Water Journal February 2014

PRINT POST APPROVED PP 100003880

Volume 41 No 1 FEBRUARY 2014

Journal of the Australian Water Association

WATER IN MINING > THE IMPACT OF CSG ON OUR WATER RESOURCES – page 32 > CHALLENGES & STRATEGIES IN WATER MANAGEMENT – page 36 > MOVING FORWARD WITH UNCONVENTIONAL GAS – page 46 > SOURCE, FATE & WATER-ENERGY INTENSITY IN THE CSG AND SHALE GAS SECTOR – page 51 PLUS: Recycled Water Irrigation • Agriculture & Food • Desalination • Community Engagement • Climate Change • 2013 ICWWM Report

RRP $18.95

A new teAm tHAt wILL deLIver tHe worLd’s best ductILe Iron pIpeLIne system

Pentair Water Solutions has formed an alliance with Saint-Gobain PAM to provide ductile iron pipeline systems with shorter lead times, new products and cutting edge technical expertise for the water industry throughout Australasia.

This new alliance will provide over 200 years of experience in cast iron pipe manufacture, supply, construction, operation and maintenance. The trusted brands TYTONXCEL and TYTONXTREME will continue, still featuring the unrivalled TYTON® rubber ring joint. Pentair’s commitment to exceeding customer expectations in delivery are now matched with PAM’s dedication to quality through product excellence.

PENTAIR.COM/WATERSOLUTIONS

PAWJ1306

1

Contents regular features From the AWA President

Is Water Being Left Behind In The Investment Stakes?

Graham Dooley

4

From the AWA Chief Executive

contents

Harnessing Innovation And Opportunities in 2014 Jonathan McKeown

6

water journal MANAGING EDITOR – Anne Lawton Tel: 02 9467 8434 Email: alawton@awa.asn.au TECHNICAL EDITOR – Chris Davis Email: cdavis@awa.asn.au

My Point of View

Preparing For The Coming Of Direct Potable Water Recycling Dr John Radclffe

8

AWA WaterAUSTRALIA Update

12

Crosscurrent

14

Industry News

20

AWA News

24

Water Business

New Products and Services

93

Advertisers Index

96

36

CREATIVE DIRECTOR – Mike Wallace Email: mwallace@awa.asn.au ADVERTISING SALES MANAGER – Kirsti Couper Tel: 02 9467 8408 (Mob) 0417 441 821 Email: kcouper@awa.asn.au NATIONAL MANAGER – PUBLISHING – Wayne Castle Email: wcastle@awa.asn.au CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Jonathan McKeown EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT – Despina Hasapis Email: dhasapis@awa.asn.au EDITORIAL BOARD Frank R Bishop (Chair); Dr Bruce Anderson, Planreal Australasia; Dr Terry Anderson, Consultant SEWL; Dr Andrew Bath, Water Corporation; Michael Chapman, GHD; Wilf Finn, Norton Rose Fulbright; Robert Ford, Central Highlands Water (rtd); Ted Gardner (rtd); Antony Gibson, Orica Watercare; Dr Lionel Ho, AWQC, SA Water; Dr Robbert van Oorschot, GHD; John Poon, CH2M Hill; David Power, BECA Consultants; Dr Ashok Sharma, CSIRO. PUBLISH DATES Water Journal is published eight times per year: February, April, May, June, August, September, November and December. Please email journal@awa.asn.au for a copy of our 2014 Editorial Calendar.

EDITORIAL SUBMISSIONS Acceptance of editorial submissions is at the discretion of the Editors and Editorial Board.

• Technical Papers & Technical Features: Chris Davis, Technical Editor, email: cdavis@awa.asn.au AND journal@awa.asn.au Technical Paper Submission Guidelines Technical Papers should be 3,000–4,000 words long and accompanied by relevant graphics, tables and images.

For more detailed submission guidelines please email: journal@awa.asn.au

Water amendment facility to improve SAR of coal seam water.

conference reports

volume 41 no 1

Water And Wastewater: The Malaysian Experience A Report On The 2013 ICWWM Conference

NCEDA Sponsored International Desalination Workshop Keynotes From The IDW6 In Melbourne

28 30

feature articles

The Impact Of CSG On Our Water Resources

What Does The Future Hold?

Rebecca Hoare, Jacinta Studdert, Noni Shannon & Wilf Finn

32

Tackling Water Management In Mining

Developing Effective Strategies To Overcome The Challenges Yamuna Balasubramaniam & Ashit Panda

36

An Integrated Approach To Community Engagement

Planning Processes In The Lower Hunter and Greater Sydney Region Ruby Gamble & Cathy Cole

technical papers

cover Shale gas drilling with sunrise in the province of Lublin, Poland.

41

45

• General Feature Articles, Industry News, Opinion Pieces & Media Releases: Anne Lawton, Managing Editor, email: journal@awa.asn.au General Feature Submission Guidelines General Features should be 1,500–2,000 words and accompanied by relevant graphics, tables and images.

For more details please email: journal@awa.asn.au • Water Business & Product News: Kirsti Couper, Advertising Sales Manager, email: kcouper@awa.asn.au ADVERTISING Advertisements are included as an information service to readers and are reviewed before publication to ensure relevance to the water sector and the objectives of AWA. PUBLISHER Australian Water Association (AWA) Publishing, Level 6, 655 Pacific Hwy, PO Box 222, St Leonards NSW 1590; Tel: +61 2 9436 0055 or 1300 361 426, Fax: +61 2 9436 0155, Email: journal@awa.asn.au, Web: www.awa.asn.au COPYRIGHT Water Journal is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any format without the written permission of AWA. Email: journal@awa.asn.au DISCLAIMER Australian Water Association assumes no responsibility for opinions or statements of fact expressed by contributors or advertisers.

FEBRUARY 2014 water

4

From the President

IS WATER BEING LEFT BEHIND IN THE INVESTMENT STAKES? Graham Dooley – AWA President

An issue that keeps bubbling to the surface as I travel around Australia and speak to business leaders and AWA Branch members is the role of investment capital in our nation’s water infrastructure.

When Australia was founded around the Tank Stream at Circular Quay in Sydney in 1788, the Government ran everything – food supplies, law and order, housing, water, labour hire, transport, communications and supply of clothing. Progressively, however, virtually all these businesses have been taken up by the investorowned sector of our economy.

To my mind, once a business provides a commodity rather than a public service it is questionable whether it should be Governmentowned. Gas, electricity, banking and airlines have mostly moved out of the Government sector over the last 20 years but not, surprisingly, water utilities.

Australia’s big super funds have repeatedly told me how much they would like to invest in water utilities, to meet the constant need for new capital and provide a steady rate of return for their members. Some of the larger investors have already invested in UK water utilities, but this option has not yet been available in a realistic sense in Australia. PPPs have played a useful role, but they tend to be specific to a single project.

Provided our economic and technical regulators are set up properly and function both at State and national levels, the non-Government sector is a much more suitable place for capital-hungry businesses – even those that are natural monopolies, such as large airports and water utilities.

water February 2014

The laws in most States that control and regulate the delivery of water for urban, rural and industrial users now make no differentiation between who owns or operates the infrastructure or the water entitlements in the major rivers.

That is the first step, and it has been done well.

The second step has been to give State and Local Government owners of these water businesses the incentive to push them into the capital markets.

Joe Hockey and the State Treasurers appear to be getting such an incentive in place.

Thirdly, the Commonwealth Government has established a Commission of Audit chaired by longtime water industry supporter Tony Shepherd, who was a key player in many of the early Australian water PPPs. This is likely to produce further thinking focused on reducing the endless demand for money from the Government purse for the water sector as a whole.

AWA is developing some focused thinking on using more of the capital and human resources already available to the industry rather than dipping constantly into Government coffers. We hope to roll out these ideas over the coming months.

I have just celebrated my 44th anniversary of joining the water industry, and over the years I have been employed in every possible type of business configuration. I hope that before I retire I will see a substantial investor-owned water utility business in Australia. Will it be a large utility, or a collection of smaller ones? I don’t know, but it will change the way investors and the public view the water sector, and it will free up Government balance sheets to do what Government does best – look after us with those services that only Government can provide!

Potable Water Pump Station, Burleigh Heads, Queensland

“Securing the future for all users” Comdain is a leading national infrastructure design, construction and maintenance services business specialising in the Water, Irrigation and Gas sectors.

We deliver our construction and maintenance services safely with professional excellence and best practice in alignment with our core values. Our focus is to deliver innovation that is sustainable, where practical, ensuring the future of water resources is secured for all users.

Our water capabilities include:

Current & Recent projects include:

Program Planning & Management and Consultation.

South East Water (VIC) Pipes & Structures Program 2013-2018: Panel member (through LD&C joint venture) for the design and construct of South East Water’s Capital Works Program.

Design - Concept, detailed and delivery methodology.

Construction - Pipelines, Pump Stations, Structures, Storage and Treatment Plants.

Maintenance - Civil, mechanical and electrical.

Control & Monitor - Metering, SCADA and telemetry.

Intelligent Doers, Dependable Delivery comdaininfrastructure.com.au

Sydney Water Corporation (NSW) Network & Facility Renewals Program: Delivery Contractor panel member providing design and construction services.

Queensland Urban Utilities (QLD) Panel member for the provision of Design and/or Construction of Water and Sewerage Reticulation Systems.

Goulburn-Murray Water (VIC) Hattah Lakes Environmental Flows Project: Award winning project delivering environmental flows through the construction of seven pump columns, 2.1km pipeline, regulating structures, penstock gates and levee banks.

6

From the CEO

HARNESSING INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITIES IN 2014 Jonathan McKeown – AWA Chief Executive Happy New Year! 2014 promises to be a productive year as new opportunities to develop the water sector are pursued by AWA through a range of professional and industry development programs.

The recognition of water as one of Australia’s main drivers for economic prosperity is evidenced in many current issues facing the sector, as well as through initiatives being developed by AWA. These include: Evolving alternative ownership models for water assets The Federal Government’s Commission of Audit will shortly report its findings and recommendations, with the sale of State Government-owned assets (including water utilities) being mooted together with significant tax incentives to fund much-needed infrastructure.

While State and Territory Governments have shown limited appetite for the privatisation of water utilities they continue to contract out much of their operations and maintenance functions to the private sector, with higher productivity and operational efficiencies resulting in improved customer services. Some states have also sold particular assets – for example, in Sydney, where the sale of the desalination plant to the private sector netted a $500m profit for NSW taxpayers.

The debate about the sale of water utilities will need to balance transfer-of-risk issues with potential consumer benefits from private sector ownership.

More transparency and community awareness about how shareholders allocate dividends generated from assets, together with the extent and costs of capital debts, would focus attention on the appropriateness of existing ownership structures.

Restricting ownership of water utilities to Governments is not the only way to safeguard the supply and delivery of water at reasonable prices. Contrasting overseas ownership models, or the supply of other essential services in Australia (such as electricity in Victoria), has proved this.

The question is: which ownership models provide customers with the best services within a financially

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

viable business model? Different ownership models need to be considered for different assets to unlock the real potential for the communities they serve.

Regional opportunities in Asia Australia’s expertise in water resource management, water and wastewater treatment plants, desalination and other technologies is widely acknowledged across Asia. With the support of Austrade under the Asian Century Business Engagement Plan, AWA and its subsidiary waterAUSTRALIA are developing new market access for our members into three South East Asian countries – Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia (see page 12 for more information).

Practical support to foster innovations AWA has launched an Innovations Program designed to assist new technologies and innovations to be introduced and adopted by the water sector. We have received strong registrations for the first Innovation Forum to be held the day before Ozwater’14 in Brisbane. This event will introduce innovators to potential investors, business partners and users, while providing expert advisors to assist innovators in the commercialisation process. Further industry roundtables to bring together representatives from industry and the R&D community have been scheduled.

R&D Panel Many of the existing water-focused R&D bodies will reach the end of their funding cycles by 2016. There is a risk that the legacies of these bodies will not be harnessed and that continued R&D in the water sector will be deficient.

AWA and WSAA have established a panel to consider future options to strengthen the R&D undertaken in the urban water sector. The panel will present its recommendations in June and a process of wide consultation is underway.

Together with our national calendar of events and training programs, these initiatives will provide AWA members with numerous ways to continue their professional development, expand business opportunities and engage with the industry.

Partner with an industry leader in water & wastewater NHP understands the value of our most precious resource, water. In turn, we offer a complete suite of products and services that employ cutting edge energy efficiency techniques and management tools to reflect the need for sustainable use of water and wastewater.

Our extensive global network of suppliers includes leading automation provider Rockwell Automation and together we offer the benefits of remote access and control as well as access to data and reporting of your energy usage and asset performance.

Providing the optimal balance of knowledge and experience, a partnership with NHP promises to last the life of your project, providing quality, assurance and peace of mind.

For your next water and wastewater application, trust NHP to engineer a customised solution.

NHP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING PRODUCTS PTY LTD Sales 1300 NHP NHP nhp.com.au Sales 0800 NHP NHP nhp-nz.com

EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH

NWATERAWAA 0114

For more information scan to download the NHP Catalogues App offering exclusive video content, catalogues and literature!

