional tertiary treatment plant to remove more phosphorous by subjecting existing effluent to further filtration and ultraviolet disinfection was just being commenced. The project was expected to cost about $4.8 million.
City of Greater Bendigo The Committee then visited the offices of the City of Greater Bendigo, where it was met by the Mayor, Councillor Willi Carney, Mr David Beard, Director of Infrastructure Services, and Mr Anthony Sheean, Community Environment Officer.
The visit commenced with a brief introduction to water issues in Bendigo. The City of Greater Bendigo has a population of about 87,000 people and an area of 3020 sq kms. It services a diverse mix of urban and rural communities. The Committee was told that Bendigo is not confronted with any great water supply problem, and that there is even scope for increased irrigation use. It has an issue, however, with the re- use of water for non-potable purposes – especially in relation to the need for compliance with EPA and health regulations. The community had expressed strong opposition to re-use of treated sewage. In principle, the City does not disapprove of the use of water tanks, or of on-site greywater use, subject to meeting the mandated requirements.
Harcourt Park 347
The Committee then visited Harcourt Park in the suburb of Strathdale, where it was met by Chief Executive Officer of Peter Harcourt Services Association Inc, Mr Paul Kirkpatrick. The Committee was accompanied by Councillor Carney and Messrs Beard and Sheean.
Peter Harcourt Services is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation providing day programs and supported employment services to over 150 people with disabilities in Bendigo and surrounding areas.
Harcourt Park, which opened its Stage 1 in October 2001, is a community environmental park focusing on the achievements of people with a disability. It has the joint aims of providing a venue for people with a disability to gain agricultural and horticultural skills, and as a site that can demonstrate to the community – such as school groups – the merits of sustainable agricultural, environmental and energy techniques practiced in an urban environment. Harcourt Park has received support and financial assistance from many community and charitable groups, as well as grants from State programs and Centenary of Federation funding. The City of Greater Bendigo is heavily involved in a community partnership with Peter Harcourt Services and has, for example, undertaken major infrastructure design and construction works.
The Committee was given an outline of future plans and then shown over the site by Mr Kirkpatrick. Of particular relevance for the Committee, a creek catching the stormwater for a relatively large area flows through the site and, like all creeks in Bendigo at some stage, it had been mined for alluvial gold. Prior to the Harcourt Park development the stormwater had been largely unmanaged. Considerable attention had been paid to the creek’s reconstruction, with the inclusion of a chain of wetland ponds to help purify stormwater entering the creek, and an extensive reed bed around a stone filled trench to capture nutrients. Given its flood prone nature, all buildings and intensive work areas are sited above the flood zone. Greywater from the Amenities building, and nutrient rich runoff from the worm farm and animal stalls, were also directed through the reed beds for primary treatment.
The Committee applauds the vision of both Peter Harcourt Services and the City of Greater Bendigo for initiating this project. While still in its early stages at the time of its visit, the Committee could see that it will prove to be of great benefit not only to those who are employed in the complex but also to the residents of the city of Bendigo as a valuable educational resource.
White Hills Botanic Gardens
The Committee then inspected the White Hills Botanic Gardens, where it was told of the City’s plans to construct a wetland on Bendigo Creek. The Gardens are an attractive and well-maintained facility and which, based on the Committee’s observations of wetlands elsewhere, will be significantly enhanced by the proposal. Councillor Carney conceded that the site was somewhat restricted, but that they hoped to achieve up to a 70 per cent solution. 348
The proposed wetland development is a joint project between the City of Greater Bendigo and the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA). This is because the council has various responsibilities as a drainage authority under the Local Government Act and other State legislation, while the NCCMA is responsible for the care and wellbeing of the rivers and streams and their respective catchments.
NCCMA had submitted an application for a grant under the Victorian Government’s Stormwater Action Program (VSAP). It seemed that a decision on funding was the final step before the project could proceed.
City of Greater Bendigo offices
The Committee then returned to the offices of the City of Greater Bendigo, where it was formally welcomed by the Mayor before being shown a slides presentation by Mr Beard. He outlined the urban water management issues facing the City Council and its plans to address them. The Council has developed a Stormwater Management Plan, which is a prerequisite to gaining VSAP funding. In any case, it complies with council’s corporate goal of achieving efficient and sustainable management of stormwater. Once again, the Committee sensed the great enthusiasm of both elected representatives and Council officers as seen in visits to other councils, but there was also an element of frustration at the constraints. Funding was, not surprisingly, one of the issues, with a State Government dollar-for-dollar program concluding after three years, with Councils expected to find all future funding, and the grant monies having to be shared with the local Catchment Management Authority. Lack of clarity over Council’s and the EPA’s respective responsibilities was also noted.
Ms Suzanne Milne, an officer of the City’s Health Department, then attended to answer some questions from the Committee on policies on domestic greywater re-use and rainwater tanks. Interestingly given the comment above, Ms Milne stated that industrial re-use is an EPA responsibility, while councils are responsible for projects at the domestic level. She then referred to an EPA Information Bulletin issued in November 2001 entitled Domestic Wastewater Management Series – Reuse options for household wastewater. The Bulletin had been issued by the EPA in recognition that the State is experiencing increasing pressure on its finite water resources and because the community is showing increasing interest in water conservation. The Bulletin states that while there are no specific local or State government controls on household diversion systems, the wastewater reuse must not create a public health hazard, an environmental hazard or a nuisance. Thus householders can divert greywater for reuse, provide they obtain consents from the relevant authorities and use a licensed/registered plumber to carry out the works.
Ms Milne noted that, under the State Environment Protection Policy wastewater disposal in sewered areas must be via the sewer. The Bulletin sets out standards for approval of effluent reuse schemes that meet the objective of ‘sustainably protects human health and the environment, with a risk level equal to (or less) than that associated with discharging to sewer’ – and then notes that water balance calculations have indicated that it is not possible to reuse the entire wastewater flow from a 349 household on typical urban allotments in Victoria. Hence the policy largely applies only to unsewered housing.
Ms Milne noted that several of the newer housing developments are unsewered and Council examines about 200 septic tank installations each year. She noted that there are a number of packaged greywater treatment plants – costing around $6000-8000 – which have EPA certification. Approvals take account of considerations such as soil type, topography, size of dwelling and size of block, but must meet minimum water output standards. Ms Milne made particular mention of the potentially adverse effects on neighbours of using untreated greywater. Anyone allowing their greywater to enter adjoining properties may be exposed to civil liabilities associated with private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
In relation to rainwater tanks, Ms Milne advised that the health department has no restrictions on their use – but that the planning department may have concerns about larger ones. She also added that saltwater swimming pools are discouraged because of salinity concerns, while backwash is required to go to sewer.
In summary, once again the Committee has met representatives of a local government authority which is concerned about urban water management and committed to addressing it from a sustainability perspective. The Committee congratulates Councillor Carney for her leadership and vision, and her officials for their enthusiasm in seeking solutions. 24 April 2002 - Melbourne The Committee spent the whole day on site visits in the Melbourne area. It was accompanied by Mr Peter Scott, Melbourne Water’s Group Manager, Science and Technology.
Collex Pty Ltd The Committee visited the Collex facility in the suburb of Brooklyn. It was met by Dr Ray Spokas, Engineering & Environmental Services Manager, and Mr Grahame Sturzaker, Manager Liquid Division. The Committee was briefed about the facility’s role and functions before being given a brief tour.
Collex, which is part of the global Vivendi Environment Group, is Victoria’s largest front lift and roll-on waste transporter. The Brooklyn facility is one of the company’s six Australian liquid treatment plants, which specialise in industrial wastes including grease trap waste and food sludges, organic sludges, hydrocarbon based waste, phenol contaminated water, acids, alkalines, paint, resins, inks and dyes, adhesives, wash waters, and hazardous liquid spills.
Dr Spokas noted that they take in 1.2 to 1.5 million litres of effluent each week. Simple liquid waste is generally dealt with in on-site facilities, and it is only the more problematic materials which get delivered to Brooklyn. Once treated, the material is either sent to sewer or to landfill in cake form. He highlighted the fact that their 350
Victorian facilities are too old to burn flammable solvents, which are sent to Collex facilities in NSW and Gladstone.
He noted that the discharge water is put through several processes, including the addition of lime to extract heavy metals. He noted that salt – such as sodium chloride – is an unwanted by-product of these processes. The salt can be extracted, but then there arises a problem of its disposal, with the landfill option ruled out because of the leaching concern. At present it ends up at the Werribee Water Treatment Plant where, at least, it gets diluted before disposal in the ocean. Dr Spokas described it as a huge problem with no obvious solution. He also noted that ammonia and photographic waste is another problem area, creating excess nitrogen. Extracting the ammonia is feasible but, in the absence of a market for ammonia is uneconomic, and Werribee receives additional nitrogen as a result.
Victoria only has two landfills for industrial waste, both of which will be full in only another three years, which is an issue for the Victorian Government to address. Dr Spokas told the Committee about the success of a recent Collex project at the Qenos plant in Altona. Qenos is a global plastics and rubber business, which requires the sludge in its sedimentation pond to be cleaned periodically. When last cleaned in 1990, the sludge was treated with bulking stabilisation material before being disposed of to landfill. The process had emitted high levels of odour from the ammonia waste. In 2000 Collex developed a pumping system attached to a submerged hydrozer, the removed waste being transferred to a sludge treatment decanting unit, which reduced the sludge volume, mainly water, by 70 per cent. The remaining 30 per cent dry-cake, containing an estimated 18 tonnes of copper, was sent for recycling to Pasminco Smelter at Port Pirie. Not only was the copper recovered, but a major reduction in landfill was achieved.
Dr Spokas indicated that Collex had spent millions of dollars researching the calorific energy that can be gained from trade waste, and despite it being found to have some three times the value of brown coal, little industrial interest has been shown while landfill disposal remains relatively cheap. He indicated that it would be ideal for use in a lime kiln, where the high temperatures would negate any air pollution problems.
Collex had also mooted a green waste composting system with Coles and Woolworths. The latter company simply opted for landfill, again on economic grounds.
