Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697637142941.pdf (Australia)
South Australian Government Submission to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities August 2001 Acknowledgments: The following submission represents a whole-of-State Government response to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (ECITA) References Committee inquiry into the management of water in Australian cities.
The Submission has been coordinated by the Department for Water Resources, with input and advice from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Department for Environment and Heritage and the Environment Protection Agency, Planning SA, Department for Human Services, Department for Primary Industries and Resources SA, Department of Industry and Trade, Department of Treasury and Finance, Department of Administrative and Information Services (Office of Government Enterprises), Land Management Corporation and SA Water Corporation.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities ii FOREWORD The past decade has seen increased focus by the State Government on ensuring that water resources in South Australia are managed in an environmentally sustainable way.

This time has also seen a paradigm shift to allow much greater community involvement in water management decision making processes.
South Australia has made considerable strides towards improving water management in both urban and regional communities, with State and Local Government working with communities to achieve real outcomes.

Better management of water in urban areas is a State Government priority.

It provides major benefits to urban dwellers, and to inland water and marine ecosystems which have been degraded as a consequence of past inappropriate water management practices.
In South Australia there is an additional need: to reduce the State’s dependence on the River Murray, which currently accounts for 50 percent of the State’s reticulated water, and up to 100 percent for some regional centres.

In drought the Murray can supply up to 90% of Adelaide’s water needs.

New developments utilising urban stormwater runoff, roof runoff, aquifer recharge and recycled effluent are becoming increasingly common in South Australia.
In many cases this has not only helped to alleviate pressure on traditional water supply sources, but is also providing additional benefits, including pollution control, flow mitigation, aesthetics and economic benefits.

The SA Government recognises that the process of managing water resources in such a way is a comparatively new concept and that much remains to be done to redress past unsustainable water management practices.

There is a need to develop and apply new technology and adopt new approaches.
It is particularly important to develop approaches to improve water management in established urban areas.

Even more important however is the need for all individuals to recognise water as a vital resource that should not be wasted.

The task is large and there is a need for all levels of Government, industry and the community to work together in collaborative ways to achieve the most effective balance between economic and social objectives without harming the natural environment.
The SA Government is pleased to present before the Senate Committee its submission into the management of water in Australian cities.
HON MARK BRINDAL MP Minister for Water Resources Minister for Employment and Training Minister for Youth / /2001 South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the present time Australian-city water demands and effluent disposal needs are largely met through large scale water supply and sewerage systems constructed during the last century.
For most of this time, water was seen solely as a commodity and the prevailing effluent and stormwater philosophy was one of ‘getting rid of it as soon as possible’.

Since the 1970s there has been a growing awareness that, as well as the considerable benefits of past urban water management practices, there are also limitations.

A new holistic approach to water management has been evolving.
Within the last ten years this process has accelerated, much has been learned, and the application of new approaches is beginning to provide improved and sustainable environmental outcomes, whilst maintaining high levels of public health and public convenience.

The South Australian Government embraces imaginative, environmentally sustainable approaches in a variety of ways, and would like to draw attention of the Senate to the progressive nature of water resources management in our State.
Among other initiatives the South Australian Government: has developed water resources and resource protection legislation, and a hierarchical structure of state wide, catchment-wide and local water plans that ensure effective and integrated management of the State’s water resources; has developed a statutory State Water Plan that provides the policy framework for Catchment Water Management Plans, Water Allocation Plans and Local Water Management Plans; has established Catchment Water Management Boards (CWMBs) for better managing water resources issues catchment-wide.
By empowering boards with the ability to raise their own funds via a catchment levy the State Government has given the CWMBs a high degree of autonomy; provides advice, funding and technical assistance to CWMBs and the community for developing and applying innovative water resources techniques to improve urban stormwater quality; supports water recycling - South Australia now has the second highest percentage of municipal effluent reuse in Australia.
SA Water Corporation has stated its long term aim to recycle 50 percent of effluent from its wastewater treatment plants; and supports urban wetlands and aquifer storage and recovery projects - the world’s largest constructed urban wetland system is being developed in Adelaide’s northern suburbs.

The importance of a State Government, Local Government and industry and community partnership is predominant.
The Commonwealth Government has assisted this process in a number of ways: for example, in developing the national community water monitoring program ‘Waterwatch’.

Waterwatch SA has grown from 10 active groups in 1993, to now more than 260 community groups, monitoring 565 sites in seven major catchments.
Natural Heritage Trust support has also been vital in helping to initiate innovative water schemes, such as the Parafield Airport Aquifer Storage and recovery system, which will supply industry with treated stormwater at a competitive cost compared with mains supply.

While much has already been achieved, much more needs to be done.
In spite of the fact that South Australia uses less water per capita, and makes greater use of alternative water systems, than the other states, greater efficiencies in water use can be achieved.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities iv There is potential for the Commonwealth Government to develop a National Strategy on urban water management, in recognition that significant water management improvements are achievable involvement and support of national ‘demonstration’ water management projects has the potential to improve the transferability of technologies between States.

in all Australian cities.
Commonwealth The principal philosophy to urban water management should be hierarchal in structure and place greater emphasis on: conserving water from all sources; substituting, where practical, high quality mains water with alternative lower quality water resources that are appropriate for non-potable use (eg roof runoff, stormwater and recycled water); avoiding stormwater and wastewater discharges, where this is practical; and managing necessary discharges to the environment in an environmentally benign way.
The uptake of simple cost-effective water efficient household appliances has the potential to significantly reduce urban water use in a comparatively short space of time.

The National Building Code also provides a vehicle for improving water efficiency in the housing and non-residential construction industry.

Improvements in garden watering practices and the adoption of low water using gardens has the potential to significantly reduce water use.
Improved methods of source-control of stormwater is a method for improving water management in urban environments.

New techniques for on-site retention and on-site detention of stormwater being developed within South Australian Universities have the potential to improve stormwater management.

The Commonwealth has contributed to improving the urban environment by providing funds for water-related education and project initiatives.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:............................................................................................................................... ii FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. iv PART 1 - STATE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: A SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE 1 TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................ 1 DEFINING ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE WATER USE................................................................ 1 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE ........................................................................................................... 1 STATE WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 2 HEALTH OFTHE RIVER MURRAY – A KEY CONCERN FOR THE STATE ...................................... 4 LAND CLEARANCE.................................................................................................................................. 4 SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE
 .................................................. 5 Conventional Water Infrastructure........................................................................................................... 5 Non-Traditional Water and Wastewater Services .................................................................................... 5 Rainwater Tanks .................................................................................................................................. 5 Other non-traditional water systems .................................................................................................... 5 Small Town Water Supplies .................................................................................................................... 5 URBAN WATER USE................................................................................................................................ 6 ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES WATER RESOURCES................................................... 7 Metropolitan Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 8 Adelaide’s Water Use .............................................................................................................................. 9 Water Use by Dwelling Type................................................................................................................. 10 Future Water
10 Future Water Demand............................................................................................................................ 10 PART 2 - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACHIEVEMENTS ........... 12 KEY GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................... 12 RECENT LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................................... 12 Water Quality Environment Protection Policy....................................................................................... 12 CURRENT STATE GOVERNMENT WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................. 12 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality............................................................................. 12 Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme (CMSS)............................................................................... 13 Better use of existing infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 13 Improving Stormwater Quality .............................................................................................................. 13 Reducing the Risks from Toxic Spills ................................................................................................... 14 State Wide Water Quality
 Protection..................................................................................................... 14 Water Quality Expertise………………………………………………………………………….
…… 14 Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Programs ............................................................................................ 14 Protecting Prescribed Watercourses - Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region ................................ 14 Coastal Management.............................................................................................................................. 15 Reducing Coastal Impacts from Wastewater Discharges....................................................................... 15 Upper Spencer Gulf Reuse Strategy....................................................................................................... 15 Reducing South Australia’s Dependence on Traditional Water Resources............................................ 15 Optimising Use of All Water Resources ................................................................................................ 16 Community Involvement ....................................................................................................................... 16 SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING NON-TRADITIONAL WATER SOURCES ................................. 17 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR).................................................................................................... 17 Water Recycling .................................................................................................................................... 17 South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating
 to the Management of Water in Australian Cities vi PART 3 – DISCUSSION OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ............................................... 22 NATIONAL FOCUS ON AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES WATER MANAGEMENT....................... 22 DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS............................................................... 22 IMPROVING URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 22 Water Conservation ............................................................................................................................... 23 Changing the public’s perception of the value of water..................................................................... 23 Water conserving devices .................................................................................................................. 23 Effect of Improved Water Conservation............................................................................................ 24 Utilising Sustainable Local Water Sources Roof Runoff ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Greywater .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Water Recycling
25 Water Recycling .................................................................................................................................... 25 Local Wastewater Recycling ............................................................................................................. 25 Aquifer Storage Systems ................................................................................................................... 25 Sewage Mining .................................................................................................................................. 26 Desalination....................................................................................................................................... 26 Municipal Recycling.......................................................................................................................... 26 Avoiding Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges to Downstream Environments ............................... 26 ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO URBAN WATER EFFICIENCY AND MANAGEMENT ................... 27 KEY REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 28 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 29 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................ 30
30 WATER RESOURCES ACT 1997 ........................................................................................................... 30 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1993........................................................................................... 30 DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 .................................................................................................................... 30 Alignment between Water Resources Act 1997 and the Development Act 1993 .................................. 30 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1 – Rainfall Comparisons between State and Territory Capitals FIGURE 2 – SA Water Major Pipeline Infrastructure FIGURE 3 – Population and Billed Water Use Comparisons for Major SA Population Centres FIGURE 4 – Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region FIGURE 5 – Metropolitan Billed Water Use by Sector FIGURE 6 – Adelaide Historic Per Capita Water Supplied FIGURE 7 – Recharge System at New Brompton Estate FIGURE 8 – Key Elements of the Parfitt Square Stormwater Management System TABLE 1 – Climate Statistics for Major South Australian Population Centres TABLE 2 – Water Use and Sustainable Use Limits: SA and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region TABLE 3 – Metropolitan Adelaide (Statistical Division): Water Use and Sustainable Use Limits TABLE 4 – Residential Water Use Comparisons: Australian State and Territory Capitals TABLE 5 – Estimated Average Annual Water Use by Dwelling Type (Adelaide) TABLE 6 – Aquifer Storage Projects in South Australia South Australian Government
 Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities vii PART 1 - STATE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: A SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) requires us to use, conserve and enhance our natural resources so that the ecological processes are maintained now and in the future.
They include the need: For Governments, industry and consumers to balance economic, environmental and social values, and accordingly, to pursue an integrated approach to decision making on issues of resource use; To provide for equity within and between generations (inter-generational equity).
The State Government has established core values and developed policies for sustainable water management which it has incorporated into the State Water Plan 2000, “Volume 1: Policies for a Sustainable Future”.