8

My Point of View

PREPARING FOR THE COMING OF DIRECT POTABLE WATER RECYCLING Dr John Radcliffe AM FTSE, Chair – Research Advisory Committee, Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence John Radcliffe is an agricultural scientist who

Australia leading the way

became Director-General of Agriculture in South

Australia is in the fortunate position of having developed water recycling guidelines for the management of health and environmental risks, augmentation of drinking water, managed aquifer recharge and stormwater harvesting and reuse.

It has also recently updated its drinking water guidelines. Many other countries are envious of these outcomes, which would be almost impossible to achieve in countries such as the US, with its enormous jurisdictional complexities.

Australia also has a group of State and Territory recycled water regulators that meet together and that are willing to provide advice for research projects to better prepare for the future management of recycled water.

Australia in 1985 and represented that state as a Commissioner on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. He subsequently became an Institute Director and Deputy Chief Executive in CSIRO until 1999, while also chairing the Board of the South Australian Research and Development Institute. In 2004, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering published John’s review “Water Recycling in Australia”, the first nationwide review of our water recycling environment. From 2005 to 2008, he was a Commissioner of the National Water Commission.

He currently chairs the Research Advisory Committee of the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence. He continues as an Honorary Research Fellow in CSIRO. It has been dry in parts of outback Queensland; Perth is continuing its trend of reduced inflows from catchments well below the long-term average; and there were low spring flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, most of the eastern states’ capital cities have been well endowed with water in their catchments for several years. Most of the desalination plants and advanced water recycling plants in the eastern states are in a state of suspended animation.

Water issues are generally off the agenda, so maybe it is a good time for some quiet reflection and consideration of where we are going with respect to recycled water, especially for drinking.

water February 2014

With the higher costs of water and trade waste charges, industries are increasingly willing to see how recycling might be economically incorporated into their production processes, two major commercial breweries in Brisbane being notable examples.

Yet in other areas we still have a long way to go. We have governments with policy bans that preclude the rational scientific consideration of the use of recycled water for drinking, with advisers not being prepared to consider the technology now available. Others recognise that a range of proven technologies is available, but worry about the ability of water utilities to manage the processes within the normal range of variability to achieve an acceptably safe production outcome – questions of competence and trust.

9

My Point of View Recently, the results of our own Deloitte-AWA yearly survey of water industry professionals were released. The survey explored attitudes to three different water sources for differing uses – recycled water, stormwater and desalinated water for potable and nonpotable use. The report said “responses to the survey showed that just 9% considered recycled water suitable for potable use, 10% considered stormwater as suitable and 60% considered desalinated water as a viable option”.

The press responded with stories reporting “strong concern in the water industry about using recycled water for drinking, with just 9 per cent of the industry thinking it was suitable for potable use”.

In fact, a more careful perusal of the results shows that a further 39% of respondents replied that recycled water was suitable for both potable and non-potable use, bringing the total of industry respondents supporting recycled water for drinking to 48%. But that is still less than half of the industry’s participants. Have we no faith in our own capabilities? No wonder our politicians do not feel confident to take potable recycling forward to the community if industry professionals aren’t comfortable with the idea.

Putting Precautions in place So let’s look at our approach to potable recycling. The aim is to ensure we have validated secure protection mechanisms, including hazard and critical control point risk assessment regimes and realtime monitoring that allow water to be withheld from entering the supply system if it is off-specification at any of those points, and the ability to take quick action to isolate such water before it reaches the consumer.

One of the final aspects has been to have an “environmental buffer” into which recycled water is added, thereby diluting it with “natural” catchment water, giving comfort to the consumer.

But we all know that recycled water, usually produced by microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation, is almost always better in biological and chemical characteristics than the environmental buffer into which it is being added. We are, in essence, spending a lot of energy moving water to an environmental

buffer to achieve a reduction in its quality. Although it might provide some short-term political comfort, is this sensible in either health, environmental or economic terms?

The issue has been flushed out twice within Australia in recent months. The first occasion was the report Drinking Water Through Recycling, commissioned by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence from the eminent and independent Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), which is comprised of the top 800 applied scientists and engineers in the nation.

Authored by Dr Stuart Khan, the report came out squarely in suggesting that direct potable recycling should be considered among the range of available water supply options for Australian cities and towns. An appendix by consultant GHD established potentially lower capital and long-run operating costs for direct potable recycling compared with indirect potable, third pipe or desalination systems. The report’s conclusions parallelled a 2011 National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences report that also suggested that if US coastal communities added advanced water treatment procedures to the treated wastewater that is now discharged to ocean, they could increase the amount of municipal water available by as much as 27 per cent.

More locally specific was the joint submission from AWA, the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) and the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence (AWRCoE) to the Queensland State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee in regard to its inquiry into the issues contained in the Queensland Audit Office Report to Parliament 14 for 2012–13: Maintenance of Water Infrastructure Assets.

The joint submission suggested building a short pipeline directly from the Bundamba Advanced Water Treatment Plant to the Mount Crosby Water Filtration Plant to supply direct potable recycled water to Brisbane. It also suggested developing the capability to reverse the flow of the Bundamba-Wivenhoe pipeline to bring water from upper Lake Wivenhoe to Brisbane during floods when water from the Brisbane River was too turbid or otherwise too polluted to use. Increased Wivenhoe water could be allocated for economic development of irrigation

by Lockyer Valley farmers, the water so consumed being offset by direct potable supplies from the Western Corridor Scheme advanced water treatment plants.

Seeing the process and tasting is believing! Becky Mudd, tour coordinator at Orange County Water District, at the end of a recycled water tour shows three water streams. Left to right: final product water for tasting; MF water influent to RO; and third-pass RO brine.

This may sound a little fanciful in the light of current community attitudes to recycled water for drinking, although the Water Corporation in Perth has shown that attitudes can be moved in a favourable direction in a relatively short time.

February 2014 water

10

My Point of View ThE CAliFoRniAn EXPERiEnCE Events in California have shown how attitudes can change.

Recently I had the privilege of participating in the WateReuse Research Foundation (WRRF) 2013 Direct Potable Reuse Specialty Conference in Newport Beach, California, attended by 266 delegates. The Conference had a wide-ranging program encompassing sessions entitled Public Acceptance, Regulatory Settings, Treatment Strategies, Monitoring and Response, a Public Policy Panel Discussion, Direct Potable Concepts and Drivers and then a discussion of the next steps – “Moving Forward”.

WateReuse California had lobbied for progressing the introduction of potable recycling, resulting in the recent signing into law of the Californian Senate Bill 322 by Governor Jerry Brown.

This includes requiring the California Department of Public Health to report to the California legislature by the end of 2016 on the feasibility of introducing direct potable recycling in that state. The actual task is being transferred to the State Water Resources Control Board. In signing the Bill into law, the Governor appended a note reading, “ensure the work is completed expeditiously, the three-year time frame is too slow, the state needs to have recycled water”.

Considerable discussion is being devoted to the issue of environmental buffers and whether they might be replaced with engineered buffers providing economic savings and improved water quality. Guidelines for Engineered Storage for Direct Potable Reuse are currently being developed in WRRF Project 12-06. The project recognises the possibility that failures may occur, and seeks to develop effective ways to identify and mitigate them.

Of course, many aspects of the California scene differ from those in Australia. Small retailers buy wholesale water derived from the Los Angeles Aquaduct (established 1913), the Central Valley project (1931), the Colorado River Aquaduct (1939) and the State Water Project (from the 1960s). But demand on these resources has increased, purchase prices rose 85% between 2004 and 2012 and available water has reduced, particularly on the Colorado River where up-stream users have clawed back rights.

This means that Californian water districts and utilities, like Australian water resource managers and utilities, are increasingly seeking to integrate their traditional water sources with alternative supplies. The new Orange County Groundwater Replenishment Scheme provides nearly 100 GL/year of water, which is considered enough water for nearly 600,000 people. The project has parallels with present plans for Perth.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2010 Urban Water Management Plan envisages increasing water recycling to over 70 GL/year by 2035, and is looking beyond that date to offsetting up to 100 per cent of purchased imported water with recycled water, maximising recycled water use through additional groundwater replenishment projects and/or direct potable recycling. The Santa Clara Valley Water District envisages meeting future needs through conservation and recycling involving additional non-potable recycling (25 GL/year) and potable reuse (25–40 GL/year).

The standout California case is San Diego, where recycled water has been generated since 1997. In 1999, voters decisively rejected a proposal to add recycled water to the drinking water system. Most of the recycled water was discharged unused. By 2006, San Diego was importing 85 per cent of its water and the City Council again began to consider recycled water. Community opposition reduced from 63 per cent in 2004 to 25 per cent by 2011.

water February 2014

In April 2013, the San Diego City Council unanimously adopted the Water Purification Demonstration Project Report. This report included a proposal to construct a demonstration plant with a 4 ML/day capacity consisting of microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light/ hydrogen peroxide advanced oxidation, with the final product water (purified water) being used to supplement the North City recycled water system.

Since then, the City’s water purification efforts have taken a dualtrack approach, combining the efforts from the Water Purification Demonstration Project, which examined whether purified water could safely be added to the San Vicente Reservoir, and the Recycled Water Study, which developed five alternatives to increase regional water reuse including 330 ML/day for indirect potable reuse. Future approaches include evaluating engineered buffers, validation of monitoring technologies and establishing failure responses leading to “fail-safe” water recycling. San Diego has moved to ditch the differentiation between the terms “indirect” and “direct” potable recycling.

Delegates at the conference also discussed the progress of potable recycling schemes in other states. In Arizona, the Governor’s panel on “Blue Ribbon Sustainability” recommended in 2010 the establishment of a steering group to determine technologies, criteria and administrative changes that will advance potable reuse, resulting in the Steering Committee on Arizona Potable Reuse (SCAPR) taking the lead.

In April 2013, the Colorado River Municipal Water District introduced the final blending of recycled water with raw water in Big Spring Texas, and in the first six months over 400 ML had been blended. Brownwood, Texas, is developing a 6 ML/day recycling facility, Wichita Falls has an emergency direct potable scheme blended with raw water from local lakes, with full scale verification required prior to start-up, while El Paso is moving to establish a 55 ML/day potable plant feeding directly into the distribution system.

The Texas Water Development Board has a priority research topic, Evaluating the Potential for Direct Potable Reuse in Texas.

Like the Public Utilities Board in Singapore and Water Corporation in Perth, many of the recycling agencies conduct tours of their facilities to assist public understanding and acceptance. Tasting is usually part of the experience. At the 2013 Direct Potable Reuse Conference, Joseph Cotruvo reviewed where the US industry had come since direct recycling was first raised at an EPA Conference in 1980. He concluded that unified drinking water standards are not only possible, but needed (not separate reuse standards); source waters are much improved regarding anthropogenic contamination; the principal risk issues are microbial (resolved) and ultra trace organics (philosophical), and that monitoring (online methods) and process management is much improved with HACCP and SCADA systems.

Full-time reliability is essential incorporating multiple barriers. A key element is source water discharge control. Numerous technological options for recycling are available; piloting is always good at least for training, but consumer acceptance is still an issue – indeed, a need!

It has been a long journey for Californians. Australia has been traversing a similar journey, albeit further behind in most areas.

Consumer acceptance is still a stumbling block here too. But shouldn’t we gain the confidence of our own water professionals first? Then we can follow up more widely with the outcomes from the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence National Demonstration, Engagement and Education Program, now being developed, so that when we really need recycled water, we have the required level of acceptance in place.

LET’S MAKE UNPLANNED CALL-OUTS AND HIGH ENERGY

COSTS A THING OF THE PAST

FLYGT EXPERIOR – AN INNOVATION PROVEN IN THE FIELD Rumor has it that some traditional pump customers have been raising their pumps up to three times per day due to clogging. That won’t happen with a Flygt Experior. The groundbreaking combination of N-hydraulics, premium efficiency motors and the SmartRun intelligent pump control unit means an end to unplanned call-outs thanks to clog-free performance. You will also experience energy consumption savings of up to 50 percent. Flygt Experior is the latest in a series of cutting edge innovations brought about by listening to you.

Inspired by you. Engineered by us.

12

AWA waterAUSTRALIA Update

a round-up of key activities This issue, find out how AWA is creating stronger links in South-East Asian markets, learn how you can get involved in the AWA Water Innovation Forum, and express your interest in the Australian delegation to Singapore International Water Week.

NEW ALLIANCES IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA As the peak body for the Australian water industry, AWA is developing new alliances in South-East Asia to provide market access for members and the exchange of market intelligence.

These new alliances are being supported by Austrade under the Australian Government’s Asian Century Business Engagement Plan.

The strategy will provide AWA links with the Government authorities responsible for water and private sector allies to assist with business introductions for AWA members.

AWA’s CEO and waterAUSTRALIA’s Managing Director, Jonathan McKeown, has now met with a range of government agencies and relevant organisations in the private and not-for-profit sectors in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia to discuss opportunities for collaboration, information exchange, and areas for business growth between both Australian and South-East Asian water industries.

These partnerships will help to showcase the capabilities and develop opportunities for the Australian water sector abroad.

Some of the organisations visited include the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority , Department of Water Resources and Water Institute for Sustainability, National Water Services Commission, The Royal Irrigation Department, The Bangkok Metropolitan Authority and various private sector organisations in Thailand; Malaysian Water Association and the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water in Malaysia; and Indonesia Infrastructure Initiatives, National Development Planning Agency of Indonesia and the Vice Minister for Public Works, the Vice Governor of Jakarta, and the Mayors of Makassar City and Bandung City in Indonesia.

