LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Old Parliament House Chamber, Old Parliament House , Adelaide
Monday, 29 March 2021 at 10:05am
BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
WITNESSES
FLETCHER, ANDREW, Board Chair, SA Water ...... 1769 GORDGE, DAVE, Senior Manager, Government and Stakeholder Relations, SA Water ...... 1769 GUERIN, JACQUI, General Manager, Business Services, SA Water ...... 1769 JACKSON, ANNA, General Manager, Strategy, Engagement and Innovation, SA Water ...... 1769 PERCEVAULT, DARREN, Senior Manager, Finance, SA Water ...... 1769 ROWLANDS, KERRY, General Manager, Customer and Commercial, SA Water ...... 1769 RYAN, DAVID, Chief Executive, SA Water ...... 1769
Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1769
MEMBERS:
Hon. K.J. Maher MLC (Chairperson) Hon. N.J. Centofanti MLC Hon. J.A. Darley MLC Hon. T.A. Franks MLC Hon. J.E. Hanson MLC Hon. F. Pangallo MLC Hon. D.W. Ridgway MLC Hon. C.M. Scriven MLC
WITNESSES:
RYAN, DAVID, Chief Executive, SA Water FLETCHER, ANDREW, Board Chair, SA Water GUERIN, JACQUI, General Manager, Business Services, SA Water JACKSON, ANNA, General Manager, Strategy, Engagement and Innovation, SA Water ROWLANDS, KERRY, General Manager, Customer and Commercial, SA Water PERCEVAULT, DARREN, Senior Manager, Finance, SA Water GORDGE, DAVE, Senior Manager, Government and Stakeholder Relations, SA Water
14844 The CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Mr Ryan and Mr Fletcher. Welcome to this meeting. The Legislative Council has given authority for this committee to hold public meetings. However, due to the current situation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, we are doing things a little differently than we have in the past. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for examination for any clerical corrections. The uncorrected transcript of your evidence today will be published immediately upon receipt from Hansard, but the corrected transcript once received from you will replace the uncorrected one. I advise that your evidence today is being broadcast via the Parliament of South Australia website. Should at any time you wish to present confidential evidence, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is attached to all evidence presented to a select committee. However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Before we get going I would like to acknowledge that in this chamber we meet on the lands of the Kaurna people and respect their traditional relationship with the country. I might quickly introduce the members of the committee. On my left, from the closest to you, are the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Justin Hanson and the Hon. Clare Scriven. On my right, from the closest to you, are the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, and soon to be here, the Hon. David Ridgway. I am Kyam Maher, the Chair of this committee. Mr Ryan, I wonder if you would like to introduce yourself and the folks you have with you and I will give you an opportunity to make a brief opening statement should you wish. Mr RYAN: Thank you very much, Chair. I will introduce first off Andrew Fletcher AO, Chair of the SA Water Board. We have Jacqui Guerin, our chief financial officer, who is also here today; Anna Jackson, our general manager of strategy, engagement and innovation; Kerry Rowlands, our general manager of customer and community; Darren Percevault, our senior manager of finance; and Dave Gordge, our senior manager of government and stakeholder relations.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1770 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
14845 The CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to make a brief opening statement? Mr RYAN: Sure. Can I also start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands and waters upon which we meet today and pay my respects for their ongoing care and custodianship. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an opening statement. As you would be aware, SA Water provides safe, clean drinking water and reliable sewer services to more than 1.7 million South Australians. Every day we strive to live up to our vision of delivering trusted water services for a sustainable and healthy South Australia. It's safe to say that since SA Water last appeared before this committee in 2019 there have been some significant challenges to this goal. Certainly, despite the bushfires of the 2019-20 summer and the COVID-19 pandemic, SA Water has continued to deliver services while maintaining the safety and wellbeing of our people in the community. Indeed, our response to COVID-19 has really highlighted SA Water's resilience, flexibility and ability to innovate. As you may be aware, the delivery of water and wastewater services continued uninterrupted throughout stay-at-home orders and remote working arrangements. We have also developed and implemented a successful COVID-19 wastewater monitoring program in partnership with SA Health and Water Research Australia to help the public health effort. Our laboratories are now providing this expertise right across the whole country. After much planning and consultation in October last year, SA Water released its new strategy to guide our work and decisions to achieve our vision. While the strategy charts a direction over the course of the coming years, it also takes a long-term view towards 2020. Since we last appeared before the committee, we have finished one regulatory period and have now moved into the next. The 2016-20 regulatory period finished on 30 June and this saw SA Water consistently deliver on our commitments to customers. You will also be aware that in the new regulatory period we are applying a significantly changed approach in the way that water pricing is undertaken in South Australia. We continue to invest in the new capital projects and existing assets to continually improve services for our customers. We are improving the reliability and affordability of wastewater services for more than 12,000 people by migrating over 4,700 residents connected to the City of Tea Tree Gully's Community Wastewater Management System to our sewer networks. During periods of COVID restrictions, we continued to deliver our capital works program, helping our delivery partners and their supply chains to keep working. That's one of the things we have been incredibly proud of over the last 12 months, both in being able to provide services for our customers and equally in being able to support the economy and jobs through our delivery partners. We work closely with the Office of the Industry Advocate to ensure local companies have opportunities to participate in the delivery of major projects, such as the Adelaide Service Delivery Project. We are also building healthy communities through new and effective ways of using water to promote greening and cooler urban environments. We play a pivotal role in opening up reservoirs by managing the critical operations to optimise recreational use, whilst ensuring that drinking water supplies remain safe. Critically, this includes, in partnership with SA Health, applying a best practice water quality risk assessment process that ensures that the opening of reservoirs does not compromise the safety of drinking water. I am proud of many of these achievements and many more and our overall commitment to driving outcomes for all customers and for the state. I look forward to answering any questions you have on these and other initiatives today. Thank you, Chair. 14846 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your opening statement. Before we get to questions, I advise that we are a reasonably friendly and slightly informal committee. As we go around asking questions, if you have answered the question to the satisfaction of the person asking the question, often we will jump in and move on to the next question. It's not deliberately being rude, but with only two hours there's a lot to cover. I think you mentioned providing safe, clean drinking water to 1.7 million South Australians. How many South Australians do you provide unsafe, non-drinkable water to?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1771
Mr RYAN: We don't provide unsafe water. 14847 The CHAIRPERSON: The town of Oodnadatta, do they get provided safe drinking water? Mr RYAN: Can I just confer quickly. The town of Oodnadatta was the question. They do have water that is well known not to ingest or not to drink that water. We are in the process of upgrading that water through this regulatory period. 14848 The CHAIRPERSON: How much do residents pay for the water in Oodnadatta? Mr RYAN: Statewide price. 14849 The CHAIRPERSON: They pay the same, but can they even use it for brushing teeth, for example? Mr RYAN: No is the answer. It's well known and well communicated not to ingest that water. 14850 The CHAIRPERSON: They pay the same price as anywhere else, yet they can't even use it for brushing teeth. What water do residents of Oodnadatta use, for example, for brushing teeth, let alone drinking? Mr RYAN: There is a town supply, which is a desalinated option, and they can purchase water from there. 14851 The CHAIRPERSON: Is that included in that standard price they pay like everyone else in the state? Mr RYAN: No, it's not. This is really the purpose of why we are doing that upgrade. 14852 The CHAIRPERSON: So not every South Australian gets supplied safe, clean drinking water by SA Water if residents in Oodnadatta are paying $300 a year and they can't even brush their teeth with it? Mr RYAN: Which is the purpose of why we want to upgrade through this regulatory period. 14853 The CHAIRPERSON: I guess that comes to my first question: how many South Australians are supplied and pay for SA Water that's not safe for drinking or brushing teeth? Mr RYAN: We would have to take that question on notice in terms of actual numbers. 14854 The CHAIRPERSON: When will residents of Oodnadatta be supplied water that they can drink or brush their teeth with? Mr RYAN: It's through this regulatory period, which is this four-year period, and they are actually first on that list for an upgrade, so we would hope it would be in the next 12 to 18 months. 14855 The CHAIRPERSON: I think it was announced almost 12 months ago that they should be getting safe drinking water. Are you able to put a more firm date on it and exactly where the process is up to at the moment for Oodnadatta? Mr RYAN: I can take that question on notice and make sure we come back and provide the actual date. 14856 The CHAIRPERSON: But to the best of your understanding it's about 12 to 18 months away? Mr RYAN: It is about 12 to 18 months, and they are the first township that's on the water upgrade. 14857 The CHAIRPERSON: Who supplies water to remote Aboriginal communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands? Mr RYAN: It does vary, as the team has told me, but we do supply quite a number of them. 14858 The CHAIRPERSON: Is that safe drinking water?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1772 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Mr RYAN: In the majority of cases, yes, that is the case. 14859 The CHAIRPERSON: In which areas is it not safe to drink water on the APY lands? Mr FLETCHER: Chair, can we invite our general manager— 14860 The CHAIRPERSON: Excellent idea. Mr FLETCHER: —rather than having this translation going on? Ms JACKSON: Hello, Chair. I am Anna Jackson. I am the General Manager of Strategy, Engagement and Innovation. We have a team that looks after some of the remote communities in the APY lands and other parts of South Australian remote Aboriginal communities. There's a large variation in the types of supply that we have for different communities. We work on this through state government and we actually receive a CSO (community service obligation) payment to undertake that work on behalf of the state government. For example, in Watinuma, bore water supply and distribution; and in Fregon, treated and untreated bore water supply and distribution and community wastewater. It's actually a long list. I am very happy to supply that for you. 14861 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware if in any of those remote communities there is no upgrade plan; that is, the water that's supplied by SA Water won't be fit for ingestion? Ms JACKSON: No, I am not aware of any. 14862 The CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the Oodnadatta township, has SA Water communicated to residents, given that it's almost 12 months on from the announcement, that it's still 12 to 18 months before they can expect to be paying for SA Water that they can ingest? Ms JACKSON: We have had recent conversations with the Oodnadatta township. I would have to check for you how recent they have been. We do communicate frequently through letter and also go up there for communication techniques, through making sure that the non-drinking supply, which is what we provide at the moment, is well understood in the township. It is certainly on our list of high priorities for us to upgrade, as David mentioned. This is the first one we asked the regulator for funding for, within our revenue cap, and it's the first on our list for upgrades. We understand the urgency of that, and we are undertaking it as quickly as we can. 14863 The CHAIRPERSON: What's the budgeted cost for the Oodnadatta township water upgrade? Ms JACKSON: I would have to check that for you. I would have to take that on notice. 14864 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to take on notice as well and provide to the committee a list of the rollout of water upgrades—I think it was $41 million dollars announced a year ago? What is the priority and what are the time frames expected for each of those upgrades? Ms JACKSON: Absolutely. 14865 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask, who conducts wastewater testing for traces of COVID-19 in our wastewater? Ms JACKSON: That is part of our team as well. Mr RYAN: Yes, that's part of our team that does that testing and the analysis. We do that as part of an SA Health program. 14866 The CHAIRPERSON: Is it officers from SA Water or officers from SA Health who actually conduct the testing? Ms JACKSON: It's officers from SA Water. 14867 The CHAIRPERSON: How are positive COVID-19 strains that are detected announced? Ms JACKSON: We supply that information to SA Health, and they then choose to do with it as they would like to. We understand that they publish it on their website, and they also announce it in public media conferences.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1773
14868 The CHAIRPERSON: How many instances have there been of SA Water testing wastewater that has shown some positive result for COVID-19? Ms JACKSON: I would have to check the exact number for you. 14869 The CHAIRPERSON: Is there a threshold over which a detectable rate is then sent to SA Health, or is every instance sent to SA Health? Ms JACKSON: No. Mr RYAN: No, all of those results are sent to SA Health. 14870 The CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, has there been any sort of detection of COVID-19 in wastewater that hasn't been publicly announced? Ms JACKSON: Not that I am aware of. 14871 The CHAIRPERSON: Can you check—take it on notice and double check? Ms JACKSON: Yes, absolutely. I know that it certainly is the case that SA Health has started publishing results on their website. I would have to check the date when, or SA Health would be able to tell you. 14872 The CHAIRPERSON: Have there been any changes to procedures or personal protective equipment for SA Water officers who are required to do this wastewater testing? Ms JACKSON: Yes, we have reviewed them in line with safety requirements. We are also aware that the virus doesn't transmit through wastewater. I think that's an important thing to be aware of. We have people who are operating in wastewater all the time, for example, unblocking sewers that are blocked up by wet wipes. We do have operators who are having to deal with wastewater often, therefore we know how to deal with wastewater with personal protective equipment. 14873 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask a question on a slightly different topic, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. Has that resulted in less water going out to sea? Ms ROWLANDS: Kerry Rowlands. We have around three gigalitres of water contracted, but we are selling around 300 megalitres of that at the moment. So, yes, a small amount of water has been diverted from going out to sea with that scheme. 14874 The CHAIRPERSON: Geographically, where did the water go out to sea but now is not? Ms ROWLANDS: Geographically, from our Bolivar site, the wastewater treatment plant. 14875 The CHAIRPERSON: There is a fair bit of salt mining around Bolivar. Were those engaged in salt mining informed of the change of process, that is, that water that would have otherwise gone out to sea is now part of the NAI Scheme? Ms JACKSON: No. There is no reduction in availability as a result of NAIS. 14876 The CHAIRPERSON: So there has been no reduction in water going out to sea? Ms JACKSON: Can you please ask your question again? 14877 The CHAIRPERSON: Has there been a reduction in the amount of water that goes out to sea as a result of the NAI Scheme? Ms JACKSON: Yes. 14878 The CHAIRPERSON: Around the Bolivar area? Ms JACKSON: Yes. 14879 The CHAIRPERSON: Were those who were engaged in enterprise like salt mining informed of this change?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1774 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Mr RYAN: We have communicated to Buckland Dry Creek that, over time, there may be reductions in the amount of water that will go out through our outfall channel. 14880 The CHAIRPERSON: When were they informed, Buckland Dry Creek in particular? Mr RYAN: We will have to take that question on notice. 14881 The CHAIRPERSON: I think SA Water advised the water minister in November 2019, it might have been; would that be about right? Mr RYAN: Yes. In November 2019, we advised Buckland Dry Creek that the commissioning of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme may result in a small reduction in treated wastewater discharges. 14882 The CHAIRPERSON: Does that have any impact on mangroves? Mr RYAN: We have also been very clear that this would not restrict Buckland Dry Creek's ability to discharge brine blended with wastewater discharge in the outfall channel over that period. 14883 The CHAIRPERSON: So you informed them that the reduction in water that flows out won't result in their inability to discharge brine? Mr RYAN: That's into our outfall channel. 14884 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware of the issue of the destruction of mangrove habitat in that area over recent months? Mr RYAN: Absolutely. 14885 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware of what has caused that destruction? Mr RYAN: My understanding is that it's due to activity around salt mining and the like that has been reactivated, which is not SA Water's responsibility as such. 14886 The CHAIRPERSON: It's your understanding that there is an increased level of salt mining in the area; is that your evidence? Mr RYAN: Sorry, I should change it. There have certainly been changes to how those ponds are being managed. We're not across the technical detail of exactly— 14887 The CHAIRPERSON: So you're not aware of any suggestion that the reduction in water flows from SA Water, now going to the NAI Scheme, has contributed to more brine going out that is not diluted by that water? Mr RYAN: We don't believe that's the case. In fact, it's only been quite a small reduction that has happened thus far. Any further reductions will be much further into the future. 14888 The CHAIRPERSON: Exactly what's the advice that you have received? If you are able to rule out the reduction in water, what is it particularly that's caused it? Mr RYAN: I think that would have to be a question for the regulators and others rather than ourselves. 14889 The CHAIRPERSON: When did you inform the water minister of the fact that you had reduced the amount of water that goes out in that area to sea? Mr RYAN: It will have been done as part of the project, as part of the early NAIS work that went on. 14890 The CHAIRPERSON: Keeping the minister up to date about the NAIS work would have included the fact that there was going to be less discharged out to sea as a result of some of that going to NAIS? Mr RYAN: There may be some small reductions but with the understanding we are still only in the early stages of NAIS. 14891 The CHAIRPERSON: You may be able to take on notice and provide a copy of what it was that you informed the minister, an email or memo or minute, and provide that to the committee. I think John indicated he had some questions on this in particular.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1775