The Committee is grateful to Dr Spokas and Mr Sturzaker for their frank assessment of some of the problems involved in industrial waste disposal. Price is clearly the biggest impediment to best practice, while companies can legally dump wastes cheaply at landfill rather than pay the cost of proper remediation. It appears that companies like Collex have the capacity to, at least, try to deal with the worst of contemporary industrial excesses, but there is a lack of incentive to ensure that high- tech recycling operations are viable. There are clearly some major challenges ahead for both industry and government to address. 351
Cairnlea The Committee then visited the Cairnlea Land Sales Centre, a residential estate being developed by the Urban and Regional Land Corporation (URLC) on the 460 hectare site of the Department of Defence’s former Albion explosives factory in Deer Park. The project is significant for the extent to which it incorporates elements of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The Committee was met by Mr Doug Vallance, the Cairnlea Project Manager, Ms Barbara Mitrevski, Project Manager, and Ms Lynn Betts, a Land Sales Consultant. The Committee was also met by Mr Bernie Porter, Project Manager of the Corporation’s Lynbrook Estate development.
The Committee was shown a model of the estate and Mr Vallance and Ms Mitrevski described its main features. The former explosives site had left significant and extensive soil contamination, which had had to be remediated before development of the residential estate could commence. While the Commonwealth undertook some initial remediation, at the time URLC entered into a Remediation and Development Agreement with the Commonwealth some 40 per cent of the site, containing some of the most heavily contaminated areas, remained.
As part of the remediation, URLC constructed an on-site repository for the contaminated soils, which was formed into a 10 metre high mound before being landscaped for passive recreational purposes. URLC describes the repository as the most advanced yet seen in Australia and the equal of world best practice.
Mr Vallance noted that the success of the project was shown by the fact that, while the project was originally expected to have a life of 10-12 years, some 1500 of the 3000 lots had sold within the first three years. He argued that the several water features and associated parkland that had been incorporated into the estate was a significant contributing factor in this respect.
The most prominent feature of Cairnlea is its comprehensive water quality and stormwater re-use strategy, involving the use of four major man-made lakes together with numerous wetlands and sediment ponds. A GPT at the head of the lake catches surface rubbish while the macrophyte plants in the ponds filter sediment and nutrients. The ponds act as storage for stormwater, which is subsequently used for on-site irrigation, representing a 50 per cent cost saving. Existing creeks have been rejuvenated from polluted drains into living creeks. Three conservation reserves, totalling 35 hectares, have been set aside to protect the habitat of endangered flora and fauna, including the striped legless lizard and plains rice flower.
The development masterplan includes boardwalks, pavilions, parklands and picnic area, as well as sportsgrounds and walking and cycling tracks. Victoria University of Technology and primary and secondary schools are nearby, with plans for the estate’s own primary and secondary school in the future.
Mr Porter described the main features of the Lynbrook Estate development at Lyndhurst, before showed the Committee a video. Lynbrook was the first large scale residential estate in Australia to incorporate WSUD and the CRC for Catchment 352
Hydrology and Melbourne Water were heavily involved in its development as a major demonstration of WSUD principles. In 2000 the project was presented with an Urban Development Institute of Australia Excellence Award for its innovation in land development.
The first two stages of a three-stage $15 million development are complete. The most significant feature is the design of the local streets, where concrete gutters and pipes are replaced by grass swales (as well as a gravel swale in the middle of the median strips of two of the main boulevards). The swales slow down the runoff and allow some of the water to be absorbed back into the ground, which filters out pollutants. The runoff from the streets and houses eventually drains into wetlands and a lake, which is an aesthetic and recreational amenity for residents.
The URLC representatives stressed that WSUD is still a developing concept and that accordingly neither project contained all features. They pointed to their Corporation’s 8000 lot development in Epping where all these ideas are being built into one of the units. That project will, no doubt, create a great deal of interest in the potential for WSUD.
The CRC for Catchment Hydrology has stated that WSUD systems can remove up to 80 % of phosphorous, 60 % of nitrogen and 90 % of suspended solids from stormwater. The Committee was told that, while the WSUD philosophy is catching on, there are still builders who remain to be persuaded of its merits. Some individual Cairnlea houses, for example, still had full guttering and down pipes to traditional stormwater drains. It is known that several major city councils have adopted WSUD as planning policy for new developments – given the difficulties associated with retrofitting, it seems to the Committee that others should follow their example.
The Committee declares that that each member of the group that visited Cairnlea received a ‘show bag’ consisting of a T-shirt, baseball cap, video, key ring and a small presentation box of chocolates.
Melbourne Water’s Western Treatment Plant, Werribee The Committee then visited Melbourne Water’s Western Treatment Plant at Werribee, where it was met by Mr George Judkins, Section Leader, Process Support, of Melbourne Water’s North West Operations. Melbourne Water is the Victorian Government agency charged with managing the city’s water supply catchments, removing and treating most of Melbourne’s sewage, and managing waterways and major drainage systems.
Mr Judkins detailed the plant’s history and current operations, before the Committee was shown around the site.
Werribee originated out of a Royal Commission report in 1888 into a typhoid outbreak and it accepted its first sewage in 1897. It was chosen because of its favourable soils and gradients, and low rainfall. It is now a site of 10,000 hectares, discharging 165,000 megalitres (ML) of Melbourne’s total 300,000 ML of treated effluent each year, from four EPA-approved outlets into Port Phillip Bay. 75% of its 353 inflow is domestic waste, while the 25% of industrial waste accounts for 50% of the organic load.
Werribee uses three methods of wastewater treatment: lagooning in some 289 hectares of ponds for year-round peak daily and wet weather flow; land filtration (by irrigation) during summer periods of high evaporation, and grass filtration (by overland flow) during winter periods of low evaporation. The site is listed under the Ramsar Convention, being a sanctuary to about 270 species of bird, and with an estimated count of some 65,000 birds. Werribee also has the largest cattle herd in Australia which, with sheep, are integral parts of the land filtration process by grazing after the land has had time to dry out from flooding. The Committee was able to observe that trees on the site were generally not thriving and Mr Judkins advised that livestock had proven more profitable than timber.
Melbourne Water has embarked on a $125 million upgrade at Werribee aimed at odour reduction, nutrient removal and increased recycling. The emphasis on nitrogen removal follows the recommendations of a four-year study by CSIRO completed in 1996. Werribee currently recycles only one per cent of effluent, and it is proposed to achieve 20 per cent of effluent recycling by 2010, which will significantly reduce both discharges to marine environments and demand for potable water.
Mr Judkins noted that its current recycled water is classified as Class C, while the plans are to aim for the generation of Class A water, which has EPA consent for use in horticulture, urban residential and industrial.
Melbourne Water estimates that its recycling program has a market potential to replace 2500 ML per annum of potable water. Under the Land Use Strategy, the Werribee Tourist Precinct, consisting of the Werribee Zoo, Golf Course, Parks Vic and Equestrian Centre, may use up to 700 ML of recycled water each year. Also the Werribee Irrigation District adjacent to the Plant might replace some of its current annual consumption of 13,500 ML taken from the Werribee River and bores, thereby freeing up potable water for Barwon and Western Water.
City of Port Phillip The Committee then visited four water management projects of the City of Port Phillip, which has adopted a comprehensive approach to water management at the municipal level.
Catani Gardens
The Committee travelled to Catani Gardens, St Kilda, where it was met by Councillor Liz Johnstone and Mr Jim Holdsworth from the City of Port Philip, Mr Peter Diprose from CDS Pty Ltd, and Dr Peter Fisher and Mr Victor Lewis-Hansom from Bell Environmental, who were present because they are engaged in a study of contaminant levels in litter and sump water from GPTs.
The Committee had seen two CDS units when visiting Balmoral Beach in Sydney. The visit to Catani Gardens was an opportunity to witness a demonstration of the 354 clearing of a CDS unit. Like at Balmoral, it is also adjacent to the ocean and collects stormwater from a commercial and medium density housing area.
The Catani Gardens CDS has a removable basket design, and the Committee observed a demonstration of the basket’s extraction by crane. Vegetative material and street litter were most prominent, with a strong composting odour. It is certainly reassuring that such material is not polluting the Bay.
While in the Gardens, the Committee accepted an invitation from Mr Barry Battiscombe of Micromet Victoria Pty Ltd to examine his company’s irrigation control system. From an unassuming controller – looking much like a small electricity substation – watering of the gardens by its existing irrigation system is fully regulated by a computer, which receives data from sensors about whether the soil is dry or moist. Importantly, the device shuts off watering when it is raining. The Committee was told that some 25 per cent of water used in irrigating the park has been saved and that Council had saved about $10,000 in its monthly summer water bills from watering the 20 parks and gardens in which the system has been installed.
Ormond Road
The Committee then visited a townhouse development at 48 Ormond Road, Elwood. The Committee was joined by Mr Gary Spivac, Council’s Housing Development Officer.
In 1999 the Council commissioned a study by Irrigation Design Consultants to establish the feasibility of incorporating stormwater retention measures into new development proposals. Among its findings, the study concluded that the increase in hard surfaces and roof area associated with higher density developments means that there is less area available for landscaping and therefore less water for irrigation. The installation of tanks in new developments is a means to collect stormwater and thus reduce peak flows to the drainage system, and harvesting of water from the roof area only is preferable, as this water is the easiest to collect and minimises the danger of polluted or contaminated water.
Further to the study’s final report, the Council successfully applied for funds from the NHT’s Coasts and Clean Seas Program. The grant of $27,000, which was required to be matched by the Council, was used in the Ormond Road project to demonstrate that sustainable design solutions can help address the problems facing the city’s stormwater drainage system. The site at Ormond Road had been a detached family home with only 29 per cent hard surface site coverage which was being redeveloped to a medium density development of seven residential apartments with over 95 per cent site coverage (of which the roof area is about 43 per cent).
The Committee was shown the 15,000 litre water tank which had been installed in the basement car park to capture stormwater from the 270 square metres of roof area and from which water will be pumped after filtering into ‘plumbed in’ toilet cisterns in the seven apartments. It had been decided that the water quality could not be guaranteed 355 to be safe enough for human consumption or even for use in garden taps, where people may inadvertently seek to drink from it.
The rainwater retention system is complemented by traditional mains supply and stormwater drainage. If levels in the tank fall too low, top-up by mains supply occurs automatically. An overflow pipe discharges excess water to the street drain. First flush is also diverted straight to drains.
The scheme’s simplicity is its great attraction. The Committee was told that comprehensive monitoring and in-line flow metering will provide accurate data, thereby providing a basis for a more informed Council policy development process.