More information about the outcomes of these meetings and further opportunities for collaboration will be provided in the next issue. If you’d like to stay updated on AWA’s involvement in the South-East Asian market, please go to www.awa.asn.au/ wateraustralia or email awhite@awa.asn.au for more information.

INVITING WATER INNOVATORS, BUYERS & INVESTORS AWA is inviting water innovators, leading utilities and buyers and investors to participate in the AWA Water Innovation Forum, to be held on 28 April (the day before Ozwater’14). Held for the first time, the forum will provide a platform for innovators, buyers and investors to discuss strategies to commercialise new innovations and technologies.

If you have new technology or an innovation with commercial application in the water sector you need to apply to be a participant at the forum. It will give you expert advice on how to commercialise your product, introduce you to potential partners, and promote your product at the Ozwater exhibition.

If you are interested in investing or partnering with new technology the forum will provide you with a broad range of potential new products. These could lead to a commercially viable business opportunity for your business.

Take part in tailored business matching and continue networking at the Ozwater’14 exclusive Welcome Networking Evening on Monday 28 April and have the option to extend your stay to meet with over 300 Ozwater’14 trade exhibitors.

Can you afford to miss out? Apply now as an innovator or register as a buyer or investor at www.ozwater.org/innovationforum

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL WATER WEEK

Jonathan McKeown with SPAN – Malaysia’s National Water Service.

water FEBRUARY 2014

Is your business seeking greater exposure in the South-East Asia market? AWA waterAUSTRALIA is leading a delegation to Singapore in June to participate in Singapore International Water Week (SIWW).

13

AWA waterAUSTRALIA Update Express your interest in participating in this delegation, where you will have extensive opportunities to create international demand for your products and services across markets in Singapore and surrounding countries. You’ll be offered a space at an Australian exhibition pavilion at SIWW, tailored business matching with key stakeholders, and follow-on meetings in Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia to take full advantage of your stay in Asia.

Increase your international brand visibility and contacts. Find out more about this exclusive opportunity at www.awa.asn.au/ wateraustralia or email awhite@awa.asn.au for more details.

SHOWCASING WATER SOLUTIONS TO SMEC – HOW DID IT GO? Through Department of Industry funding, ICN and AWA waterAUSTRALIA work collaboratively to showcase the capabilities of organisations that are part of a Water Industry Capability Team.

In December, ICN in partnership with AWA waterAUSTRALIA ran a showcase for SMEC – a global professional services firm that provides consultancy services on major infrastructure projects.

Twelve Australian water industry firms presented their water solutions, from water treatment and re-use through to consultancy and enabling technologies, to a wide group of SMEC participants.

This was a valuable and highly sought after platform for all participants – SMEC is a prime user of water solutions within the delivery of its projects, both here in Australia and overseas.

“The event was very effective in communicating information, networking and exploring opportunities in the Australian and international markets,” said Daniel Cramer, Technical Principal, Contamination and Waste, SMEC. “It was refreshing to experience the enthusiasm of the different presenters. The round table and individual discussions were open and productive.”

Feedback received from participants was positive, with the majority of participants rating the quality of the SMEC contacts introduced through the showcasing process and the effectiveness of the events as a means to new opportunities as ‘very good’.

contacts and business ventures in the industrial provinces of Jiangsu and Guangdong.

Austrade has identified China as one of the key growth markets for exports from Australia’s water sector. The level of investment by both government and industry in China, in response to environmental and water challenges, is of an unprecedented scale, and mission participants gained a first-hand view of the market – in particular the eagerness of the Chinese market to source innovative Australian knowledge, products and services. This eagerness led to a signing

by AWA and the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science, officiated by Water Supplier Advocate, Mr Bob Herbert AM. The Team Australia approach from the Government, AWA WaterAUSTRALIA and mission participants in the lead-up to and delivery of the mission is a formula that works well and leads to more effective international missions. To enter a market such as China with the support of the Australian badge of government is an approach that resonates strongly with the local customer base, and the layers of government that have such influence in the market.

Over the course of the mission, participants exhibited in the Australian pavilion at the Water Expo + Water Membrane China 2013 (WEC 2013), pitched their products to potential Chinese buyers, investors and government officials, and took advantage of tailored business matching.

See the box below for Optimatics’ experience of the Mission.

A PARTICIPANT’S STORY “The Australian Water Solutions Mission to China offered Optimatics a time-efficient, high value for money opportunity to gain first-hand experience of the market potential of our software in China.

“The opportunity to travel to three major cities in a short space of time also helped to highlight the scale and diversity in the market, which will inform our process of determining the best approach to marketing and business development.

“I came away from the Mission feeling much better informed and in a good position to direct the development of our company’s strategy for exporting to China in the future.“

Following the success of the SMEC showcase, similar events are being planned for 2014. To find current opportunities for your business, visit the ICN water directory at www.water.icn.org.au

– Elsinore Mann, Client Support Manager ANZ/UK, Optimatics

A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE AUSTRALIAN WATER SOLUTIONS MISSION TO CHINA

Stay up-to-date. Visit www.awa.asn.au/wateraustralia for information on future opportunities.

What’s next? Participation evaluation will now be reviewed to help in determining the next steps toward further securing opportunities in China.

In December 2013, 12 innovative water firms from across the Australian water industry ventured to Beijing, Nanjing and Guangzhou in China to form the Australian Water Solutions Mission to China.

Led by the Australian Water Supplier Advocate, Mr Bob Herbert AM, and supported by Austrade, the Department of Industry and AWA waterAUSTRALIA, the Mission provided an opportunity for delegates to connect to key Chinese and surrounding market

FEBRUARY 2014 water

14

CrossCurrent The recent update includes: New Information Sheets for

International

Water Treatment Operators, which replace Information Sheets on Disinfection; an update of the 1996 Chemical Fact Sheets on benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes; and a new resource

A report published in March 2013, Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK, surveyed built environment professionals and found that 83% of respondents believed water management was considered too late in the planning and design process of developments. As growing pressure is placed on the planet’s limited water supplies however, businesses are stepping up their innovation game, with new and emerging inventions offer hope for overcoming water scarcity. Rotterdam for example, is planning ahead with water plazas, green walls and floating neighbourhoods to safeguard itself from threats posed by climate change.

– Guidance for Issuing and Lifting Boil Water Advisories. Further information is available on the NHMRC website.

Government Skills Australia is developing an occupation and competency framework for the water industry. The online tool will live within the new companion volumes of the National Water Training Package (NWP). The framework will contain water industry occupations with NWP qualifications and provide a guide of typical workplace tasks, skills, knowledge and qualification level. To read the project update and review the draft framework please go to the

The World Bank has launched a new initiative, Thirsty Energy, at the World Future Energy summit and International Water Summit in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The program is designed to help developing countries plan and manage their energy capacity in tandem with water resource management; governments identify synergies and quantify tradeoffs between energy development and water use; piloting cross-sectoral planning to ensure the sustainability of energy and water investments; and design assessment tools and management frameworks to help governments coordinate decision-making.

website: www.governmentskills.com.au/water/25-water/105-watercompetency-framework

The Commonwealth Government’s decision to sell back to farmers up to 10 billion litres of its water allocation in the MurrayDarling Basin could prove to be a win-win for irrigators and the river. On the surface the decision seems to make no sense. The Government bought the rights to water from farmers in the first place to restore the health of the river, why would it sell them back?

But the new decision reflects the variability of water supply and

Astronomers may reprioritise their search for extraterrestrial life after finding giant water “geysers” spewing from Ceres, an enormous rock in orbit beyond the planet Mars. The first discovery of water vapour around an asteroid, the find lends weight to theories that space rocks helped kickstart life on Earth.

prices. For more please go to theconversation.com and look for stories on the Murray-darling Basin.

The establishment of a national regulator is seen as a key prerequisite to pushing through further asset privatisations in

National

the Australian water sector. The call comes in the wake of a paper published recently by Infrastructure Australia, which identifies 10 water infrastructure assets with a hypothetical enterprise value of

The National Water Commission has released the Australian Water Markets Report 2012–13. This is the sixth annual statement of water trading activity informing market participants about market structure, trading activity, prices and policy decisions influencing market performance. Key findings include: 2012–13 started with high carry over from the previous year and a high proportion of catchments received 100% allocations; rainfall was below average in most of the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) during the year, increasing the volume and value of allocation trade; and the value of trade in Australian water markets overall decreased from $1.6 billion in 2012–13 to $1.4 billion in 2012–13 as a result of a reduction in entitlement trade.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Simon Birmingham, has announced the appointment of Dr Jane Doolan as a new Commissioner to the National Water Commission. “Dr Doolan will bring a great wealth of knowledge and experience to the Commission’s role in providing independent advice to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on national water reform progress,” he said.

A$37.5 billion (US$33.1 billion) which could potentially be sold to the private sector in order to generate cash to tackle the country’s growing infrastructure deficit.

A new report has warned that more needs to be done to protect Australia’s drinking water supplies from extreme weather events driven by climate change. An analysis of 41 water utilities in Australia and the US found water quality was put at most risk by a combination of extreme weather events, such as bushfires and then a flood, rather than a single event.

New South Wales For the 18th year in a row, Sydney Water’s drinking water has again passed the test after a rigorous independent report to the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal (IPART). Sydney Water was independently audited by Cardno against five areas of its Operating Licence, receiving the excellent result of Full

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has released an update to the 2011 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) as part of its rolling revision of the guidelines.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Compliance for drinking water quality, managing assets and the priority sewerage program, and High Compliance for recycled water quality and customer and consumer rights.

Who but Aquatec Maxcon can provide Nereda® technology in a waste water plant?

75% smaller footprint than conventional plants

>

Reduced CAPEX and embodied carbon

Enhanced settling properties

>

No membranes or clarifiers

25% energy reduction & improved dewaterability

>

Reduced Whole of Life cost

Excellent effluent quality

>

Chemical free Bio P and Bio N removal

Nereda® optimised controller

>

Robust, operator friendly performance

Aerobic granular biomass

60,000EP Epe WWTP

Enhanced settleability

The Triple Bottom Line...

Reduced capital expenditure. Reduced operating costs. Reduced Carbon Footprint.

AQUATEC MAXCON We treat water properly Ipswich - Head Office 119 Toongarra Road Ipswich QLD 4305 P: +61 (0) 7 3813 7100 F: +61 (0) 7 3813 7199

Adelaide 41-47 Unit 5C O’Sullivans Beach Road, Lonsdale SA 5160 P: +61 (0) 8 7002 6900 F: +61 (0) 8 7002 6999

Be a leader by using world’s best technologies based on proven science & engineering

Sydney 8 Charles Street St Marys NSW 2760 P: +61 (0) 2 8603 5200 F: +61 (0) 2 8603 5299

Melbourne 6/64 Oakover Road Preston VIC 3072 P: +61 (0) 3 9480 8000 F: +61 (0) 3 9480 8099

www.aquatecmaxcon.com.au | enquiries@aquatecmaxcon.com.au Aquatec Maxcon can also look after your Potable Water Treatment needs.

16

CrossCurrent

Victoria

South Australia

The Commonwealth Government has signed an agreement with Victoria that will see $103 million of Federal funding made available for irrigation infrastructure upgrades in the Sunraysia region.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Simon Birmingham, and Victorian Minister for Water, Peter Walsh, signed the funding agreement in Mildura.

ESCOSA has made available Water Industry Rule No. 1 – Excluded Retail Services WIR/01 (the industry rule), which came into effect on 1 January 2014. According to ESCOSA, the industry rule deals with the following matters: What Constitutes a Dispute?; ESCOSA’s Role if a Dispute Arises; Information That May Be Required from SA Water and Complainants; and Procedures for Determination.

One of Australia’s largest environmental works projects is demonstrating how infrastructure can be used to achieve environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin. The $32 million package of works at Hattah Lakes, in north-west Victoria, was opened by Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, and Victorian Minister for Water, Peter Walsh.

The Victorian Government will implement fairer water bills, a major efficiency program for the urban water sector to drive down household water bills in Melbourne from 2014/15. Minister for Water Peter Walsh said fairer water bills will be implemented over three years and will require water corporations to review financial management, asset management, procurement practices and shared services to find greater savings for customers.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Western Australia Water Corporation has begun work on a $27million suite of projects to upgrade Karratha’s wastewater scheme, which will allow more wastewater to be recycled to irrigate green spaces. WA Water Minister Mia Davies said the projects, which included wastewater pipelines and upgrades to pump stations, would significantly improve the area.

Queensland Scientists have gained new insight into the damage done to coral in the Southern Great Barrier Reef by river run-off caused by intense weather events like the 2011 floods. Core samples obtained from corals around the Keppel Islands reveal the way flood plumes from

RESOURCES | ENERGY | INDUSTRIAL | INFRASTRUCTURE | PROPERTY | DEFENCE

EVERY SINGLE MOMENT

somewhere in this world, Transfield Services is touching a life quietly… and adding quality to it.

Someone, somewhere in this world, every single day, every single moment, is using a service or a product, where we have a role to play.

We work behind the scenes to help produce these services and goods.