DEFINING ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE WATER USE From an environmental perspective all water in a river ecosystem constitutes the environmental flow regime.
However, environmental water requirements can be regarded as the water regime needed to sustain the ecological values of natural aquatic ecosystems, including their biological diversity, at a low level of risk.

Management of water use should require water to be used in an ecologically sustainable way.

This should seek to ensure that the environmental water provisions match the water requirements.
Where this is not achievable, the aim should be to increase the environmental water provisions progressively through establishing efficient water use and demand reduction targets.

In South Australia the primary legislation for managing water resources is the Water Resources Act 1997.
The object of the Act is to establish a system for the use and management of the water resources of the State, that ensures the use and management of those resources sustain the economic and social well being of the people of the State and facilitate the State’s economic development, while (among other requirements) protecting the ecosystems that depend on those resources and ensuring that those resources are able to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.
The Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000 provides detailed information on the South Australian methodology used to determine sustainable water provision estimates.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE South Australia is the driest state in Australia.

Rainfall is generally very low and over more than half of the State the average annual evaporation exceeds the annual rainfall by a factor of ten or more.
Figure 1 and Table 1 show comparisons between rainfall in South Australian population centres and other Australian cities.

As a consequence of climatic factors, most of the streams are small and non-perennial and the River Murray is the only large river system that flows to the sea.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 1 Rainfall Comparisons, State and Territory Capitals 2000 1500 1000 500 m m , l l a f n i a R l a u n n A e g a r e v A 1659 1149 1227 869 625 626 656 530 0 Adelaide C anberra H obart M elbourne Perth Brisbane Sydney Darwin FIGURE 1 – Rainfall Comparisons between State and Territory Capitals TABLE 1 – Climate Statistics for Major South Australian Population Centres *Population Average annual rainfall, mm Adelaide 1083100 Whyalla (C) Mount Gambier (C) Murray Bridge (RC) Port Pirie (C) Port Augusta (C) 24200 23000 16600 14400 14100 530 276 778 346 346 216 ** Percentage of years in which annual rainfall is less than: 200 mm (arid) 350 mm (semi-arid) 500 mm 0 10 0 0 5 25 5 90 0 25 60 95 65 95 2 95 95 100 River Murray Supply Yes (part) Yes No Yes Yes Yes * From ABS 3234.4, rounded to nearest 100 persons.
** Figures rounded to nearest 5 percent (Mount Gambier to nearest 1 percent).

STATE WATER RESOURCES South Australia has enough total water resources to sustainably meet current or future needs (Table 2).

Likewise the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region has enough total water resources to meet current needs.

The biggest single factor affecting South Australia’s urban water supply is water quality.

The quality of surface water is highly variable, seasonal and location dependent.
In statewide terms, groundwater is more evenly distributed and less variable in quality than surface water, and available all year round.

In South Australia, groundwater makes up a greater proportion of the total water used than most other states and territories.

However in some urban areas groundwater quality can be quite variable (in salinity, for example), and is not suitable for potable use.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 2 In some areas significant deterioration in the quality of water resources has generated the need for closer management of water resources: salinity is rising in the River Murray, Eyre Peninsula surface water and elsewhere.

Algal blooms pose another threat as a consequence of flow regulation and nutrients from agricultural activity and waste disposal.
TABLE 2 - Water Use and Sustainable Use Limits: South Australia and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region (Includes domestic, industrial and agricultural uses) Source South Australia River Murray Surface Resource Groundwater Resource Stormwater Runoff Treated Effluent Total Source: State Water Plan 2000 Use, GL/yr 600 140 460 20 20 1240 Use limit, GL/yr 700 220 1440 130 120 2610 Adelaide and Mount Lofty Region (includes non-urban use) Use, GL/yr Use limit, GL/yr 110 (imported) 130 (imported) 130 61 21 17 340 84 74 110 79 480 South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 3 HEALTH OFTHE RIVER MURRAY – A KEY CONCERN FOR THE STATE South Australia is the only state in Australia where the majority of a State’s population relies on a state-shared water resource for their water supply.
The River Murray provides: almost 100 percent of water to many regional population centres; 50 percent of the State’s reticulated water, and up to 85 percent in a dry year; and 40 percent of Adelaide’s reticulated water, supplementing reservoir catchments in the Mount Lofty Ranges and up to about 90 percent during very dry years.
In the last three decades there has been increasing concern that the Murray-Darling Basin is under threat as a result of water extraction and water quality issues including rising salinity.

South Australian Governments have long been addressing River Murray sustainability issues within the State.
For example: River Murray water use in South Australia has been limited by licence and allocation since 1968; controls have been in place since the early 1970s to prevent inappropriate development on the River Murray Flood Plain in this State; South Australia has developed a River Murray Salinity Strategy; South Australia is pursuing initiatives to increase use of local water resources; and native vegetation clearance controls, in place since the mid 1980s, assist in mitigating salinity impacts.
However the River Murray is vulnerable to the consequences of land management practices and development in upstream states.

Since European settlement the mean annual flow to South Australia has been reduced by about 65 percent, with South Australian extractions accounting for about 5 percent of water use.

River Murray water quality is deteriorating as a consequence of past and in some cases continuing inappropriate management practices.
Among other factors, the State Government is concerned that: on at least one occasion, the River Murray mouth became completely blocked with sand; the lower flow regimes have affected the health of the terminal lakes of Albert and Alexandrina which, in turn, has impacted on the Coorong: a Ramsar wetland of international importance; River Murray flow regimes have been severely altered; salinity is increasing and the impact of some past practices has not yet been felt; large-scale toxic algal blooms during the early 1990s (in NSW) were a result of drastically depleted stream flows and high levels of nutrient pollution.
In South Australia, algal blooms occurred in the early to mid 1990s in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and supply to Strathalbyn and Milang was closed on several occasions.

SA Water Corporation no longer takes water from the Lakes.
Although new flow regimes and higher turbidity in the Murray have reduced the incidence of algal blooms, the underlying causes of algal blooms have not been adequately addressed; and high turbidity, colour and iron in the River Murray exceed national guideline values for potable water.

High turbidity increases the cost for water treatment.

This has impacted on the biodiversity and freshwater habitats of some species, such as the Murray Cod, which is classified as vulnerable.
The Lower Lakes have high turbidity, and moderate levels of nutrients and some metals: aluminium, copper, iron, lead and zinc.

 LAND CLEARANCE Land clearing is a matter of national environmental significance.

A recent United Nations report ranked Australia sixth in the world in the rate of land clearance.

South Australia contributed only 0.3 percent of recent land clearance, but past clearance has been very significant in this State.
In the Mount Lofty Ranges less than 15 percent of riparian vegetation remains.

As a result its watercourses are degraded and a number of plants, birds and mammals have been listed as endangered.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 4 SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE Conventional Water Infrastructure South Australian Water Corporation (SA Water) owns, manages and operates the great majority of South Australia's water supply and sewerage systems.

SA Water is wholly owned by the State Government.


In recent years it has entered into out sourcing contracts with international water industry companies for construction, operation and management of parts of its systems.

Figure 2 shows the SA Water major pipeline network and the population centres served.

SA Water supplies about 250 GL/yr of water to metropolitan and country areas, over 90 percent of which is filtered.
In spite of quite poor physico-chemical quality of the raw source water available to it from local catchments and the River Murray, SA Water achieves a higher water quality compliance ranking compared with most other Australian water supply businesses.

Most of the State’s stormwater infrastructure is controlled and maintained by Local Government drainage authorities.

However major urban and rural drainage systems are also maintained by the State.
Non-Traditional Water and Wastewater Services Rainwater Tanks South Australia has the highest use of rainwater tanks in Australia.

Approximately 50 percent of South Australian homes have a rainwater tank compared with the Australian average of 17 percent.

In Adelaide 37 percent of houses use rainwater tanks compared with more than 80 percent of homes in the rest of the State.

Rainwater is sometimes preferred to reticulated water because of taste issues or availability in areas without mains water.
The most common use of rainwater is for drinking.

Rainwater has low salinity which is an issue in some areas of the State – for example, in parts of Eyre Peninsula and some South East population centres.