At an additional cost of $7000 per unit, the scheme is not cheap, however, the Committee was told that this cost could be reduced with the benefit of experience. Further, and echoing a comment heard by the Committee whenever the interaction between real estate prices and water saving initiatives was raised, it was also seen as a positive and well-received benefit by the market.
EcoHouse
The EcoHouse is run by Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc at 55A Blessington Street, St Kilda, set on the corner of the St Kilda Botanical Gardens. The project was initiated by Earthcare, a local environmental group, and sponsored by the City of Port Phillip. Mr Michael Mobbs is acting as an adviser to the project, which has a construction budget of $180,000.
The Committee was met by Mr Peter Barker, the Eco House project coordinator, and Mr Neil Blake, the City of Port Phillip’s EcoCentre Coordinator, who described its main features and its role as a model sustainable site to both educate and inspire the general community. Mr Barker described the project as containing a ‘smorgasboard’ of initiatives, including use of recycled, sustainably harvested and non-toxic materials, to use of solar energy, collecting all its own water, and transforming its waste water into a resource. They have installed a water tank to collect rain water, water conservation appliances such as smaller toilet cisterns and water saving shower heads, composting toilets and are irrigating the garden using grey and black water filtered through reed beds. Consideration is being given to collecting that water and recycling it into the toilet cisterns.
Inkerman Oasis
The Committee then visited the Inkerman Oasis housing project in Inkerman Street, St Kilda, a joint venture between the City of Port Phillip and Inkerman Developments Pty Ltd. It is a 236 unit, 3 to 5 level residential project in six buildings and designed to incorporate best practice sustainable development principles. At the time of the Committee’s visit, development of the site had been underway for some 16 months, with construction scheduled to be completed in two stages by about July 2003.
The Committee was met by Mr Michael King, Inkerman Developments’ Project Manager, who used a model of the project to describe its main features. The 1.2 356 hectare site was a former St Kilda municipal depot which became surplus to requirements as a result of the local government amalgamation process in 1994. In 1996 the City of Port Phillip resolved to use the site for a mixed private and social housing development project and, among its project objectives, was the establishment of a demonstration project of best practice environmentally sustainable design features, both passive and active.
The sustainable design features are too numerous to list here, but included: optimal solar access to living areas in most units; solar communal lighting across the project; low energy/resource efficient appliances and fixtures; and landscaping largely with native plants.
It also incorporates features of water sensitive urban design (WSUD), combining domestic grey and stormwater recycling in a manner unprecedented both in Australia and in a medium density housing project. Grey water from 50 per cent of the units’ bathroom basins, baths and showers will receive primary treatment in a 60,000 litre activated sludge (aeration) tank, before passing through a 400 square metre wetland and sand filter using sub-ground filtration and absorption. First flush roof and ground flow stormwater is also captured and cleaned through the wetlands and sand filter.
The combined recycled water is used for both sub-ground garden irrigation of 2,000 square metres of soft landscaped areas and toilet flushing in dual flush toilets across the development. The irrigation is controlled to release water from a 45,000 litre storage tank to dry areas through close to 6000 lineal metres of ‘Geoflow’ slow release dripper piping by 12 solenoids triggered by a computer and moisture sensors. The recycled water for toilet flushing received tertiary treatment through a microfiltration and ultraviolet disinfection unit.
It is noteworthy that the recycling project was assisted by a grant of $267,000 by the Commonwealth under the Living Cities Urban Stormwater Initiative.
In summary, the several projects of the City of Port Phillip have given the Committee a clear demonstration of what can be achieved at the municipal tier of government level in even the most urbanised of environments. The Committee congratulates the Council for its efforts.
King’s Domain On-site Water Recycling
The Committee then visited Melbourne Water’s sewer mining trial in the King’s Domain gardens in Melbourne. The aim of the trial is to demonstrate that water from sewers can be successfully recycled and used to irrigate parks and gardens. The demonstration plant was particularly configured to reduce nutrients in the recycled water to prevent pollution of Melbourne’s waterways and the Bay, and to control salt and major ion levels to protect valuable botanical assets.
The Committee was met by Mr Michael Arbon, Melbourne Water’s Manager, Reuse Projects, and colleagues. Mr Arbon indicated that the Victorian Government had set Melbourne Water a target for the recycling of water of 20 per cent, and the King’s 357
Domain trial would inform decisions on how that level of improved recycling performance might be achieved.
The on-site recycling plant is housed in a portable shipping container and Mr Arbon explained its main features. Raw sewage is pumped from the sewer, screened and fine screened. Particulates larger than 3 mm are returned to the sewer. A membrane bioreactor reduces organics and removes particles in the product water down to 0.04 micron using an aerobic biological treatment process coupled with an ultrafiltration separation membrane. The product water is then preconditioned for a reverse osmosis treatment by filtering, UV disinfection and descaling. Reverse osmosis then reduces nutrients, pathogens and salts to acceptable levels.
The plant can produce 30,000 litres of high quality recycled water per day, at a cost of 1.4 cents per litre. The recycled water, which is used to irrigate nearby lawned areas, exceeds Victoria’s Class A requirements, which makes it suitable for high contact end uses, such as residential garden watering.
A rigorous testing program will be carried out during the trial to ensure that recycled water meets EPA and Department of Health requirements.
The Committee notes that there is a clear potential to substitute potable water with recycled water on a large scale, but there are obvious legislative and cost constraints that first have to be overcome. 29 April 2002 - Perth The Water and Rivers Commission hosted the Committee’s brief inspection program. The Committee was accompanied by the Commission’s Mr Bill Till, Program Manager, Stream and Stormwater Management.
Bannister Creek The Committee was met by Ms Julie Roberts, Coordinator of the Bannister Creek Catchment Group. The Committee was shown the Group’s ‘living stream project’ at several points along its length. The creek was originally a series of wetlands, but had been used as a main drain since 1979, conveying stormwater from the urban and industrial catchment into the Canning River.
The aim of the project was to transform a straight section of the drain into a living stream. As the creek is within a recreational reserve, aesthetic enhancement was also an objective. Support for the project has been given by a range of groups, including the NHT.
Large volumes of soil have been removed from the site to reshape the steep banks to a gentler slope and to ‘meander’ the creek itself. Riffles have been built to aerate flows and create habitat, and erosion control matting was used to stabilise sections of the stream banks and the area revegetated. 358
Ms Roberts told the Committee that the channel realignment and bank stabilisation works have been very successful. She noted that a storm event in the winter of 2001 had caused severe damage to a main drain structure upstream, while the newly streamlined channel carried the increased flow without any problems.
The Committee commends the work of the Catchment Group. Once fully established, the area around the stream will be an attractive addition to the amenity of the local community, as well as achieving a positive water management outcome.
Ascot Waters The Committee then visited the Ascot Waters development in Belmont, close to both the Swan River and the Belmont Racecourse. It was met by two representatives of the development company, PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd: Mr Marino Evangelisto and Mr Brian Farrell. They used a series of mounted displays to point out the site’s main features, before the Committee was briefly shown around a part of the development.
The development is based on WSUD principles, for which it has received numerous awards, including the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s (UDIA) 2001 National Award for Excellence in Residential Development. Planning for the site was commenced with a grant from the Commonwealth’s Building Better Cities program.
Mr Evangelisto told the Committee that his company had set out to construct a stormwater management system to control stormwater volume and peak discharge rates in a treatment train of best management practices (BMPs). Pollution in runoff is reduced through physical containment or flow restrictions designed to allow settling, filtration, percolation, chemical treatment or biological uptake and assimilation of nutrients. The point was made that the more BMPs that are included in the treatment train, the more effective it becomes, and the less reliant the overall performance is on any one element.
Runoff is dealt with in three zones. Zone A, which includes the commercial/marina area and extensive hard surface parking areas, directs runoff into a series of gross pollutant traps and then into landscaped ‘nutrient stripping’ wetlands basins prior to entering the Swan River. A horse faecal runoff problem had been solved by creating a retention pond in the middle of the track. Zone B runoff is directed into a shallow basin/swale, from where it seeps away to the saltmarsh area. Zone C runoff is directed down the central open space corridor/linear park through a ‘leaky’ pipe into swales and micropools/detention basins and finally into a freshwater wetland. An overflow into the main water body will operate during extreme events.
The Committee walked through the central open space corridor, with housing built along either side. It was a pleasant parkland area, planted with large jacarandas. One of the detention basins had been designed for use as an amphitheatre, while another doubles as a children’s playground, making clever use of the space. The Committee was told that the WSUD nature of the development had been a positive marketing feature. 359
1 May 2002 - Adelaide The Committee spent the whole day on site visits in the Adelaide area. The program of inspections in Adelaide was arranged by Mr Martin Allen, Senior Policy Adviser, Water Conservation for the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.
Australian Water Quality Centre The Committee visited the Australian Water Quality Centre (AWQC) at SA Water’s Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant, where it was met by Mr Robert Thomas, General Manager, Contract Operations for the South Australian Water Corporation (SA Water) and Dr Mary Drikas, AWQC Principal Research Chemist, Water Treatment.
A series of presentations were then given; firstly by Mr Thomas and Dr Drikas, followed by Dr David Cunliffe, Principal Water Quality Adviser in the Environmental Health Branch of the Department of Human Services, and then Mr Russell Martin, Manager, Groundwater Assessment for the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.
Mr Thomas described the general role and functions of the AWQC while Dr Drikas gave a comprehensive account of the Centre’s analytical and research activities. The AWQC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SA Water with some 110 staff, 55 of whom are professional scientists. It has a turnover of around $10 million and an Australia- wide client base. Its mission is to provide high quality analytical services, which it has often commercialised after development through its water quality research programs. It offers a comprehensive analytical service for the inorganic constituents of waters, wastewaters, sludges and sediments and analytical services for routine complex organic compounds. The methods employed include high performance liquid chromatography, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. It also offers a broad range of biological services including laboratory algal counts, field analysis such as macroinvertebrate biomonitoring, and consultancy and research on algal management issues.
The AWQC is a key partner in the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality and Treatment, which has its head office based at the AWQC. Reference was made with approval to the Commonwealth Government’s decision to extend the CRC’s funding to 2008.