14892 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Thank you, Chair. My question is in respect of the northern Adelaide irrigation proposal and the Barossa pipeline in particular. As we know, the effluent from Bolivar is fairly saline and needs to be shandied with underground water. Has there been any discussion with the Department of Primary Industries about the quality of the water and, more particularly, the price that is going to be charged by SA Water for that effluent? Ms ROWLANDS: SA Water are supporting PIRSA on a project particularly for Barossa New Water—that's the name of the project—where it's looking at taking around eight gigalitres of water from the storage just north for the northern Adelaide scheme into the Barossa region. The project at the moment is looking at the quality of the water from a supply perspective and the cost to serve from a supply perspective, and then there is a demand study that's being undertaken to look at the price customers are willing to pay and the quality of the water that they are willing to take. Yes, the salinity is too high. That's the preliminary finding, so there would need to be some further treatment. We are working with and providing support to PIRSA—they are leading that project—on what investment needs to happen to bring that water quality to an acceptable level for those growers in the Barossa region, and then that will inform the project in terms of going forward. 14893 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Has there been any discussion with SA Water as to the types of crops that could be grown with that water? Ms ROWLANDS: With the higher salinity water? 14894 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes. Ms ROWLANDS: There has been. We have been working quite closely for the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme to look at attraction. The take-up has been quite slow. So it is looking at what sorts of crops can come in, and we are in conversations with some growers, that what they want to grow is compatible with the current salinity levels of the water. 14895 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Has there been any resolution in terms of those crops? Ms ROWLANDS: We understand what crops can be grown with a certain water. On one project that we are working on at the moment, the customers are actually looking at land, the quality of the soil that sits within that land, so we are working—we have got a term sheet, for example, with that customer around what the future proposal would look like, but they need to do their work to establish their commercial model around the crop that they are looking at growing. 14896 The CHAIRPERSON: What is a water quality incident in relation to our reservoirs? Ms JACKSON: I can probably address that one. Are you happy for me to say— Mr RYAN: You kick off, Anna, and then I will jump in. Ms JACKSON: It was part of the 'Opening up our Reservoirs' project. We worked with SA Health to introduce what we call a type 1 health recreational access incident, which would include unauthorised high-risk activity in a reservoir—for example, swimming. That's what I think you are referring to there. 14897 The CHAIRPERSON: Have they increased over time, in the last couple of years? Ms JACKSON: We have had an increase in those incidents. We haven't had a corresponding increase in health issues in terms of what we call product water. 14898 The CHAIRPERSON: Is the increase last financial year, compared to the year before, in the order of a thousand per cent increase? Ms JACKSON: A thousand per cent? 14899 The CHAIRPERSON: Increase in those incidents? Ms JACKSON: Actually, I don't think my maths is that good, sorry. I might have to take that one on notice, Chair. 14900 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how many incidents there were in the 2018-19 year compared with the 2019-20 year?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1776 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Ms JACKSON: In 2018-19, there was one reportable incident, and in 2019-20 there was one. 14901 The CHAIRPERSON: And so far this year? Ms JACKSON: So far this year we haven't had any reportable incidents. Mr RYAN: Yes, I don't think we have had any this year. 14902 The CHAIRPERSON: What upgrades have been made— 14903 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, on that, I have 12 recreational access incidents recorded in the annual report, so what would they be? Ms JACKSON: You are probably talking about a slightly different one, which is type 1. Can I clarify that. Since the introduction of recreational access at South Para and Warren, there have been 23 recreational type 1 health incidents—nine in 2019-20 and 14 in 2020-21 up to 1 March. 14904 The CHAIRPERSON: They are not water quality incidents? Ms JACKSON: Well, it depends if the reservoir is offline or not. Some of them, for example, Warren reservoir, might come through first of all. They will all come through first of all as a type 1 water quality incident, but sometimes we are not actually transferring water from Warren into the other reservoirs. We work directly with SA Health on these incidents, and it will get downgraded— 14905 The CHAIRPERSON: So the types of incidents the Hon. Tammy Franks referred to—they have mentioned 12—how does that compare to the corresponding year before then? Ms JACKSON: Which year did you have the 12 for, please? I haven't got a year with 12, that's all. 14906 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My notes say; The 2019-20 number of incidents, particularly type 1 notifications, increased when compared with 2018-19. This can largely be attributed to an increase in source water incidents with 12 recreational access incidents recorded. The new incident category was introduced in 2019-20 as the reservoir reserves began to be progressively opened for public access. So is it a new category? Mr JACKSON: The one I referred to earlier, which is the 'any unauthorised high-risk'—which is the type 1 health recreational access incident—is a new category. We always had what we call type 1 incidents, but that's a new category. 14907 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think we would like a comparison of when the new incident categories were introduced and whether or not that changed the type of incident, and the name that we called them. 14908 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you can take on notice anything you can provide for the last four years of incidents: what type they are and what they mean and if new ones have been introduced. Ms JACKSON: We can give you a table— 14909 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was going to Warren Reservoir because you noted that it was that, and that it's not currently used for drinking water, but it has been used for drinking water in the past, has it not? Ms JACKSON: Actually, what I said was that it is sometimes offline and sometimes online. 14910 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So there is the potential that it could come online again in the future. Ms JACKSON: Yes, absolutely, and from time to time it does go through, so that is a factor in whether or not that's considered a high-risk activity at that time. However, our policy around that is no swimming regardless, so it's treated as an incident in the first instance.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1777
14911 The CHAIRPERSON: What has been the upgrade to treatment facilities at the Myponga Reservoir? Mr RYAN: We had an ultraviolent—sorry, or UV as we know—treatment of Myponga, so that has been an upgrade. 14912 The CHAIRPERSON: How much was spent on that upgrade? Mr RYAN: It was $4.9 million. 14913 The CHAIRPERSON: Does that make recreational use on water as well as being able to swim in the reservoir possible with that upgrade? Mr RYAN: That UV was really about improving drinking water health and quality for customers on the Fleurieu Peninsula. We are always looking to do that upgrade, but absolutely it does now enable on-water access as of yesterday. 14914 The CHAIRPERSON: On-water access means a canoe or kayak or a paddleboard on top of the water; is that right? Mr RYAN: Not a paddleboard. It's kayaking or in a canoe. 14915 The CHAIRPERSON: Are there plans to allow paddleboards or any other activity on water? Mr RYAN: I should go back to answer that question. As part of the Opening up our Reservoirs Taskforce, there's a quantity of microbial risk assessment that's done for each of our reservoirs before we open them. That really stipulates, firstly, what barriers are either in place or need to be in place and, secondly, what activities can be safely undertaken on that reservoir. Before we would do anything like that, we would do a quantitative microbial risk assessment. At that stage, it's saying that Myponga is safe for things like kayaking and the like but not for paddleboarding. 14916 The CHAIRPERSON: Why is that? The risk of falling off and entering the water? Mr RYAN: Yes, full immersion. 14917 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just quickly, can you explain the difference between— and it may be just the volume of the water—the activities, especially even this coming weekend, that are going to happen in the River Murray with a great warm weekend for Easter and waterskiing and all those water sports. We take water out of the Murray. For the benefit of the committee, why is it that that's all allowed in the Murray yet it's not allowed in the reservoirs? I accept power boats and petrol and diesel we don't want in our reservoirs, but I wonder why there's such a difference? Ms JACKSON: Dilution is a very big factor, so the size of the reservoir or the water body is incredibly important when you're taking these things into account. One of the factors with the QMRA that David referred to was the size of the water body; the movement of water through that water body, which obviously for the Murray is significantly different to a reservoir; the size and treatment options for the treatment plant; and also the quality of the source water, so the water that's going into that reservoir in the first place. There are a whole lot of risk factors and things that we look at in terms of the way we manage that so that the end product is still safe to drink. 14918 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And there are certain times where we pump out of the Murray and put it into the Onkaparinga or the Torrens and run it down into them, but that's still based on the fact that the Murray is such a large body of water that it's not seen as a problem. Ms JACKSON: Yes, that's exactly right, and then it's coming into a smaller body of water. 14919 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Last night on the ABC news, the Premier actually noted in an interview that his government had received advice that opening reservoirs to the public should not be done and that he did not accept that advice. What was that advice and who did it come from? Ms JACKSON: I would have to take that on notice— Mr RYAN: Yes, we would have to take that on notice. Ms JACKSON: —to understand exactly what he was referring to, sorry.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1778 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
14920 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has there ever been advice that it's not safe to open up the reservoirs to this activity that SA Water is aware of? Mr RYAN: I couldn't answer ever in history, but certainly in recent times what we do is ensure that we run through a process through the opening reservoirs task force that any activities that are occurring on our reservoirs and are part of our opening reservoirs program run through the detailed quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) process that we have done, which really then articulates what can be done. I should also add that SA Health are critically involved in all that work and then, further to that, we have audits and so forth undertaken on our water quality risk assessment. 14921 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who is on the reservoir opening task force? Mr RYAN: There are a number of organisations. I would have to take that on notice to get you that list. 14922 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you could take that on notice, thank you. Kayaking is now going to be allowed on the Myponga Reservoir, but we have heard previously that on-water activities do pose a risk. Why has kayaking been singled out as acceptable? Ms JACKSON: Kayaking is what we would call incidental small amounts of contact with the water. Stand-up paddleboarding, which the Chair mentioned earlier, comes with a higher risk because you can fall off into the water. Swimming is still considered too high risk. It's about frequency and immersion—they are two of the key areas. 14923 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How do you know if somebody tips their kayak? Ms JACKSON: That's where the frequency comes in. If that's an occasional thing that happens it's not as high risk as if you have got people actually going out and swimming in large groups. The other thing is we have reservoir rangers and we have a number of compliance measures in place to reduce that level of risk. So we have active rangers on site and they are assisting people to understand what they can and can't do at the reservoir. At different reservoirs you are allowed to do different things. For instance, obviously until yesterday, you actually couldn't get on the water at all at Myponga; you could stand at the shoreline and fish. The reservoir rangers have a key role in compliance. We also have other things like CCTV and so on that are helping us to ensure compliance in the reservoirs. 14924 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That possibly goes some way to answering this question but I will ask it anyway. The last time SA Water appeared before this committee it was made quite clear to us that on-water activities were deemed too great a risk to allow at reservoirs such as Myponga. What changes have occurred, other than the installation of the UV water treatment capabilities, to allow this? Ms JACKSON: That's the main one. We do have a water quality and aesthetics upgrade program which we roll out anyway through SA Water through our regulatory process. Myponga was actually due for an upgrade anyway because we needed to upgrade the treatment plant to improve the quality of water, not just through Myponga but the Fleurieu Peninsula. We are actually in the process of rolling out that improvement right now and we needed UV in the treatment plant in order to be able to roll through that upgrade, so that did actually allow then for a new level of access in terms of recreation as a by-product of the plan to upgrade already. Mr RYAN: I think the other thing is that there are also physical barriers, compliance, security, people there more regularly, all that sort of stuff as well. 14925 The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I had a supplementary, if that's okay. I am wondering whether there is a cap on the number of kayakers per reservoir at any one time? Ms JACKSON: There isn't, no. But we do ensure, for instance, if we have a busy weekend expected like the coming weekend that we have additional people onsite to make sure that compliance is happening. 14926 The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So there is no increased risk with, say, 200 kayakers versus 20 in a reservoir?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1779
Ms JACKSON: Our advice from SA Health is that the incidental contact from people launching their kayak off the launch point or stepping across into water briefly to get to their kayak is very different to swimming. Mr RYAN: I will just add that what we are doing at all of our reservoirs is monitoring the level of activity. It's probably less about people out on the water. It will be as much about ensuring we have the right facilities for people to be able to launch and launch safely, so we may have to change some of those things over time. 14927 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Ryan, could you give the committee a brief outline as to what SA Water is doing in terms of generating green energy to drive pumping stations and other facilities of SA Water in South Australia? Mr RYAN: For sure. We are one of the state's largest electricity users. We consume around 520 gigawatt hours, and last year that was a cost of around $87 million, so it's well worth our while in terms of looking at our energy usage and how we can move to greener ways of producing that electricity. We have had our Zero Cost Energy Future initiative underway for quite a while now. We have just installed the last of its almost 370,000 solar panels at a range of our sites across South Australia—I think it's 33 SA Water sites—creating about 250 jobs at the same time across South Australia. We are now in the process of finalising the energisation of all of those sites, and then some of those will be back into the grid and some of those are working from behind the meter as well. It has been a very significant program. It has probably been about two to three years now that it has been underway. That's only one of the initiatives underway that we have. We are also looking at how we optimise energy within our organisation, how we look at the energy market, how we change, just our pumping regimes. There are a whole range of activities that we are doing, including battery storage and various other things, to ensure we are both looking at greener ways we can produce energy but also looking to reduce cost to customer bills as well. 14928 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: What has been the rough estimate of the cost savings so far? Ms GUERIN: Since 2014, we have saved $3 million. I would have to take on notice what we expect that to be going forward. We are estimating we should be able to cover about 70 per cent of our requirements at the start of the program. If we go back to when we started three years ago, it was based on 70 per cent of our electricity use at that time. 14929 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Are all sewage treatment plants being run on methane gas? Mr RYAN: No, it will really depend upon that sewage treatment plant and whether you have covers and so forth. That's another very good example of how we are trying to optimise both treatment at our sewage treatment plants and the energy we use. 14930 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to get on to a topic that was quite popular or unpopular a few years ago, namely, burst water mains. 'Unplanned interruption to water supply', I guess would be burst water mains mostly. South Australia continues to have the highest average— 203 minutes—for uninterrupted water supply; is that correct? Can you give us an update on what is happening in relation to burst water mains and what SA Water is doing to reduce that average interruption? I note that they don't seem to be reported as much these days as they used to be. Mr RYAN: Thank you for the question. There's a range of activities that we have underway looking at our assets and how we reduce the number of bursts and breaks. It is highly dependent from a climate and from a weather perspective. What we find here in Adelaide is that particularly our reactive clay soils will move, and that then increases the number of bursts or the number of breaks, and so forth, that we have. One of the programs that has also been undertaken is that we know that breaks do occur—they occur all across the country—but, importantly, how can we improve the experience for our customers when that does happen? How can we get water out on site for our customers, and obviously that was tricky during COVID, but we have had to change some of our practices and still ensure that we can provide water to customers.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1780 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
How can we also make sure that we are actually providing information to our customers about when water will be restored? We are finding for our customers that people are understanding, and it's also allowing us then to interact and provide that information back to our customers. In terms of activities we have underway, we are continually looking at our asset management processes, continuing to undertake our renewals. Breaks are also tied into how often and where you are renewing your pipe network as well, so all that is underway at the minute to continue to improve that service we are providing for our customers. 14931 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why do we still have the highest median average interruption of anywhere in the country? Is it because of our ageing infrastructure that needs replacement? Is it because of soil conditions? Mr RYAN: Certainly one of the issues will be the distances—just vast distances in our regional areas—that we have to travel to fix a repair, and so forth. You will spend a lot of time travelling there to be able to deal with the issue, and then you have to ensure when you get there that you have the right parts and the right equipment to be able to repair that as well. We've got the longest pipe network of any state here in Australia, and that is always a challenge. 14932 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Talking about regional areas, the government commissioned a review of the water supply to Coober Pedy. Can you tell us what the findings were of that review? Mr RYAN: We currently have no role in operating or managing the water supply for Coober Pedy at the minute. The District Council of Coober Pedy, as you would be aware, is operating that as an administrator. We were asked to work with the District Council of Coober Pedy to undertake a high-level assessment of the network. The report was commissioned by the state government and is currently with the government for consideration. 14933 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How long has it been with the government, Mr Ryan? Mr RYAN: I don't have that date. I can take that question on notice. 14934 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Would it be fair to say it has been with the government for almost a year—April 2020? Mr RYAN: I would have to take that question on notice in terms of the actual date. 14935 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why hasn't it been publicly released? Mr RYAN: I think that's really a question for government rather than SA Water. 14936 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Chair, are we able to request a copy of that report? 14937 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you aware of any reason why that wouldn't be able to be released? Is there anything with the report that, in your knowledge, would prevent its release? Mr RYAN: Once again, I really think that's a question for government. 14938 The CHAIRPERSON: But, from your point of view, are you aware of anything that makes it not able to be released? Mr RYAN: From our perspective, it's a high-level assessment of the council's water assets. That was prepared for cabinet, as such, or for the government, so we would be guided by those requirements. 14939 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It could be a cabinet document; is that what you are suggesting? Mr RYAN: Yes. 14940 The CHAIRPERSON: But you will take that on notice and either release it to us or give an explanation as to why you claim it can't be released. Mr RYAN: Yes, that's fine. 14941 The CHAIRPERSON: John, you had a question on that before we go back to Frank.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1781