The State Government supports the use of rainwater for appropriate purposes and publishes information to assist homeowners in rainwater tank selection and maintenance.
Other non-traditional water systems SA Water invests in demand management initiatives and in alternative local water schemes including water desalination and water recycling.

Those who do not receive reticulated water services must rely on private rainwater tanks, bores, dams, septic tanks and industrial waste disposal systems.

Local Government is responsible for over 90 septic tank effluent disposal schemes in country towns.
Many local councils throughout the State utilise treated wastewater in reuse schemes.

Some rural towns and cities harness urban runoff for irrigating parks and gardens, establishing wetlands and recharging aquifers.

In 1991 approximately 8 percent of the 270 GL of effluent and urban stormwater produced in South Australia was recycled.

In 1997 the rate was 17 percent, and is expected to reach almost 30 percent by 2003.
SA Water has a long-term aim to recycle 50 percent of treated effluent from its wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).

The Environment Protection Authority (EP Authority) licenses the management of WWTPs and septic tank effluent disposal systems while the Department of Human Services (DHS) oversees the public health aspects of reuse schemes.

Details of recent non-conventional water and reuse schemes with Government involvement are provided in Part 2.
Small Town Water Supplies Some small towns suffer specific local water supply related problems including bad water quality (eg Hawker, Orroroo and Blinman), and high costs for water supply.

Poor water supply may inhibit development in some areas.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 5 FIGURE 2 – SA Water Major Pipeline Infrastructure URBAN WATER USE Adelaide dominates all other population centres combined in population and urban water use (Figure 3).

As a consequence, an efficiency gain in Adelaide’s water use has the potential for achieving the most significant reduction in South Australian urban water use.
However regional population centres are also important in that many rely on water sourced from the River Murray.

Non-metropolitan centres are also important in that significant capital and maintenance support is required to convey water to these centres.

Residential water use is 10-15 percent lower in Whyalla and Port Pirie than in Adelaide, but 10 percent higher in Port Augusta.
However, including non-residential and commercial use, the per capita water use in Port Pirie is about 15 percent more than in Adelaide.

Mount Gambier has lower per capita use than Adelaide which may be due to its higher rainfall (lower garden water use).
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 6 Estimated Population in SA Major Population Centres Billed water use in SA major population centres 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1083.0 24.2 23.0 16.6 14.4 14.1 Adelaide Whyalla City Mount Gambier City Murray Bridge RC Port Pirie City Port Augusta City e s u r e t a w d e l l i b l a u n n a e g a r e v A L M , 0 0 - 9 9 o t 6 9 - 5 9 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 143.4 2.9 2.5 2.3 3.0 2.4 Adelaide Whyalla City Mount Gambier City Murray Bridge RC Port Pirie City Port Augusta City 0 0 0 ' , l n o i t a u p o P FIGURE 3 – Population and Billed Water Use Comparisons for Major South Australian Population Centres ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES WATER RESOURCES (Figure 4) The region includes the Adelaide Metropolitan area and adjacent districts which support various activities, including animal husbandry, forestry, irrigation, viticulture and dry land farming.
Intrinsic water resources comprising the Mount Lofty Ranges catchments and groundwater are of high value due to their proximity to more than 90 percent of the State’s population.

Groundwater resources in the region comprise fractured rock aquifers scattered throughout the ranges and sedimentary systems on the Adelaide Plains.

Key issues of concern are biodiversity, water quality, water demand by industry and agriculture, water logging and salinity.
There are severe impacts on waterways in this region as a result of land clearance around local watercourses for stock grazing and urban and industrial expansion.

Over- commitment of some surface water resources, including the River Torrens and the Onkaparinga River, and full or over-commitment of groundwater (not related to urban water use) in the Barossa, Northern Adelaide Plains and McLaren Vale areas are additional concerns.
Controls are in place on groundwater extractions in the Barossa, Northern Adelaide Plains, McLaren Vale and other areas.

The Adelaide Metropolitan area relies on water from the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed for a major part of its supply.

Development controls are more stringent in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed than elsewhere in the Mount Lofty Ranges.
In September 1999 the South Australian Government approved a 5 year $36.5m Watershed Protection Strategy which integrates and augments pre-existing water quality protection programs.

The Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protection Office (WPO) has been established at Stirling to coordinate programs, monitor water quality and evaluate the effects of residential, industrial and agricultural practices in the watershed.
The EPA cooperates closely with local councils, CWMBs and other agencies and groups to mitigate diffuse pollution.

The EPA supports stormwater contamination mitigation projects within the region and has also produced a series of state wide Stormwater Codes of Practice for improving stormwater quality.

On site wastewater systems are regulated by DHS and local councils, and an auditing and a remediation program is being undertaken with support from the EPA and CWMBs.
The Government has released a report, “The State of the Health of the Catchments of the Mount Lofty Ranges”, which is a wide-ranging examination of the region, identifying catchment management issues affecting the metropolitan water supply.

South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 7 A Mount Lofty Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) Regional Plan is currently under development.
This is part of an overall plan covering the Mount Lofty Ranges, Kangaroo Island and the Northern Agricultural Districts as part of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in the Commonwealth priority regions.

FIGURE 4 – Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region Metropolitan Water Resources Metropolitan Adelaide is loosely defined by the boundaries of the Adelaide Statistical Division.

Table 3 shows the Metropolitan Adelaide (Statistical Division) water quantity, limits and current use.
Metropolitan supply reservoirs located in Mount Lofty Ranges watershed have a combined capacity of more than 200 GL and provide on average more than 60 percent of Adelaide’s water supply.

Supplies from the River Murray supplement the watershed-derived water supply and the pipeline system is interconnected to provide flexibility in delivering potable water.

The average volume of stormwater runoff in the metropolitan area is about 100 GL/yr, but is often of poor quality.
In recent years wetlands have been developed which improve the quality of stormwater runoff.

Large constructed wetlands have been developed by the Salisbury Council, in Adelaide’s northern region and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is being used to provide opportunities for reuse.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 8 In addition, Adelaide delivers about 76 GL/yr of sewage to its sewerage system which is treated before disposal by a combination of discharge to sea and reuse.

Reuse in 2000/01 is estimated at 16.8 percent of the total treated.

A decline in seagrass and increased sand movement in Gulf St. Vincent has been partly attributed to this nutrient-rich discharge.
A decrease in metropolitan seagrass can have a pro rata negative impact on marine life.

In 1993 the EP Authority introduced environmental monitoring and improvement programmes as a condition of discharge licences.

Combined public and private sector investment has provided the opportunity for up to 40 GL/yr of treated effluent to be pumped to the Northern Adelaide Plains area.

This will provide an alternative source to local aquifers that are under stress from overuse.
An irrigation scheme has also been commissioned for the McLaren Vale area.

The project involves significant private sector involvement, and will deliver up to 2 GL/yr of recycled water from the Christie Beach WWTP.

SA Water has a long-term goal of achieving 50 percent reuse of wastewater in South Australia.

In the short term SA Water is aiming for 30 percent reuse from its metropolitan WWTP and 24 percent reuse from its country WWTP.
Table 3 indicates current use and sustainable use limits for the Metropolitan Adelaide Area.
TABLE 3 – Metropolitan Adelaide (Statistical Division): Water Use and Sustainable Use Limits (Source: State Water Plan 2000) Source Current Use GL/yr Use Limit GL/yr Surface Resource Groundwater Resource Stormwater Runoff Treated Effluent Regional Estimate River Murray (Imported) 9 7 20 17 53 110 12 10 110 76 210 130 Adelaide’s Water Use Figure 5 shows a breakdown in water use between water using sectors for the last five years.
Residential water use represents approximately 75 percent of billed Adelaide’s water use, with the remainder used by commercial, industrial, and other water users.

Metropolitan Adelaide Billed Water Use by Category L M , e s U r e t a W 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Residential Non-residential (excl.
com m erc ial) Com m ercial 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 Ye a r FIGURE 5 – Metropolitan Billed Water Use by Sector South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 9 Adelaide’s per household water use is among the lowest in Australia cities (Table 4).

Adelaide per capita use compares with Sydney’s which is advantaged by having much higher rainfall (impacting garden water use).
Adelaide’s per household consumption of approximately 265 kL/yr compares, with: Whyalla : 276 kL/yr per property Mount Gambier : 198 kL/yr per property Kalgoorlie (WA) : 524 kL/yr per property Rockhampton (Queensland) : 579 kL/yr per property It is estimated that more than half of the residential water supply is used for outdoor purposes, principally garden watering.
This is a summer (dry season) activity and consequently water use during summer months is far higher than the average through the year.

In the height of summer garden watering may account for 80 percent of Adelaide’s residential water use.

TABLE 4 - Residential Water Use Comparisons: Australian State and Territory Capitals Adelaide Sydney Melb.

Perth Hobart Darwin Brisb.


Canberra 265 263 Average consumption (kL/yr per property) Outdoor use, percent Average annual rainfall Source: State of Environment Report for South Australia, 1998.

(Consumption comparison for year 1993/94).

est.

45 1227 1149 1659 656 530 626 869 430 700 625 270 400 570 330 38 42 56 30 na 55 na Water Use by Dwelling Type Water use varies significantly between dwelling types.

Table 5 shows the estimated average annual water use by various dwelling types for Adelaide.
TABLE 5 - Estimated Average Annual Water Use by Dwelling Type (Adelaide) Town- houses Small ‘villa’ homes Moderate size new dwellings In-House Water Use, L/day Outdoor water use, L/day Total Indoor and Outdoor, L/day Total kL/yr 240 70 310 115 240 160 400 145 460 520 980 355 Older, ‘large allotment’ dwellings 410 620 1030 375 Note: The above values exclude unaccounted discrepancies between master meter readings and billed water use of approximately 10-15 percent.
The discrepancy is due to a range of factors, including leakages in the distribution system, unmetered use (eg main bursts, fire fighting), and under-reading by domestic water meters.