To find out more, visit www.transfieldservices.com\water

18

CrossCurrent Queensland’s Fitzroy River catchment have impacted reefs as far as 50km from the mouth of the river. Scientists sought to study how extreme rainfall and flood events around the Fitzroy River are controlled by the interplay between short and long-term climate cycles in the Pacific Ocean and how that, in turn, affects coral health.

Simon Bouchard has recently joined the team at Degrémont Australia as Business Development Manager in WA. Simon has been in the water and wastewater industry for 10 years and has been supporting the development of industrial and municipal waterrelated projects for the past four years in WA. His role will be to keep supporting end users and consultants from pre-feasibility studies to project practical completion and O&M.

The Government will inject $11 million into Queensland’s MurrayDarling Basin communities to improve efficiency of irrigation in the catchment. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Simon Birmingham, and Queensland Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Andrew Cripps, said the funding would provide much needed upgrades to the resources and agriculture industries.

Jodieann Dawe, AWA Board Member, has resumed as CEO of Water Research Australia (formerly Water Quality Research Australia) following parental leave. Jodieann said that the implementation of the new company name – Water Research Australia – reflects the focus on extending the scope of research that will enable WaterRA to provide a more targeted and positive R&D contribution to its members.

Member News

The Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence is calling

Water Corporation’s Great Southern Region has a new Regional Manager, Andrew Kneebone. Mr Kneebone joins the Corporation from Tasmania and brings a broad range of water industry experience from diverse senior management roles in the water industry, most recently Regional General Manager of TasWater.

for proposals from interested water professionals to undertake an exchange project on recycled water as part of its Industry and Academic Exchange Program. The program encourages Australian or overseas water industry professionals to spend time in an Australian academic institution and researchers to spend time embedded within industry. The exchange is typically up to

WA Water Minister, Mia Davies, has welcomed David Lock to the board of the Water Corporation. “David brings a wealth of corporate experience to the board,” Ms Davies said.

six months. Proposals are due by 28 March. Further information and guidelines are available on the Centre’s website: www. australianwaterrecycling.com.au/centre-fellowships.html

BINTECH SYSTEMS WATER SOLUTIONS

!

W NE

R

CTO ETE

E

DG SLU

FLOW METERS

NEW CRONOS ECONOMY ANALYTICAL CONTROLLERS

• MAGNETIC FLOW METERS • ULTRASONIC METERS -TRANSIT TIME / DOPPLER • OPEN CHANNEL • CUSTOM SPOOL SYSTEMS

• RESIDUAL CHLORINE • DISSOLVED OZONE • DISSOLVED OXYGEN • TURBIDITY • SUSPENDED SOLIDS

TOLL FREE 1300 363 163 WATER FEBRUARY 2014

• PH/ORP • CONDUCTIVITY • FLUORIDE • CHLORINE GAS DETECTORS • PORTABLE METERS

sales@bintech.com.au

D EL LEV

LEVEL SYSTEMS • ULTRASONIC TRANSMITTERS AND CONTROLLERS • POINT LEVEL SWITCHES • MAGNETIC LEVEL GAUGES • SLUDGE LEVEL SYSTEMS • WIRELESS SYSTEMS

www.bintech.com.au

19

CrossCurrent

BrisBane Convention & exhiBition Centre

australia’s internatiOnal water TRADE ExhibiTion

YoUr Free INVITATION

The ‘must attend’ trade exhibition for water professionals and anyone with a commercial interest in water.

oZWATER’14 FREE TRADE ExhibiTion

Ozwater is Australia’s leading water sector event. As well as an international standard 3 day conference, Ozwater‘14 will have the largest display in the southern hemisphere of products, services and innovations for all water professionals and associated industries.

More than 200 comprehensive displays will showcase all that is new and exciting in the industry and will help you keep one step ahead of your competition.

The trade exhibition is free to attend, however, registration is essential. To avoid the queues it is important to pre-register your attendance at www.ozwater.org/exhibition (free registration will also be available on site).

Who ShoULD ATTEnD?

Ozwater‘14 is a ‘must-see’ event for everyone working in the water sector and those with a commercial interest in the use of water. This will be the only opportunity in 2014 to see more than 200 national and international exhibitors all under one roof.

The Ozwater‘14 Trade Exhibition will be of specific interest to • Manufacturers • Commercial Water Users • Water Utilities • Water Suppliers and Retailers • Water Professionals • Government (all levels)

• Educators • Microbiologists • Chemists • Consultants • Environmentalists • Engineers

• Irrigators • Property Managers • Plumbing Consultants • Plumbing Contractors • Construction Contractors • Purchasing Officers

• Community Groups • Media • Anyone with an interest in water

Organised & presented bY

Register FREE at www.ozwater.org/tradevisitor

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

AUSTRADE TO MANAGE BUSINESS DELEGATIONS REGISTER To assist in advancing Australia’s diplomatic and economic interests, Austrade has developed an online facility to gather Expressions of Interest to participate in business delegations accompanying ministers on overseas trips. Some examples of business delegations include: • A small group of senior Australian business leaders accompanying a Prime Minister or Minister on a short visit to just one or two locations. Visits such as these facilitate connections to high-level government contacts and foreign business leaders.

• A larger group of business leaders from a specific industry or sector accompanying a Minister, senior Government official or industry leader. Visits such as these provide opportunities to explore new markets, network with peers and identify potential business partners.

• A large group of Australian business representatives accompanying a Minister to a single market. Visits such as these provide an opportunity to become familiar with a new market.

To express your interest, log onto www.austrade.gov.au/business-delegations and complete the form. While Australian business leaders are invited to express an interest in joining these delegations, Expressions of Interest do not guarantee participation and selected participants are expected to meet their own costs.

FUTURE MINING & DINING BOOMS DEPEND ON WATER The next mining boom – and the emerging ‘dining boom’ in agriculture – will depend on whether Australia has enough water to support them, says Professor Craig Simmons, Director of the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT). Mining and farming both use huge volumes of water and with surface supplies becoming scarce our future economic prospects are likely to rely increasingly on our underground ‘water bank’.

“Currently, $34 billion worth of Australian industry per annum is dependent on groundwater, and the direct value of groundwater to the national economy is around $7 billion a year, according to a new report which the Centre has commissioned from Deloitte Access Economics,” Professor Simmons says.

“However, with Australia now starting to outgrow its surface resources and the prospect of erratic rainfall under climate change projections, it is clear we will rely increasingly on groundwater to support large scale food, mineral and energy production into the future.”

The study found that Australia currently uses around 3500 GL a year of groundwater, from an estimated sustainable reserve of 29,173 GL. Around 6500 GL is held in entitlements to extract groundwater.

Agriculture and grazing are the biggest users, accounting for 60–70 per cent of total use, followed by mining and manufacturing with around 20–30 per cent and cities with 10 per cent. Groundwater also provides major services to the Australian landscape in the form of water for trees, vegetation and wetlands, as well as providing ‘base flow’ into rivers and lakes, where it is widely used for recreation and in drinking supplies.

The Deloitte Access Economics study suggests that the value of Australian groundwater is likely to increase as surface supplies become scarcer during times of drought and under changing climates. It thus provides a valuable ‘buffer’ in times of shortages.

The study shows that: • Agriculture typically uses about 2 GL of groundwater each year, mainly for irrigation and livestock, and groundwater underpins $4.7 billion of production; • Mining uses 410,000 ML and groundwater underpins mining production of $24.5 billion each year;

water February 2014

21

Industry News • Manufacturing uses 588,000 ML and groundwater underpins production of $4.4 billion to the economy a year; • Our cities use 303,000 ML of groundwater a year.

“It is not generally appreciated, but mining and energy

AEA PURCHASES SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES

production involve a lot of water – either for dewatering mines and bores, for moving minerals as slurries, for extracting minerals using hydrometallurgy, for suppressing dust, washing equipment, restoring landscapes and so on,” says Professor Simmons.

“You can’t have a big mineral operation without a good source of water or a major water issue – and more often than not, that means groundwater. So any future mineral booms will depend critically on how well we manage our groundwater.

“Likewise, the much-talked of ‘dining boom’ – the expansion in worldwide agriculture driven by global food insecurity – will also depend critically on water, especially for irrigation. Given the scarcity of Australia’s surface supplies, more of this water will come from underground in future.”

Professor Simmons concludes: “Because it is underground it is so easy to forget groundwater, to miscalculate its reserves. But we should never forget it constitutes more than 90 per cent of Australia’s total available fresh water reserve – and is therefore the key to our national future.”

Copies of the full report are available at: www.groundwater. com.au/economicvalue

AEA Investors LP has closed on an agreement to acquire the municipal, industrial and services water and wastewater treatment operations and assets of Siemens Water Technologies. The new company name in Australia is Evoqua Water Technologies Pty Ltd, with offices and sales representation in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, and distribution partners across Australia and New Zealand.

With more than 45 years of investing experience, AEA has an established track record of achieving superior returns as a leading private equity partner to middle market companies. AEA focuses on control buyouts in four industry sectors: value-added industrial products; specialty chemicals; consumer products/retail and services.

Under AEA, Evoqua will continue to offer municipal and industrial water and wastewater treatment equipment and services. The existing management under the leadership of CEO Dr Lukas Loeffler will remain.

“AEA Investors is pleased to complete this acquisition and move forward with management to execute its plan to grow the business and maximise the potential of this industry leader,” said AEA Partner Brian Hoesterey. “AEA’s primary professionals interfacing with us have years of water, specialty chemicals and industrial experience. Combined with our expertise, proven legacy brands and advanced water and wastewater treatment technologies, the company is well-positioned for its next evolution to helping our customers achieve success.”

DESIGN

Peter Everist Hugh McGinley John Harris Rob Ashton Brian Fenton Nick Day

03 8847 4735 02 9895 1522 08 8348 1690 07 3712 3680 0417 329 078 08 8935 3325

RELIABILITY

O P E R AT E

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

Everything we’ve learned about water technology comes down to one thing: RELIABILITY

MELBOURNE SYDNEY ADELAIDE BRISBANE PERTH DARWIN

BUILD

DESIGN BUILD OPERATE MAINTAIN

MAINTAIN

DELIVERING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Peter.Everist@pentair.com Hugh.McGinley@pentair.com John.Harris@pentair.com Rob.Ashton@pentair.com Brian.Fenton@pentair.com Nick.Day@pentair.com

Safety Water Quality Environment Health

CUSTOMER SERVICE Continuity Value Responsiveness Improvement

SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY

COST OF OWNERSHIP

SMART Connectivity Automation Process Control

Whole-of-Life Talent Energy Materials

RISK MANAGEMENT

wigroup.com.au

February 2014 water

22

Industry News

BURU ENERGY PARTNERS WITH MWH GLOBAL Buru Energy Limited has established a strategic partnership with international water consulting and engineering company MWH Global. The partnership will ensure world-best practices are implemented in managing water resources as part of Buru Energy’s oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Canning Basin in the north-west of Western Australia.

Buru Energy Managing Director Dr Wulff said the partnership with MWH was part of the company’s overall approach to access world-class and internationally experienced companies to support Buru Energy’s program of activities.

“The importance of safeguarding water resources and the communities and ecosystems which depend on them in the Kimberley region cannot be underestimated, and for that reason it is pivotal to the company’s future operations. MWH is highly regarded as a world leader in water management within the wet infrastructure sector and we’re pleased MWH will assist us in protecting this precious resource.”

Dr Wulff said a Memorandum of Understanding between the two companies was due to be finalised by the end of the year, with a detailed scope of works including the development of a long-term integrated and sustainable water management plan for Buru Energy’s potential future operations.

“Buru Energy and MWH will work collaboratively with key stakeholders including Traditional Owners, pastoralists and local communities during the development of the water management plan, including identifying tangible opportunities to engage with local communities and businesses during implementation and operation,” Dr Wulff said, adding that MWH was already undertaking a pilot phase water management strategy, with work progressing well.

MWH Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alan Krause, who is based at the company’s Colorado headquarters, said he was looking forward to MWH assisting Buru Energy’s activities, particularly in planning, during this important early proof of concept stage in gas exploration and development in the Canning Basin.

DEVELOPING TIDAL ENERGY POTENTIAL IN EUROPE Nordic marine energy technology company Minesto has welcomed proposals by the EU’s Commissioners for Energy and Maritime Affairs to develop the potential of the renewable energy sector in EU’s coastal regions.

The Commissioners stated that “seas and oceans have the potential to generate huge economic growth and much-needed jobs” and that tidal energy could protect the security of Europe’s energy supplies, which is currently increasingly reliant on imported gas, and also that investments in so-called “blue energy” could boost job creation.

DON’T MISS OUT! PRINT POS

T APPROVE

If you haven’t yet booked into the Ozwater’14 Conference edition of Water Journal, you’d better be quick, as bookings close MARCH 7.

This bumper April issue will be distributed via the following channels: • • • •

Included in all Ozwater delegate satchels Distributed free of charge to all attendees at the event 5,500+ distributed to all AWA members Plus! As a free to view publication on our digital media platform. platform.

This is the perfect opportunity to promote your brand, product or service at the biggest Australian water event of the year.