14942 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Just a question about the maintenance of the water supply in metropolitan country areas. I understand SA Water has a private sector organisation that does all the maintenance of water supplies in the metropolitan area. Is it the private sector organisation that does the country work as well? Mr RYAN: We have had a longstanding contractual arrangement here in metropolitan Adelaide, where we have been working most recently with the Allwater Alliance, who are doing production, treatment and field services, what you would call maintenance of the asset. It's for nine years. We are now transitioning to a new arrangement in metropolitan Adelaide, and we will be in that arrangement on 1 July this year. But in the regional areas, that maintenance is undertaken by SA Water staff. 14943 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: In terms of actual cost and savings, is it far cheaper to undertake those operations by a private sector organisation rather than to do them yourselves? Mr RYAN: Certainly in Adelaide we found commercially it's a smart thing to do. They also have the ability to bring in expertise, whether it's from other parts of the country, if we've got specialist issues or whatever it may be. For an organisation such as SUEZ, who are the organisation we are going with—they have been part of our Allwater Alliance, and we are now moving to them as part of our Adelaide service delivery—they are an international organisation with world's best practice around production and treatment, which is critically important here. Adelaide should have the best. 14944 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: The reason I ask whether it is more cost effective to do that is that, following from the Hon. Frank Pangallo's question, it seems to take a long time for water leaks in Adelaide to be fixed. Mr RYAN: We are continually looking to improve how we are providing water services. As I said, regional areas are a key driver of that average time, and a lot of that is to do with the time taken to travel. As the whole committee would be aware, they are vast distances that we have our people travelling. 14945 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Does the private sector organisation have bases in country areas? Mr RYAN: Organisations such as SUEZ, who we are with, are not operating in those country areas. 14946 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: So they have to come from metropolitan Adelaide. Mr RYAN: Maintenance, for instance, of our field services is being undertaken by our staff. In metropolitan Adelaide, that is being undertaken currently as part of the Allwater Alliance and in the future will become part of the Adelaide service delivery program. 14947 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just back on Coober Pedy, the council, I believe, made an approach to SA Water probably in 2019 to sell its water asset. That may well have been part of the reason for that report. Has there been a development in relation to that? Is SA Water keen to follow it up? Have they made a decision on whether they will purchase the asset from Coober Pedy? Mr RYAN: I have just been informed by the team that we assessed that at the time and it wasn't seen as a commercial offering for SA Water to take that on. 14948 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just recycled water, and I know that the Hon. Kyam Maher raised this initially, and the government did in fact outlay $200 million over four years for regional upgrades, how much of that money has been spent already? Which particular regional communities have benefited from those upgrades? Mr RYAN: We are not quite sure of the question. Ms JACKSON: We might need a bit of detail about which one you are referring to. When you say recycled or— 14949 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Sorry, I got my notes confused there. The Premier announced $200 million in upgrades for water quality improvements in regional areas. I will get on to recycled in a minute. I had that sitting at the back of my mind. It was $200 million over four years, I believe, and a number of regional communities, one of which was the one that the Hon. Kyam Maher
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1782 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
mentioned, but it also included Oodnadatta, Marla, Terowie and others, how much of that has been allocated? How much has been spent? Can you give me an idea of what work has been carried out? Ms JACKSON: The team is in the process of—they have started the design work for that. Depending on the community, I need to probably take that on notice for you as per the Chair's question earlier. But Oodnadatta was certainly first. There have been conversations with the community in Marla around what's needed there and also plans for further work to occur in the near term this year once COVID vaccinations have occurred in some of those communities as well. 14950 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What about Terowie? I think they're still complaining about the quality and odour of water. Ms JACKSON: I will have to check that one for you. Mr RYAN: We can take that on notice as to where it's sitting in the priorities. 14951 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to get back to recycled water, I noticed on some figures that we have accessed, the total volume of recycled water dropped by 22 per cent last year, is that correct? Mr RYAN: The total volume of SA Water recycled water? 14952 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, recycled water, the supply. Mr RYAN: That doesn't sound familiar at all. Ms JACKSON: Is that going out to being discharged or is that—because it could be being used for other things, for instance, Glenelg/Adelaide pipeline or the NAIS. Mr RYAN: Our understanding is we are continuing to see an increase in recycled water. 14953 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There is an increase? Mr RYAN: Yes, but we will have a look at that figure. 14954 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is there an issue with pricing? Is there a dispute going on at the moment between SA Water and growers in the northern Adelaide areas in relation to the supply of recycled water to those growers? Ms ROWLANDS: We have a couple of recycled water schemes out north. We have the Virginia Pipeline Scheme and then NAIS and both of those come out of the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Virginia Pipeline Scheme was a BOOT(Build, Own, Operate and Transfer) scheme that transferred back into SA Water in 2018 and at that point there was a negotiation that commenced through the VIA as part of a contract and we extinguished that and came up with an offering that was put forward to the growers. I would have to check the date but I think it was September last year, September 2020. Of the 400-plus customers, 90 per cent of those customers have accepted that new pricing, which is a very conservative approach to move to cost-reflective pricing. The Virginia Pipeline Scheme has been subsidised by our sewerage customers for an extended period of time. We have been moving them—it would be over 15 years to get to cost-reflective pricing with those customers. 14955 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What about the other one? You mentioned two. Is there an issue there? Ms ROWLANDS: The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme has been operational for some 12 months. I mentioned earlier that we had around three gigalitres of water contracted, and that is a 12-gig scheme, but that's what is contracted. We have around 300 megalitres that are being used per annum. The 'willingness to pay' project that was done up-front, the price points that it's been priced at, that's what it was modelled on. We do receive feedback around the capital contribution, and that's something that we are having a look at around the capital contribution to ensure we meet our regulatory requirements as well. Does that answer your question? 14956 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Are there complaints from growers that you are overcharging them for that recycled water?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1783
Ms ROWLANDS: For the Virginia pipeline scheme? 14957 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, the other one—NAIS. Ms ROWLANDS: There are no complaints from anybody that has signed up contracts with us around the pricing for NAIS. Mr RYAN: I think it would be important to characterise it that there are not disputes; there are commercial negotiations that are occurring around all projects that we have going on. 14958 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I get to the desalination plant, which I think now would be 11 years old? 14959 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, not quite. Mr RYAN: If you give me a minute, I can probably let you know. Ms ROWLANDS: Ten years, I think. 14960 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: When did we provide water security to South Australia— when was that? 14961 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When did desal plant actually provide first water? It was meant to be in 2010, but it didn't happen. 14962 The CHAIRPERSON: The witnesses might choose to answer after we have had our own discussions for a moment. 14963 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I'm sorry, but I think it's about 10 years old. Mr RYAN: It's been operating since October 2011. 14964 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So it's 10 years old. Mr RYAN: Ten years. 14965 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will the desal plant now, because it's reaching that point, 10 years, require extensive maintenance to keep it going, or is there ongoing maintenance? Mr RYAN: The way the desal plant is operated now, I think it produces roughly around about five gigalitres per annum, which is really about continuing to operate it and ensure that it's able to be turned on in anger, I guess you would say, if it needs to. As part of that, there's constant and ongoing maintenance and so forth, but the fact that you are turning it on and running it means that you are less likely to have to do major refurbishments and so forth. 14966 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So basically all you're doing is turning the switch on and off just to see if it's still working, even though you're not really pumping all that much water? Mr RYAN: The staff down there would probably not like me to characterise it as just turning the switch on and off. There is quite a lot to it. 14967 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I realise that. Mr RYAN: But it's important in terms— 14968 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: But it's not actively pumping water. It's only doing so to maintain its— Mr RYAN: No. That five gigalitres that it is producing is going into our system. 14969 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a supplementary question on that. Didn't we enter into some arrangement with the drought with New South Wales to provide— 14970 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is my topic that I wanted to take up. 14971 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —some water for— 14972 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It's called the Water for Fodder program. 14973 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, but the federal government paid for that. That is my recollection.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1784 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Mr RYAN: Yes, correct. That was basically to supplement, for water to be used further up into the catchment for the growing of fodder; hence why it was called the Water for Fodder program. 14974 The CHAIRPERSON: I think John has a question on this, and a couple more to Frank and then we will get to Clare. 14975 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I just wanted a question on notice, if you don't mind, Mr Ryan. Could you supply to us the running costs, maintenance, of the desalination plant since it first started until 2021? Do you have those figures? Mr RYAN: We have total operating costs, for instance, for the desal plant, which is excluding electricity as such. Would you like a year? 14976 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If you can give us a year. 14977 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There's a table here. 14978 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, if you would like to table that. Mr RYAN: For instance, in 2012-13 it was $16.3 million from an operating cost perspective, excluding electricity; in 2017-18, it was $21 million, something along those lines. I'm just picking some of those years out along that journey in the last 10 years. In 2019-20, it was $25.5 million. 14979 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just for the year? Mr RYAN: For the year. 14980 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: For the year alone? Mr RYAN: Yes. 14981 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can we have those figures tabled, please, Chair. 14982 The CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to provide on notice a copy of the table you're referring to? Mr RYAN: If we just take that question on notice, we will— 14983 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: And that excludes the power costs? Mr RYAN: The power costs are excluded from that, so we can provide those— 14984 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can you include power costs? Mr RYAN: We can provide those as well. 14985 The CHAIRPERSON: Are there any more questions on desal before Clare has a few questions? 14986 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, mine is related to the Water for Fodder program, so that is the desal as well. I was actually after a more comprehensive update on the Water for Fodder program. I understand there have been two reports. How much water from the desal plant was used and in what years for the Water for Fodder program? Mr RYAN: In December 2019, we increased production to provide 40 gigalitres of water, and that was to support the initiatives that we referred to earlier. The Adelaide Desalination Plant (ADP) produced that volume over a period of seven months and it has now returned back to the minimum operation mode. 14987 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So that 40 gigalitres was part of a potential 100 gigalitres in the original announcement; is that the case? I'm seeing a nod. Mr RYAN: Yes. 14988 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What were the conditions for continuing the Water for Fodder program?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1785
Mr RYAN: That's a question more for government than ourselves. We're the delivery partner in terms of delivering that from our treatment plant. 14989 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There was to be a review after the first 40 gigalitres to see whether or not we would continue this program. Was SA Water involved in any review of the Water for Fodder program? Mr RYAN: Ours has been more around ensuring we provide the technical detail around the costs and so forth. 14990 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What was the cost of the water? Mr RYAN: That's still being finalised. Ms GUERIN: Approximately $32 million. ESCOSA is undertaking an audit on behalf of the government to verify those costs. 14991 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the cost to the SA Water desal plant been $32 million so far? Mr RYAN: Those costs would be federally funded. 14992 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I understand that, but so far we are talking about—what happens? Do we issue them with an invoice, or have they already— Ms GUERIN: We have already. We issued them with invoices along the way and we receive the funds. They held back a small portion—I would have to take on notice what that amount was—subject to the full audit being completed. 14993 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How much have they paid us so far? Ms GUERIN: I would have to take that on notice for you. The majority of it, we have received. Mr RYAN: Yes, the large percentage. 14994 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You can take that on notice. Mr RYAN: Yes. 14995 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This was for fodder or pasture in the Southern Basin projects. Could we get a list? Do you have a copy of where they went, or is SA Water not privy to that information? Mr RYAN: That's information that's not for us. 14996 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I get that; I just need it on the record. Mr RYAN: Yes, that's fine. 14997 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has there been any communication from the Marshall government about intending to continue the Water for Fodder program, as was originally announced they would do, that SA Water is aware of? 14998 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There's been a fair bit of rain since then. 14999 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It was meant to actually continue, supposedly. 15000 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to finish off on the desal plant, Mr Ryan, and thank you for your information. Have there been any discussions with the current government at any time raising the decommissioning of the desal plant because of the cost—shutting it down? Mr RYAN: I haven't been involved in any of those conversations. 15001 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Not in any of them? Mr RYAN: No. 15002 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: On the cost of recycled water, I asked a question in parliament recently that concerned a proposal by Burnside council, Walkerville and one other, I think.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1786 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
They were talking about setting up a recycling water plant and the connection with the purple main that comes from Glenelg treatment works and up Greenhill Road. My question was: how many councils are still using that and what is the cost of that water? With the Burnside exercise, they were on record as saying that the cost of their recycled water could not be less than potable water prices from SA Water. My question was: what is the cost that SA Water charges councils from that purple main that goes up Greenhill Road? The answer was: 'That's commercial-in-confidence.' If you were trying to sell anything, surely you would want to demonstrate that the cost was cheaper than anything else. Ms ROWLANDS: The actual arrangements with council are commercial-in-confidence. I think that the difference with Glenelg to the Adelaide Parklands is that a significant component of that was federally funded through grant money, which isn't included in the pricing. That would be one reason why there might be a cost differential. 15003 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My last question is: I understand that in other parts of Australia and around the world recycled effluent is being refined to such an extent that it can be put back into the reticulation system. Is SA Water considering anything like that for South Australia? Mr RYAN: You're absolutely right: around the world, purified recycled water as such is certainly an option. We haven't progressed any plans down that pathway as yet, but it is something. When you look at all options that are on the table, I think it is one where the community would need to be involved in any of those conversations into the future, but right at the minute we don't have any projects underway on that. 15004 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I recall in 1949, when I was a primary school student, that we went for a tour of the Glenelg sewage treatment works and they took great pride at the end of the excursion—the chief chemist took a glass and filled it with treated effluent and drank it. Mr RYAN: Mr Darley, I was a little bit nervous where you were going to go with that and you did land in that spot. What we do know is that purified recycled water, which is treated to a different standard again—the technology and the treatment options—is commonplace around the world now. That's something to be looked at. 15005 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: But we're not considering it? Mr RYAN: It is something we're thinking about, but we don't have any active projects, and anything like you would need to involve the community in those discussions into the future. 15006 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Following the 2019-20 bushfires, we saw some of the treatment plants significantly damaged by these fires. What work is SA Water doing in terms of managing a safe water supply in the aftermath of these bushfires? Have any steps been taken to make water treatment plants better equipped to deal with bushfire situations? Mr RYAN: Largely, where there was some damage was at Middle River over on Kangaroo Island. That was really to what I guess you would call ancillary buildings, some office areas and some areas where we may have some storage and so forth. The treatment plant itself largely escaped unscathed because we had cleared around the area. What it has led us to do is, particularly in those regional areas, to go back and look at our treatment facilities and just make sure we've got, for instance, clearing around them. We are looking at them from a fire perspective. When we did that, we found that by and large we had pretty good processes in place, but certainly with catastrophic bushfire conditions like Kangaroo Island it was a very timely reminder for us that we need to be looking at that. We are very thankful that the treatment plant, aside from loss of power and so forth, largely remained unscathed. 15007 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How reliant are we still on the Murray, particularly for our drinking water? Mr RYAN: It varies from year to year, but it's around 70 to 75 per cent, something along those lines. 15008 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In terms of the promised 450 gigalitres a year, how much have we received in the last three years?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1787