Source: Allen, 1994 cited in the referenced WCPP scoping study report.

Future Water Demand In general SA Water’s metropolitan infrastructure has significant spare capacity, which in recent times has reduced the need for forecasting future demand.

Consequently reliable water demand projections are not currently available.
SA Water is in the early stages of preparing Master Plans for its infrastructure systems that will identify future needs and strategies.

South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 10 Historical per capita consumption for Adelaide is illustrated in Figure 6.

The data include water use by the commercial and industrial sectors, and pipeline losses.
The trend line indicates that per capita consumption has marginally retreated from highs reached in the late 1970s.

The rise in per capita use between the mid 1930s and the late 1970s is a consequence of improved living standards, industrialisation, improved access to water (due to major reservoir and pipeline development) and the uptake of new water consuming devices including showers and washing machines.
Introduction of full consumption-based pricing in the 1990s for both the residential and non- residential sectors is likely to have been a factor in reducing consumption in this period.
Adelaide Historic Water Use - n o i t p m u s n o C a t i p a c r e P / y a d n o s r e p L / 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year FIGURE 6 – Adelaide Historic Per Capita Water Supplied, including non-residential uses (trend line indicated) South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 11 PART 2 - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACHIEVEMENTS KEY GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES The Planning Strategy sets out the State Government’s vision for the future development of the State and for the regions within it.
The Planning Strategy is the key element of the integrated planning system and covers the full range of social, economic and environmental issues.
Relevant strategies included in the Metropolitan section include: develop integrated land and water management plans in order to sustainably manage land adjoining watercourses and wetlands, lessen human impacts and restore water quality; improve coastal environments by establishing integrated stormwater management within catchments; investigate opportunities to offer incentives for the rehabilitation of land and water; govern all actions to be consistent with the SA State Water Plan; and develop design methods and infrastructure for the efficient and integrated management and local use of rainwater, stormwater, re-useable sewage effluent, industrial wastewater, and groundwater.
Delivery mechanisms include: the establishment of appropriate legislation and planning policies.
Initiatives such as the proposed Environmental Planning Bulletin, to provide guidance to local governments and planning practitioners on how water conservation and quality objectives can be promoted through Development Plans, assist this endeavour; Government support of non-traditional water resources; and development and implementation of Catchment Water Management Plans by the relevant Catchment Water Management Boards.
RECENT LEGISLATION The South Australian Government has passed several water-related laws that aim to meet national and State objectives for improving water resources management and use.

These are principally the Water Resources Act 1997 and the Environment Protection Act 1993.

There are important linkages between these Acts and the Development Act 1993.

Appendix A provides basic information and key elements of these Acts.
Water Quality Environment Protection Policy The EP Authority is developing an Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (EPP) for South Australia’s inland (surface and underground), estuarine and marine waters.

Its development has involved an extensive community consultation and feedback process.

It is anticipated that the policy will be in place by November 2001.

The EPP will be enhanced through inclusion of the main features of the policy in the Development Plans of local councils.
CURRENT STATE GOVERNMENT WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality On 8 June South Australia was the first jurisdiction to sign a Bilateral Agreement with the Commonwealth for delivery of the National Action Plan (NAP) for Salinity and Water Quality.

The South Australian-Commonwealth NAP Bilateral Agreement identifies 3 priority regions in South Australia.
These are the Lower Murray, Mount Lofty-Northern Agricultural Districts (including Kangaroo Island) and South East.

The Bilateral Agreement on the NAP includes a commitment to the establishment of community-based catchment/regional bodies with key responsibility for developing and managing the implementation of an integrated catchment/regional natural resource management plan for each priority region.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 12 Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme (CMSS) The objective of the CMSS is to promote and assist better catchment management.

The State Government provides $2 million each year through the CMSS to assist Local Government and community groups.

The CMSS generally funds up to 50 percent of the total project cost.
Examples of the projects that have received funding include: an integrated geographic information system (GIS) of stormwater infrastructure in the Patawalonga catchment; passive sub-surface irrigation of lawn from a church car park; materials to assist in educating councillors, industry and the public regarding best practice catchment management in the Marion and Mitcham Council areas; research of permeable paving to reduce stormwater runoff; regional assessment of the feasibility of reusing stormwater at Port Pirie and Kadina; and development of stormwater wetlands, erosion control, stormwater retention and use, and gross pollution control.
Better use of existing infrastructure The Planning Strategy encourages higher residential development and urban infill to make better use of infrastructure.

Higher density development also encourages water savings through reduced garden watering requirements (refer Table 5).

Improving Stormwater Quality The EPA has produced stormwater pollution prevention codes of practice for use by the community; the building and construction industry; Local and State Government.
The EPA is now consolidating the existing codes into an overriding document and developing guidelines and strategies to implement them.

The building and construction industry is one of the first priorities with a Clean Site program developed with Keep South Australia Beautiful (KESAB).

The EPA actively works in partnership with local councils on stormwater pollution prevention projects.
A common computer system to support the universal recording of all environmental incidents across the State is being developed.

Called the Complaints and Reports of Environmental Significance (CARES), the project is a joint partnership between Councils and the EPA.

The EPA also provides support for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Officers based at each Council.

They are field based officers who work with the local business sector and community to reduce stormwater pollution.
To protect and enhance the River Murray, the EPA provides consultation in regard to irrigation drainage water from the lower Murray swamplands and houseboat greywater discharge.

Planning SA has developed a stormwater information package for local councils.

Comprising five publications, the package aims to provide a council-wide broad policy framework to facilitate management of stormwater, and provide guidance to councils for amending Development Plans.
The package incorporates new technologies and practices such as on-site retention and detention, and information on the harvesting of roof runoff from residential, commercial and industrial sites.

Transport SA has funded a comprehensive literature assessment of the quality of runoff from arterial roads, completed by the Urban Water Resources Centre (University of South Australia).
Transport SA is also funding investigations into local road runoff quality and impacts, and is producing a comprehensive Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual specific to its construction activities.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 13 Reducing the Risks from Toxic Spills Planning SA is developing catchment-wide stormwater infrastructure databases that will assist the planning of stormwater infrastructure and improve procedures for intercepting fuel and chemical spills.

The Patawalonga catchment database is the first Australian catchment-wide stormwater database to be completed.
State Wide Water Quality Protection The South Australian Water Policy Committee, State Water Monitoring Committee and Health Aspects of Water Quality Committee each play a role in assisting in water quality management by providing information and high level advice to the State Government.

The EPA maintains a 24 hour emergency response system for emergency pollution incidents.
A ‘whole of Government’ (Bluebook) procedure is in place for dealing with spillage of hazardous wastes onto land and non-marine waters.

(The EPA also participate in the national plan for responding to oil or chemical spills at sea).

In addition a Government Water/Wastewater Incident Notification and Communication Protocol has been established.
The EPA, through funding assistance from the CMSS and the Mount Lofty Ranges Catchment Program, has produced watercourse management plans for catchments including the Upper River Torrens (1997), Onkaparinga River (1997), North Para River (1999), and South Para River (1999).

Water Quality Expertise The Australian Water Quality Centre (AWQC) is located in Adelaide.
The AWQC has developed water quality management expertise in sampling, analysis, interpretation of results, specialised scientific advice and targeted research services.

The AWQC has an international reputation for expertise in water treatment and catchment management, and with its parent body, SA Water, are major partners in the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment.
Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Programs The EPA is undertaking initiatives to reduce the impacts of development activities in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

The EPA has introduced improvement programmes relating to: wastewater disposal practices, pesticide use, nutrients, sediment, heavy metals and salinity.

Water quantity issues are also being addressed.


The Department for Water Resources (DWR) is undertaking a four year $4.8m program to increase understanding of Mount Lofty Ranges water resources, threats to continued sustainable surface water and groundwater use and ecologically sensitive operation of Adelaide’s water supply head works.
Issues to be addressed as part of the program are: farm dam development; groundwater use; requirements for water dependant ecosystems; interactions between surface water and groundwater; security of inflows to South Australian water reservoirs; impact of SA Water pipeline and reservoir operations on ecosystems; and the impacts of land use change on water resources and associated ecosystems.
The information from these studies, combined with information derived from stakeholder consultation, will provide a basis for consideration of the approach to management of the water resources of this important region.

Protecting Prescribed Watercourses - Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region The Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board (CWMB) prepared a Water Allocation Plan for the McLaren Vale Prescribed Wells Area, which was adopted by the Minister for Water Resources in November 2000.
The Onkaparinga CWMB recently produced an information guide that presents the main points of the Water Allocation Plan.

The guide includes information for developing ASR schemes to enhance groundwater recharge and sustainable use.
In November South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 14 2000 the Northern Adelaide and Barossa CWMB released the Water Allocation Plan for the Northern Adelaide Plains Prescribed Wells Area.
Key strategies of Catchment Water Management Plans of the CWMBs, including the Torrens and Patawalonga CWMBs and the Northern Adelaide and Barossa CWMB relate to the protection and rehabilitation of watercourses and promotion of alternative water resources and ASR.

Coastal Management Marine pollution in South Australia, as elsewhere in the world, is strongly linked to land based activities.

Effluent and stormwater are a major source of marine pollution.
Declining water quality, seagrass loss and degradation and mangrove dieback have all been linked to these discharges.