To book your advertisement, please contact Kirsti Couper, email: kcouper@awa.asn.au or tel: 02 9467 8408. water February 2014

Journa

D PP 1000

l of th

03880

e austr

alian Wa ter ass

ociation

Volume 41 FEBRUA no 1 RY 2014

rrP $18

.95

Volume 41 FEBRUA no 1 RY 2014

rrP $18

.95

23

Industry News “It is truly exciting that the European politicians realise the potential for tidal energy to play this important role in a sustainable future, contributing to economic growth especially in fossil fuel dependant countries,” says Minesto’s CEO Anders Jansson.

trail, which stretches 103km through forests, bushland and scenic river valleys. The $7500 annual sponsorship over three years will fund the volunteer program, which coordinates regular maintenance works on the trail.

“Minesto welcomes the plans and sees that our development plans are in line with EU’s strategies,”

The Munda Biddi Trail is the longest, most continuous off-road cycling track in the world, running from Mundaring to Albany.

TRILITY will sponsor one of the nine sectors of the trail.

Minesto recently announced that its marine power plant, Deep Green, is now producing electricity in the waters off Northern Ireland, which is seen as a breakthrough for the entire renewable energy industry.

“With Deep Green we will be able to produce renewable electricity with high reliability to a cost that will compete with, or even be lower than, conventional energy sources. It is encouraging that the EU also appreciates the potential for marine energy in EU.”

TRILITY PARTNERS WITH MUNDA BIDDI TRAIL FOUNDATION

TRILITY spokesperson Caroline Kerkhof said the company was delighted to support the Munda Biddi volunteer program and ensure the future of an important Western Australian tourism icon and environmental asset.

“TRILITY is committed to working with its local communities and we are proud to help provide resources that will keep the Munda Biddi Trail maintained for everyone to enjoy,” Ms Kerkhof said. “The Mundaring Water Treatment Plant is a critical asset and a major source of water for regional WA and has the same benefits to the community as the trail.”

Munda Biddi Trail Foundation Chairman, Ron Colman, said the volunteer program was crucial to the ongoing viability of the trail and congratulated TRILITY for its commitment to an important tourism and environmental asset.

The Munda Biddi Trail Foundation has joined forces with local business TRILITY in a major partnership that will assist with the maintenance of the iconic off-road cycling track. TRILITY, as part of a joint venture, is the operator of the Mundaring Water Treatment Plant, and will sponsor the Mundaring to Jarrahdale section of the

“The Munda Biddi is one of the top cycle rides in the world and is rapidly becoming a major tourist attraction for cyclists everywhere,” Mr Colman said. “TRILITY’s sponsorship will ensure the trail continues to attract cyclists, which in turn creates fantastic flow-on economic benefits to the local community.”

Want to show-off your work to leading water professionals?

Submit an abstract for an Australian Water Association national conference Small Water and WaSteWater SyStemS The number and diversity of small water and wastewater systems is on the rise in Australia and today decentralised water systems are re-emerging as long term solutions to water scarcity. This conference will provide a learning, networking and knowledge-sharing opportunity for participants.

Conference themes focus on: { Public health { Environmental and economic sustainability

natiOnal OperatiOns cOnference 28 TO 30 OctOber 2014 cairns cOnventiOn centre AffordAbility, liveAbility And sensitivity – operAtions in the twenty teens

{ Stakeholder engagement { Water recycling { Technological innovation

SWWS2014

NatioNal CoNfereNCe 13-14 August 2014 Newcastle Panthers For more information visit

www.awa.asn.au/swws2014

With the tightening of funds for water operations nationally, it is imperative that we innovate and optimise the way we work like never before. This will ensure we continue to provide best value for money for our customers, while not reducing our quality standards.

With the 2014 National Operations Conference being held in Cairns and the mounting damage of the nearby Great Barrier Reef as a reminder, we are taking a strong focus on the environmental obligation in the sustainability of our operations. As emerging industries come to fruition, e.g. mining, agribusiness and tourism, we need to ensure the future national prosperity is balanced carefully with sustainable water usage and environmental protection. for more informAtion visit

www.awa.asn.au/OperatOrs2014 February 2014 water

24

AWA News

IOA OZONE SYMPOSIUM TO TAKE PLACE AT OZWATER’14 The International Ozone Association (IOA) will convene a full-day Ozone Symposium as part of Ozwater’14 on Wednesday April 30 2014. The symposium will cover many aspects of ozone science and technology in water and wastewater treatment, including: • Ozone and related oxidants and essential human health needs; • Treatment of urban wastewaters with ozone; • Ozone and advanced oxidation processes in drinking water treatment, including case studies; • Ozone in drinking water – application, design, operation and optimisation.

A highlight of the day will be a workshop presented in the afternoon session by Mr Kerwin Rakness, of Process Applications Inc, US. Kerwin has worked on the design, control, operation and optimisation of over 75 ozone systems in water applications.

He is the author of Ozone in Drinking Water Treatment: Process Design, Operation and Optimization, a valuable resource for those considering ozone systems and those who currently operate them.

Kerwin’s afternoon workshop will provide an opportunity for current ozone system operators to gain insights as to how to get the most out of their systems, most efficiently.

Also presenting is Mr Alex Mofidi. Alex has extensive firsthand experience with ozone in some of the largest drinking water applications in the US, having been a technical and drinking water quality manager at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California where he was responsible for water quality compliance activities for > 2 billion gal/day of water treatment capacity. Alex will provide insights into the use of ozone in meeting regulatory drinking water compliance in the US and how ozone may assist in the Australasian water industry.

The Ozone Symposium will provide an excellent opportunity for those with an interest and responsibility in the treatment of drinking and wastewaters to learn how ozone processes can benefit their businesses and communities.

For more details on the symposium, its schedule and registration, please visit the conference website www.ozwater.org or contact Craig Jakubowski at Craig.Jakubowski@hwa.com.au

INTERNATIONAL FREShWATER gOVERNANCE CONFERENCE An international conference titled ‘Freshwater Governance for Sustainable Development in the Urban and Rural Sectors’ will take place November 2–6, 2014 at the University of South Australia.

Freshwater governance is a problem that affects and is influenced by institutions, laws and societal acceptance both in the developed and less developed world. Sustainable development is the key to ensuring healthy communities in the future.

This conference will build on the Water Research Commission and Department for Water Affairs meeting held in South Africa during 2013. Designed to generate a link between academia and government sectors it will comprise a stream of workshops on topics related to urban and rural water management, with sessions from each sector and covering the interplay between the two.

Discussions will be united by daily plenaries and the production of two Adelaide declarations on non-food (urban) and food and fibre production, governance issues and suggestions for aspirational targets in institutional forms and law reforms. Each workshop will be led by a senior water professional. Participants will be selected based on their past work and by submission of an abstract addressing the conference themes.

To find out how to participate as either a sponsor and/or a presenter, please contact events@awa.asn.au

There are surprising opportunities when you work in water

Managed by

Search no longer!

Searching for the beSt S St WAter for February 2014 your company? candidateS

Searching for the late lateSt job opportunitie opportunitieS in the water Sector?

Visit www.h2oz.org.au

25

AWA News AWA particularly welcomes abstracts for platform presentation

WANT TO ShOW OFF YOUR TEChNICAL KNOWLEdgE TO YOUR PEERS?

on the following themes: • Managing Small Systems and Infrastructure Including integrated water management, modelling, monitoring and asset management solutions, water efficiency and innovation for decentralised and small water and wastewater systems;

AWA’s Small Water and Wastewater Systems Specialist Network invites you to submit an abstract for their National Conference, in Technology and Recycling’, to be held in Newcastle, NSW on 13–14 August 2014.

systems are re-emerging as long-term solutions to water scarcity and the constraints of the centralised approach.

including greywater systems;

environmental and economic sustainability, stakeholder

• redefining ‘Waste’ In Wastewater Management of Community

engagement, water recycling and technological innovation.

Wastewater Schemes/STEDS and the role of land application

Keynote presentations will examine national and international

(soils), recycling, stormwater and system validation.

perspectives on decentralised water and wastewater systems.

The aim of the conference is to provide a learning, networking and knowledge-sharing opportunity for all areas of decentralised water and wastewater systems. Abstracts are encouraged from all

A platform for innovators, buyers and investors to discuss strategies to identify and commercialise new water innovations.

health outcomes; • Doing More On-Site Using on-site technologies and innovations,

The themes of the conference focus on public health,

MONDAY 28 APRIL 2014 | 1PM START

Infrastructure Management;

environment Challenges and approaches to supporting public

systems is on the rise in Australia. Today decentralised water

InnovAtIon Forum

Decentralised and Small Water and Wastewater

• achieving Public Health Outcomes In a More Competitive

The number and diversity of small water and wastewater

AWA WAter

latest direction, impacts and implementation of Legislation, Regulations, Standards, Guidelines and Licensing for

titled ‘Decentralised Water and Wastewater Systems: Advances

areas of the small water and wastewater systems field.

• Where reform Is Taking us and Why Including the

• Community Partnerships and engagement Working in partnership with communities, customers and stakeholders in managing water and wastewater supply systems.

For more information please visit www.awa.asn.au/swws2014

Do you hAve A neW InnovAtIon WIth A commercIAl ApplIcAtIon In the WAter sector?

• Receive expert advice on how to commercialise your innovation • Pitch your innovation and participate in business matching with potential partners • Opportunity to promote your innovation at the Ozwater Innovation Hub

InteresteD In InvestInG or pArtnerInG WIth neW technoloGy? • Witness a broad range of potential new products • Develop commercially viable business opportunities

Register as an innovator, buyer or investor now. www.ozwater.org/innovationforum

Proudly organised by

• Connect with over 300 Ozwater’14 exhibitors when you extend your stay February 2014 WAter

26

AWA News

NATIONAL OPERATORS CONFERENCE: CALL FOR ABSTRACTS With the 2014 National Operators Conference being held in Cairns and the mounting damage of the nearby Great Barrier Reef as a reminder, we are taking a strong focus on the environmental obligation in the sustainability of our operations. As emerging industries such as mining, agribusiness and tourism, come to fruition, e.g. we need to ensure the future national prosperity is balanced carefully with sustainable water usage and environmental protection. AWA’s Operations Specialist Network is seeking short abstracts relevant to the following themes: Affordability Wastewater, water treatment optimisation; Innovation of operations; Customer, regulator interaction and engagement in operations; Benchmarking operations; Affordable operations; Affordable supply solutions for remote communities.

Liveability Innovation in water and wastewater supply projects; Smart design for water and wastewater supply; Operations which meets particular needs of customers; Planning for future operations.

Sensitivity Measuring the impact of operations; Innovations to lessen the impact of operations; Operations that meets or exceeds sustainability targets; Challenges of sustainability in operations.

Shared goals for the Australian water sector Recently AWA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) to work collaboratively to reach a common vision – to deliver better outcomes for the Australian water sector.

AWA’s CEO, Jonathan McKeown and President, Graham Dooley joined WSAA Executive Director, Adam Lovell and Chairman, Mark Sullivan to sign the agreement on behalf of both associations. This MoU will see both AWA and WSAA working actively to identify opportunities for closer interaction and information exchange at a senior representative level and to share organisational direction or strategy as part of an open and cooperative dialogue.

Other outcomes detailed in the MoU include becoming more cooperative in policy development and the representation of the water industry, increasing cooperation on education and training services, and seeking out potential opportunities for event collaboration that will improve the overall business capabilities and technical knowledge of the industry.

AWA look forward to cultivating a stronger partnership with WSAA both for their respective members and for the wider water sector.

For more information please visit www.awa.asn.au/operators2014

WATER INNOVATION FORUM AWA will host the AWA Water Innovation Forum in Brisbane on 28 April 2014 – the day before Ozwater’14. The Forum is a platform for innovators, buyers and investors to come together and form solid business relationships. This is a great chance for leading utilities, infrastructure providers, procurers and investors to see what some of the best water innovators have to offer. The forum will also provide business matching and a panel of leading commercialisation experts to offer legal, financing and marketing advice.

This is the first in AWA’s ongoing series of meetings to engage key industry stakeholders to have their say on the future of water industry research and development. To find out more, please go to www.ozwater.org/innovationforum

Erratum In the December 2013 issue of Water Journal the paper ‘How Climate Change Will Impact on the Water Industry: Key Findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report’, authored by PB Urich, P Kouwenhoven, Y Li, K Freas and J Poon, was published on page 45.

Erratum in: Graphical error in Figure 3 and Figure 4 in published paper. The graphic used in Figure 3 was swapped with Figure 4.

The graphic for Figure 4 should show a considerable temperature increase for the whole area. The graphic for Figure 3 should be exchanged with the graphic used for Figure 4 and vice versa.

The authors apologise for any confusion or inconvenience caused.

water February 2014

BRANCH NEWS Queensland Securing Queensland’s Water Future: 30-Year Water Strategy The Honourable Mark McArdle, Minister for Energy and Water Supply, has agreed to meet with the Queensland Strategy & Policy Committee on a regular basis to discuss current water issues.

Members will also have access to the Minister at a Breakfast Presentation on 19 February where he will share his insights into the 30-Year Water Strategy. Feedback from the 30-Year Water Strategy discussion paper released last year highlighted the need for improved planning, skills, innovation and community engagement within the sector, as well as smarter regulation that focuses on outcomes and reducing business costs.

Please go to the AWA website to register.