Dr Drikas addressed in detail the Magnetic Ion Exchange Process (MIEX) water treatment technology. She noted that cost effective management of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in potable water is one of the key challenges facing today’s water treatment industry. DOC has many detrimental effects on the treatment of drinking water, not least that it can react with disinfectants used in water treatment to produce undesirable colour, taste and odour. The AWQC, in conjunction with CSIRO’s Division of Molecular Science and Orica, a publicly owned Australian chemical company (formerly ICI), has developed a revolutionary, yet simple, process that 360 incorporates MIEX DOC Resin for the removal of dissolved organic carbon from potable water sources.
The Committee was shown samples of the resin. It is in the form of tiny acrylic beads which have a positive charge and negative chloride ions bound onto them. When mixed with water, the DOC ions, which are negative, displace the chloride ions on the resin, which then rapidly settles out the water. The DOC coating the beads is easily removed, allowing them to be recycled.
SA Water and Orica have invested $7.5 million in a pilot plant at Mount Pleasant which treats 2.5 megalitres of water per day. It has demonstrated that the process has operability, economics and scalability in both greenfields and retro-fitting situations. Trials have shown that MIEX has removed up to 80 per cent of colour and, by the addition of a small amount of alum in the treatment process, 70-80 per cent of DOC. The Committee particularly note that, compared to traditional water treatment technologies, MIEX is relatively chemical-free.
Mr Thomas described the Bolivar/Virginia Pipeline Scheme, a major re-use initiative of SA Water. The Virginia Pipeline Scheme delivers high class irrigation water to the Northern Adelaide Plains, a horticultural area with a high demand for water. Motivation for the scheme grew out of several factors, not least calls from the local growers in the 1980s for a re-use scheme to be developed. This vision was not realised until the days of the Multi Function Polis proposal of the early 1990s.
It coincided with several other factors, however, including:
• a 1995 State Government policy to seek to phase out sewage discharges to the marine environment where economically and environmentally sustainable; • EPA licence requirements for wastewater treatment plant discharge to the marine environment; • unsustainable exploitation of groundwater; and • access to $10.8 million of Building Better Cities funding. The use of reclaimed water from the Bolivar plants achieves two significant goals. Pressure on groundwater resources in the Northern Adelaide Plains and discharges into Gulf St Vincent during the summer months are both reduced, with accompanying reductions in seagrass degradation, and turbidity and algal growth from the high nutrient levels of the discharged effluent.
Dr Cunliffe emphasised the health aspects of the Virginia Scheme, and in particular the risk management considerations in relation to the use of reclaimed water. Significant upgrades to Bolivar have enabled treated water to meet ‘Class A’ standards, meaning it is permitted to be used for spray irrigation onto crops, including those that may be eaten raw. The Class A parameters relate to maximum levels of turbidity, e. coli organisms and pathogens.
Boliver does this through a combination of secondary treatment, lagooning and the use of a new $30 million Dissolved Air Flotation/Filtration (DAF/F) plant. Secondary 361 treatment removes organic and inorganic substances and reduces bacteria/pathogens. Lagoon treatment provides extra disinfection by reducing residual organic matter and bacteria/pathogens, as well as providing extra protection against short term contamination spikes through flow equalisation. The DAF/F plant removes algae (one disadvantage of lagooning,) and bacteria/pathogens.
Monitoring of the pipeline scheme has shown it to be achieving generally very good results. Very high levels of removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia have been achieved, with 60 – 90 per cent removal of viruses, adenoviruses being the most common. No hepatitis A has been detected.
Dr Cunliffe noted that as part of the approval process, xenoestrogens and pharmaceuticals – the ‘endocrine disrupters’ – were assessed but were not considered to be a significant issue based on current knowledge. In response to a question from a Committee member based on the somewhat contrary evidence it had received from Dr Peter Fisher in Melbourne about the potentially serious adverse effects of endocrine disrupters, Dr Cunliffe noted that fish bathed in estros had been found to be adversely affected but that what we are talking about in water re-use schemes is much lower levels of exposure in terms of human consumption. He noted that plastic food wrappers are high in chemicals implicated as potential xenoestrogens.
Dr Cunliffe stressed that, while the Virginia Pipeline water was Class A quality and continuously monitored, numerous pipeline and on-site controls also apply. The pipeline itself is colour coded or marked to indicate that it is carrying reclaimed water. Irrigation areas are signposted to advise that the water is not safe to drink. Reclaimed water is not used for final washing, packaging or processing of product.
In summary, crop testing has not detected any problems, physically and microbiologically the pipeline water is superior to any surface water in Australia (which is, of course, able to be used by growers, despite its quality not being subject to 24 hour monitoring) and the scheme has met with general public acceptance.
Dr Cunliffe was asked whether consideration had been given to commercial fish farming in the lagoons using carp. He said that he had heard that the practice had potential, but that there were reservations about the fish causing damage to the liners.
It is noteworthy that a NHT grant was made to a team from Adelaide University and CSIRO Land and Water to develop a booklet entitled Sustainable Use of Reclaimed Water on the Northern Adelaide Plains: Grower Manual, published in 2001 by Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia Rural Solutions.
Mr Martin gave the Committee a presentation on the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation’s Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program. There are a number of extensive aquifers which lie beneath the Northern Adelaide Plains from which groundwater has been extracted for the past 50 years for irrigation purposes. ASR is a method of enhancing water recharge to underground aquifers by gravity feeding or pumping excess water into the aquifers for later use in times of peak demand. It has considerable potential to use excess surface water – includeing 362 urban stormwater runoff and treated wastewater – and where the aquifers are suitable it offers a comparatively low cost method of storing water as an alternative to surface storage.
A significant number of ASR schemes are now established in Adelaide metropolitan, regional and country areas. Mr Martin outlined the recent ASR focus on the treated water from the Virginia Pipeline which is surplus to grower’s requirements, especially in winter. The project has been described as being at the international leading edge. A consortium comprising the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, United Water, SA Water, CSIRO, and the Department of Administration and Information Services’ Major Projects Group – with financial assistance from the NHT – is undertaking a four-year, $3 million study of the technical feasibility, environmental sustainability and economic viability.
The first year of the project was extensive laboratory studies, with many of the studies being focussed on the fate of pathogens to ensure that none reach drinking water supplies. It has been shown that, if any pathogens survive the disinfection process they quickly die-off once introduced into the ground water system.
Injection began in earnest during October 2000 and by the end of March 2001 the target volume of 280 ML had been stored in the aquifer. Extensive sampling to monitor water quality changes is being undertaken. If the trial proves that the practice is safe, can be well managed and is both technically and economically viable and will have no adverse environmental impacts, ASR of the reclaimed water will represent a long-term solution to the sustainable management of all of the water resources on the Northern Adelaide Plains.
Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant The Committee then undertook a brief tour of the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant, accompanied by Mr Robert Thomas. The Committee inspected the $30 million DAF/F plant, a fully automated plant operated by United Water under contract with SA Water. Detail of its operations was given above. Mr Thomas made the point that the DAF/F plant had a capacity to treat all of Bolivar’s wastewater, but that at this stage the Virginia growers were drawing only about 50 per cent of the total flow and that they only needed to have a minimum of one day’s storage. The ASR trial is obviously a key component of planning for the future re-use of the other 50 per cent.
The Committee was then met by Mr Tony White of Tyco Water at the opening point of the pipeline where it was fed by the final of a series of lagoons. The pipeline had cost $22 million, $7.15 million of which Tyco provided under a BOOT contract with SA Water which expires in January 2018. Building Better Cities had contributed $8.15 million and SA Water 6.7 million.
Mr White displayed a plan of the 150 km irrigated area, serviced by 105 km of ABS pipe of varying sizes. The project has more than 240 customers, who pay 9.5 c/kL in summer, 7.5 c/kL in shoulder and 5.0 c/kL in winter under their initial contracts. 363
Future contracts will be at market rates. Tyco is not charged for its source water by SA Water.
City of Salisbury The Committee visited the offices of the City of Salisbury where it was met by its Mayor, Mr Tony Zappia, and several senior Council officers. Over lunch, Mr Zappia noted that the Council had been engaged in water management projects over a period of some 25 years, but in October 1995 the City had adopted the challenge of Local Agenda 21 (LA 21), a call by the United Nations to local government in partnership with their local community to address the implications of global issues in a local context. A 1996 State of the Environment Report identified eight significant environmental issues affecting the City, including Water Management.
Mr Zappia gave a general outline of his Council’s comprehensive program of achievements in the field of water management, which includes the creation of 36 wetlands around the city totalling about 250 hectares in area and costing in excess of $16 million, and the recent establishment of two major stormwater projects in Parafield Airport and at Kaurna Park. He provided a document which claimed that the City of Salisbury is recognised as a world leader in the field of wetlands technology. Stormwater – traditionally regarded as a problem, and in some cases a threat – is now harnessed and used to enhance the landscape and create habitat diversity.
Mr Zappia noted that the findings of the Committee’s June 2000 report Inquiry into Gulf St Vincent, to which he had given evidence and BIPEC had made a submission, had been well received and had given strength to his arguments for State and Commonwealth Government financial assistance.
A video of the Barker Inlet Port Estuary Committee (BIPEC) project was then shown. Mr Zappia introduced the video by emphasising that the Barker Inlet is a delicate marine environment which had suffered years of neglect, and polluted inflows had left the Inlet in a delicate state. The Inlet is the largest tidal estuary in Gulf St Vincent and is significant as:
• an important nursery and feeding area for commercial and recreational fish species; • provides habitat for a diverse bird community; • is a feeding and nursery area for Port River dolphins; and • has the most Southern population of grey mangroves. The area had suffered from being managed in discrete components and from the absence of any integrative processes.
The City took the initiative in the mid-90s to convene a summit on Barker Inlet, which led to the formation of BIPEC with the primary objective of developing a cooperative management framework. BIPEC includes representatives of local governments, catchment boards, environment groups, research experts and private industry, while several State agencies and the National Parks and Wildlife Service act as advisors. 364
The project is continuing and, once an action plan for on-ground initiatives for the protection and conservation of the area is finalised, BIPEC’s long-term role will be to oversight the plan’s implementation. Mr Zappia indicated that, at this stage, there had been no Commonwealth financial assistance for the project, but that discussions with the NHT secretariat are continuing.