Key coastal initiatives include: the State Government approved in February 2001 a Marine Planning Framework for South Australia.

The proposal is a key initiative for implementation of the Marine and Estuarine Strategy for South Australia under the sustainable use commitment.
The Marine Planning process will develop a zoning framework after an investigation of natural processes, geological, ecological, social and economic values.

This information will contribute to informed decision making by government, industry and the community; the Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH) has commissioned the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study to develop better long term management options.
The study to be undertaken by CSIRO is in response to monitoring work undertaken by the EPA which has identified a number of problems including declining water quality, degradation of some of our reef systems, sand erosion, and seagrass loss; and a Coast Protection Strategy has been developed for local erosion 'hotspots' on the metropolitan Adelaide coast which were identified in the 1997 Review into the 'Management of the Adelaide Metropolitan Beaches'.
This Strategy was developed in consultation with local councils and the community.

Reducing Coastal Impacts from Wastewater Discharges SA Water is undertaking a $235 million Environment Improvement Program (EIP) to reduce the impacts of effluent discharges from Adelaide’s WWTPs to the marine environment.

Land-based reuse is increasing, with major reuse schemes established for Bolivar and Christies Beach WWTPs.
Some of Glenelg WWTPs effluent has been used for many years and recent investigations have identified further potential reuse opportunities for Glenelg effluent.

The Glenelg WWTP EIP reduces nitrogen to a level that is suited to turf requirements and consequently the upgrade enhances opportunities for sustainable irrigation reuse.

Wastewater reuse options are being investigated through the Government’s Integrated Water Strategy coordinated by the DWR (see Optimising Use of All Water Resources).
A new WWTP incorporating membrane filtration and ultraviolet disinfection is being constructed at Victor Harbor.

The new plant will treat effluent to a very high standard which will readily meet South Australian Class A reclaimed water use guidelines.

Upper Spencer Gulf Reuse Strategy Upgrades of WWTPs are planned for Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla to meet EP Authority requirements for reduced impacts from these plants.
Consultants are investigating opportunities for reusing wastewater from WWTPs in the Upper Spencer Gulf towns.

Reducing South Australia’s Dependence on Traditional Water Resources The aim of the Water Conservation Partnership Project (WCPP), being coordinated by DEH, is to reduce South Australian urban areas’ dependence on the Murray.

Project partners include other State Government departments (particularly DWR), Local Government, the South Australian River Murray Urban Users Group and CSIRO.
The programme has identified opportunities for achieving major reductions in water use in urban areas.

Strategies include demand management and the use of alternative resources such as roof runoff, domestic greywater, and local and regional scale South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 15 ASR schemes.
The study suggests that Adelaide homeowners could significantly reduce mains water consumption by installing water efficient devices.

The WCPP has undertaken a comprehensive review of water conservation incentive schemes employed in Australia, the United States and Europe, and will commence a trial incentive and education scheme later this year in collaboration with selected South Australian councils that currently utilise River Murray water.
To encourage the reuse of reclaimed water while protecting public health and the environment, the Department for Human Services (DHS) and EPA have produced guidelines for the use of reclaimed water in South Australia.

Appropriate wastewater and greywater systems that meet their criteria in relation to public health are encouraged.

In addition, the DHS supports the use of rainwater tanks and recently published information on rainwater tank maintenance to mitigate potential public health concerns.
A study of potential public health effects of rainwater consumption is nearing completion.

Optimising Use of All Water Resources The DWR is coordinating an Integrated Water Strategy (IWS) which will identify opportunities for the sustainable use of stormwater, wastewater and other water resources in Adelaide.

A key aim of the strategy is to identify a coordinated approach to the development of alternative water resources.
The IWS involves collaboration between both Government agencies and major research groups.

An integrated water resources management investigation is being pursued for the Spencer Regions.

The investigation has been supported by the Commonwealth Government and CSIRO who have undertaken extensive water resources modelling.

The (former) Department for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) developed a powerful and flexible water management planning tool, WaterCress.
The program can model integrated water resources scenarios using mains, groundwater, stormwater, recycled water and other supply sources to match specified water needs.

To date the model has been applied successfully in studies of the Northern Adelaide Plains water management options, the Mawson Lakes Development, and to develop a localised stormwater ASR scheme at Parafield Airport for reuse by industry.
Increasing Community Involvement A key element in effective water management is public education and increased community participation in caring for the environment.

This is being realised through programs such as Waterwatch SA (supported by Natural Heritage Trust funding).

Waterwatch SA has grown from 10 to more than 260 community groups in 7 years and assists in monitoring over 560 locations in seven major catchments in South Australia.
This program includes a wide range of other activities, including identifying locations of pollution, undertaking waterway rehabilitation work, revegetation, stormwater drain stenciling, and participating in the Torrens and Patawalonga catchment Gutter Guardian program.

Details of Waterwatch and other activities, such as South Australia Saltwatch, can be found at http://www.sa.waterwatch.org.au/home.htm Watercare is an education and awareness curriculum package comprising Watercare I, II and III.
Watercare I and II target primary school students.

The focus of Watercare III is for students studying SA Certificate of Education subjects, which include Natural Resources Management, and Environmental Science.

To accompany Watercare III case study database material, additional resources have been provided by way of student and teacher resources and student support.
Information can be accessed via computer on a wide range of material, including case studies (for at example, http://www.watercare.sa.gov.au/sitemap.htm ASR).

Watercare information provided wetland and is The River Murray Urban Users Group, funded though the River Murray CWMB and previously the Natural Heritage Trust, is a community organisation addressing Urban Water issues in relation to the River Murray in metropolitan Adelaide.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 16 SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING NON-TRADITIONAL WATER SOURCES The South Australian Government fosters urban water-related research and pilot projects by providing financial support to various water management activities.

The CWMBs also provide significant funding and in-kind assistance to research and development activities through annual grant schemes.
Some of the innovative schemes supported by State Government and the Catchment Boards are listed below.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) South Australia has a long history of ASR: Mount Gambier has been utilising ASR for more than 100 years.

South Australia also has the highest uptake of innovative stormwater wetland-ASR projects in Australia, and many additional schemes are under consideration.

Table 6 lists operational and current ASR investigation projects in the State.
Salisbury Council has taken an innovative approach to water resource management issues over many years, beginning with the construction of the Paddocks wetlands in 1975.

A number of projects, such as the Haynes Nursery-Kuarna Park and Parafield Airport ASR schemes entail local council developing and selling water to local industries, substituting mains water with lower cost treated and recharged stormwater.
The Parafield Airport wetland and ASR scheme will divert stormwater from the local stormwater network.

The scheme, supported by both the Salisbury Council and the Northern Adelaide and Barossa CWMB, has the potential to provide 3 GL of water per year.

GH Michell & Sons Pty Ltd is a very large water user, and will be the first commercial business to receive water from the scheme.

The cost to supply Michell with this water is less than the price of mains water.
The Northern Adelaide and Barossa CWMB is supporting and providing significant funding for innovative ASR investigations for the City of Tea Tree Gully and other areas.

The Mawson Lakes ASR Project is a highly innovative urban greenfields housing development which incorporates ASR.
The project is a joint venture between Land Management Corporation and Delfin Lend Lease Consortium, which will cater for 10000 persons by 2010.The contract requires the Joint Venture to achieve specified benchmarks in each of a number of areas of innovation.

Both stormwater and treated wastewater will be recycled through a scheme involving constructed wetlands, innovative treatment technology, aquifer storage of treated stormwater and wastewater, and a dual reticulation supply.
Commercial agreements are being negotiated for the various components of the system, which will be owned and operated by SA Water and the City of Salisbury.

The State Government has invested $1 million to trial ASR using reclaimed water from a municipal WWTP, in the Northern Adelaide Plains region.

The trial is a joint research agreement with United Water and the CSIRO.

The scheme has the potential to treat, store and reuse up to 9 GL of water per year.
The EP Authority licenses and is developing a code of practice for ASR schemes.

Water Recycling In Adelaide the amount of wastewater entering our sewage treatment plants each year, is enough to almost fill Adelaide’s three largest water supply reservoirs.

The State Government also recognises the potential for using reclaimed water in both municipal and local, innovative water recycling schemes.
SA Water has a short-term goal of 30 percent reuse from its metropolitan WWTPs and 24 percent from its country WWTPs, with a long-term goal of achieving 50 percent reuse.

Both the DHS and EPA are highly supportive of safe and sustainable use of water resources including treated wastewater, greywater and rainwater.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 17 TABLE 6 – Aquifer Storage Projects in South Australia Site Aquifer Type (reference) Source Infrastructure Recharge ML/yr Current Operations Mt.
Gambier Angas Bremer Andrews Farm (Adelaide Region) Greenfields (Adelaide Region) Barossa Valley (Adelaide Region) Heynes Nursery (Adelaide Region) The Paddocks (Adelaide Region) Scotch College (Adelaide Region) Henley Annex Land (Adelaide Region) Parfitt Square (Adelaide Region) St. Elizabeth Church Region) New Brompton Estate (Adelaide Region) Current Investigations Parafield airport (Adelaide Region) Mawson Lakes (Adelaide Region) Bolivar trial (Adelaide Region) Morphettville (Adelaide Region) Willunga Basin (Adelaide Region) Cheltenham (Adelaide Region) Tertiary limestone Tertiary limestone Stormwater River flow Tertiary limestone Stormwater Tertiary limestone Stormwater Various River flow & R. Murray pipeline in winter 300 drainage wells Approx.
30 drainage wells Wetland; 1 inject., 3 obs.

wells Wetland; 1 drainage, 1 obs.

well Various 2800 1000 100 100 Approx.