Tasmania 2013 AWA Tasmania Young Water Professional of the Year (Gary Ingram Memorial Award) The 2013 AWA Tasmania Young Water Professional of the Year was awarded on Friday 22 November at the Galah Dinner & Debate.

The judging panel was extremely impressed by the standard of applications and awarded a Highly Commended to Jody Bush from Taswater (North) and the winner’s trophy to Elizabeth Hickman, also from TasWater (North). Tim Gardner, Managing Director of Stornoway, presented Elizabeth with her award and the Gary Ingram Memorial Trophy, to which her name will now be added.

27

AWA News

New Members AWA welcomes the following new members since the most recent issue of Water Journal

NEW CORPORATE MEMBERS

WA

NSW

NEW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS

Corporate Bronze MBMpl Pty Ltd For Earth Pty Ltd Parkes Shire Council

QLD Corporate Silver IWES

Corporate Bronze Hydrasyst Graf Australia Pty Ltd

VIC Corporate Silver Assetic Pty Ltd

Corporate Bronze UON Pty Ltd

ACT J Campbell, A Lewry, R Hezkial, C Webb, G Burdon, Ambadassor Petersen NSW S McEwen, I Vickers, P Miller, M Januszek, P Randall, A Francis, N Lean, B Miners, B Butturini, N Marathe, E Rueda, J Dekazos, S Mckibbin, C Menouhos, A Donald, B Hanna, T de Crisnay, P Cresta, M O’Shea, A McVey NT J Bamber, P Poole QLD R Percival, P Cobbin, S Slack, S O’Sullivan, F Ghorieb,

G Cotterill, C Teitzel, C Engle, A Senaweera, J Prescott, T Wallwork, M Jegan, M Leske, P Willett, A Weier, B Truasheim, R Kulkarni, R Pasupula, Z Chataway, S Krause, S Vigneswaran, A Neilson, A McGeown, C Elliott, D Armstrong, D Skilbeck, F Canal, I Grieve, K Anderson, N Head, S Adhikary, S Stewart, S Surendra, T Muhe, P Johnson, D Denny, C Dearling, D Newling, J Xu, K Atkins, G Easton, R Brook, P Willington, S Board, S Dicker, T Milne SA P Van Enkhuysen VIC B Butson, E MacKenzie, K He, A Thomas, J Dyson, M Burton, M Sammon, R Callant, R Downing, M Stojanovska, D McKenzie, V Naidoo, J Fagan,

H Sheffield, E Madon, P Stark, B Powell, S Kemeridis, J O’Connor, B Lee, D Robinson WA J Davies, N Cavalli, B Thompson, A Brunt

NEW OVERSEAS MEMBERS Corporate Gold Eaton, US

Individual D Mittal, A Daza, L Henry, P Ho

NEW STUDENT MEMBERS ACT A Suman QLD Y Tsuzuki SA DW Abate VIC Y-C Chou

AWA EVENTS CALENDAR This list is correct at the time of printing. For up-to-date listings and booking information please check the AWA online events calendar at: www.awa.asn.au/events

March Wed, 19 Feb 2014

QLD Special Event – Securing Queensland’s Water Future – 30 Year Water Strategy, Brisbane, QLD

Wed, 05 Mar 2014

QLD YWP Mentoring Program Launch, Brisbane, QLD

Mon, 10 Mar 2014 – Wed, 12 Mar 2014 NSW Southern Regional Conference 2014, Wagga Wagga, NSW Mon, 10 Mar 2014

NSW Operator Training Workshop (Pre-Conference Workshop), Wagga Wagga, NSW

Wed, 12 Mar 2014

QLD Monthly Technical Meeting – What Will Be The Legacy of the Logan Water Alliance?, Brisbane, QLD

Fri, 21 Mar 2014

Water in Mining Conference, Burnie, TAS

April/May Wed, 09 Apr 2014

QLD Monthly Technical Meeting, Brisbane, QLD

Tue, 29 Apr 2014 – Thu, 01 May 2014

Ozwater’14, Brisbane, QLD

June Wed, 11 Jun 2014

QLD Monthly Technical Meeting, Brisbane, QLD

Wed, 25 Jun 2014 – Fri, 27 Jun 2014

Biosolids and Source Management National Conference, Melbourne, VIC

July Tue, 08 Jul 2014 – Thu, 10 Jul 2014

Peri-Urban’14, Parramatta, NSW

Wed, 09 Jul 2014

QLD Monthly Technical Meeting, Brisbane, QLD

August Wed, 13 Aug 2014 – Thu, 14 Aug 2014

Small Water and Wastewater Systems Conference, Newcastle, NSW

Thu, 28 Aug 2014

TasWater14, Wrest Point, TAS

February 2014 water

28

Conference Report

WATER AND WASTEWATER: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE

patterns, environmental pollution, impacts of climate change, and the availability and supply of clean, safe water have become of major concern to the global community. Malaysia is also faced with issues related to water resource management, wastewater reuse and ensuring the supply of clean, safe water to meet the increasing demands of a rapidly industrialising nation.

The 2013 ICWWM Conference gathered scientists from all around the world and provided valuable insights on the current issues associated with water and wastewater management not only in Malaysia, but also in many other parts of the world. Peter McCafferty, Malarvili Ramalingam, Magdalena Wajrak and Shanmuga S Kittappa report.

Day One

The International Conference on Water and Wastewater Management (ICWWM) 2013 was recently held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in conjunction with Lab Asia ’13 and Chem Asia ’13, and the 6th Regional Conference on Total Laboratory Management (6QSEL). The trade show associated with the exhibitions displayed the wares of more than 150 companies, including significant groups from Germany, Singapore, Poland, China and India.

Joint organisers of the conference were: • Institut Kimia Malaysia (IKM) • Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM) • Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) • Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) • Chemistry Department Malaysia (JKM) • Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Malaysia (SPAN) • National Hydrological Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM) • Ministry of Health (MOH) • Chemical Industries Council of Malaysia (CICM) The International Conference on Water and Wastewater Management (ICWWM) is a major international conference covering all issues related to water usage and management. It aims to address issues pertinent to potable water supply and management, technology and innovation in water treatment and purification, water quality, pollution management, recycling and reuse of wastewater, and the impacts of climate change. The topics covered under ICWWM 2013 included: Integrated Water Resources Management; Water Quality and Pollution Management; Advances in Water Treatment Technologies; Stormwater and Wastewater Management and Usage; Climate Change and Its Impact on Water Resources; and Socio-Economic Aspects of Water Management.

The conference provided an ideal means of assessing the current state of research associated with water issues in Malaysia and how these issues resonate with those in other locations. There were many similarities with issues found throughout the world, where increasing population, rapid industrial development, changes in land use

Conference delegates (from left) Mr Wong Kok Fah (Director of Environmental Health, KIMIA), Peter McCafferty (ChemCentre) and Mr Ahmad Latfi bin Mahmud (KIMIA).

water February 2014

“Water is fast becoming a major global issue for several reasons,” said Datuk Dr Soon Ting Kueh, Conference Chairman and President, Institute Kimia Malaysia. “An increasing world population means a greater demand for potable water, and water for agriculture, food production, industrial development and sanitation. On the other hand, deforestation, changes in land use patterns and environmental pollution have resulted in the decrease in fresh water resources and supply. All these, coupled with the impacts of climate change, have made the availability and supply of clean and safe water a major concern to the global community. In the coming decades, it is also possible that water may be a cause of conflict among nations as a result of disputes over fresh water resources”. These sentiments were also reflected in the opening plenary lecture on ‘Strategies to Address the Water Challenges of the Next Millennium’ (McCafferty).

Ir. Ahmad Jamalluddin Shaaban from the Research Centre for Water Resources, Malaysia, spoke about ‘Climate Change and its Impact on Malaysian Water Resources’. However, predicted impacts of climate change on water resources of Sabah and Sarawak vary with the regional geography of the watershed and seasonal changes. The effects of water pollution will be heightened through both flood and drought cycles subsequently modifying the quality of waters in rivers, lakes, wetlands and coastal waters.

Dr Shane Snyder, College of Engineering at the University of Arizona and Co-Director of the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants, discussed ‘Emerging Contaminants: Trends in Treatment, Monitoring and Health Assessment’. Dr Snyder is also a visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. In his plenary lecture Dr Snyder spoke of recent advances in genomics, proteomics and metabolomics that have led to major discoveries and allow biological characterisation of complex aqueous mixtures using in vitro and rapid in vivo bioassays. In tandem, these techniques are powerful tools that can detect essentially any environmental contaminant at concentrations often less than 1 ng/L. This bioanalytical approach also provides for comprehensive screening of complex contaminant mixtures to determine the cumulative potential for human and environmental health impacts and for the identification of culpable substances. Thus, a new paradigm may be needed whereby rapid biological screening is coupled to advanced analytical techniques to characterise water through assessment of mixture impact rather than through discrete chemical analysis.

Tan Sri Dato’ Ir. Shahrizaila Abdullah, a Senior Fellow of the Academy of Sciences, Malaysia, initiated and led the Sustainable Water Management Program at the Academy from 2006 until mid2013. His research at the International Water Resources Management (IWRM) Institute provided him with the credentials to discuss ‘IWRM and the Transformation of Water Supply and Wastewater Management Services – a Malaysian Road Map’. He described a situation whereby human overuse of water resources and diffuse contamination of freshwater are stressing the water resources in the terrestrial water cycle. As a consequence, the ecological functions of water bodies, soils and groundwater in the water cycle are hampered and being further impacted by threats from impending climate change. A holistic, systemic approach relying on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) must replace the fragmentation that currently exists.

29

Conference Report industry led to the setting up of a national water services regulatory agency, which has the task of overseeing that the policy objectives of the restructuring exercise are achieved through efficient and effective monitoring. Thus various regulatory instruments have been introduced by SPAN to assist water and sewerage operators in delivering services on a level playing field, benefiting both consumers and the industry in general.

Banquet attendees (from left) Professor Yang Farina Abdul Aziz, Professor Min Jang, Shanmuga S Kitiapapa, Dr Malarvilli Ramalingnam, Peter McCafferty, Fay Fiona Constantine Limbai, Dr Magdalena Wajrak and Professor Shane Snyder.

Although Malaysia is blessed with fairly abundant rainfall it still has its fair share of water woes, such as occasional droughts, flooding and pollution of its rivers and water bodies. In fact, the conference delegates were treated to a relatively minor example of flooding when a sudden and prolonged downpour caused the Klang River near the conference venue to rise more than 1m in less than two hours, causing significant traffic problems and localised flooding.

Since the mid-1990s Malaysia has formally adopted IWRM as the way forward for sustainable management of the country’s water resources.

Sri Dato’s paper described Malaysia’s implementation of the IWRM Road Map and the measures currently being undertaken to effect the transformation of water supply and wastewater management services to achieve the strategic development goals in line with Vision 2020.

Professor Mazlin Mokhtar from the Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia, presented a passionate lecture on ‘Risk Perception and Community Involvement: Challenges for Water Management’. He described Malaysia’s journey over the last decade, and the growing concern about the condition of freshwater locally and, in fact, all over the world. In Malaysia much has been written on monitoring natural water quality, which can be considered as identifying risks; however, research on risk assessment and management is not as well developed.

Day Two The second day of the conference commenced with Professor Dr Min Jang from the University of Malaya, Malaysia, describing his research on ‘Porous Materials to Remediate Water Containing Heavy Metals’. This work has many environmental benefits including remediation of acid mine drainage (AMD), where highly acidic aqueous solutions are formed through the chemical reaction of surface and shallow subsurface water with rocks containing sulfurbearing minerals to produce sulfuric acid. Heavy metals can then be leached from rocks through contact with the acid. When AMD mixes with groundwater, surface water and soils, it may have harmful effects on humans, animals and plants. Dr Jang told of his work whereby coal-mine drainage sludge could be utilised for removing dissolved trace metals through adsorption and co-precipitation. This work also has significant potential to remediate water contaminated by arsenic, a significant issue on a global scale.

This paper was a timely segue to that presented by Dr Magdalena Wajrak from Edith Cowan University, Australia. Dr Wajrak’s paper, ‘Validation of an Infield Voltametric Instrument, PDV6000+, for the Detection of Arsenic in Perth Groundwater Samples’, provided a useful tool for accurate, simple and inexpensive field measurement of arsenic and potentially other metals in real-world samples.

Dato’ Teo Yen Hua, from the Malaysian National Water Services Commission (SPAN), presented a paper on ‘The Malaysian Water Sector Reform and Governance’. He described how the water services sector had gone through massive regulatory changes.

The Federal Government’s commitment to restructure the water

On a different tack, Mr Robert Talintyre from Labman Automation Limited, UK, presented a lecture on ‘Automation and Robotic Systems in Water Analysis’. He described a modern, fully automated laboratory where samples are received and processed automatically 24 hours per day. A model laboratory in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, provided a realworld example of these techniques in practice.

The final lecture of the day was ‘Organochlorine Pesticides in Aquatic Environments: A Case Study of Cameron Highlands’ by Md Pauzi Abdullah from the National University of Malaysia. Although the use of persistent organic pesticides (POPs), such as DDT, aldrin and heptachlor, has been banned in Malaysia since the early 1990s (although DDT is still permitted for use in malaria control), these POPs still occur in the environment. The results presented showed that there is a potential risk that some of these POPs could be recycled into the environment from the stream sediment deposits, particularly as a result of high flow events.