Mr RYAN: I'm not sure on the question—the 450 gigalitres. The Department for Environment and Water, from a River Murray perspective, run any of the state's commitments and the like around that, not SA Water. 15009 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Right, so SA Water has no information about how much we have received? Does that affect your planning at all? Mr RYAN: I'm assuming you are referring to commitments under the basin plan? 15010 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am. I'm referring to the deal the minister did. Mr RYAN: That's certainly a question for DEW rather than us. 15011 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So you don't have that information at all? Mr RYAN: No. 15012 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Moving to the Community Wastewater Management System (CWMS), and in particular the plan for the north-eastern suburbs to connect to the SA Water mains network, when will SA Water complete their design works and present a plan to the City of Tea Tree Gully with a time line of works detailing when each area will be completed? Mr RYAN: Sorry, I just lost the last bit of that question but I think it was around when will we present plans and have a program of work; is that a summary? 15013 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That's right, yes. Mr RYAN: We have been working very closely with the City of Tea Tree Gully and particularly the officers to understand the condition of the asset and to understand what data they have available, and that is then enabling us to develop a rollout plan. We are in the final stages of articulating that rollout plan and that will also set out where we will prioritise—which catchments we would do first, which properties, etc. It is our intent to present that, as we have committed to them, to council officers next month— Ms ROWLANDS: April. Mr RYAN: —in April. From there, subject to council also agreeing that that is a good way for us to roll out, because they obviously have a good understanding of the catchment, we would then go through the necessary approvals we would have to do to then be able to commence those works. I should also add that we have already started to undertake some pilot projects. We started those at the end of 2020. Because this is such a one-off and such a unique program, that is allowing us to understand some of the challenges that we would face, the opportunities, how we work with council and how we work with the local community. We have already started to undertake some of those works now, but the broader rollout, I imagine, is the question you are asking. That would be— 15014 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I understand originally SA Water had advised council that they were going to present in March. You are now saying April. Are you behind schedule? Mr RYAN: Certainly with our conversations with council officers, it has always been April that we have been working toward. 15015 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How long in total will the project take to complete? Mr RYAN: That's the piece of work we actually need to do and finalise to then be able to have those conversations with council. We are still working through how we would prioritise it and how we would roll it out, who we would work with. 15016 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In a general sense, what kind of time frame would you expect it to be? Mr RYAN: Really, until we sit down with council and show them this plan we have or that we are finalising, I'm not in a position to be able to say that. The team still actually need to come back and take me through it. Then there will be a challenge process, as well, that will also run internally within our business.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1788 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
15017 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will it start before the next state election? Mr RYAN: Absolutely; in fact, I would also say we have already started undertaking activities out in Tea Tree Gully now. 15018 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Are they the pilot projects you referred to? Mr RYAN: The pilot projects. 15019 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When SA Water provides that proposed time line for the transition, will individual households be able to look up their street to see when it will impact them? Mr RYAN: Sorry, I missed the last bit of that question, too, but was it: when will householders— 15020 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When SA Water provides that time line of transition, will individual households be able to look up their street and see when they will be transferred over? Mr RYAN: It's a good question on one of the principles which is really driving our program, which is we want to make sure that the community is actively involved in this, as well, and that we are out there engaging with them, talking about when they may come onboard, when SA Water will be operating in their area, for instance—whatever it may be. It is our intent to absolutely keep the community involved. 15021 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So is that a yes that households will be able to look up their street once that plan has been released? Ms ROWLANDS: I don't think it will go down to the detail of individual streets. It will have areas, so we will break it down into different stages and then we will define that stage in more detail. You wouldn't be able to do all 4,700 in April to know the timing of the exact street. It will be a staged approach. 15022 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have you identified any suburbs that need to be transitioned over first, before others? Ms ROWLANDS: We have gone through a prioritisation with the council, and I have identified them. I don't remember the exact suburbs off the top of my head, but we do have the first ones for stage 1 identified. 15023 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could you bring back on notice what those first stage areas are? Ms ROWLANDS: Yes. 15024 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. Will SA Water guarantee that every house in the City of Tea Tree Gully that's currently connected to the CWMS will be transferred over? Ms ROWLANDS: We are working through an approach with council. We have the transition plan that is going to be worked with council from April, so we will talk to council about that then. There are still the finer points that need to be resolved. We need to fully understand the costs associated with that transition plan. We need to understand all the information to know exactly what the outcome is, and we are not at that point yet. Mr RYAN: It's certainly our intent that those properties that are within those areas and that want to come across will come across as part of the program. 15025 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For what kind of reasons would a property not come across? Ms ROWLANDS: Our intent is for the 4,700 properties to come across. 15026 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Every property in the City of Tea Tree Gully? Ms ROWLANDS: Yes. 15027 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How many would you expect to be transitioned during 2021 and 2022?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1789
Mr RYAN: Until we have this plan and this program at work, we can't answer that question. 15028 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that you are going to be presenting to council in April, and we are at the end of March now, you must have some kind of sense. Is it going to be 100 per cent in 2021 and 2022, it going to be 50 per cent, 25 per cent, 1 per cent? Mr RYAN: It certainly won't be 100 per cent in 2021-22, but also, until we actually take this to council—because council, particularly their officers who have had a long understanding of working with the CWMS, might also have alternative views as to how we would do that rollout. We should take that into consideration. 15029 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When would you expect that the whole program would be complete? Mr RYAN: We have more work to do. 15030 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For the benefit of the committee, are we looking at a decade? Ms ROWLANDS: It's until we have this transition report finalised, and that's not until next month. The team is still working on that and yes, it is due next month. We have made that commitment, but we don't have that detail to be able to share with you today. 15031 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So it could be a decade then before this is complete? Mr RYAN: That's a hypothetical question for us, until we actually have this transition plan. Ms ROWLANDS: What we do know is that in this regulatory period we have $65 million allocated, so that is the four-year period that would be working as stage 1. 15032 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Talking of that, you mentioned the $65 million. Is that the total estimated cost of the project? Ms ROWLANDS: We are still working through the finer details. There is limited information available in the public arena on the conditions of the assets within that area. That's what we have been working with council on. Now that we have all that information, we are working through costings, and what we will have in April is a greater understanding of the total cost of the scheme. That was a high-level estimate at that time, based on the information that was available. 15033 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So you don't have an estimate at this stage? Ms ROWLANDS: No, we are still working on that. 15034 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Do you think the City of Tea Tree Gully should make a financial contribution towards the cost of this upgrade and change? Mr RYAN: Our belief is yes, and we have asked council to confirm what that contribution is, to transfer customers, particularly given the significant uplift this will provide for those residents, as well as the condition of the network that is currently supplying those services to them. 15035 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How much do you think would be fair as a contribution? Mr RYAN: We have actually asked council to go away and come back to us with what that contribution would look like. It could take a whole range of different forms. We have had those conversations with council officers, and they have certainly been comfortable to have those discussions with us and consider what those options might be, but there is obviously further discussion still to go in that space. 15036 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Did the council come back and say they didn't think they should be giving a contribution to the project? Mr RYAN: They have, and we have a steering committee meeting, I think, in the next couple of weeks, when we will be talking to the council staff about that, because they also articulated some figures around previous contributions, which we would need to understand as well.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1790 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
15037 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So you have said to council, 'How much do you think you should contribute?' and council has come back and said zero, and you are saying, 'No, that's not acceptable; we think you should contribute more.' Mr RYAN: We would like to have that conversation with the council officers to understand, because they also articulated that they have contributed and we need to understand what that is made up of. 15038 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Coming back again to the time line, has the minister given you a deadline for when the project should be started or when it should be completed? Mr RYAN: The minister hasn't given us a deadline on starting or anything along those lines. My first commitment will be to my board, and we are committed to really get this project up and rolling as quickly as we possibly can, and at the same time work closely with council and so forth. 15039 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So your evidence is that there has been no request from the minister as to when this should commence? Mr RYAN: Certainly not a date put on that. 15040 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Do you think that the cost of the upgrade should be shared across the entire rate base in the City of Tea Tree Gully, or just those on the CWMS network? Mr RYAN: I really think that's a discussion for council as to how they would go about that. 15041 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that you as the CEO wrote to the City of Tea Tree Gully in February asking for that financial contribution after Minister David Speirs had written to residents in the north-east and advised them that ratepayers would not have to contribute to the cost, can you explain why that would have occurred in that way? Mr RYAN: From our perspective, we have certainly always had the commitment that councils should have some contribution to the program to transfer these customers, particularly given both the state of the asset and also the considerable uplift and value this will provide for customers. 15042 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given the council said no, they don't expect to contribute, will you still complete the project and therefore fund the difference? Mr RYAN: We certainly will complete the project. What we would like to do is have those further conversations with council staff at our next steering committee and we have found that they have always been very amenable to having conversations and providing clarity, because there were some elements of that letter that were unclear. 15043 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Do you think you will ask them then for a specific contribution now rather than this open-ended request, to which they have replied 'zero'? Mr RYAN: I think the first thing we have to do is understand the contribution that they are indicating that they have already made. 15044 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that council really only has one primary source of income, which is rates, do you acknowledge that by asking council to make a financial contribution, this amount will be passed on to ratepayers? Mr RYAN: That's really a question for how council would go about that, once again. 15045 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But, again, their options are to either increase rates to ratepayers or increase other fees and charges like pet registrations and so on. They are the options available to council, aren't they? Mr FLETCHER: The SA Water board is required under its charter and so forth to ensure that we behave in a manner that is fiduciarily sensible and that we act commercially. This project comes into play. The board will look at it. The board has asked David and his team to go to council, hence the letter that was written, asking for a contribution from council. On our understanding, the asset base has not been looked after or maintained for some years and is in a very poor state of repair. That's the board's position. The questions you are asking about what we would do from there on in really goes to the government for an answer.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1791
15046 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the board in a position where it can say, 'No, we expect a contribution from the City of Tea Tree Gully and we won't proceed unless we have that contribution'? Mr FLETCHER: No, we are not in a position to say we won't proceed because there may be other interventions, but the board's position would be that the City of Tea Tree Gully should make a contribution. 15047 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What do you mean by 'other interventions'? Mr FLETCHER: For example, as a state corporation, we can be directed to do things. 15048 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So you could be directed by the minister to fund the balance instead of asking the City of Tea Tree Gully to provide that funding? Mr FLETCHER: There's a whole range of options that could occur. 15049 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But that one that we have just outlined, that is a possibility; is that correct? Mr FLETCHER: One of several. 15050 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. The City of Tea Tree Gully has costed the transition of the 4,800 households at around about $91 million, but the state government has only announced $65 million. Are you confident that $65 million is sufficient? Mr FLETCHER: The $65 million dollars is certainly enough for us to do all the work that David has talked about in terms of looking at the program as a whole, looking at negotiating all the final points. There is a huge amount of work to be done, as our team has represented here in terms of not just design but schedule, flow, contributions—all those things. The questions you ask are understandable, but they are far too early: we cannot give you answers at this stage. 15051 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I hope you can answer this one at least: does the $65 million include an upgrade of the CWMS infrastructure on the street and also replacing household infrastructure? Mr RYAN: Yes. It would be our intention to do both on-property and also street upgrades. 15052 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And that would be covered by that $65 million? Mr RYAN: Yes. Mr FLETCHER: Sorry, just to correct that, when you say 'covered', the $65 million will be used to do both, and we will not know how much that will do until we have finished this preliminary work. 15053 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So that might not cover the 4,800, if you are doing both. Mr FLETCHER: It may or it may not. Mr RYAN: Correct. 15054 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It may or it may not is your evidence. I understand that the City of Tea Tree Gully has been advised by ESCOSA that they have to pass on an increase of more than 100 per cent in CWMS service fees this year to maintain the system that, as we know, is about to be discontinued. What discussions has SA Water had with the City of Tea Tree Gully or ESCOSA about what needs to be done to potentially avoid these planned increases, given that it is a system that is going to be decommissioned? Mr RYAN: We are not talking with ESCOSA or the City of Tea Tree Gully around changes to their costs for the 12 months. 15055 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So you have had no discussions with ESCOSA about that or with the City of Tea Tree Gully?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1792 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Ms ROWLANDS: They have mentioned it to us that they have been in conversations with ESCOSA about the way that they're proposing to charge going forward, but that's not been part of our— Mr RYAN: Yes, and certainly we're not aware of those figures. 15056 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When this work is done, will SA Water leave each property in the same condition that it was in before the transition—so, essentially, if there are restoration costs and so on, will that be covered by SA Water? Mr RYAN: Yes; it is our intent to, absolutely. 15057 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have you had any requests from the minister or his office about focusing on a particular area first to be completed? Mr RYAN: No. 15058 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: None whatsoever? Mr RYAN: None. 15059 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What about from any other elected members of parliament? Mr RYAN: No. 15060 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has anyone in SA Water been advised either formally or informally that anyone involved on the project needs to seek the approval of the minister or the minister's office before speaking with any of the council elected members of the City of Tea Tree Gully? Mr RYAN: I am not aware of that. Not that we are aware of. 15061 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is the same for all of your team? Can you just check that with those who are here at the moment? Mr FLETCHER: Can you repeat the question? 15062 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has anyone at SA Water been advised, either formally or informally by the minister or his office, that they need to seek his approval before engaging directly with elected members of the City of Tea Tree Gully? Mr FLETCHER: Any instructions from the minister, etc., come to the board, and I can assure you the board has not had that experience. So a lot of these questions—the corporation is somewhat different from a government department, and I am sure you are aware of that, in that the corporation is responsible to the board, and the chairman of the board is responsible to the shareholders, that are the minister and the Treasurer, okay? So any government instructions come to the board. 15063 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So your evidence is that the board has had no such direction? Mr FLETCHER: That is correct. 15064 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And the CEO's evidence is that there has been no such direction through any other means, informally or— Mr FLETCHER: Any instructions of that nature would have to come from the board. 15065 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Even informal instructions? Mr FLETCHER: The board has the fiduciary responsibility for the corporation, so there is no such thing as an informal instruction when it comes to things that might cost money or— 15066 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will this project go through parliament's Public Works Committee? Mr FLETCHER: Yes. Mr RYAN: Yes.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1793