100 Tertiary limestone Stormwater Wetland; 1 inject.

Well Approx.

100 Tertiary limestone Stormwater Wetlands; 1 inject.

Well Clayton Town Tertiary limestone Bopeechee Spring Sand Lake Aquifer Oakden Fractured rock Stormwater 1 inject., 7 obs.

Wells 1 inject.

Well Wetland; 1 drainage, 1 obs.

Well Fractured rock Creek flow 1 inject.

; 1 prodn.
; 1 prodn.

well Division Unconfined sand Runoff from residential Soakage unit; direct subdivision recharge Quaternary aquifer Stormwater from Wetland and gravel filter residential catchment.

trench; 4 drainage wells Carpark (Adelaide Quaternary aquifer Runoff from roof, carpark Filter system; 1 drainage and courts well; 1 product.
Well Quaternary aquifer Cluster housing roof Gravel filter trench; 1 runoff drainage well 70 70 < 50 40 40 3 3 1 < 1 Tertiary limestone Stormwater Wetlands and wells 1500 Tertiary limestone (2 aquifers) Stormwater and Wetland; treatment plant; reclaimed water wells 1000 Tertiary limestone Reclaimed water 1 inject., 17 obs.

Wells Approx.

250 Tertiary limestone Stormwater Wetland; dual purpose inject/prodn.

well Approx.

120 Various Stormwater various Approx.


100 Tertiary limestone Stormwater Wetland; dual purpose inject./prodn.

well Clare Valley (2 sites) Fractured rock River flow various Urrbrae (Adelaide Region) Unconsolidated sand Stormwater Wetland; 1 inject.

Well 30 South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 18 Approx.

120 Approx.

50 Virginia pipeline project.


This $23 million project commenced in 1998 and involves delivering Class A standard reclaimed water from the Bolivar WWTP to irrigators in the Northern Adelaide Plains (NAP).

The Class A standard has been achieved through the investment of $30 million by SA Water in a dissolved air flotation and filtration plant to treat the water before it is delivered to the Virginia scheme.
The privately operated scheme involves supplying reclaimed water via a 70 km pipeline network to growers at a charge significantly lower than mains water.

Nutrient discharges to Gulf St. Vincent will reduce by up to 70 percent and the scheme will also help reduce over-exploitation of groundwater resources in the NAP.

Reclaimed water re-use from the Bolivar WWTP was estimated at 35 percent in 1999/2000, and projected to rise to 42 percent by 2002/2003.

Willunga pipeline.
Willunga pipeline.

Class B standard reclaimed water (defined in the SA Reclaimed Water Guidelines) is now being piped from the Christies Beach WWTP to McLaren Vale and used on vineyards.

With the full implementation of this scheme there is the potential to double the area of irrigated vineyard in the region to 3,600 ha.
This will reduce effluent discharge impacts on the coastal environment and has an estimated farm gate value of $120 million and higher value added benefits through processing and associated industries.

New Brompton Estate Urban Re-Development Project.

The New Brompton Estate Roof Runoff Management scheme was commissioned in 1991 (see Figure 7).
The on-site retention system was developed and designed by the University of South Australia and received support from the (former) Department of Environment and Planning (DEP).

The scheme collects all roof runoff from adjacent cluster-housing dwellings, which is diverted into a collective trench-ASR scheme.

The system is unobtrusive and use is made of the reserve for recreation.

Ninety-eight percent of runoff is captured and retained on-site.
Aquifer Recharge Bore 30 metres Deep Water Level Monitoring Station Trench Low Point Infiltration and Percolation to Trees and Shrubs Roof Runoff Filtering Traps CENTRAL RESERVE Roof-to-trench Drainage Collector Trench 106 metres Trench Overflow Pipe to Existing Street Drainage FIGURE 7: Recharge System at New Brompton Estate, City of Charles Sturt, Adelaide South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 19 Parfitt Square Urban Re-Development Project.
In 1996 the City of Charles Sturt, supported by Stormwater Drainage Subsidy Scheme (now CMSS) funding, constructed the Parfitt Square stormwater scheme (Figure 8).

The scheme was designed by the Urban Water Resources Centre (UWRC) at the University of South Australia.

All forms of runoff: from residential roofs, gardens, a public reserve and residential streets are retained within a small reserve and ASR scheme.

The scheme captures all runoff up to and including the ‘once in 100 year’ design flow event.
The scheme was a world first and was awarded the 1997 National Local Government Innovation Award in Engineering and Infrastructure.

FIGURE 8: Key Elements of the Parfitt Square Stormwater Management System ‘Environment-Friendly’ Carpark.

Also a world first, the environmentally friendly design incorporates elements of both standard and innovative technologies in a unique manner to produce the goals of functionality, aesthetics and local stormwater capture/reuse.
The system incorporates filtration, infiltration and ASR.

The source-control philosophy adopted in relation to the car park and ancillary structures ensures that these areas no longer contribute to downstream flooding or pollutant loadings in any situation up to and including the ‘once in 100 years’ storm event.

The scheme was designed by the Urban Water Resources Centre and constructed by the City of Charles Sturt using CMSS funding.

Domestic Water and Wastewater Management Trial.


The ‘Intelligent Home’ trial at Regent Gardens involved collaboration between builders, innovative businesses and groups within the University of South Australia.
Among other features, the experimental home incorporated two independent water management systems into its design: roof runoff collection system for hot water supply, with mains water only used as make-up water when the rainwater tank is empty; and treatment and reuse of greywater (bathroom and laundry wastewater) via a submerged gravel- based reed bed system, with reuse for toilet flushing, aesthetics and potentially for garden irrigation.
UWRC initiated the concepts with support from the South Australian Health Commission (SAHC, now DHS).

The reed bed was extensively monitored during 1996-97 and is possibly the most extensively monitored greywater reed bed in Australia.

The data conclusively showed that the reed bed met SAHC public health requirements and achieved large percentage reductions in most water quality parameters of environmental concern.
The project suggests the ‘simple’ technology is ideally suited to urban cluster-housing developments.

South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 20 New Haven Village.

A development of 65 medium density dwellings, the village was established in 1992 on a two hectare site in the Adelaide suburb of North Haven.
The purpose of the project was to test, develop and evaluate a range of innovations to be applied in a broader scale development.

The intent is to ensure maximum savings to residents and minimum impact on natural resources and the environment.

Key water management initiatives include the on-site treatment and reuse of household effluent, an innovative stormwater drainage system, and demonstration technology for a sub-surface irrigation system.

Desalination at Penneshaw.


An emerging and exciting development is the advance in reducing the costs of desalination technology.

Several South Australian outback towns have been using desalination for water supply for some years.

SA Water recently commissioned a new plant at Penneshaw, Kangaroo Island, to supplant the local supply.

The treatment process at Penneshaw is such that no pretreatment chemicals are required.
Seawater is utilised and reject brine water can be discharged back to the sea without post-treatment.

Desalination has potential in South Australian regional communities that have limited access to local supply sources and where local water resources are under stress.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 21 PART 3 – DISCUSSION OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES Water use in Australian cities remains comparatively high by world standards, and more can be done to improve water use efficiency.

Additionally there is a need to ensure that new development is undertaken in as environmentally benign a manner as is practically and economically achievable.
In particular, this entails ensuring that catchment hydrology remains comparatively unaffected as a consequence of urbanisation and infill development, and that discharged water does not impact adversely on the environment.

NATIONAL FOCUS ON AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES WATER MANAGEMENT At the present time, Australia does not have a clear strategy at the national level for ensuring that water use efficiency and water conservation is adopted as a natural resource management goal.
Efforts to increase water use efficiency at the national level are occurring but are comparatively limited in scope.

For example, there are moves to develop a national strategy for water efficient showerheads.

The Commonwealth Government is in a position to collaborate with State and Local Governments in developing a more comprehensive strategy for improving water conservation and water use efficiency in Australian communities.
The Building Code of Australia, for example, could be amended to more appropriately address the principles of water conservation for both the residential and non-residential construction industry.

DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS Environmental water needs depend as much on environmental conditions at a specific point in time, as on demographic, economic and geographic characteristics of an area.
There is a need for establishing an adequate data source on environmental water requirements and to ensure that this is regularly up-dated.

State of Environment reporting and/or regular national urban water audits provide potential mechanisms to assist in matching water use against sustainable water yield for urban demand.
In regard to the River Murray and other stressed surface water resources, there is a need to improve our understanding of environmental flow requirements and to ensure that sufficient water is allocated to improving degraded riparian ecosystems, rather than merely maintaining the present condition.
IMPROVING URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT In developing a new approach to urban water management the following general hierarchical concepts (developed through the Water Conservation Partnerships Project) should be considered where it is socially, economically and environmentally practical to do so: conserve water (from all sources); substituting, where practical, high quality mains water with alternative lower quality water resources that are appropriate for non-potable use (eg roof runoff, stormwater and recycled water); avoid stormwater and wastewater discharges where practical, to downstream environments, for example through on-site retention of roof and paved area runoff; and manage any necessary discharges to the environment in an environmentally benign or positive way.
A cascading approach would focus on practical measures for managing water at source (within property boundaries), followed by local source capture and reuse, and ultimately municipal scale reuse.

However municipal scale stormwater and wastewater recycling schemes should be pursued where they are cost effective, taking into account environmental externalities.