Conclusion The 2013 ICWMM Conference was a valuable platform that gathered scientists from all around the world and provided valuable insights on the current issues associated with water and wastewater management not only in Malaysia, but also in other parts of the world. The coming together of scientists and those involved in advising policy makers provided an excellent opportunity for stimulating and informative discussions and presentations.

Professor Mazlin Mokhtar stated in his talk that ‘water is emotional’. This reinforced the importance of water to our lives and supports the fact that water is a precious resource, one that may gain a considerable emotive response from the general public.

Factors such as climate change coupled with increasing population growth have led to an increase in demand for clean water. It is therefore vital that we come together and share our knowledge and experiences in water management and treatment to ensure clean water for all.

There are important opportunities for academics, researchers and other scientists to collaborate with colleagues in Malaysia. Indeed, as AWA looks to South East Asia to expand its network, Malaysia would be a willing and capable partner to commence professional associations.

The Authors Peter McCafferty (email: pmccafferty@chemcentre.wa.gov. au) is Director, Scientific Services Division, ChemCentre, Resources and Chemistry Precinct, Bentley, WA www. chemcentre.wa.gov.au and President of the AWA WA Branch.

Malarvili Ramalingam is Scientific Officer at the Department of Chemistry (KIMIA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Magdalena Wajrak is a Chemistry Lecturer at the School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA. Shanmuga S Kittappa is a Postgraduate Research Officer at the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

February 2014 water

30

Workshop Report

NCEDA SPONSORED INTERNATIONAL DESALINATION WORKSHOP Reported by Diane Wiesner, Science Plus The National Centre of Excellence in Desalination Australia (NCEDA), in collaboration with the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), Republic of Korea, held an International Desalination Workshop (IDW6) at the Woodward Conference Centre, University of Melbourne on 28 and 29 November 2013. Professor David Furukawa, Chief Scientific Officer, and Neil Palmer, CEO of NCEDA, delivered a wide-ranging program, which not only covered international research but also showcased the project findings from NCEDA grant recipients.

Keynote Address The Hon John Brumby opened the workshop and delivered the keynote address on ‘The Victorian Desalination Plant – Securing Victoria’s Future’, addressing reasons and financing behind the decision to build the plant in 2007.

At the peak of an extended drought, amid concerns about supply to Melbourne (population ~ 4million) from depleted surface storages, the Victorian Government’s commitment to an SWRO Desalination Plant at Wonthaggi (capacity 444,000m3/day) was the largest public private partnership entered into anywhere in the world. While the extended drought was the trigger for the investment in building modern water infrastructure for the state, something that Mr Brumby’s government had identified as well overdue, completion of the Victorian Desalination Plant (VDP) has assured security of supply for the state and achieved plaudits for its focus on environmental gains (such as renewable energy offset

to power use, use of a ‘green roof’ for VDP, brine discharge and underground power supply).

A single Public Private Partnership (PPP) package was negotiated for the whole project, a significant milestone for PPPs given the difficult economic conditions at the time [the height of the GFC], especially given the scale and complexity of the project. Use of a PPP transferred 100% financing risk to the private sector, with review and restructure targeted for September 2014, at which time the impact of the GFC on the marginal cost of money should have reduced the extent of the debt burden.

After a comprehensive tender process, the VDP contract was awarded to the AquaSure consortium – Suez Environnement, Macquarie Capital and Thiess –­ to finance, build, maintain and operate the project for 30 years. AquaSure’s fixed price for construction of the project came in at A$3.5 billion. Additional costs were associated with transporting water 85km to the city of Melbourne and other peripherals.

The financing package was restructured in October 2013 by the Liberal Coalition Government that replaced the Brumby regime.

With construction complete, agreeing to early refinancing and resolving legal claims has achieved a better risk profile for the VDP. In turn, this means significantly lower financing charges, which could be passed on to reduce the cost of water.

International Speakers An impressive panel of desalination academic and industry speakers from around the globe included Professor Tony Fane from Singapore Membrane Technology Centre, Professors Sang Lee, Dae Rook Yang, Joon Kim and Heechui Choi from the Republic of Korea, and Kevin Price representing the US Bureau of Reclamation.

Professor In S Kim (Republic of Korea) outlined research being pursued by himself and colleagues at GIST. The environmental impacts of SWRO brine discharges and improvements in energy consumption rates in desalination processes are key features of their research. Two hybrid desalination plant projects, an FO-RO (forward osmosis – reverse osmosis) hybrid and MD-PRO (membrane distillation – pressureretarded osmosis) hybrid systems, have been tasked with resolving these challenges.

Mr Mohammed El Ramahi from Masdar Clean Energy detailed Masdar’s new initiative to develop and demonstrate advanced and innovative energy-efficient seawater desalination technologies suitable to be powered by renewable sources.

Australian and international delegates at the NCEDA Workshop. Centre front: Ms Miriam Balaban, flanked at left by Prof In S Kim and at right by Prof David Furukawa. Prof Jan Schippers is third row from rear at left.

water February 2014

The initiative consists of two phases: Phase 1, the Piloting Phase (2013–2016) takes the latest desalination technologies not

31

Workshop Report yet commercialised – for example, forward osmosis membrane distillation – to develop and demonstrate energy-efficient desalination at small scale. About four to five pilot plants are to be built at Abu Dhabi and the plants operated on a continuous basis for at least 18 months to demonstrate reliable performance of the technologies. Phase 2 (after 2016) involves implementation of the developed energy-efficient desalination technology in large-scale, fully renewable energy-powered seawater desalination plants.

Third party proponents of suitable technologies must commit as 50-50 partners with the government to the use of their technology in the attempt to achieve commercial scale. Importantly, the IP remains with the proponents. The aim of the exercise is R&D transformation, together with demonstrable sustainable energy use, as well as preserving the environment for the benefit of humanity.

On Day 2, Ms Miriam Balaban, representing the European Desalination Association, chaired a session featuring Professor Emeritus Jan Schippers from UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education in Delft, who gave a presentation focused on particulate fouling. He discussed the reliability and predictability of the silt density index (SDI). Doubts have arisen about SDI tests used in predicting the fouling of RO and NF membranes, variable results with temperature and membrane manufacturers and correlation with fouling of RO and NF membranes in full-scale plants. The MFI (modified fouling index) proposed to overcome these deficiencies of the SDI test. Theoretical calculations and measurements with membranes having smaller pores than 0.45mm are responsible for fouling RO and NF membranes, hence the justification to develop MFI-UF measured at constant flux. The MFI-UF enables prediction of the rate of fouling of RO/NF membrane.

Achieving water recovery from RO treatment of brackish inland waters, especially in northwest Western Australia, commonly results in yields as low as 50% with high volumes of brine and troublesome scale precursor chemicals such as silica. Dr Peter Sanciolo, one of a number of NCEDA grant recipients who reported their research, has concentrated on dealing with the silica as a first step to increased water recovery. The work involved using commercially available alumina adsorbent under varying temperature, pH and flux to remove the scale precursors. He is continuing to examine phenomena arising during regeneration of the adsorbent to improve its reuse and contain costs.

Dr Bea Sommers, Research Fellow at Edith Cowan University in Perth, also spoke about the management of brine discharge following RO treatment of brackish waters in inland locations. Site conditions, the properties of the brine, and whether or not further treatment was possible to reduce brine volume and/or improve water quality constrain opportunities for beneficial uses. Ecosystem services refers to the benefits that people get from nature, gratis.

They are usually grouped into four categories: provisioning (food, fish); flood control; recreation; and soil formation. Pricing these services is not always possible, although it will be important, as addressing the future management of brine has become one of the most challenging and costly dilemmas when permitting is sought for inland plants.

In Australia, evaporation ponds are intended to be temporary storages prior to final disposal, although requirements differ with the jurisdiction. Existing options – deep well or aquifer injection, natural wetlands and streams if available – are more familiar to most practitioners than the beneficial uses in the context of ecosystem services as advocated by Sommers.

Staying with the solutions offered for brine disposal, membrane distillation crystallisers (MDC) can utilise brine waste heat energy; however, the problems in operating on a large scale involve overcoming the relative membrane flux, membrane fouling and scaling issues that can cause system failure due to membrane wetting. Professor Vicki Chen, Director of the UNESCO Centre at UNSW, looked at the effects of using transverse vibrational motion in a vacuum-enhanced submerged hollow fibre membrane distillation system (VMD). Vibration enhancement increased membrane productivity, although not without the problems associated with membrane wetting.

Professor Linda Zou from Adelaide University spoke on the development of graphene electrodes and application in brackish water desalination. Single-walled carbon nanotubes were combined with graphene oxide nanosheets in aqueous dispersion and then chemically reduced to form the carbon nanotube/graphene (CNT/G) composite as electrodes for capacitive deionisation (CDI). The structure of the CNT/G composite was highly porous, with singlewalled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) sandwiched between graphene sheets that functioned as spacers and provided diffusion paths for smooth and rapid ion conduction.

A portable prototype of a capacitive deionisation (CDI) unit has been operated for the first time in Wilora, a community in a remote area in the Northern Territory, to remove salt from the brackish groundwater. The CDI unit has demonstrated sufficient salinity and hardness removal ability at the remote brackish water source, although a few issues still remain to be resolved.

In a final iteration, solar photovoltaic panels have been incorporated with the CDI unit on a trailer, which means that the operation of the CDI becomes totally self-sustained. The portable CDI unit proves to be a viable alternative solution to brackish water treatment, especially in communities in remote areas where building a reverse osmosis treatment plant is not practical, and it is expected we will see further applications of this technology.

Another example of solar technology for humane purposes came with the presentation by Dr Trevor Pryor of Murdoch University.

This research project originated from the needs of the remote Tjuntjunjarra community located 800km northeast of Kalgoorlie, where available water is scarce and highly saline. The existing supply source was troubled by high levels of nitrates. A series of project partners from industry, government, community service providers and research institutes combined to develop a suitable and sustainable desalination system, taking into account that any system had to be reliable and require infrequent maintenance, and produce a consistent volume of high-quality water (11,000–15,000 litres/day). A major focus of the project was overcoming the problem of intermittency of renewable energy resources by developing a costeffective hybrid solar/waste thermal system to power an innovative thermal vacuum multi-effect membrane distillation desalination system. The facility has now commenced operations and so far appears to be meeting design criteria.

Conclusion The Workshop was voted a major success by all attendees and served to provide an insight into the potential value of applied research, achievable at its best when research can be introduced to industry and community to meet their needs. More support for development and commercialisation is urgently required for the country to benefit from the best minds and the best science produced here in Australia.

February 2014 water

32

Feature Article

THE IMPACT OF CSG ON OUR WATER RESOURCES: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? Coal seam gas mining has the potential to affect us all in a variety of ways – not least how it may impact on our water supply and quality.

Rebecca Hoare, Jacinta Studdert, Noni Shannon and Wilf Finn from Norton Rose Fulbright provide an update on legislative and regulatory responses to the the CSG industry in the eastern states.

INTRODUCTION

The IESC was established through the National Partnership

The impact of the CSG industry on Australia’s water resources remains a contentious debate. Notably, Water Journal has run two feature articles and two ‘My Point of View’ pieces on the issue in the past 15 months, while this issue features the topic of ‘Water In Mining’ as a major theme. As the industry has grown in Queensland and pressure has increased to develop CSG reserves in other states, there has been a variety of legislative and regulatory responses.

Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development

This article provides an update on those developments during 2013 and, encouragingly, highlights the increased funding that has been made available for bioregional assessments to inform CSG activities in the future.

of national environmental significance.’

(National Partnership Agreement), which came into force on 14 February 2012. The IESC was then formed on 27 November 2012 through amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act is the Commonwealth Government’s key environmental legislation, as it provides a legal framework to manage ‘matters

The IESC commenced its activities in early 2013, and its tasks include undertaking bioregional assessments (which are reviewed in more detail overleaf).

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS IN 2013 COAG endorses the Harmonised Framework On 31 May 2013, the Council of Australian Governments Standing Council on Energy and Resources endorsed the National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Natural Gas from Coal Seams (Harmonised Framework). The purpose of the Harmonised Framework is to provide leading practice principles to Federal, State and Territory Government regulators and to ensure that the various state- and territory-based regimes are robust, consistent and transparent.

In detail, it provides a consistent approach to legislators and industry to managing CSG development from a regulatory perspective in the core areas of: • Well integrity; • Water management and monitoring; • Hydraulic fracturing; • Chemical use (noting that these core areas necessarily overlap).

The Harmonised Framework is not a prescriptive document, but rather is intended to be flexible and accommodate the variations between jurisdictions. However, the Harmonised Framework is not intended to lower existing jurisdictional standards and practices.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee commences activities The report on ‘Coal Seam Gas Mining and Groundwater’ in the November 2012 edition of Water Journal referred to the interim Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (the IESC).

water February 2014

CSG mining remains a contentious issue in Australia.

water in mining EPBC Act amended to include the ‘Water Trigger’ The Conference Report on the AWA’s ‘Unconventional Gas Thought Leadership Series’ in the August 2013 edition of Water Journal noted the introduction of the ‘Water Trigger.’ Like the IESC, the Water Trigger is implemented through an amendment to the EPBC Act and is intended to build on the National Partnership Agreement. Previously, CSG activities that had the potential to impact upon water resources could only be regulated at a Federal level if they had a flow-on impact to existing matters of national environmental significance. However, as a result of amendments to the EPBC Act in June 2013, water resources are now included as a matter of national environmental significance in their own right (hence the ‘trigger’), such that the impacts of proposed CSG activities on them will require assessment at a national level.