15067 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How many residents have you directly engaged with so far as part of the community consultation? I don't mean just that they have received a letter from SA Water but that there has actually been consultation. Mr FLETCHER: We will take it on notice if we can. 15068 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, certainly. Thank you. Mr FLETCHER: There are pilot programs underway that the corporation is undertaking through David and his people. 15069 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is SA Water considering making a commercial offer to council for the assets which still have a useful life, and particularly the assets that will be incorporated into the new sewer system? Mr FLETCHER: At this stage, the board would treat that as commercial-in-confidence for the moment. 15070 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So you won't say whether you are or whether you are not? Mr FLETCHER: No. 15071 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will customers with different technologies be paying the same sewer fees and charges? Mr RYAN: Yes. Ms ROWLANDS: We operate under statewide pricing principles. 15072 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So in the north-east the customers will receive the same service levels as other metropolitan SA Water customers on gravity sewers? Mr RYAN: Absolutely. 15073 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What sort of technologies are being considered for use in the transition? Specifically, are you looking at installing low-pressure sewer systems as part of the upgrade? Mr RYAN: Yes, we have looked at that. Once again, until we have the final rollout plan, I couldn't say whether that's going to get on the plan or not. Ms ROWLANDS: We are looking at all different technology options to suit the topography and the area that we are servicing. 15074 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that for the low-pressure sewer systems there's more electricity that's needed. Will customers therefore have to pay for that extra electricity if you do utilise that technology or will that be something borne by SA Water? Mr RYAN: We understand that the pumps are ours but, once again, until we get to an understanding of how we are going to do this rollout, our intent would be that the pumps and so forth would be SA Water's. 15075 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Therefore, SA Water would provide that extra electricity? Mr RYAN: Yes. 15076 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So there would be no extra cost to the consumer? Mr RYAN: No. 15077 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will SA Water be providing an asset management plan for the project that shows the conversion costs, the prioritisation, the capital works program and the transition dates for customers? Ms ROWLANDS: Where would we be providing that—publicly? Mr RYAN: So you are asking for an asset management plan? 15078 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1794 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Ms ROWLANDS: I think that we would provide the approach in the transition plan at a high level for community engagement so that they had the information available that meets their needs. It depends on what detail you are talking about in terms of asset management plans. 15079 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Really, just in terms of particularly the cost, the prioritisations and so on. That's fine, you can take that on notice if you feel there's anything to add. Ms ROWLANDS: I think that we have been focusing on community outcome as opposed to providing that information to those community members. 15080 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That's fine. One more question: some Tea Tree Gully residents who are connected currently to the CWMS septic are looking at building new houses which require the installation of a new septic tank. Will SA Water cover the cost of those septic tanks given that some consumers might only need them for a few months—six months or whatever—before transitioning over to the mains? Ms ROWLANDS: We are working through all of the details, particularly of those new developments. I probably can't answer that right now because that's part of our prioritisation of which systems or which areas are going to come over first. We can take that on notice if that's okay. 15081 The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But is it so that customers who are currently building houses are having to install new CWMS septic systems and pay for those additional costs now? Ms ROWLANDS: I would have to take it on notice to go back to ask that question specifically of the project team. Mr RYAN: In fact, we will have to ask that question of council. 15082 The CHAIRPERSON: I think we have a range of different questions. The first one is on something completely different: if SA Water were to be privatised, would there be national interest or would it be just international interest in purchasing what SA Water does? Mr FLETCHER: I would suspect there would be international interest because of the size of the operation. 15083 The CHAIRPERSON: What would provide the best return: an outright sale of SA Water or some sort of fixed period where you would have a 10, 20 or 50-year arrangement? Mr FLETCHER: That's a bit of a question, Chair, about beauty being in the eyes of the beholder because SA Water, through statewide pricing and government direction, does a huge amount of work that wouldn't be seen by the private sector as profitable. So it's a bit hard to give a sensible answer until we are further down the track on that. 15084 The CHAIRPERSON: When was the last time the board did any work on how privatisation of SA Water might look? Mr FLETCHER: It hasn't done it in my term as chairman—three years. 15085 The CHAIRPERSON: Is there a responsibility of the board to consider all possible options of how it operates and how its future might look? Mr FLETCHER: It's the responsibility of the board to consider how it operates. In the extreme, I suppose it would be plausible, depending on the circumstances and the cost of the thing. If the board considered it was a sensible option to put before government, it should be considered, but I suspect it would be more a government direction to consider it. 15086 The PRESIDING MEMBER: So the board doesn't see it's got a responsibility to consider future operating models that include privatisation? Mr FLETCHER: No; the board sees its responsibility as delivering water and sewerage services to the people of South Australia in the most efficient and financially economic way. To that end, we have already gone to partial privatisation of some of the activities in the operational sector, and of course all the major CapEx works are done by the private sector—the major. At the moment, my view as chairman is that the board has got the right balance and I wouldn't see immediately, without further thought, a justification for recommending that to government.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1795
15087 The PRESIDING MEMBER: I understand that, but, short of recommending to the government, has the board had any internal discussions about how a more fuller privatisation model might work? Mr FLETCHER: No, we have not. 15088 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My question is related to the matter of sewerage rates in South Australia. At the present time, residential sewerage rates are based on valuation; in fact, all sewerage rates are based on valuation. A few years ago, the Productivity Commission prepared a report on this and they suggested that South Australia was the only state still charging sewerage rates on valuation. They suggested most strongly that SA Water should move away from the valuation approach. In about 2009-10, minister Maywald introduced quarterly water readings. When that occurred, there was a possibility that you could identify the amount of water that was being used for waste disposal purposes, in other words the winter months. What action has SA Water done, or any action, to look at changing the process of sewerage rating to a pay-for-use situation? Mr FLETCHER: I will hand it over to David for the detail, but the board has certainly looked at this and considered options. Mr RYAN: Our bills, as you would be aware, are split into two separate services: water supply and sewerage. The charges for water are split into fixed supply charge and a three-tier usage, and you talked about the metering and so forth. Sewerage rates are designed to recover the cost of delivering those sewerage services, so transport, infrastructure provision, operations, treatment, etc., etc. These are largely fixed costs, so they are not significantly influenced either by the discharge from the property to the sewer or the quantity of water supplied to the customer. They are not impacted by that as such. They are set as a rate in the dollar from a valuation perspective, so when valuations may go up we still have a revenue cap, which is set by ESCOSA. So if the values go up the rate in the dollar in terms of the overall revenue that we will collect from sewerage charges will reduce that rate in the dollar. That happens every 12 months, but ESCOSA set that revenue cap on a four-year period. 15089 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: But surely rating for sewerage on the basis of valuation has no regard to actual use by the users. Mr RYAN: In terms of a fixed charge, it's certainly a way to do it in terms of how it reflects things such as how most of the costs to do with sewerage are fixed. So it's not like the water costs, which are variable depending upon how much you are producing and treating and so forth. But I think there are questions around: are there other options, is there further reform in this space? I think it's probably not from our perspective in terms of how that reform would be undertaken, but we would certainly play a part in that. 15090 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: But surely, if all other states are not rating sewerage rates on the same basis as here—I mean, every year when water and sewerage rates come out, there is a howl from the public and they say, 'We have our water and sewerage rates, and this is how much we are paying for potable water, and yet we are paying this amount for sewerage rates.' Surely, where you have quarterly metering going on at the moment, you can identify the component of water that is used for waste disposal and price it on that basis. Mr RYAN: I think the challenge we have in the sewerage space is that it's not as influenced by water usage or quantity of wastewater or quality of wastewater, so the fixed charges are an appropriate way to do it, whether it's based on valuation. You referenced the other states. My understanding is that it's slightly different in various states. They are using different methodologies as well. It's a challenge that many other organisations are facing. Kerry, did you want to add anything to that? Ms ROWLANDS: I think you are exactly right. You could measure the flow into the sewerage system, but our costs aren't dynamically influenced by the quality or quantity, so the fixed cost, but then you can get into a conversation about whether valuation is the right method or is just
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1796 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
a fixed charge that everybody pays the same, so there are different options. The one that we run is obviously valuation. 15091 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: But valuation has no relationship to the actual cost of collecting the waste, processing it and whatever infrastructure costs you have associated with that. Valuation has no relationship to that at all. Mr FLETCHER: You are absolutely right. Your observation is correct. 15092 The CHAIRPERSON: We might get to Justin, who has been waiting patiently for a few questions, and I note that Nicola and David amongst others have final questions to ask as well. 15093 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I will try to be brief and I will put some on notice as well later on that should speed things up a bit. In relation to performance generally of burst water mains, can you provide a document summary of the locations, type and duration of the outages and burst mains to us? Mr RYAN: Yes. 15094 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Thank you very much. I will let you take that on notice as that. Mr RYAN: That's fine. 15095 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: In relation to two other things, there were reports over the weekend that a subcontractor lost their job after an MP posted a photo on Facebook of that MP being taken on a government-funded building site without wearing proper PPE. What's the process for a government MP, or any MP for that matter, to access SA Water sites? Mr RYAN: They would need to firstly contact the organisation to let us know, but before you go onto any of our sites you would need to be inducted, and that would more often than not be run by the head contractor on site. 15096 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The media report said, 'The builder contacted the member's office, the member for King's office, and highlighted that her entry on site was unauthorised and in breach of health and safety conditions.' How many unauthorised entries have MPs made to SA Water sites since 2018? Mr FLETCHER: The board hasn't been informed of any, but we can ask David to have a look at that. Mr RYAN: My understanding is zero, but we can go back and check that out. 15097 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: If you could take that on notice, that would be great. Mr RYAN: Yes. 15098 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Recent other reports over the weekend indicated major vulnerabilities in Microsoft IT. The Australian parliament, I think, lost its email system amongst other impacts. What is the current cyber threat assessment for SA Water? Mr RYAN: For us, it's still rated from memory as a medium. We have strong barriers in place. We have that externally assessed and audited. But obviously there are bad actors out there who are constantly trying to get access to either government or government corporation's IT systems. But we track that, we report that and, as I said, we have it externally reviewed as well. Mr FLETCHER: I can advise that the board has been focused on this for some time now and that we indeed have a relatively new board member who is a cyber expert providing high-level advice. The team within SA Water, led by Jacqui, is very cognisant of our threats there. Utilities in Australia, and any country really, are at the forefront going forward because that's where the cyber attacks can be most effective. It is a high priority on the board's agenda. Jacqui, do want to add anything? Ms GUERIN: I absolutely agree with what the chairman has said. The team report regularly to me, which is reported up to the executive and to the board. We are constantly upgrading and monitoring, and in the last couple of years we have gone through significant upgrades in infrastructure.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1797
But, as the chair has said, it is something that you have to be following continually, because every time you put something new in place those who are out there undertake the next form they invent, so we are constantly monitoring that. That's very important to us. We are also involved in a number of government bodies in relation to IT, so we are very well connected as far as what the government is undertaking to ensure that we keep all our protection at the required limit. 15099 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: My understanding of current laws around cyber attacks particularly is that all operations in regard to prevention and monitoring need to be conducted internal; is that correct—that you can't contract it out—is that correct—since about 2018? Mr RYAN: Certainly what we have been doing is meeting our requirements. I am not sure which piece of legislation you are referring to. 15100 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I won't name it, but the basic run of it is that you cannot, if you are a contractor to an organisation, point out a frailty within the organisation's cyber platform because in doing so you actually—the IP of that is not owned by you, it is owned by them, so them pointing it out to you makes them essentially, under our current laws, a terrorist. I won't go into it too much. Do we have direct employees of SA Water conducting all testing in regard to your cyber threat? Ms GUERIN: When you say 'direct employees', are you asking if we use external employees? 15101 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Yes, do you contract it out? Ms GUERIN: I would have to check that for you because we use a number of specialist skills. I would have to check that particular question for you. 15102 The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Have you been be briefed on a recent US case where a hacker took control of systems and added chemicals to drinking water in the US? Mr RYAN: Yes, and we are also involved with national bodies from a water perspective who have also been doing a lot of work and seeking to understand that and providing information to organisations across Australia as well. 15103 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: With water meters, what technology are you using these days from the point of view of reading meters? What are your plans going forward? Mr RYAN: There's no doubt that the technology in the older water meters has been around since the 1950s, 1960s, so we are looking at opportunities for smart metering. We've already got some smart meters underway with councils, with Department for Education locations, and we are looking at how we can roll that out, and get the business case to stack up better, and put that information in customers' hands as such. 15104 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Have you engaged any of the tech startup companies down at Lot Fourteen? I know there are some that have some capability in utilities metering as well. Mr RYAN: We are forming some close relationships with organisations down at Lot Fourteen. We are also looking internationally at what is going on. This is a nut that many organisations across Australia are really trying to crack at the minute to get it to stack up. Some of the challenges we have include simple things like geography and the vast distances we have to operate within. 15105 The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My last question: how many meters does SA Water have? Mr RYAN: Ballpark, 770,000. 15106 The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have two questions. The first one is on the Humphrey pump, which I understand is a South Australia Water asset. It's at the Cobdogla Irrigation and Steam Museum, which is down my way. It's the last operational pump of its kind in the world able to be viewed by the general public and obviously provides an excellent tourism attraction for the Riverland. My understanding is that a recent engineer's report suggested improvements to bring the operational safety of the pump up to modern standards. Obviously, these improvements require investment by SA Water. Are you able to provide an update as to whether or not there is any allocated funding going forward for the Humphrey pump?