Mr Zappia then described some of the Council’s other initiatives. He made particular mention of the Mawson Lakes residential development on the site of the former Multi Function Polis. While residents have access to mains water, the complex includes a dual-pipe treated greywater system, from which residents can opt to draw water at a substantially discounted price. The Mawson Lakes development includes a major wetland as well as a lake. The Council’s plan is to achieve 80 per cent use of recycled water through a combination of financial incentive and education, and Mr Zappia noted that his Council was the leading South Australian local government authority in the field of water re-use.
Parafield Airport
The Committee then visited Parafield Airport where it was met by Mr Peter Mitchell of G.H. Mitchell and Sons, Australia’s largest wool processing company, which has entered into an agreement with the City of Salisbury for the supply of cleansed stormwater water for use in its nearby plant. The Committee was also briefed by Mr Stuart Lane, Council’s Senior Environmental Engineer.
The Parafield Partnerships Urban Storm Water Initiative arose from Council’s recognition that the area to the north and east of the Airport was the last remaining catchment without treatment to filter and cleanse stormwater prior to its discharge to the marine environment. The concept of treating stormwater on airport land was put by Council to the Parafield Airport management in September 1999, with G.H. Mitchell and Sons brought in as a concept partner. Mr Mitchell noted that his company traditionally used some 1 billion litres of Adelaide mains water, much of it pumped via pipeline from the Murray River, for its wool scouring processes.
The Council adopted an innovative, large scale partnership approach to the proposal, initially with Mitchell and then with the airport management, industry stakeholders and community groups. The proponents were successful in gaining a grant of $1.3 million in June 2000 from the Commonwealth’s Urban Stormwater Initiative, with the remainder jointly funded by the Council and Mitchell.
Stage 1 of the project has just been completed, at a cost of $3.7 million. It consists of a linked network of ponds: an inflow capture pond, a treatment pond, and a holding storage pond. The scheme involves the diversion of stormwater via a weir in the Parafield drain to a 50 M/L capture basin, and its pumping to a similarly sized holding basin, before gravitating to a two hectare cleansing reed bed. Water will flow continuously through the densely planted reed bed to be biologically cleansed. Nutrient and pollutant loads will be reduced by up to 90 per cent with the treated water having a salinity of less than 220 mg/l, markedly lower than mains water. 365
One of the striking features of the development is that the collection and treatment ponds are covered by netting, which aims to discourage birds from nesting in the region, increasing the risk of bird strike by planes using the Airfield. Fish will be released to overcome any mosquito problem.
It is estimated that some 1100 M/L of water will initially be produced, at around half the price of mains water. About one half will be used by Mitchell, the other half being stored by the development of an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) borefield. Depending on inflow water quality, the residency period of the water in the treatment ponds prior to being pumped to users, or stored in the aquifer, is expected to be between seven and 10 days.
Stage 2 of the project is a similar scheme for treating stormwater on the southern boundary of the airport, with a capacity to supply an estimated 1500 M/L of cleansed stormwater to Mawson Lakes, nearby schools and a golf course. Another proposed stage, which will depend on the outcomes of field testing, is intended to treat Mitchell’s saline wastewater in specially developed reedbeds. Mitchell contributes some 25 per cent of Bolivar’s solids waste. Once the greases are removed, the waste is nutrient rich, especially potassium which sheep excrete in their sweat, but is otherwise chemical free. Mr Mitchell told the Committee that his company is keen to explore ways to make use of the nutrients, rather than their being either composted or mixed with toxic materials in the main wastewater system.
This visit concluded the Committee’s program of site visits, inspections and informal briefings. While the Committee’s visit to the City of Salisbury was relatively brief, it could not help but be impressed by Mr Zappia’s high level of personal commitment and the extent of the Council’s achievements. The Committee will long carry with it memories of the enthusiasm and dedication to the cause of sustainable urban water management displayed by everyone it met during these site visits. It expresses its sincere gratitude for their cooperation. 366 367
Appendix 6
References
Books, policies and reports ACTEW, ACT future water supply strategy, June 1994
Allen Consulting Group, Repairing the country – Leveraging private investment, August 2001
Australian Infrastructure Report Card Alliance, Australian Infrastructure Report Card 2001
Australian Water Association, and others, The Australian Water Directory 2001
Australian Water Association, and others, The Australian Water Directory 2002
Australian Water Association, and others, We all use water – a user’s guide to water and wastewater management, 2002
Australian Water Association, Australian Non Major Urban Water Utilities Performance Monitoring Report 1999-2000
COAG, Strategic framework for the Australia water industry, 1994
CRC Association, Triumphs of technology transfer: Recent highlights of the Cooperative Research Centres Program, November 1999
CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Water sensitive road design – design options for improving stormwater quality of road runoff, August 2000
CRC for Catchment Hydrology, The reuse potential of urban stormwater and wastewater, December 1999
CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Conserving natural rivers – a guide for catchment managers, River Management Series Part 1, April 2002
CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Assessing river condition using existing data – a guide for catchment managers, River Management Series Part 2, June 2002
CSIRO Ecosystem Services Project, Natural Assets – an inventory of ecosystem goods and services in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, 2001
CSIRO, Wastewater Re-use Stormwater Management and the National Water Reform Agenda, Land and Water Research Position Paper 1 368
Department for Water Resources (South Australia), Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Future directions for South Australia, Oct 2001
Dennison, W., & Abal, E., Moreton Bay Study – a scientific basis for the Healthy Waterways Campaign, 1999
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (WA), Stormwater Quality Management Project Report, Feb 2002
Environment Australia, Introduction to Urban Stormwater Management in Australia, 2002
Environment Australia, Our vital resources: National action plan for salinity and water quality in Australia,
Environment ACT, Integrated Catchment Management Framework for the ACT – Implementation Plan, June 2001–2003
Friends of the Earth NSW, 3 reports to the Sydney Water project, 1994, dealing with Stormwater, point source pollution and Sewage Treatment plants
Healthy Rivers Commission, Securing Healthy Coastal Rivers – A strategic perspective, April 2000
Hollander, R., & Curran, G., The Greening of the Grey: National Competition Policy and the environment, AJPA Vol 60 No 3, Sep 2001, p 42
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Co-ordinating Catchment Management - Inquiry into catchment management, February 2001
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, Public good conservation: Our challenge for the 21st Century, September 2002
Housing Industry Association, PATHE Strategy [Partnership Advancing the Housing Environment] – A better built environment
Housing Industry Association, PATHE GreenSmart Stormwater Management Guide
Housing Industry Association, Policy on planning reform: Better Living Environments
Institute for Sustainable futures (University of Technology, Sydney), Minimum performance standards for showerheads in Australia: Strategy Development, Nov 2000, (in association with Queensland EPA and the Sustainable Energy Development Authority NSW)
Kuczera, George and Coombes Peter, Towards continuous simulation: a comparative assessment of flood performance of volume sensitive systems, Stormwater Industry Association 369
Maskimovic, C., & Tejada-Guibert, J.A., Frontiers in Urban Water management – deadlock or hope, IWA Publishing, 2001
Melbourne Water, Water sensitive urban design in the Australian context, Synthesis of a conference, Melbourne, August 2000
Melbourne Water, Western Treatment Plant – A vision for the future, briefing booklet
Mobbs, Michael, Sustainable House, A Choice Book, 1998
Mueller, Anthony & McKay, Jennifer, Is there power in the Australian constitution to make Federal laws for water quality?, EPLJ Vol 17, No 4, Aug 2000, p 294
Murray and Lower Darling River Management Board, Where to for the 21st Century? study
Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Basin salinity management strategy 2001- 2015, September 2000
National Health and Medical Research Council, Framework for drinking water quality management [jointly NHMRC and ARMCANZ]
National Water Quality Management Strategy (includes draft guidelines on matters such as rural environment, groundwater, and sewerage systems.)
Office of the Regulator-General (Victoria), Melbourne’s retail water and sewerage companies performance report 1998-1999
PIRSA Rural Solutions, (in association with CSIRO Land & Water, University of Adelaide and others), Sustainable use of reclaimed water on the Northern Adelaide Plains – Grower manual, 2001
Productivity Commission, Arrangements for setting drinking water standards, April 2000
Productivity Commission, Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services, Staff Research Paper (Greg Murtough, Barbara Aretino, Anna Matysek), June 2002
Productivity Commission, Microeconomic Reform and the Environment, Workshop Proceedings, Melbourne, 8 September 2000
Queensland Parliamentary Library, Every drop is precious: Greywater as an alternative water source, Research bulletin No 4/98
Raff, Murray, Pollution, politics and national competition policy – the National Competition Policy Review of the Environment Protection Act in Victoria, AJNRLP, Vol 6, No 2, 1999, 91
Report of the working group on water resources policy to the Council of Australian Governments, Feb 1994 370
Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Committee, Water resources – Toxic algae, December 1993
Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Committee, Marine and Coastal Pollution, October 1997
Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee, Inquiry into Gulf St. Vincent, June 2000
Simpson, J., & Oliver, P., Water Quality from waste water to drinking water to even better, Australian Water and Wastewater Association, 1996
Smith, David Ingle, Water in Australia, Resources and Management, Oxford University Press, Australia, 1998. [333.910994 SMI]
South Australian Government, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Use of effluent and urban stormwater in South Australia, 1998
South Australian Government, Environment Protection Agency, The State of Health of the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchments from a water quality perspective, October 2000.
Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, The Tide is Turning – final report of the Botany Bay program, December 2001
State of the Environment Report, Environment Australia, 2001
Sydney Water, Demand Management Strategy December 1999
Sydney Water, Water Conservation and Recycling implementation report, August 2000
Sydney Water, Water Recycling Strategy December 1999
Victorian Government, WaterSmart program, Planning for the future of our water resources – Discussion starter, 2001
Victorian Government, WaterSmart program, Planning for the future of our water resources – Strategy Directions Report, 2002
Water 2000. A perspective on Australia’s water resources to the year 2000, plus 13 specialist consultant’s reports
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, A Manual for managing urban stormwater quality in Western Australia, August 1998
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, Legislative options for urban stormwater management in Western Australia, August 1998
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, Urban Water management study 371
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, Groundwater Atlas, 2000
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, Policy for tradeable water entitlements
Water and Rivers Commission of WA, Environmental Water Provisions Policy
Working Group on Water Resource Policy, Report to the Council of Australian Governments [undated]
Working Group on Water Resource Policy, Second Report to the Council of Australian Governments, February 1995
Periodicals and magazines
Australian Water Association, Water
CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Watershed
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, Health Stream
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, Water Quality News
Marine and Coastal Community Network, Waves 372
Websites ActewAGL www.actewagl.com.au
Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia (Commonwealth Department of Natural Resources) www.affa.gov.au
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) http://www.affa.gov.au/docs/operating_environment/armcanz/home.html
Alternative Technology Association www.ata.org.au
Australian Building Codes Board www.abcb.gov.au
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) www.alga.com.au
Australian & New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) www.ea.gov.au/cooperation/anzecc
Australian Water Association www.awa.asn.au
Australian Water Quality Centre www.awqc.com.au
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (Australian National University) http://cres.anu.edu.au
Centre for Water Research (University of Western Australia) www.cwr.uwa.edu.au
City West Water (metropolitan Melbourne) www.citywestwater.com.au 373
Centre for Groundwater Research www.groundwater.com.au
Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway management www.dist.gov.au/crc/centres/environ/coastal.html
Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology http://enterprise.canberra.edu.au/WWW/www-crcfe.nsf
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology www.catchment.crc.org.au
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment www.waterquality.crc.org.au
CSIRO Urban Water Program www.dbce.csiro.au/urbanwater
Department for Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation (South Australia) www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (Northern Territory) www.lpe.nt.gov.au
Department of Land and Water Conservation (NSW) www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au
Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria) www.nre.vic.gov.au
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (Tasmania) www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) http://www.emrc.org.au
Environment ACT www.environment.act.gov.au 374
Environment Australia (Commonwealth Department of Environment & Heritage) www.ea.gov.au
Environment Business Australia www.emiaa.org.au
Environment Protection Authority (NSW) www.epa.nsw.gov.au
Environment Protection Authority (Queensland) www.epa.qld.gov.au
Environment Protection Authority (Victoria) www.epa.vic.gov.au
Environment Protection and Heritage Council (Commonwealth) www.ephc.gov.au
Environment Technology Centre (Murdoch University, WA) http://wwwies.murdoch.edu.au/etc
Greensmart Program www.greensmart.com.au
Greywater Reuse www.greywaterreuse.com.au
Healthy Rivers Commission (NSW) www.hrc.nsw.gov.au
Housing Industry Association of Australia www.hia.asn.au
Infrastructure Report Card www.infrastructurereportcard.org.au
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney www.isf.uts.edu.au 375
International Council for Local Environment Initiatives http://www.iclei.org
International Water Association www.iwahq.org.uk
Landcare Australia www.landcareaustralia.com.au
Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation www.lwrrdc.gov.au
Melbourne Water www.melbournewater.com.au
Michael Mobbs – Sustainable House www.sustainablehouse.com.au
Murray Darling Basin Commission www.mdbc.gov.au
National Competition Council www.ncc.gov.au
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) (Commonwealth) www.ephc.gov.au
National Health and Medical Research Council www.nhmrc.health.gov.au
National Land and Water Resources Audit www.nlwra.gov.au
Office of the Water Regulator (Government of WA) www.wrc.wa.gov.au/owr
Planning and Land Management (an agency of the ACT Department of Urban Services) www.palm.act.gov.au 376
Planning Institute of Australia www.planning.org.au
Property Council of Australia www.propertyoz.com.au
Queensland Landcare and Catchment Management Council www.landcareqld.org.au
Royal Australian Institute of Architects www.raia.com.au
Royal Australian Planning Institute (RAPI)
• See: Planning Institute of Australia Savewater http://www.savewater.com.au
School of Resource Environment and Society Studies (ANU) http://sres.anu.edu.au
South Australia Catchment Water Management Boards www.catchments.net
South East Water (metropolitan Melbourne) www.southeastwater.com.au
Stormwater Industry Association www.stormwater.asn.au
Sydney Catchment Authority www.sca.nsw.gov.au
Sydney Coastal Councils Group www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au
Sydney Water www.sydneywater.com.au 377
Urban Development Institute of Australia www.udia.com.au
Victorian Water Industry Association www.vicwater.org.au
Water Corporation of Western Australia www.watercorporation.com.au
Water Services Association of Australia www.wsaa.asn.au
Water Studies Centre, Monash University1 www.wsc.monash.edu.au
Waterwatch (Commonwealth) www.waterwatch.org.au
Western Australia Water and Rivers Commission www.wrc.wa.gov.au
Yarra Valley Water (metropolitan Melbourne) www.yarravalleywater.com.au
1 Prof Barry Hart, [Associated with the CRC for Freshwater Ecology] 378 379
Appendix 7
Summary of Key Reports, Inquiries and Studies into Urban Water Management for the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
1. Coordinating Catchment Background to Inquiry Outcome Management - Report of The House of Representatives Standing Committee The report made 26 recommendations. In particular the report the inquiry into Catchment on Environment and Heritage undertook a review of recommends that: Management the 1997-98 annual report of the Department of the • The Government through CoAG establish an independent statutory Environment and Heritage, and tabled a report on authority, the National Catchment Management Authority (NCMA).1 House of Representatives its review on 21 June 1999. The NCMA would be responsible for accreditation of all programs Standing Committee on On 2 June 1999 the Committee resolved to continue affecting ecologically sustainable use of catchments.2 Environment and Heritage, its investigation of the matters raised in the annual • The National Land and Water Resources Audit be formally December 2000 report through an inquiry into catchment established as an ongoing independent statutory Commonwealth management. In doing so, the Committee resolved authority called the National Environment Audit Office.3 to pay particular attention to the following matters: • The Government examine the feasibility of introducing an • the development of catchment management in environmental levy to pay for the public contribution to implementing Australia; the policy of ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s catchment • the value of a catchment approach to the systems.4 management of the environment; • best practice methods of preventing, halting and NB. To date there has been no government response to the report. reversing environmental degradation in catchments, and achieving environmental sustainability; • the role of different levels of government, the private sector and the community in the management of catchment areas;
1 See Recommendation 3, p. 94. 2 See Recommendation 13, p. 116. 3 See Recommendation 8 & 9, pp. 107-108 4 See Recommendation 26, p. 140. 380
• planning, resourcing, implementation, coordination and cooperation in catchment management; and • mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on catchment management programs, including the use of these reports for state of the environment reporting, and opportunities for review and improvement. 2. Joint Parliamentary Select Background Outcome Committee upon the Reported in April 1994. Chair Peter McDonald Made a significant number of recommendations with respect to sewage, Sydney Water Board. (Independent, Manly, 1994) potable water and stormwater management.5 The Committee was set up to report on issues Of particular interest to the ECITA Committee inquiry are the following Parliament of NSW regarding the Sydney Water Board. The terms of recommendations of the inquiry into the Sydney Water Board: reference were broadly with respect to: • The EPA should licence stormwater pollution.6 • catchment Management • The Government (NSW) should set stringent goals, in particular for • long term planning all public sector agencies and local government, to achieve the 7 • operation of Clean Waterways Program reduction of rural and urban runoff. • • regulation of water quality and quantity All public sector bodies responsible for water, sewage and drainage function should be administered by one Ministry.8 • pricing • All public agencies should be encouraged to harvest rainwater from • accountability and efficiency public lands and buildings.9 • capital structure and needs • environmental standards for water discharge 3. 2001 Australian Background The Alliance members recommendations included: Infrastructure Report Card Produced by an alliance of major infrastructure Recommendation 1: The establishment of a National Infrastructure users, owners, operators, investors, industry groups Advisory Council to advise CoAG. The Council should facilitate efficient Institution of Engineers for and other stakeholders within Australia. The and equitable provision of nationally significant infrastructure by both an alliance of partners Alliance formed to oversee an independent review public and private sector stakeholders and encourage longer-term of the state of Australia’s infrastructure (including planning for its sustainable development and operation.
5 Note that this inquiry took place before the CoAG Water Reforms were agreed to. 6 See Summary of Recommendations 8, p (ix). 7 See Summary of Recommendations 7, p (ix). 8 See Summary of Recommendations 23, p (xi). 9 See Summary of Recommendations 40, p (xiii). 381
wastewater, stormwater and potable water) from Recommendation 4: Substantial improvement of the significant economic, social and environmental perspectives. regulatory and taxation barriers to additional investment in infrastructure. It is essential that regulators not only consider any short-term consumer benefits accruing from infrastructure regulation but also fully reflect in An overview of the ratings can be found in the regulatory decisions the long-term consumer benefits that accrue from the Annex to this Appendix. enhancement and development of national infrastructure.
4. Australian water resources Background and overview The Audit reported on its key findings in relation to: assessment 2000 : Surface The report provides an assessment of the quantity, • Australia’s surface water resources and availability water and groundwater - quality, use, allocation and management of • Australia’s surface water quality availability and quality Australia’s surface water and groundwater • Water quality data is limited. There is sufficient salinity, turbidity and resources. nutrient data to assess water quality status for about 30% of National Land & Water The report is Australia’s fourth national assessment Australia’s 246 river basins. Excess levels of nutrients, turbidity and Resources Audit of Australia’s water resources. However, the report salinity were found in many river basins. differs as it covers both water quantity and quality. • Australia’s groundwater resources and availability The Audit is a program of the Natural Heritage • Australia’s water resource development Trust. • Understanding water use A lack of monitoring sites and long term records impeded the audit’s ability to assess much of the freshwaters and groundwaters of Australia. The Audit did note that an Australia-wide initiative in water resource management: in partnership with State and Territory water management authorities could focus on improvements in groundwater characterisation, water use efficiency, increased and more scientifically based environmental water provisions, improvement to water quality monitoring and the understanding and managing of interactions between surface and groundwater quality and quantity.
5. National Water Quality Background Outcomes Management Strategy The National Water Quality Management Strategy The Strategy has released water policies and several guidelines for water (NWQMS) was introduced by the Commonwealth, quality and water management. Many of these are working documents and State and Territory Governments in 1992 as a are constantly being assessed, updated and added to. Some examples of response to growing community concern about the these documents are: condition of the nation’s water bodies and the need • Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water to manage them in an environmentally sustainable Quality way. • The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 382
In 1994 the NWQMS was included in the Council • Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia. of Australian Governments (CoAG) Water Reform Framework. The Strategy has three major elements: (i) policy; (ii) process and; (iii) guidelines.
The Strategy’s policy objective is: For further details see http://www.affa.gov.au/nwqms or to achieve sustainable use of the nation’s water http://www.ea.gov.au/water/quality/nwqms/index.html resources by protecting and enhancing their quality while maintaining economic and social development.