SA Water, for example, has set a long-term objective of recycling 50 percent of water from its municipal WWTPs.
A cascading approach, particularly one targeting in-house water demand reduction, will assist in reducing wastewater discharges to sewer systems and thereby increase the efficacy of water recycling.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 22 Water Conservation Changing the public’s perception of the value of water Past practices in developing major potable water supply infrastructure has presented an appearance to many urban communities of an over-abundance of high quality water.

Furthermore there is a general public perception that water is freely available from year to year and season to season.
This perception is only broken by the application of water restrictions.

In Adelaide, water restrictions have not been necessary since the late 1960s, primarily due to the use of River Murray water for supplementing Mount Lofty Ranges catchment supplies.

As a result of past practices, the urban public has a poor conception of what may constitute efficient water use, or of the importance of water for the environment.
In spite of providing the public with some information in the form of advertising campaigns, and water use statements in mail outs, most home owners continue to have little concept of how much water they use, how much they use in comparison with other water users in ‘similar’ circumstances, or how much they should be using to water efficiently.

To change this perception requires an integrated approach between governments, industry and the community.
This could encompass public education, regulation, incentive schemes and pricing strategies.

This would be aimed at changing the public perception of the value of water, as an inherently precious resource, not to be wasted.

Water conserving devices Installation of a few basic, well-proven water conserving devices in residential developments is in general the most cost effective and practical means for reducing mains water use.
A recent investigation for the Water Conservation Partnerships Project (WCPP), coordinated by the DEH indicated that significant savings could be achieved in Adelaide if all dwellings were fitted with low- flow showerheads, 6/3 litre dual flush WCs, and garden water timer taps.

The savings could be expected in all years, including drought years, and is not season-specific.

The WCPP is currently investigating incentive measures for encouraging uptake of these devices by residential development.
The reduction in shower water use through adoption of water efficient showerheads has been demonstrated to be particularly cost effective.

In the United States, legislation was passed in the early 1990s in regard to minimum standards for efficiency in showerheads.

The legislation was in large part enacted for improving energy efficiency (reduced hot water use).
National guidelines are being considered for these devices by a National Steering Group led by the Queensland EPA and NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation.

The Steering Group is working on development of point of sale legislation for minimum performance showerheads.

The methodology has the capacity to bring about national legislative change to include the mandatory installation of water efficient devices in all new dwellings and developments across Australia.
Reduction in hot water consumption in Australia through the adoption of a mandatory scheme has the potential to reduce energy use by the residential sector, thereby supporting Australia’s target for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The development of mandatory requirements for showerheads would follow on from previous legislation with respect to dual flush toilets.

There is capability for investigating the efficacy of requirements for other domestic appliances, including garden watering systems.
Additional savings will occur where homes use other water saving systems, such as water-efficient washing machines and dishwashers, water efficient gardens and landscaping, more efficient garden irrigation systems and garden practices.

Since garden watering accounts for a significant proportion of residential water use, this area represents the greatest opportunity for making improvements in residential water use efficiency.
Uptake of water-efficient gardens and garden practices can provide significant benefits by extending the service life of water supply infrastructure and freeing up water during the critical summer supply period.

Changing the public’s perception of the value of water, and enhanced public education in regard to garden watering, will greatly assist in improving water efficiency.

Free mulches and native plants have been used in some Australian incentive schemes.
There is scope for developing a water rating system for all plants and turf, and for irrigation systems.

For public gardens, authorities can promote low water using gardens, drip irrigation and the use of indigenous plants.

Developers could also be encouraged to use low garden water use practices.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 23 Dry (composting) toilets and vacuum sewer systems are additional water conserving technologies which may have potential for urban use if they can be appropriately managed.

A national approach may be justified in some areas to ensure that water efficient devices are installed in all new developments and for retrofits.
For example, there is potential to strengthen the water efficient devices rating system (the water rating AAA scheme), to accommodate changes resulting from improvements in water efficient devices which have occurred in recent years.

Opportunities exist for Local Government and industry to reduce water consumption through better water conservation management.

Some local councils use large volumes of mains and/or groundwater.
Groundwater is, in many instances, cost-free and consequently there is little financial incentive for improving the efficiency of current water use practice.

The WCPP scoping study identified that simple, periodic audits of reserve irrigation systems and more appropriate consideration of tender requirements for new systems have the potential to realise large water and cost savings for very little outlay.
The efficiency of automated watering systems can be improved by utilising soil moisture sensors and climate data systems.

Likewise large water users could benefit by paying closer attention to water use.

Effect of Improved Water Conservation Significant mains water reductions are possible and in many cases are cost-effective for domestic water users at the current prices of mains water in South Australia.
In cases where demand management measures are introduced that negate or delay the need to construct or augment large-scale water supply, sewerage, and/or stormwater infrastructure, substantial cost savings may be realised.

Policies which lead to the more efficient use of a scarce resource are beneficial from both an environmental and economic perspective.
Water service providers are increasingly being subjected to community pressures to encourage the development and marketing of alternative, non-traditional water systems and services.

SA Water is already taking up the challenge of developing and providing innovative stormwater and water recycling services at the Mawson Lakes development.
Utilising Sustainable Local Water Sources Roof Runoff Investigations undertaken in the early 1990s at the University of South Australia indicated that rainwater tanks can capture significant volumes of roof runoff, reduce off-site runoff, and potentially mitigate street peak runoff flows.

In Adelaide water reductions of the order of 30 to 50 kL/yr per dwelling are potentially achievable using rainwater tank capacities of only 2 to 5 kL.
The University of South Australia developed a successful water sensitive design for ‘Fig-tree Place’ in Newcastle NSW, which included small rainwater tanks.

Monitoring at Figtree Place by the University of Newcastle indicates that rainwater is providing 50 percent of in-house water use.
Extensive use of rainwater tanks may provide for street peak flow mitigation that can assist in reducing costs of minor stormwater drainage infrastructure and reduce the hydrologic impact of stormwater discharge to receiving water bodies.

Rainwater has a lower salinity than mains water.

In-house use of rain water may reduce the salinity of sewage and render it more appropriate for reuse.

The cost for rainwater supply (annualised capital and ongoing costs) is in the order of $2 to $6 per kilolitre.
Although this is more than the present price of residential mains water, it is lower than the cost for bottled water.

Furthermore the running costs for rainwater tank systems can be very low: the University of Newcastle, for example, has reported that the running cost of rainwater tank systems is 2 to 6 cents per kL.

A drawback of industry use of rainwater tanks relates to payback time: industries are generally not supportive of retrofits where pay back periods exceed about 3 years.
However a benefit to stormwater authorities which is not currently taken into consideration in decision making is the reduction in runoff.

Rainwater systems can be made more economically viable by taking a holistic approach which factors in the full range of benefits and costs.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 24 Encouraging the uptake of domestic roof-runoff supply systems would assist in reducing mains water use.

In particular, there is a need to develop standardised, ‘all-inclusive’ systems which encompass treatment, storage and use components.

Standardisation can also help by reducing unit costs.
A collaborative partnership between Government, manufacturers and researchers would improve the profile of rainwater tank systems and encourage development of complete rainwater tank systems.

In South Australia and in other parts of Australia there is regular community debate as to whether rainwater tanks should be made mandatory for new development.

Some local councils and the public have stated a desire to see rainwater tanks made mandatory for new development.
Before this occurs, various issues need to be satisfactorily resolved.

Further research and technology development is required.

Greywater Passive reuse of greywater (laundry and/or bathroom effluent) for subsurface garden irrigation is potentially suitable as a substitute for mains water.

However, there are significant impediments to broad-scale adoption of such schemes on private land.
These include: public health risk and nuisance if systems were to fail; installation costs, which are site-dependent; long-term impacts on soils and vegetation due to chemicals and salinity.
(Note: salinity can be reduced if houses installing greywater systems also used roof runoff for in-house use); the potential risk of inadvertent or deliberate cross-connection between sewerage and greywater services; accessing rights for inspection by authorities or third parties; the impact of reducing sewer flushing flows, which may increase the likelihood of blockages; and the need to address toxicity and other issues – eg boron, sodium, nutrients.
Nevertheless if the cost, public health and environmental issues can be satisfactorily resolved, passive subsurface greywater reuse offers major advantages such as: significantly lower hydraulic and biological loads on WWTPs; a seasonally constant source of water for passive irrigation; and ability to incorporate systems into landscaping.

Many of the disadvantages of passive greywater systems can be overcome in cluster-housing development.
In such cases dramatic reductions in sewerage flows could be achieved, while access for inspection, monitoring and maintenance can be made easy.

Water Recycling Local Wastewater Recycling Under some circumstances it is possible for local recycling systems to be cost effective.

For example, for new areas that are unable to connect to sewers that are at full capacity.

In such cases the development of local recycling schemes should be encouraged.
Consequently there is a need for authorities to develop guidelines in relation to local water recycling.

Aquifer Storage Systems To date, ASR schemes in Adelaide have tended to focus on medium to large-scale opportunities involving the treatment and storage of runoff (with storage in the tertiary aquifer system).

However, in Adelaide opportunities exist for small-scale ASR schemes, which recharge roof runoff to the upper (shallow) quaternary aquifer system.
Several highly innovative ‘small-scale’ ASR projects in Adelaide are described in Part 2 of this submission.

Adelaide is underlain by an extensive shallow quaternary aquifer system and there is the potential to exploit the system for winter recharge and summer water extractions.
A report by the Centre for Groundwater Studies suggested that small-scale ASR schemes might potentially be able to South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 25 provide water for summer irrigation for one third of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Although technically feasible, cost for these schemes remains the major impediment to their development.
There are also economic and additional risks associated with attempting to develop small-scale ASR schemes in areas where the local geology and aquifer properties are not well known.