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1798 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
Mr FLETCHER: Thank you for your question. It's not a Dorothy Dixer, Chairman, but I am passionate about the Humphrey pump. 15107 The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So am I. Mr FLETCHER: SA Water owns the property and the area in which the pumps exist. They are the only two in the world. It's a unique form of pump, and it's made more complex in that it has a gas generation plant that has generated a lot of tar over the past years. The pumps haven't been working for some years now. The site is run by a group of volunteers, who do an amazing job. The trouble is that they are all ageing, and we need to capture their knowledge and understanding of this. To date, SA Water has cleaned up the surface tar, etc. We still have a major problem with the huge tar pit that has been there for years. It's going to cost in the order of $3 million plus to clean it up. That is being looked at and programmed at the moment. The pump house itself needed major restoration; concrete was degraded, steel was degraded, timber purlins and so forth. That has all been rectified, and the volunteers are now back in action taking tours through the site. There are also a steam train and a steam museum that they look after. I think it's a great asset for the state. The problem is the restoration of the pumps. Only one will be able to be restored, but it's a $3 million-plus problem. Understandably, our regulator would not smile upon the people of South Australia paying for that restoration at this stage. We have worked with the volunteers to see what funding might be available from various government purses. We even encouraged them to explore crowdfunding. That bit is the tough nut on this. We have engaged TAFE to record the knowledge and experience of these elderly volunteers so we don't lose it, and that work is well underway, but for the fragile pieces we need to raise money somehow to restore the pump. 15108 The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The second question is: is SA Water able to update the committee generally on the average household savings for consumers for the financial year 2020-21? Ms GUERIN: It's approximately $200 for residential customers and $1,350 for commercial customers. 15109 The CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, how much is budgeted by SA Water for advertising to inform people about their water bills? Mr RYAN: The advertising campaign that was undertaken around the time of the bill savings was run by the state government, so for those questions, DPC would be— 15110 The CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of that campaign that was run as far as SA Water was concerned? Mr RYAN: The key thing for us was to drive people to the estimator. We have a bill estimator on our website that allows people to estimate the savings they will be receiving and also what their average bill will be over a 12-month period. 15111 The CHAIRPERSON: Did people need to take some sort of action to register for those savings? Mr RYAN: No, they will be passed through, but the estimator provides a very simple and easy-to-use tool for customers to be able to estimate what their bill will be. 15112 The CHAIRPERSON: So the advertising wasn't one of those government advertisings where you needed people to change their behaviour. Were people going to find out their savings when they got their bill or did they need to do something to get those savings? Mr RYAN: It's probably not really a question for us; that's as much for DPC or the state government. 15113 The CHAIRPERSON: Did SA Water have to approve the advertising campaign or any involvement in it or was it just completely separate? Mr RYAN: SA Water wasn't the approving body. What we did want to do, though, was make sure that we were able to send people to our website and that bill estimator.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, 29 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 1799
15114 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My question concerns the Blue Lake at Mount Gambier. My understanding is the Blue Lake is Crown lands and SA Water have care and control over that area. SA Water had two licence agreements: one with Aquifer Tours, that operate a tourist operation there, and the other one with the City of Mount Gambier for the kiosk or shop that is down there. My understanding is that the council discontinued or didn't renew the lease to Aquifer Tours for the shop on the basis that the government was going to resume control of the whole area, which was quite untrue. My question to SA Water is: you have a licence agreement with Aquifer Tours that is due for renewal in 2023, with a further right of renewal of 10 years. Is SA Water going to honour that licence? Mr FLETCHER: By pure coincidence, the board was down at Mount Gambier last week and we inspected the Blue Lake facility and met with the operator of the tours and met with the mayor of the council. Your information about the relationship between the council leasing their cafe, or whatever it is, to the man is probably correct, but I'm not sure; it's not our bailiwick. In relation to ours, we have been approached by council to have a look at—in fact, I think council has actually got an application in to jointly administer the Blue Lake area with us. So, while that goes on we are in no position to make a commitment to whether we are going to extend tour licences. 15115 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: The position is this: I have spoken to the CEO of the Department for Environment and Water and he advised me that what the council was saying was not true and that what the department is doing is working to provide more secure tenure to both SA Water and the City of Mount Gambier. Mr FLETCHER: I am pleased to hear that that's DEW's intention. 15116 The CHAIRPERSON: Frank, you had a question on the advertising campaign I think, to finish. 15117 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Actually, just if you can provide the figures of how many have accessed your online calculator to see how much they are saving and would you have an idea of how much savings have been achieved since 1 July when it was announced? Mr RYAN: When you say the savings that have been achieved, they are— 15118 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: With your customers. Mr RYAN: For instance, on average the $200— 15119 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We know that. Mr RYAN: That's hardwired into customer bills now. 15120 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So how much do you think has been achieved in the past 12 months with your customers in savings? You can take that on notice. Mr RYAN: Yes, okay. 15121 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The other thing I wanted to ask you was: property values, as the Hon. John Darley mentioned, are included in your pricing structure, particularly for sewerage; that's correct, isn't it? Mr RYAN: Yes, sewerage fixed charges we were talking about before. 15122 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You are aware currently that the Valuer-General is undertaking revaluation throughout— Mr RYAN: Correct. 15123 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Are we likely then to see an increase in sewerage bills or the sewerage component? Mr RYAN: Yes. Overall, we have a revenue cap, which is set by ESCOSA. What happens on an annual basis is when valuations change, that rate in the dollar changes. We find the
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1800 Legislative Council Monday, 29 March 2021
balance between the ESCOSA revenue cap, the changes to valuation and then what that means from a change to the rate in the dollar. 15124 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If property values go up, you are likely to see an increase. Mr FLETCHER: That's correct. Mr RYAN: But SA Water doesn't profiteer out of this. That's the important point. 15125 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I'm not suggesting you are. Mr RYAN: I am just making that point. 15126 The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: What it will mean is that some property values will go up, some will come down, but there will be no increase in revenue purely as a result of that. Mr RYAN: Beautiful. The overall revenue cap will stay the same. 15127 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Do you apply for price increases to ESCOSA? Mr RYAN: Do we apply for increases? 15128 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Do you need to put an application in to ESCOSA if you are going to increase your water and sewerage rate? Mr RYAN: ESCOSA set our revenue cap, and they do that every four years through the regulatory process. 15129 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: When is the next one due? Mr RYAN: We are two-thirds of the way through the first year. 15130 The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thanks for your time today, Mr Ryan and Mr Fletcher. 15131 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, SA Water folk. As I said at the start, we will send you a copy of the transcript for any clerical corrections and to remind you of the things that have been taken on notice. We thank you for your time here today. Certainly, the supply and cost of water are vital things for the South Australian community, so it's much appreciated. Mr FLETCHER: Thanks, Chair. Thanks, members. Mr RYAN: Thank you.
THE WITNESSES WITHDREW
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 23 April 2021
Ms Leslie Guy Secretary to the Budget and Finance Committee Legislative Council Parliament House North Terrace ADELAIDE SA 5000
Dear Ms Guy
Re: SA Water appearance at Budget and Finance Committee
Thank you for your email containing the transcript from SA Water’s appearance before the Budget and Finance Committee on 29 March 2021.
Please find attached SA Water’s responses to those questions that were taken on notice at this session, along with responses to the aditional Questions on Notice provided by the Committee.
Should you wish to discuss any element of SA Water’s suggested corrections in additional detail, please contact me on or via email
Yours sincerely
Dave Godge Senior Manager Government Relations SA Water
Attachment 1: Responses to Questions on Notice Attachment 2: Responses to additional Questions on Notice
Page 1 Answers to Questions on Notice taken during the Committee meeting.
Extract of Non potable water supplies Question 14853: The CHAIRPERSON: I guess that comes to my first question: how many South Australians are supplied and pay for SA Water that's not safe for drinking or brushing teeth? Mr RYAN: We would have to take that question on notice in terms of actual numbers. Answer SA Water operates 19 non-drinking systems which serve approximately 650 properties.
Extract of Oodnadatta water supply Question 14855: The CHAIRPERSON: I think it was announced almost 12 months ago that they should be getting safe drinking water. Are you able to put a more firm date on it and exactly where the process is up to at the moment for Oodnadatta? Mr RYAN: I can take that question on notice and make sure we come back and provide the actual date. Answer SA Water’s planning for the Oodnadatta upgrade is currently in the ‘Asset Investigations’ phase and moving into the ‘Capital Delivery’ phase. The investigations are nearing completion and are being used to inform the technical solutions. These early investigations indicate a reverse osmosis desalination solution would likely be best suited in Oodnadatta.
To date, SA Water’s work has included early community engagement, concept planning with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), trialling of new technologies, and selection of a construction partner that has been engaged to develop the design and pricing of the project.
Oodnadatta will be the first to be progressed in the program of upgrades for six remote communities which will be delivered over the course of the 2020- 24 period. Construction is currently scheduled to commence in March 2022 with completion expected by September 2022.
Extract of Oodnadatta water supply Question 14863: The CHAIRPERSON: What's the budgeted cost for the Oodnadatta township water upgrade? Ms JACKSON: I would have to check that for you. I would have to take that on notice. 14864: The CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to take on notice as well and provide to the committee a list of the rollout of water upgrades—I think it was $41 million dollars announced a year ago? What is the priority and what are the time frames expected for each of those upgrades? Ms JACKSON: Absolutely. Answer The budget for the upgrade to Oodnadatta’s water supply is $8.747 million, which forms part of a broader suite of upgrades in 2020-2024 for the townships of Maree, Marla, Yunta, Terowie and Manna Hill with a budget of $40.457 million.
These projects will be delivered as two programs of work. The first program of upgrades to Oodnadatta, Maree and Marla will be completed, in that order, between September 2022 and December 2022. The second program of upgrades has a preliminary order of Terowie, Yunta and Manna Hill with works starting in September 2022 and completion expected by April 2023.
Extract of COVID-19 Wastewater testing Question 14868: The CHAIRPERSON: How many instances have there been of SA Water testing wastewater that has shown some positive result for COVID-19? Ms JACKSON: I would have to check the exact number for you. Answer As part of the SA Health program, SA Water understands that there has been 58 confirmed detections of COVID-19 from the wastewater surveillance program across South Australia as of 6 April 2021. All of these have been reported to SA Health in the agreed timeframes.
Extract of COVID-19 Wastewater testing Question 14870: The CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, has there been any sort of detection of COVID-19 in wastewater that hasn't been publicly announced? Ms JACKSON: Not that I am aware of. 14871: The CHAIRPERSON: Can you check—take it on notice and double check? Ms JACKSON: Yes, absolutely. I know that it certainly is the case that SA Health has started publishing results on their website. I would have to check the date when, or SA Health would be able to tell you. Answer Questions on this should be directed to SA Health.