The NWQMS has been jointly developed by two Ministerial Councils - the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agriculture and Resources Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ).
6. CoAG Water Reforms Background Timeframes: In February 1994, the Council of Australian The time frames for implementation of the Framework were set at five to Governments (CoAG) consisting of the Prime seven years with full implementation by the year 2001. Timeframes for Minister, Premiers, Chief Ministers and the implementation were subsequently extended for certain aspects including President of the Australian Local Government allocations and trading, which were extended to 2005. Association agreed to implement a ‘strategic framework to achieve an efficient and sustainable National Competition Policy water industry.’ In April 1995, CoAG endorsed the National Competition Policy for Australia. Under this policy, payments are made available for States and The Framework seeks to establish integrated and Territories that successfully implement a range of important reforms - consistent approaches to water resource including the CoAG Water Reform Framework. management throughout Australia. The Framework includes provisions for water entitlements and trading, environmental requirements, institutional reform, public consultation and education, water pricing and research. 383
7. National Action Plan for Overview Progress of the NAPSWQ Salinity and Water Quality • A National Action Plan for Salinity and Water • In July 2001, the Commonwealth and all States (excluding WA) and Quality (the National Action Plan) was Territories signed the Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA), that sets endorsed by the Prime Minister, Premiers and out the overarching commitments and obligations of the Chief Ministers at the Council of Australian Commonwealth and States and Territories to the Action Plan. The Governments in November 2000. It involves a Western Australian Government has now signed the Agreement. funding package of $1.4 billion from the • The remaining five States and the Northern Territory have also signed Commonwealth, States and Territories. bilaterial agreements with the Commonwealth which specify in more detail how the Action Plan will be implemented. Key objectives of the Action Plan are to: • prevent, stabilise and reverse trends in salinity, particularly dryland salinity affecting agricultural production, the conservation of our unique environment and community assets (such as houses, roads etc); and • improve water quality and secure reliable water supplies for human, agricultural and industrial uses and for the environment.
8. South Australian Select Background Outcome Committee on the Murray Inquiry set up in 1999 and considered issues to do The report made 71 recommendations. Of specific interest to ECITA are River, July 2001 with the state of the environment of the Murray the following recommendations: River particularly as it affects South Australia. Also • By 2004, the South Australian Government to develop and commence investigated economic values and sustainability of implementation of an integrated water management strategy for the Murray, river regulation and other State and metropolitan Adelaide that will reduce water diversions from the Federal controls River Murray for Adelaide’s water supply by 50 per cent of the current level of diversions over a twenty year timeframe.10 • The Commonwealth Government to introduce tax changes that will permit private investment in accredited water saving devices and technology to be 100 per cent tax deductible in the year of expenditure.11
10 Recommendation 6, p 6. 11 Recommendation 6, p 6. 384
9. National Water Background Conservation Rating and • The National Water Conservation Labelling Labelling Scheme Scheme is designed to assist in the conservation of water by providing consumers with reliable The Scheme is conducted by information on the relative water efficiency of the Water Services various appliances. Association of Australia • Labelling AAAAA rating for water efficient (WSAA). appliances (aiming for a mandatory ratings – similar to energy ‘star’ rating) • For further information http://ratings.wsaa.asn.au/index.html 10. Frontiers in Urban Water Background Outcome Management – Publication This publication was written for UNESCO’s The Symposium recommended: (referred to in submission International Hydrological Program’s symposium: • The adoption of total integrated water cycle management in urban 41- Australian Water Frontiers In Urban Water Management: Deadlock areas. The first step is to identify barriers to integrated management Association) or Hope?, that was held in Marseille, France in and to search for means of improving co-ordination. Integrated water June 2001. cycle management should include conservative water and wastewater Maksimovi & Tejada- management through the integration of stormwater, groundwater and Guibert Eds, IWA/UNESCO, The publication covers the following issues of surface water use, reuse of treated wastewater, and recycling. 2001 sustainable urban water management: • To strive towards efficient, effective and sustainable urban water • the challenge of urban water management systems based on appropriate full cost recovery, including the • urban water as a part of integrated catchment application of well-conceived, socially sensitive, subsidies ensuring management affordability of service. • interactions with the environment It proposed to: • • infrastructure integration issues Develop and implement educational programmes on integrated urban water and environmental management, with assistance from UNESCO • emerging paradigms in water supply and and its partners, at all levels, ranging from governments to general sanitation public. • problems of developing countries • Define strategies and tactics for the appropriate implementation of • economic and financial aspects integrated urban water management in all countries, including best • social, institutional and regulatory issues management practices and procedures for the rehabilitation of • outlook for the 21st Century systems. • Find new ways of financing and managing water services in countries in transition and developing countries, with design and control closer to the people. • Develop and strengthen institutions for integrated urban water management, by enhancing public information and awareness, 385
transparency of procedures, education, and public involvement in decision-making. • Establish and strengthen regional centres of excellence on urban water management, such as the new UNESCO Regional Centre on Urban Water Management in Tehran, particularly in countries in transition and developing countries. • Emphasise concerted action by the international community and highlight the pressing urgency of collectively facing urban water problems in the national preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (October 2002). • Ensure that at the 3rd World Water Forum (Kyoto, March 2003) urban water management is a major theme, utilizing the Virtual Water Forum, and promote a pre-forum donor conference. Undertake appropriate case studies in the UN World Water Assessment Programme in co-operation with the International Hydrological Programme. Its final conclusion was that, considering the above, there are manifestly valid reasons to hold that threats of deadlock can be broken and that thus there is hope, and further stresses that institutions and technology, while being key components to success, must remain subservient to the goals of sustainability and social equity.
For further detail see, URL: http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/download/Marseille_statement.PDF 11. Wastewater Re-Use Background Main findings/recommendations of the report Stormwater Management This report is one of a series of studies coordinated and the National Water 12 by the Sub-committee on Water Resources of In general Reform Agenda: Report to ARMCANZ as a response to the issues raised by More intensive management of water supply systems is recommended the Sustainable Land and the Strategic Framework for Water Reform, 1994. Water Resources including: Management Committee • The use of reclaimed water within municipal and industrial systems. The report addresses issues raised by the policy and to the Council of • The capture, storage, distribution and use of hitherto ‘uneconomic’ principles of the CoAG Water Reform Agenda in Australian Governments new urban sources, such as local stormwater either of high initial relation to the reuse of wastewater, improved urban National Water Reform quality or with treatment. Task Force: stormwater management, and adoption of superior
12 Executive Summary point A.3, p (i). 386
practices regarding disposal to sensitive • Introduction of a quality differentiated water supply: ie, matching the CSIRO Land and Water environments. It is particularly concerned with the quality and reliability of water supplied to each market segment to that Position Paper 1. development of recommendations regarding: actually needed by the user. Authors: Thomas, J.F, • current and potential practices Reuse of wastewater Gomboso, J., Oliver, J. E. • technical obstacles and opportunities • All Australian jurisdictions should recognise that reuse of wastewaters and Ritchie, V.A. • environmental and public health constraints presents a viable and attractive alternative source of water supply, which may contribute to the abatement of environmental problems.13 • economic and incentive structures • Sewage offers a more reliable source for reclamation and reuse than • the regulatory environment stormwater runoff. However, scope exists for improved stormwater • the role of community involvement runoff management.14 • catchment-based resource management, and • A more sophisticated water market in urban areas would provide • development of institutional roles and quality-differentiated supplies for appropriate market segments. The responsibilities. study concluded that a variety of urban water demands could be effectively supplied by reclaimed water, either to potable or non- 15 URL: potable standard. http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/position/RPP1 • Retrofitting with dual reticulation systems is becoming more feasible .pdf technically and economically. Also redevelopment provides an opportunity for a reassessment of the storm drainage system, and integrating it with total water cycle management.16
13Executive Summary point C.1, p (vi). 14 Executive Summary point C.2, p (vii). 15 Executive Summary point C.6, p (vii). 16 Executive Summary point C.7, p (viii) 17 See Executive Summary points C.13 – C.16 and C.21 – C.26, pp (ix) – (xi). 18 Executive Summary points D.1 – D.4, p (xi) – (xii). 19 Executive Summary point D.7, p (xii). 20 See Executive Summary points D.9 – D.29, p (xii) – (xv). 21 Executive Summary point D.9, p (xii). 22 Executive Summary point D.10, p (xii). 23 Executive Summary points D.11 – D.19, p (xiii) – (xiv). 24 Executive Summary points D.20 – D.23, p (xiv). 25 Executive Summary points D.24 – D.29, p (xv). 26 Executive Summary points E.1 – E.8, p (xv) – (xvi). 387
• Numerous specific recommendations are given as a result of the implications for the CoAG National Water Reform Agenda framework.17 Stormwater Management Numerous recommendations for improved stormwater management in Australia are given. In particular: • In new urban developments integrated water cycle management is replacing traditional drainage design principles. Also, stormwater systems in Australian cities are either under-designed or under- performing due to deterioration etc.18 • New technical developments will make the achievement of multi objective management of stormwater systems easier in the future given an institutional structure that encourages innovation.19 • Numerous specific recommendations were made as a result of the implications for the CoAG National Water Reform Agenda framework.20 The recommendations are made under the headings ‘Pricing’, ‘Institutional reform’, ‘Urban planning’ and ‘Consultation & education’. • There should be reform of existing drainage rating systems, which should be replaced by charges on households and organisations, which more accurately reflect the cost of planned stormwater management programs.21 More attention should be given to the design of polluter pays systems under which the owners of urban stormwater systems should pay state governments according to the level of pollution discharged to receiving waters. However, this recommendation is unlikely to be acted upon in the absence of institutional reform.22 • Several institution reforms are recommended particularly with respect to the powers and responsibilities of local and state governments in stormwater management.23 • Integrated urban water management needs to be the overarching framework for urban planning.24 • Consultation and education are other recommendations made. In particular the Commonwealth should support a new Urban Water care Movement and the recommendation outlines suggested components of the Movement.25 • Several national research needs are addressed and recommended.26 388