Sewage Mining A recent questionnaire completed by South Australian local councils has indicated that some urban councils would welcome sewage-mining initiatives.
Sewage mining is in its infancy in Australia, however there is little question that technologies are now available that enable sewage to be extracted and mined for non-potable use.

Significant barriers to sewage mining include cost, aspects of siting in relation to the potential for odour concerns, public health issues and uncertainties in relation to who owns the resource.
There are also critical issues associated with third party access to essential infrastructure, and the terms and conditions of such access may prove difficult.

There has been at least one instance in South Australia where sewage mining was implemented, and a number of other potential sites have been proposed by potential customers in cooperation with SA Water.

Desalination Desalination is not practised on a large scale in Australia.
Much of Australia’s population resides on the coast and consequently opportunities for desalination schemes to supply population centres may exist where local water resources are over-utilised, or where the costs for supplying water from other sources are comparatively high.

A sea-water desalination plant was recently installed at Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island.

Desalination of saline groundwater is another potential application of the technology.
This is being achieved at Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs where desalinated water is used for public water supply.

The cost of desalination schemes is site dependent, but may well prove cost-effective for many smaller communities.

Desalination systems that are able to utilise sustainable energy sources are environmentally benign and appear well suited to the Australian environment.
South Australia is in a position to develop this technology as an alternative supply system, particularly in small country communities that are currently restricted in development due to limited local resource availability.

Companies need to be provided with incentives for developing the technologies.

Municipal Recycling South Australia recycles a greater percentage of its wastewater than any other State or Territory other than Queensland.
It has already been stated that SA Water has a long-term aim to recycle 50 percent of its WWTP effluent.

Planning Authorities are being encouraged to increase the uptake of treated recycled water by zoning development activity in the vicinity of municipal treatment plants for large water users (for example, industry and agriculture-based industries).
Avoiding Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges to Downstream Environments The frequently disastrous impact of altered catchment conditions (increased impervious surface area) and watercourse hydrology as a result of urbanisation is well known.
Several ‘at-source’ retention and detention techniques have recently been incorporated into the Planning SA stormwater infrastructure information package, which seeks to provide a Council-wide framework to facilitate better management of stormwater (described in Part 2 of this submission).
In many cases the major restrictions to source control measures relate to cost and the considerable lack of understanding among stormwater practitioners, planners, developers and local councils in relation to the suitability of the techniques to local site conditions.

In general, any increase in runoff resulting from urbanisation has the potential to impact in a detrimental manner on receiving watercourses.
Solutions include use of porous paving, on-site detention and infiltration methods and local aquifer recharge schemes.

The Urban Water Resources Centre is assessing the suitability of porous paving for car parks and parking bay applications, and has developed stormwater management design procedures which incorporate these concepts.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 26 ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO URBAN WATER EFFICIENCY AND MANAGEMENT Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent or more of water use in South Australia.

Consequently there is a perception in some sections of the community that urban water efficiency is far less important than irrigation efficiency.
While this perception is understandable to an extent, there are some issues of specific importance to urban water management, including the environmental impact of urbanisation and urban environment amenity issues.

Consequently there is a need to continue to educate the public of the benefits resulting from improving water catchment management and water use.
Additional barriers preventing homeowners (and industry and other urban water users) to take up or retrofit water efficient devices include: the low awareness and profile of water efficient systems; insufficient provision of information; financial barriers, including lack of capital investment; lack of perceived capital improvement value; the need to provide up-front capital investment; lack of confidence in return on capital – particularly by developers and industry; the need and cost to maintain on-site technologies; uncertainty about which systems may be best for particular site conditions; concern by authorities in regard to public and environmental health of water from alternative technologies, including rainwater tanks, greywater and all-wastewater systems; and the difficulty and expense in retrofitting systems to established houses.
Encouragement of non-traditional water services is likely to require mechanisms to assist developers with information and in the marketing of water (and energy) efficient housing.

research/development and Development of pilot projects which have a multiple demonstration/educational purpose, would help to overcome some of the barriers to change.

Additional mechanisms could be considered to help offset the costs of installing water efficient services.
Although operating costs of some small-scale non-traditional water services (such as rainwater tanks) may be significantly lower than the cost of providing traditional water services, the non-traditional services are disadvantaged in that the infrastructure costs for traditional services are already ‘sunk’ costs whereas non-traditional services require additional capital investment.
There is a great deal of scepticism within the community in relation to the ability of water utilities to make a serious commitment to water conservation where they will be financially disadvantaged.

In South Australia the Government is seeking to better clarify the role of water utilities which, on the one hand, represent substantial commercial businesses, and on the other are required to safeguard the public and environment.
This will be done through a major review of legislation pertaining to SA Water and through the IWS to be undertaken by the DWR.
South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 27 KEY REFERENCES Legislation - Water Resources Act 1997 - Environment Protection Act 1993 - Development Act 1993 State Water Plan 2000 - Volume 1: Policies for a Sustainable Future - Volume 2: South Australia’s Water Resources - Explanatory Documents Catchment Water Management Plans - Patawalonga Catchment - Torrens Catchment - Northern Adelaide and Barossa Catchment - Onkaparinga Catchment Additional Policy Documents - South Australia Planning Strategy - Metropolitan Adelaide - Directions for Regional South Australia – A Framework for Action - Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy and Explanatory Report (Draft for Public Comment) Stormwater Infrastructure Planning Package - Ministerial Plan Amendment Report (PAR) for Patawalonga and Torrens Catchments - Ministers Specification for On site retention and detention - Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management - Planning Bulletin on Urban Stormwater Infrastructure - Stormwater Infrastructure Data Capture – Fact Sheet Stormwater Pollution Prevention Codes of Practice - - - Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for Local, State and Federal Government Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for the Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry State of the Environment Report for South Australia 1998 Summary Report - - Main Report Water Conservation
 Partnerships Project - Review of Urban Domestic and Local Council Water Conservation, Roof Runoff, ASR and Wastewater Reuse Opportunities - A Summary Report of the Council Forums Conducted by the Water Conservation Partnership Project Other Documents - Northern Metropolitan Regional Stormwater Management Strategy - Development Act 1993 Advisory Notice Planning 11: Development Plans and Water Plans - Making the Links - South Australian Reclaimed Water Guidelines South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 28 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery Blackwater Toilet wastewater (or human sewage) Class A water Class B water Class A standard as defined by the South Australian Reclaimed Water Guidelines.
Allows unrestricted-access non-potable appropriate use Class B standard as defined by the South Australian Reclaimed Water Guidelines.

Allows restricted-access non-potable appropriate use.

CMSS CWMB DEH DHS DWR EIP EPA Catchment Management Subsidy Scheme Catchment Water Management Board (plural CWMBs).
A statutory body established under the Water Resources Act whose prime function is to implement a catchment water management plan for its area Department for Environment and Heritage Department of Human Services Department for Water Resources Environment Improvement Program Environment Protection Agency EP Authority Environment Protection Authority ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development Greywater Residential laundry and bathroom wastewater IWS Integrated Water Strategy Quaternary Aquifer In this context, a shallow aquifer system extending beneath much of Adelaide SAHC SA Water South Australian Health Commission (now DHS) SA Water Corporation Sewage mining Extraction of sewage from a sewerage system for treatment and reuse Tertiary Aquifer In this context, a deep aquifer system extending beneath the Adelaide Plains UWRC WWTP Urban Water Resources Centre Wastewater treatment plant South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 29 WATER RESOURCES ACT 1997 APPENDIX A The Water Resources Act 1997 is the key legislative tool for the management of South Australia’s water resources.
The Act came into effect following a period of extensive community consultation, and incorporates both the principles of ESD and the COAG water reform initiatives.

The Act seeks to provide the mechanisms and powers to achieve sustainable management, allocation and use of South Australia’s water resources.
The Act provides two critical mechanisms for achieving its objective: it establishes a hierarchy of Water Plans, prepared and regularly reviewed through a comprehensive process of community involvement; and it partially devolves water resources planning and management responsibilities to local communities, primarily through the establishment of CWMBs and Water Resources Planning Committees throughout the state.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1993 Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act) is the primary pollution control and prevention legislation in South Australia.

The EP Act provides for standards of care that apply to industry and the community by means of: the general environmental duty of care; offences under the EP Act; and Environment Protection Policies and regulations.
DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 The main function of the Development Act 1993 is to control development, which is defined within the Act.

The Act’s overall objective is the proper, orderly and efficient planning and development of the State.

The Act enables development to be controlled by establishing, maintaining and allowing for the amendment of Development Plans.

Development Plans are used to provide a planning policy framework against which the merits of a particular development proposal are assessed.
An advisory notice issued by Planning SA: Development Plans and Water Plans – Making the Links, outlines a recommended approach to ensure close alignment between council Development Plans under the Development Act 1993 and the Water Resources Act 1997.
Alignment between Water Resources Act 1997 and the Development Act 1993 The Water Resources Act 1997 empowers CWMBs to propose changes to council Development Plans as part of a Catchment Water Management Plan or Water Allocation Plan – Water Resources Committees may also propose changes to Development Plans as part of a water allocation plan.
This is a very significant capacity – the Minister responsible for the Development Act 1993 and Councils are the only other parties empowered to propose changes to Development Plans.

This mechanism gives Boards and Committees the capacity to recommend changes that can ensure close alignment between water plans and Development Plans.

South Australian Government Submission to the ECITA References Committee Inquiry Relating to the Management of Water in Australian Cities 30