Extract of Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme Question 14890: The CHAIRPERSON: Keeping the minister up to date about the NAIS work would have included the fact that there was going to be less discharged out to sea as a result of some of that going to NAIS? Mr RYAN: There may be some small reductions but with the understanding we are still only in the early stages of NAIS. 14891: The CHAIRPERSON: You may be able to take on notice and provide a copy of what it was that you informed the minister, an email or memo or minute, and provide that to the committee. I think John indicated he had some questions on this in particular. Answer Ministers were advised of the environmental benefits of NAIS through reduced discharge into the Gulf when Cabinet approved the scheme in 2017. Since that time, SA Water has advised Ministers of the reduced discharge associated with NAIS in Parliamentary Briefing Notes.
Extract Opening up our reservoirs of Ms JACKSON: It was part of the 'Opening up our reservoirs' project. We Question worked with SA Health to introduce what we call a type 1 health recreational access incident, which would include unauthorised high-risk activity in a reservoir—for example, swimming. That's what I think you are referring to there. 14897: The CHAIRPERSON: Have they increased over time, in the last couple of years? Ms JACKSON: We have had an increase in those incidents. We haven't had a corresponding increase in health issues in terms of what we call product water. 14898: The CHAIRPERSON: Is the increase last financial year, compared to the year before, in the order of a thousand per cent increase? Ms JACKSON: A thousand per cent? 14899: The CHAIRPERSON: Increase in those incidents? Ms JACKSON: Actually, I don't think my maths is that good, sorry. I might have to take that one on notice, Chair. Answer The last three years of Type 1 incident data, related to recreational access to reservoirs, is included below:
Data 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21* Type 1 Health Recreational Access 0 11 16 Incidents Number of visitors 8,908 61,116 100,310 Incidents per 1000 visitors 0 0.18 0.16 *data up until 31st March 2021
The Type 1 Health Recreational Access incident category was introduced on 14 April 2019, so the figure for 2018/19 covers 2.5 months only.
The total number of Type 1 Health Recreational Access incidents has increased, from 11 in 2019/20 to 16 in 2020/21, but when accounting for the increased visitation, the rate (per 1000 visitors) of Type 1 incidents has declined.
Extract Opening up our reservoirs of 14907: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think we would like a comparison of when the Question new incident categories were introduced and whether or not that changed the type of incident, and the name that we called them. 14908: The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you can take on notice anything you can provide for the last four years of incidents: what type they are and what they mean and if new ones have been introduced. Ms JACKSON: We can give you a table— Answer The recreational access criteria (Type 1 – Health Recreational Access) was introduced on 14 April 2019 when Myponga Reservoir opened to the public. The incident criteria is as follows; • Reservoirs with recreational access – Any unauthorised high risk activities including swimming, water entry or other that can lead to contamination of the reservoir. Data 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21* Type 1 Health Recreational Access 0 11 16 Incidents *data until 31st March 2021
Since the introduction of recreational access, SA Water has not recorded an increase in type 1 incidents measured at SA Water’s water treatment plant inlets and outlets associated with the reservoirs open to the public.
WTP Inlet and Outlet Type 1 Health Incidents Opening Date of Hazard WTP Plant 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21* connected reservoir Category Health Related Warren - 20/10/19 Barossa WTP Inorganic 1 South Para 7/12/2019 Chemicals Hope Valley Enteric Hope Valley WTP 1 13/12/2020 Protozoa Enteric Myponga WTP Myponga 14/4/2019 3 1 Protozoa
Grey area - Prior to recreational access at this site. *Data until 31st March 2021
Extract of Opening up our reservoirs Question 14919: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Last night on the ABC news, the Premier actually noted in an interview that his government had received advice that opening reservoirs to the public should not be done and that he did not accept that advice. What was that advice and who did it come from? Ms JACKSON: I would have to take that on notice— Mr RYAN: Yes, we would have to take that on notice. Ms JACKSON: —to understand exactly what he was referring to, sorry. Answer SA Water is not aware of the advice to which the Premier referred.
Extract of Opening up our reservoirs Question 14921: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who is on the reservoir opening task force? Mr RYAN: There are a number of organisations. I would have to take that on notice to get you that list. Answer The Opening up our Reservoirs Taskforce consists of the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, or other senior executive as agreed with the Taskforce Chair, of the following agencies: • Department for Environment and Water (Chair) – Chief Executive, John Schutz. • SA Water – Chief Executive, David Ryan. • Department for Infrastructure and Transport – Executive Director Planning & Land Use Services, Sally Smith. • Department of Primary Industries and Regions – Executive Director SARDI, Dr Peter Appleford. • South Australian Tourism Commission – Manager Research and Policy, Joanne Davidson. • Forestry SA – Chief Executive, Julian Speed.
The following additional agencies are represented across the Taskforce’s four Working Groups: • Department for Health and Wellbeing • Environment Protection Authority • Department of Treasury and Finance • SA Police • Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing • SA Country Fire Service • South Australian Tourism Industry Council • Local Government Association
Extract of Zero Cost Energy Future savings Question 14928: The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: What has been the rough estimate of the cost savings so far? Ms GUERIN: Since 2014, we have saved $3 million. I would have to take on notice what we expect that to be going forward. We are estimating we should be able to cover about 70 per cent of our requirements at the start of the program. If we go back to when we started three years ago, it was based on 70 per cent of our electricity use at that time. Answer Year to date SA Water’s new solar installations have provided a benefit of $1.2 million. This includes our stage 1 initiative that sits outside of the funding provided for the main Zero Cost Energy Future program. The total year to date benefit from the sites implemented within the Zero Cost Energy Future program has been $979,490.
Since 2014, savings from other solar, hydro and biogas energy initiatives have saved on average $5 million per annum with the amounts ranging from $3 million to $8 million depending on a number of variables each year.
Extract of Coober Pedy water network assessment Question Mr RYAN: We currently have no role in operating or managing the water supply for Coober Pedy at the minute. The District Council of Coober Pedy, as you would be aware, is operating that as an administrator. We were asked to work with the District Council of Coober Pedy to undertake a high- level assessment of the network. The report was commissioned by the state government and is currently with the government for consideration. 14933: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How long has it been with the government, Mr Ryan? Mr RYAN: I don't have that date. I can take that question on notice. 14934: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Would it be fair to say it has been with the government for almost a year—April 2020? Mr RYAN: I would have to take that question on notice in terms of the actual date. Answer The report was provided to the State Government on 21 April 2020.
Extract of Coober Pedy water network assessment Question 14940: The CHAIRPERSON: But you will take that on notice and either release it to us or give an explanation as to why you claim it can't be released. Mr RYAN: Yes, that's fine. Answer The Report is considered exempt from public disclosure under Clause 1(1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act 1991, as the document in question was specifically prepared for the use of a Minister in relation to a matter submitted or proposed to be submitted to Cabinet. Extract of Regional water quality improvements Question 14949: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Sorry, I got my notes confused there. The Premier announced $200 million in upgrades for water quality improvements in regional areas. I will get on to recycled in a minute. I had that sitting at the back of my mind. It was $200 million over four years, I believe, and a number of regional communities, one of which was the one that the Hon. Kyam Maher mentioned, but it also included Oodnadatta, Marla, Terowie and others, how much of that has been allocated? How much has been spent? Can you give me an idea of what work has been carried out? Ms JACKSON: The team is in the process of—they have started the design work for that. Depending on the community, I need to probably take that on notice for you as per the Chair's question earlier. But Oodnadatta was certainly first. There have been conversations with the community in Marla around what's needed there and also plans for further work to occur in the near term this year once COVID vaccinations have occurred in some of those communities as well. 14950: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What about Terowie? I think they're still complaining about the quality and odour of water. Ms JACKSON: I will have to check that one for you. Mr RYAN: We can take that on notice as to where it's sitting in the priorities. Answer In line with its regulatory commitments with its regulator the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, SA Water will upgrade supplies to Oodnadatta, Maree, Marla, Yunta, Terowie and Manna Hill by 2024 at a cost of $40.457 million.
Extract Adelaide Desalination Plant of Mr RYAN: For instance, in 2012-13 it was $16.3 million from an operating cost Question perspective, excluding electricity; in 2017-18, it was $21 million, something along those lines. I'm just picking some of those years out along that journey in the last 10 years. In 2019-20, it was $25.5 million. 14981: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can we have those figures tabled, please, Chair. 14982: The CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to provide on notice a copy of the table you're referring to? Mr RYAN: If we just take that question on notice, we will— 14984: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can you include power costs? Mr RYAN: We can provide those as well. Answer Year Production (GL) Power cost ($m) Total operating cost excluding power ($m) 2011-12 3.8 $9.0 N/A 2012-13 38.7 $21.3 $16.3 2013-14 60.3 $41.1 $27.4 2014-15 22.8 $21.7 $23.7 2015-16 8.0 $16.8 $21.5 2016-17 4.3 $13.5 $20.9 2017-18 4.4 $13.0 $21.0 2018-19 5.0 $14.3 $20.1 2019-20 40.0 $36.8 $25.5 2020-21* 2.2 $5.3 $11.7 Total 189.5 $192.8 $188.1 *Year to date at 28/2/21
Extract of Water for Fodder invoices Question Ms GUERIN: We have already. We issued them with invoices along the way and we receive the funds. They held back a small portion—I would have to take on notice what that amount was—subject to the full audit being completed. 14993: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How much have they paid us so far? Ms GUERIN: I would have to take that on notice for you. The majority of it, we have received. Mr RYAN: Yes, the large percentage. 14994: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You can take that on notice. Mr RYAN: Yes. Answer As at this time, the Commonwealth Government has provided $30m in milestone payments relating to the marginal costs of producing 40 gigalitres of water from the Adelaide Desalination Plant (ADP) as part of the Water for Fodder program. Of this amount, $29.475m has been received by SA Water, with the balance of $0.525m provided to DEW, for its incremental costs of administering the program.
As part of the project funding agreement with the Commonwealth for the Water for Fodder program, $3m of the federal funding has been retained, contingent on a review by ESCOSA of SA Water’s marginal cost of producing the 40 gigalitres of water from the ADP. This review is expected to be completed shortly, with a final true-up payment/refund to be made shortly afterwards.
Extract of Tea Tree Gully CWMS Question 15023: The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could you bring back on notice what those first stage areas are? Ms ROWLANDS: Yes. Answer Pilot sites are underway at Glenere Drive and Dawson Drive, Modbury. SA Water is finalising the high-level prioritisation of the other areas to be transitioned and this information will be available once it is endorsed by the SA Water Board and provided to Council for feedback. SA Water plans to have Board approval and provide it to Council by the end of April 2021. SA Water expects that the catchments in the first stage of major works will be broadly in line with Council priorities, as this generally aligns with community feedback and performance issues in the network.
Extract of Tea Tree Gully CWMS Question 15067: The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How many residents have you directly engaged with so far as part of the (CWMS) community consultation? I don't mean just that they have received a letter from SA Water but that there has actually been consultation. Mr FLETCHER: We will take it on notice if we can. Answer A letter was sent to all 4,700 residential and business properties in September 2020, inviting them to meet with us and obtain further information. SA Water had telephone calls and email exchanges with around 210 CWMS customers seeking further information. There have been over 2,700 visitors to SA Water’s WaterTalks page containing CWMS information, with 20 surveys completed and 53 questions asked on the forum. Over 70 customers attended the three in-person and five online community drop-in sessions during September and October 2020. Property visits and face-to-face discussions were held in mid-October 2020 and in February/March 2021, with around 100 property owners and residents in the pilot sites at Glenere Drive and Dawson Drive, Modbury. There have also been meetings with around 20 members of community interest groups.
Extract of Tea Tree Gully CWMS Question 15080: The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That's fine. One more question: some Tea Tree Gully residents who are connected currently to the CWMS septic are looking at building new houses which require the installation of a new septic tank. Will SA Water cover the cost of those septic tanks given that some consumers might only need them for a few months—six months or whatever—before transitioning over to the mains? Ms ROWLANDS: We are working through all of the details, particularly of those new developments. I probably can't answer that right now because that's part of our prioritisation of which systems or which areas are going to come over first. We can take that on notice if that's okay. 15081: The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But is it so that customers who are currently building houses are having to install new CWMS septic systems and pay for those additional costs now? Ms ROWLANDS: I would have to take it on notice to go back to ask that question specifically of the project team. Mr RYAN: In fact, we will have to ask that question of council. Answer SA Water will not be covering the cost of new CWMS infrastructure. Where new developments are flagged with SA Water, it explores whether sewer mains can be extended to service these properties. In the coming weeks, SA Water will also be able to advise developers of whether the planned transition of properties to mains sewer will align with their development timeframes. Council has also advised that it may be possible for CWMS customers to reuse existing septic tanks for new developments.
Extract of Burst water mains Question 15093: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I will try to be brief and I will put some on notice as well later on that should speed things up a bit. In relation to performance generally of burst water mains, can you provide a document summary of the locations, type and duration of the outages and burst mains to us? Mr RYAN: Yes. 15094: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Thank you very much. I will let you take that on notice as that. Mr RYAN: That's fine. Answer The three charts below provide an overview for each area of the locations, type and duration of interruptions for water main failures for 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 year to date.
Figure 1 Water Failure/100 kms
18 16 14 12 10 8
Failure/100kms 6 4 2 0 Central Eyre Peninsula Kangaroo Mid North Northern Riverland South East Island
2019-20 2020-21 (YTD)
Figure 2
Failure Mode Proportion
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Failure Mode Proportion Mode Failure 30%
20%
10%
0% 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) 19-20 20-21 (YTD) Central Eyre Peninsula Kangaroo Island Mid North Northern Riverland South East Accidental Damage Circumferential Crack Joint leak Longitudinal Crack Piece Blown Out Weld Failure
Figure 3
Average Interruption Minutes
300
250
200
150
100 Average Interruption Minutes Interruption Average
50
0 Central Eyre Peninsula Kangaroo Island Mid North Northern Riverland South East
19-20 20-21 (YTD)
Extract Unauthorised access to SA Water sites of 15096: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The media report said, 'The builder contacted Question the member's office, the member for King's office, and highlighted that her entry on site was unauthorised and in breach of health and safety conditions.' How many unauthorised entries have MPs made to SA Water sites since 2018? Mr FLETCHER: The board hasn't been informed of any, but we can ask David to have a look at that. Mr RYAN: My understanding is zero, but we can go back and check that out. 15097: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: If you could take that on notice, that would be great. Mr RYAN: Yes. Answer There have not been any unauthorised entries by MPs that SA Water is aware of.