12. Planning for the future of Background Content and discussion our water resources – The discussion starter is the first element of a year The paper sets out Melbourne’s water supply and regulatory arrangements Discussion Starter long inquiry established by the Victorian Minister and usage patterns. for the Environment and Conservation to develop a It also notes: water resource strategy. Water Resources Strategy for Attitudes towards water conservation differ significantly among the the Melbourne Area population, implying the need for different strategies to target various Committee Following receipt of submissions, the Victorian groups. government will release a strategy options paper, Increasing general environmental awareness will lead to greater water followed by another round of public comment, conservation, but will also increase public support for environmental leading to the final recommended strategy. flows which in the short term will place greater strain on water supply infrastructure. In many respects, the paper mirrors the discussion Improving technology is increasing the cost effectiveness of treating and options developed by the earlier and water. comprehensive Sydney Water Demand Australian rivers have the most variable flow rates in the world. Management Strategy (1999), Water Recycling Australians must change their water use patterns to accommodate the Strategy (1999), and Water Conservation and variable natural cycles. Recycling Implementation Report (2000) The paper raises four broad options (which are not mutually exclusive): 1. squeeze more water from the existing supply system; 2. change the behaviour of water users to reduce demand; 3. reduce demand for potable water by substituting recycled water; and 4. further develop the water supply system to increase supply. Each option includes a discussion of the range of techniques available and issues to be considered. 13. National Competition Background Status and Outcomes Policy The NCP is one of the most important drivers of current reform in Various documents incuding: The NCP was established following the Hilmer Australian water managements. • NCC Second Tranche Review in 1992. Key aspects of the NCP were: Payments to State governments under the NCP are conditional upon Assessment, Vol 2 Water • The formation of the National Competition implementation of NCP objectives. These have been undertaken by the Reform Council (1995) NCC in three Tranche Assessments. • Supplementary Second • Creation of 3 inter-governmental instruments: Key points include: Tranche Assessment: Conduct Code Agreement, the Competition • Major urban water infrastructure in Australia is valued at $41bn and Water Reform Principles Agreement and the Agreement to generates $4.4bn in revenue from domestic customers annually. Implement the NCP and Related Reforms. • Most states have introduced consumption based pricing regimes that • Formation of the Australian Competition & better reflect the costs of providing water. In many cases this has Consumer Commission (ACCC) (1995) resulted in significant decreases in water consumption. 389
• Full cost recovery of services and removal of • National institutional reform has seen the separation of water service cross-subsidisation. providers and regulators with the aim of preventing perceived • Extending the competitive conduct rules to all conflicts of interest and provision of clear objectives for each business activity in Australia including institution. government enterprises. • The history, institutional structures and physical environment varies • Provision for third party access to national greatly across the country resulting in greatly differing reform issues. infrastructure • Restructuring of public sector monopoly businesses. 14. Wise water management – Background Content a demand management manual for water utilities The WSAA is the peak body of the Australian The Manual covers a range of key measures including: Urban water industry. Its 21 members provide • planning Water Services Association water and sewerage services to approximately • of Australia 13 million Australians. pricing measures • water metering • The Manual aims to provide detailed guidance on unaccounted for water the development of demand management programs. • authority water use • reuse of water • water reduction measures • communication strategies • incentives and retrofitting
The manual adopts a practical approach analysing the detailed evaluation of options, and stressing the need for strategic planning, detailed research, and economic evaluation of demand management measures to ensure that the greatest returns are achieved for resources invested.
The manual notes that a 15% reduction in water use nationwide could save Australian customers $240m annually in treatment and operating costs and a further $240m on reduced capital expenditure. 390 Annex: 2001 Australian Infrastructure Report Card
The independent analysis of Australia’s infrastructure based on fitness for purpose gave the following ratings.
2001 2000 Comments Score Score
Wastewater C- D- The improvement is due to the increased investment The level of reuse is disappointing for a country with limited water in the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and resources. Moreover a bigger effort will be required to obtain a better treatment plant upgrades. This has reduced understanding of the condition of the pipe and pumping system and reduce pollutants discharged into Australia’s waterways. the impact from diffuse sources of pollution.
Potable Water C C- Improvement is due to increased investment in Amount spent on rehabilitation is not sufficient to keep pace with the rate of rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, improved asset deterioration. A bigger effort will be required to further reduce water water treatment and reduced water losses from the consumption and better integrate future water resources development system. projects as part of the total water cycle planning process.
Stormwater DNAThe current level of funding is not adequate to meet All legislation that deals with stormwater and floodplain management the anticipated community expectations in the long should be coherent and integrated. Additional funding must be provided term. including private sector investment and levies.
Implementation of catchment management philosophies requires the formulation of an integrated strategy that includes aspects of land use zoning, changes to building codes and requirements, changes in community attitudes and detailed environmental assessment of alternative potential strategies.
*Note: Table is abridged version of Table in Report Card. To see original table go to:
URL: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.au/2001/2001Reportcard.pdf 391
Australia’s Urban Water Management
Government Members Report
1.1 Although agreeing with much of the Committee’s report, Government Members of the Committee have the following comments to make in relation to the recommendations for change made by the Committee. Most of these comments reflect the Government members’ view sustained by evidence given to the committee that solutions to Australia’s water problems, especially in urban areas, must be developed and implemented at the local level.
1.2 The evidence received during the inquiry amply demonstrates the fact that differences in climate, infrastructure, water sources, consumption patterns and receiving environments, all require individually tailored solutions. By necessity therefore, this must be the task of State and Territory governments working closely with local government. The role of the Commonwealth is, as stated by the Commonwealth’s Environment Australia, one of leadership and coordination – not direct administration and control. Comments in relation to the Committee’s General Recommendations Recommendation A 1.3 The Commonwealth is already taking a leading role in managing urban water more sustainably though the COAG Water Reform process, which is achieving many of the goals that are sought, as well as through its development of a Coastal Policy – where it is very actively seeking the cooperation of the States. Recommendation B 1.4 A national approach to overcome jurisdictional barriers to better practice is being taken through the COAG National Competition Policy. Recommendation C 1.5 More research into urban water management would be valuable, but there is no reason that this should not be administered by the States, who are better placed to direct research to local priorities and ecosystems. Nevertheless, as the Report demonstrates, the Commonwealth has already taken a proactive role in directing national research, through the highly successful Cooperative Research Centre program, and the Natural Heritage Trust, with guaranteed expenditure of some $350 million on water quality issues. As the Committee saw during the inquiry, urban regions around Australia have successfully applied for funding under this program and have used the funds to create many of the country’s leading examples of water efficient design. 392
Recommendation D 1.6 The Commonwealth has for some time been leading the process of enhancing awareness of the environmental issues associated with water management. Recommendation E 1.7 Reform in the area of water pricing is being led by the Commonwealth, and there is action on a number of fronts. COAG has already achieved major institutional reforms that are driving more efficient use of both water and funds, and which will increasingly ensure that the cost of water reflects its true value. The Commonwealth will continue to lead the process of establishing water rights, which will underpin the development of water markets, through which the value of water will be established. The suggestion that the revenue generated by higher prices be used to improve performance of water management systems (and particularly their environmental performance), is a matter for the States in their role as managers of the water markets. Recommendation F 1.8 The principle of environmental, economic and social sustainability is already accepted and well established, and is the foundation for the COAG reforms. The achievement of sustainability is also the clear policy that underpins the Natural Heritage Trust, and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Comments in relation to the Committee’s specific recommendations Recommendation 1 – The National Water Policy 1.9 Government Senators do not agree with the recommendation to create a National Water Policy. Developing further levels of policy in an already ‘policy rich’ environment would do nothing to enhance urban water management. Recommendation 2 - National Water Partnership Framework 1.10 Although agreeing with the need for many of the tasks identified in the Committee’s recommendation 2, Government Senators do not agree with the recommendation to create a National Water Partnership Framework. There is already a proliferation of institutions managing water, and institutions already exist at the national level to carry out the tasks listed, principally COAG and the Ministerial Councils, while the Regional Organisations of Councils are fulfilling similar roles at the regional level. Recommendation 3 – Setting targets 1.11 Government members support many of the ideas in the Committee’s recommendation 3, but note that many of these issues are already being addressed by existing initiatives under the National Action Plan on Water Quality and Salinity, the National Water Quality Management Strategy, and to a lesser extent, National 393
Environment Protection Measures. At the same time, Government Senators stress that detailed standard setting is most appropriately done at the State and local level, given the huge variability of conditions across Australia. Recommendation 4 – Setting standards 1.12 Government members support many of the ideas in the Committee’s recommendation 4. The concept of nationally uniform minimum standards for water efficiency in all new buildings, and buildings undergoing major refurbishment, is also attractive. Our understanding is that a number of States are already headed in this direction. Recommendations 5 & 6 – Better monitoring, reporting and data 1.13 Government Senators agree with the importance of many aspects of the Committee’s recommendation 5, but again, stress that they are being, or could appropriately be, done by existing institutions, such as the National Land and Water Resources Audit in cooperation with relevant Cooperative Research Centres, and, in the case of the Committee’s recommendation 6, COAG. Recommendations 7 & 8 – Funding and financing better water management 1.14 The Commonwealth is already heavily engaged in funding research into reuse and recycling. Examples include:
• development and support for the Coooperative Research Centres program; • the feasibility work for the City to Soil/Darling Downs Vision 2000 project in Queensland, which has had strong financial support from the Commonwealth; • the strong support for the Virginia Pipeline project in South Australia; • the Memorandum of Understanding with Queensland on establishing water quality standards for the Great Barrier Reef; and • the National Action Plan on Water Quality and Salinity, which will include major investment in research and on-the-ground actions over the next five years. 1.15 The issue of urban water pricing is one of the key elements of the COAG competition policy reforms and the move towards metering and two-tiered tariffs. Consequently, making the price of water more closely reflect its cost is already well advanced.
1.16 The issue of a levy, however, on top of full cost recovery is not supported. In relation to many of the points raised here, considerable Commonwealth money is already being applied through the NHT, particularly in catchment protection and rehabilitation, and the repair of natural waterways and wetlands. 394
Recommendation 9 1.17 Government members support the recommendation that the Commonwealth adopt a strategy of progressively upgrading all Commonwealth buildings to a high standard of water efficiency. Recommendation 10 1.18 Government members support the recommendation that the Joint House Department be provided with funding to enable the fitting of dual flush toilets and water efficient shower roses throughout Parliament House.
______
John Tierney (Deputy Chair) Tsebin Tchen
Senator for New South Wales Senator for Victoria