Extract of Cyber Security Question 15100: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I won't name it, but the basic run of it is that you cannot, if you are a contractor to an organisation, point out a frailty within the organisation's cyber platform because in doing so you actually— the IP of that is not owned by you, it is owned by them, so them pointing it out to you makes them essentially, under our current laws, a terrorist. I won't go into it too much. Do we have direct employees of SA Water conducting all testing in regard to your cyber threat? Ms GUERIN: When you say 'direct employees', are you asking if we use external employees? 15101: The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Yes, do you contract it out? Ms GUERIN: I would have to check that for you because we use a number of specialist skills. I would have to check that particular question for you. Answer With regards to Cyber Security, at times SA Water does engage external entities via the South Australian Government Panel Agreement for Cyber Security Services. This has a provision for an Intellectual Property model outlining the rights of each party.
Extract of Customer savings following price reduction Question 15117: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Actually, just if you can provide the figures of how many have accessed your online calculator to see how much they are saving and would you have an idea of how much savings have been achieved since 1 July when it was announced? 15120: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So how much do you think has been achieved in the past 12 months with your customers in savings? You can take that on notice. Mr RYAN: Yes, okay. Answer Since the price reduction was announced on 11 June 2020, the online calculator has been accessed over 120,000 times by SA Water’s customers to calculate their expected savings.
The average reduction of $200 on a customer’s bill was embedded in the pricing SA Water set at the start of the year. The total savings made across the customer base is dependant in several factors including demand. SA Water projected total savings for its customers in the order of $186m. Given its customer’s demand has been higher than projected this year, SA Water expects total savings to be in order of $193m by the end of this financial year.
Additional Questions on Notice
Questions 1-12 - Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme
Extract of Question 1: With regard to the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, what is Question the current production capacity of the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant in terms of recycled water for use in horticulture and other agricultural use? Answer The NAIS Advanced Water Recycling Plant has the capacity to produce 6 gigalitres (GL) per annum of recycled water.
Extract of Question 2: How much of this water is currently contracted to customers and Question being supplied? Answer Total - 3.0 GL of contracted volume, of which SA Water is currently supplying 0.4GL
Extract of Question 3: How many individual companies have signed on to the Question scheme? Answer 26.
Extract of Question 4: Would you say there has been a slow uptake of water from the Question NAIS? Answer SA Water has contracted customers for 3GL per annum of water through the NAIS network and is in advanced discussions with other large horticulture projects at various stages of project-readiness.
Prior experience with the VPS indicates that it may take five years for SA Water to achieve significant uptake of available water.
SA Water continues to receive regular enquiries for NAIS recycled water and is also proactively marketing the water to agribusiness project proponents in South Australia and interstate.
SA Water is reviewing all aspects of NAIS to determine whether making changes can improve the take-up rate of the product.
SA Water is confident that a patient approach seeking the best fit between agribusiness projects and the infrastructure scheme will deliver the best results for South Australia in the long term.
Extract of Question 5: What is the average total price per kilolitre (kL), including capital Question contributions and availability and consumption charges? Answer The average cost per kilolitre over a standard 15 year contract is $0.825 per kilolitre, with the price structure as follows:
$3.16 per kilolitre of annual contract volume as an up-front Capital Contribution – or the customer has the option to pay over 15 years with 20% paid upfront. $0.27 per kilolitre - Availability Charge $0.26 per kilolitre - Usage Charge
Extract of Question 6: Are all customers paying the same price? Question Answer Yes. The price structure set out in the answer to Question 5 applies to all contracted customers of NAIS.
Extract of Question 7: What are the criteria for negotiating differing price structures and Question are you able to provide the contracted price for each customer? Answer Refer to answer to Question 5 for the price structure, which applies to all contracted customers.
Extract of Question 8: What is the current price for recycled water from the Virginia Question Pipeline Scheme? Answer Recycled Water Pricing (16 September 2020 – 15 September 2021) Recycled Water Price in cents per kilolitre Water within Additional Approved Annual Quantity excess Contract water use Quantity Summer (15/11 – 20/3) 17.64 17.64 18.85 Shoulder (16/9 -14/11, 14.13 14.13 14.13 21/3 -21/5) Winter (22/5 – 15/9) 9.74 9.74 9.74 Annual Supply Fee $1313.66 will apply to cover up to three connections per Customer regardless of quantity supplied. The fourth and any further connections will be charged at $1313.66 each.
Extract of Question 9: Have you received complaints and/or pushback from potential Question customers relating to the price differences in the new scheme? Answer Yes, there have been discussions with various proponents who have pushed back on price with regards to the price differences between NAIS and VPS* schemes.
There has also been some resistance to the amount of capital contribution.
*VPS is a legacy system. Water is supplied to existing growers under historical contracts that are below cost to serve. SA Water has recently issued a new price path for VPS aimed at recovering operating costs by 15 years’ time. The VPS scheme is fully subscribed, and no new contracts are being issued.
Extract of Question 10: Is the price of water from the NAIS competitive when Question compared to other recycled water schemes across the country? Answer SA Water has compared price data for VPS and NAIS with other recycled water schemes in South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. SA Water has found it difficult to make meaningful comparisons with interstate schemes. South Australia produces more recycled water for agribusiness than any other Australian state or territory, and interstate schemes are much smaller than the VPS or NAIS. Some schemes have one customer only. Each recycled water scheme is different, schemes were built at different times, under different government policies, and subject to different economic, public health, and environmental regulatory settings.
Extract of Question 11: Is the scheme designed to make a profit? Question Answer NAIS is designed to recover costs and provide a small return on assets to SA Water’s regulated wastewater customers.
Extract of Question 12: What is the estimated profit from water sales through the Question scheme over the next 4 years? Answer The operating profit from NAIS recycled water sales over the next four years is budgeted to be $76,000 in total.
Questions 13 – 17 – SA Water Debt
Extract of Question 13: With borrowings increasing by around $400 million to more Question than $7 billion last year, what is the interest burden? Answer Total Interest-bearing liabilities increased by $420m in 2019-20, of which lease liabilities increased by $115m (as a result of the adoption of the new lease accounting standard - AASB16) and total short & long-term borrowings increasing by $305m. However, total borrowing cost reduced by $12m to $317m in 2019-20. As per the 2020-21 State budget, total borrowing cost is estimated to be $306m in 2020-21.
Extract of Question 14: What is the risk to water prices when interest rates return to a Question more normal setting instead of record lows? Answer Interest rates are a key input into SA Water’s allowed regulatory rate of return. Whilst any movements in this rate of return can cause fluctuations in SA Water’s allowable revenue (up or down), there are various other factors that can also impact SA Water’s allowable revenue including operating expenditure, capital expenditure, customer growth, water demand, tax allowance and CPI. All these factors will be considered together in ESCOSA’s 2024 Regulatory Determination process.
Extract of Question 15: How much debt does SA Water believe is sustainable? Question Answer SA Water’s gearing ratio (net debt to total assets ratios) was 51.4% as at 30 June 2020. As per the 2020-21 State Budget, the gearing ratio is forecast to be 51% in 2020-21. SA Water’s gearing level is consistent with those of its interstate peers, including Sydney Water, Melbourne Water and Yarra Valley Water and is also reasonably consistent with the ratio assumed by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) within its regulatory framework.
Extract of Question 16: What are the annual debt projections over the forward Question estimate period? Answer As per the 2020-21 State Budget, SA Water’s annual net debt projections for end of June over the forward estimates are as follows:
Net Debt as at 30 June ($ million) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Actual Budget Estimate Estimate Estimate 7,122.8 7,381.5 7,637.8 7,842.5 8,022.0
Extract of Question 17: How will SA Water pay off the debt? Will this have to come Question from higher prices, or will you have to sell off assets? Answer SA Water’s actual debt levels and borrowing costs do not have an impact on customer prices. The regulatory framework applied by ESCOSA incorporates assumed debt costs for an efficient private sector entity, irrespective of SA Water’s actual debt. SA Water’s debt level is reasonably consistent with the ratio assumed by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) within its regulatory framework.
SA Water generates sufficient cashflows to meet its operating activities and interest payments. The increase in debt levels is due to ongoing capital expenditure arising from regulatory commitments and projects.
No Question 18 provided in original file from BFC
Questions 19 – 24 – Allwater Contract
Extract of Question 19: How many FTEs are currently employed by Allwater to operate Question and maintain metropolitan Adelaide's water and wastewater? Answer 406 FTE perform services for the metro contact (388 FTE directly employed by Allwater).
Extract of Question 20: How many fewer people will be employed in these roles from Question July 1 this year when the contract is split, and the two new operators take over? Answer These details are considered commercial in confidence.
Extract of Question 21: Were jobs numbers a consideration in the awarding of the Question contracts? Answer A multi criteria analysis was conducted to evaluate responses to the Request for Proposal phase of the procurement process. This included: • Team and management • Transition approach • Customer delivery methodology • Workforce management and local industry involvement • Safety, quality and innovation • Price
Extract of Question 22: What is the cost per year of the current contract, and what will Question be the cost per year of the new contract? Answer These details are considered commercial in confidence.
Extract of Question 23: When will current employees be told if they have been Question successful in their applications to keep their existing roles under the new contracts? Answer Each contractor is running their own recruitment process independently. It is envisaged that all recruitment outcomes will be known by mid-May.
Extract of Question 24: Have those whose roles no longer exist under the new contracts Question been made aware that they will no longer have a job? Answer Yes. Both SA Water and Allwater have engaged extensively with current employees and are supporting them through the recruitment processes.
Questions 25 – 32 - SA Housing Authority - issuing Bills direct to tenants
Extract of Question 25: When was the last time that the SA Housing Authority raised with Question you the prospect of billing tenants directly for water consumption while the Authority continues to make bulk payments for supply and sewer? Answer To the best of SA Water’s knowledge, this has not been formally raised at an Executive level.
Some time ago (approximately 2 years) SA Water interviewed various parties to get their views on SA Water billing tenants. SAHA may have shown interest in this proposal at an officer level.
Extract of Question 26: How much does the Housing Authority pay to SA Water each Question year? Answer The total amount paid to SA Water in 2019/20 was $860,299.57.
For the year to date (3 quarters), the total amount paid is $567,040.78
Extract of Question 27: What work has been done to estimate the costs of direct billing Question to public housing tenants? Answer There has been no work undertaken to estimate the costs of billing public housing tenants specifically.
Extract of Question 28: Would these costs be lower than the current arrangement Question where the SA Housing Authority has to bill tenants for water consumption? Answer SA Water is not aware of the costs incurred by SAHA to bill tenants, as this is considered a private arrangement.
Extract of Question 29: Can you provide the committee with any documents regarding Question the most recent discussions and any modelling? Answer No documentation exists.
Extract of Question 30: Has SA Water undertaken any changes or reviews that have led Question to community organisations and not-for-profits that operate on council- owned land experiencing higher bills as a result of a reclassification? Answer Not for profit organisations do not receive any reduction in rates through SA Water.
Community organisations may be eligible for charitable exemption if they have the required paperwork from the Australian Taxation Office showing that they are exempt from income tax. The bill is also required to be in their name in order to get the exemption regardless of who owns the land.
If the community organisation is a sporting club, they may be entitled to sporting club exemption.
If the account is being sent to the council then only Local Government exemption can be applied providing the property is being used for municipal purposes.
Over the last year SA Water has undertaken two large reviews on council land. One where the bills are being sent to council to ensure they are receiving the Local Government exemption correctly, the other where there is a 3rd party on the bill that has been incorrectly receiving Local Government exemption.
Extract of Question 31: If so, please provide any correspondence with local councils Question about water and sewer charging for organisations that operate on council- owned land? Answer SA Water would be unaware if there is an organisation that operates on the property if the bills are being sent to the council. Council may bill their tenant directly, which SA Water would not have information about. If the bill is in the name of an organisation, SA Water would write to them directly.
Extract of Question 32: If this has occurred, can you also provide complete details of Question the organisations that were affected and the amount of Bill changes? Answer The following customers were incorrectly receiving Local Government exemption as the accounts are not billed to the council. The new rating applied to their account has been advised below.
• Brighton Bowling Club – $44.70 - exemption changed to Sporting Club. • Aldinga Bay Bowling Club – $110.60 - exemption changed to Sporting Club. • Happy Valley Bowling Club – $67.05 - exemption changed to Sporting Club. • Norwood Football Club – $99.00 – rates changed to residential as the football club is not eligible for exemption on this land use of reserve. • NP & SP Community Garden Association Inc - $72.70 – rates changed to residential. • Lions Club of Glenside - $191.80 – rates changed to non-residential. • Regis Aged Care - $1,223.82 – rates changed to residential. • Meal on Wheels Henley Beach - $52.59 – rates changed to non- residential. • Centre Stage Community Theatre - $75.79 – rates changed to commercial. • Murray Bridge homing club - $32.30 – rates changed to non-residential. • Lucindale District Ambulance Assoc - $67.85 – rates changed to residential as the ambulance association is not eligible for exemption on this land use of vacant land. • Christies Beach SLSC - $59.60 – exemption changed to Sporting Club. • Millicent United Soccer Club - $19.90 – exemption changed to Sporting Club. • Warramboo Hall Committee - $67.85 – rates changed to non- residential.
Any of these customers that are charities can apply to SA Water with the correct documentation and their exemption will be reviewed and amended if they are eligible.
The following information is provided by SA Water in addition to the response provided at the Committee meeting.
Extract Recycled Water of 14951: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to get back to recycled water, I noticed Question on some figures that we have accessed, the total volume of recycled water dropped by 22 per cent last year, is that correct? Mr RYAN: The total volume of SA Water recycled water? 14952: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, recycled water, the supply. Mr RYAN: That doesn't sound familiar at all. Ms JACKSON: Is that going out to being discharged or is that—because it could be being used for other things, for instance, Glenelg/Adelaide pipeline or the NAIS. Mr RYAN: Our understanding is we are continuing to see an increase in recycled water. 14953: The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There is an increase? Mr RYAN: Yes, but we will have a look at that figure. Answer The total volume of recycled water usage was approximately 1.9 per cent higher last year than in the previous year. It is possible that Mr Pangallo may have been relying on data from the Bureau of Meteorology National Performance Report, which SA Water has discovered contains incorrect information.
SA Water will work with the Bureau of Meteorology to correct the information within its report.