It is likely that there will now be an increase in the number of CSG activities that will be referred to the Federal Environment Minister to decide whether a project constitutes a controlled action. However, the Water Trigger does not apply to a CSG project if: • An approval for the action has already been granted; • The Minister has previously determined that the action is not a controlled action; • It was being assessed under the EPBC Act, or under state legislation at the time of the amendment and the Minister had already obtained advice from the IESC in relation to the action; • It already has prior environmental authorisation that continues to be in force.

Bilateral agreements amended to facilitate the ‘One-Stop-Shop’ Since the Federal Coalition Government came into power in September 2013, there has been renewed focus on streamlining environmental assessment and approval processes. Public consultation occurred in December last year with respect to the bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and both the New South Wales and Queensland Governments.

It is expected that, during the course of 2014, the amendments to these agreements will be finalised, with the aim of reducing duplication of government approval processes. Notably, at the time of writing, the bilaterals will not apply to the water trigger.

The Gasfields Commission, QCA regulatory review and other legislative developments in Queensland Queensland has the largest and most established CSG industry of any of the jurisdictions in Australia. Accordingly, it has the most developed regulatory arrangements, which have seen a number of changes in 2013, with more likely in 2014.

On 1 July 2013 the Gasfields Commission Act 2013 (Qld) came into force, providing the Gasfields Commission with official powers to manage and improve the relationship between the gas industry and landowners/regional communities (which it has been doing unofficially since last year – the inaugural commissioners’ meeting was in August 2013). Its functions are to advise government, review gas regulations, convene stakeholder meetings and publish educational material. Notably this material includes non-identifying conduct and compensation agreements, to improve information on land access negotiations.

33

Feature Article Also in July 2013, the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) released an issues paper as the first step in its review of the state’s regulation of the CSG industry. That process continued into 2014 and the final report was due on 31 January 2014.

While that regulatory review has been underway, legislative changes have continued in Queensland. Notably the Petroleum Legislation Amendment Regulation (No.1) 2013 (Qld) now allows for the conversion of petroleum wells into water observation bores and even water supply bores, in certain circumstances.

The Regional Planning Interests Bill 2013 (Qld) was introduced in November 2013 and is intended to repeal the controversial Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011 (Qld) in 2014. It will be interesting to observe how the tension between petroleum tenements, agricultural land use and environmental values are balanced in this new legislation.

Moratoria on CSG exploration, hydraulic fracturing and BTEX chemicals in NSW and Victoria In contrast to Queensland, the legislative changes in NSW and Victoria in 2013 have included significant restrictions on CSG activities, primarily arising due to concerns regarding the impact on water resources.

In the past 12 months, the NSW Government has introduced a number of significant prohibitions, following the previous ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which commenced in December 2011 and was only lifted in September 2012.

In October 2013, amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW) (Mining SEPP) created the new ‘coal seam gas exclusion zones’. These are currently defined as residential zones and future residential growth area land (which is currently the North West Growth Centre and South West Growth Centre).

All exploration and production of CSG is now prohibited in the coal seam gas exclusion zone as well as within a two-kilometre buffer around those zones.

In November 2013, the NSW Resources Minister announced an immediate ban on all exploration and extraction of CSG in the Sydney Catchment Authority’s Special Areas. The SCA was established in 1998 in response to the possible Cryptosporidium contamination of Sydney’s drinking water supply, and is now responsible for the supply of raw water to Sydney Water, the management of Sydney’s drinking water catchment areas and infrastructure, and the regulation of activities within designated Special and Controlled Areas. The Special Areas had been created as protected lands to exclude industrial and development activities in the vicinity of Sydney’s potable drinking water sources.

It is expected that this ban will remain in place until the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Professor Mary O’Kane, has completed a supplementary investigation into CSG impacts ‘and other contributing factors on water in the special areas’.

Professor O’Kane’s initial report was released in July 2013, with the final report due in 2014.

In November 2013 the Victorian Government announced that it planned to “enshrine in legislation” its ban on BTEX chemicals.

The Victorian Government has had a ban on fracking in place since August 2012.

February 2014 water

34

Feature Article IMPROVING THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR DECISION-MAKING – BIOREGIONAL ASSESSMENTS One of the major tasks of the IESC is to undertake bioregional assessments of the following areas: 1.

Clarence-Moreton

2.

Gippsland Basin

3.

Lake Eyre Basin

4.

Northern Inland Catchments

5.

Northern Sydney Basin

6.

Southern Sydney Basin.

These are identified in the map

at right.

In November 2013, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment announced funding for the assessments through a partnership agreement with the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO.

Bioregional assessment priority areas.

The assessments are to be completed by 30 June 2016 and will provide a scientific analysis and baseline information on the ecology, hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of these six regions, with the primary focus being on the assessment of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of CSG and coal mining development on water resources.

Also in November 2013, the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments announced a $1.5 million study to benchmark aquifers across Victoria. The study will be a prelude to the Victorian-based bio-regional assessments.

The Authors Rebecca Hoare (email: Rebecca.Hoare@ nortonrosefulbright.com) (Partner, based in Brisbane) was the winner of the 2008 UDIA Women in Development Excellence Award for her achievement in environmental law. Her principal areas of expertise are environmental, climate change, native title, Aboriginal cultural heritage and planning law.

Jacinta Studdert (email: Jacinta.Studdert@ nortonrosefulbright.com) (Partner, based in Sydney) advises Government and the private sector on environment and planning issues for a wide range of activities under relevant state and Commonwealth legislation, including the environmental impact assessment, approvals and licences required for new activities such as for CSG, water, electricity and transport infrastructure,

water February 2014

THE YEAR AHEAD The maturing of Queensland CSG Projects and beneficial use of CSG water The CSG industry and its regulation will continue to grow in 2014.

Of particular interest will be the delivery of CSG to the Curtis Island liquefaction plants during the commissioning stage of these multibillion projects. Focusing more closely on water issues, and following Sunwater’s Kenya to Chinchilla Weir pipeline opening in 2013, it is likely that there will be more attention paid to the beneficial use of CSG water (i.e. water that is generated from coal seams) as other similar projects are likely to follow in Queensland. WJ environmental risks and compliance issues associated with ongoing operations, incident responses and environmental litigation.

Noni Shannon (email: Noni.Shannon@ nortonrosefulbright.com) (Partner, based in Sydney) is a specialist environment and climate change lawyer and was recently ranked as a leading individual lawyer in Environment for Chambers Asia-Pacific. Noni has significant experience advising Government and corporations in the water, waste and energy sectors.

Wilfred Finn (email: Wilfred.Finn@ nortonrosefulbright.com) (Senior Associate, based in Sydney) specialises in environmental law, with a particular interest in water, electricity, carbon, climate change and renewable energy. Wilf has contributed Postcards to Water Journal over the past year, from his travels to the Blue Nile and the Mekong Delta.

Your digital journal is now available!

NOW YOU CAN READ WATER JOURNAL BEFORE IT’S EVEN PRINTED...

AND ACCESS BACK ISSUES AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON! www.awa.asn.au/Journal/

36

Feature article

TACKLING WATER MANAGEMENT IN MINING Water is essential for any mining activity, but the industry faces many challenges in the management of this precious resource. Yamuna Balasubramaniam and Ashit Panda look at strategies the industry can adopt to effectively manage water in its operations.

The mining industry plays a major role in the country’s economy, but it faces a number of water management challenges. Water is essential for any mining activity, with the quantity and quality needed depending on the exact nature of the mining activity and the associated process – for example, the water quality can vary from treated sewage to seawater.

Mining water use is for the extraction of minerals that may be in the form of solids such as coal, iron, sand and gravel; liquids such as crude petroleum; and gases such as natural gas. Processes include quarrying, milling (crushing, screening, washing, and flotation of mined materials), re-injecting extracted water for secondary oil recovery, and other operations associated with mining activities.

environmental impacts and community concerns and cumulative impact assessment.

A determination of water withdrawals that are put to beneficial use in mining operations can be difficult, especially when dewatering is necessary for extraction of the mineral. Water produced from dewatering varies in quality, from fresh to saline, and is generally disposed of through surface discharge, ponding or re-injection. Some of the less mineralised water may be reused for irrigation or livestock.

Australia is a land of contrasts: 80 per cent of the continent receives less than 500mm rain annually, while some areas can receive almost 500mm of rain in a day. This means it is critical for miners to work with government and communities to ensure sustainable water use and protection of the environment, in collaboration with regulators, NGOs and investors.

This article focuses on understanding what water means to the mining industry, how much is used during production, the effects of industrial water use on the surroundings, and water treatment processes for consumption and disposal. Water is being recognised as a strategic resource for the mining industry and increasing demand has pushed the industry to look for non-traditional and alternative water supplies. Seawater desalination and untreated seawater use, or domestic and industrial effluent reuse, are some of the solutions adopted by different mining projects to adapt to this new scenario.

A coherent approach should aim at managing water for both drought and flood situations; using “lower quality” water sources not used by other sectors, such as sewage effluent, seawater, poor quality groundwater or recycled mining withdrawals; demonstrating good water stewardship by implementing accurate, consistent and transparent water accounting frameworks; and understanding

The increasing cost of water has also obliged the mining industry to be more efficient in its use, reducing losses and recycling as much as possible. This requires the development of sound and reliable water balances. The impact of mining activities and of mine waste deposits on water quality in the area surrounding the mining project is another important concern for the mining industry.

Water amendment facility to improve Sar of coal seam water.

water in mining A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WATER USE IN MINING Water is a vital natural resource and changes in its availability impact on the environment, the economy and society. Water availability is now a limiting factor on development in Australia.

Mining is a large water user and consequently faces a number of water management challenges.

Mining in one form or another has existed since ancient times. The modern industry has evolved by incorporating gradual improvements into common practice. Mining fundamentally involves the removal of ore from the ground. This can be done by removing the ground surface to expose the ore or by digging under the surface.

The mining industry is classified as follows, based on the operations: coal mining; oil and gas extraction; metal ore mining; other mining; and services to mining. The services-to-mining industry accounts for a very small proportion of water use and is incorporated into the ‘other mining’ subdivision along with constructional metal mining and mining exploration.

Mining water use includes water used for the extraction and onsite processing of naturally occurring minerals including coal, ores, petroleum and natural gas. Basically, minerals are broken up in the earth and transported to the surface where they are crushed, ground and separated from the host rock material. They are then sent for smelting and refining, both of which are considered to be industrial uses.

Water returned to the environment after contact with mining or processing activities has a potential environmental and social impact because its quality may have been altered. Mining affects availability of freshwater through heavy use of water in processing ore, and water quality through water pollution from discharged mine effluent and seepage from tailings and waste rock impoundments. Mining, by its nature, consumes, diverts and can pollute water resources.

Technology improvements and innovation in the water supply industry will assist in meeting future water demands.

interaction of mines with water systems Most of the water used at a mine site is used in grinding and separating, but significant variations can occur depending on whether the mine is: (1) hard rock, sulfur, coal, sand and gravel, petroleum, or natural gas; (2) underground extraction, solution, open pit, or dredging; (3) in a dry or humid climate with a corresponding low or high water table; and (4) in a situation where the mine must generate its own power, particularly steam. Water may be recycled many times within the mine site, or excess water may be constantly discharged from the site.

Most water used in the mining industry is from self-extracted sources. Water is often obtained from mine dewatering, which occurs when water is collected through the process of mining and mineral extraction, or rainfall, runoff and water infiltration, and is later discharged. Mine dewatering is considered to be a self-extracted water source for the mining industry in the National Water Accounts.

Produced formation water occurs naturally in oil and gas reservoirs.

This is often extracted along with oil or gas in the production process.

The water is separated from the oil or gas, treated and discharged.

Dewatering of the mine site, when water is discharged without being used in the production process, is considered to be in-stream use. If the workings are below the water table, the water table has to be lowered by removing groundwater to enable ore extraction.

Rainfall or surface runoff that collects in the workings must be removed for the same reason.

37

Feature Article Mining water requirements are complicated by seasonal climatic variability, as most mines need a steady and reliable supply of water. In periods of drought, local runoff will be small and supplies of water from rivers or aquifers may be restricted. Self-extracted water volumes and quality may vary with the location and depth of the workings, and water recycled from on-site processing may be of poor quality. Water use by mining facilities will vary depending on the size and type of mining operation.

The main operational phases in a mining operation life cycle with its associated water issues are depicted in Figure 1:

Post-Mining & Closure

Exploration

Resource Development

Rehabilitation

Mining, Processing & Refining Figure 1. Mining operation life cycle.

TYPICAL WATER REQUIREMENTS IN MINING Water and energy are directly or indirectly related in the mining industry; the connection is mainly through pumping power to transfer the water or aqueous slurries of mineral products to another location. The water cycle in mining is complex and needs to align with the entire mine life cycle. Most mines both consume and produce water, which often must either be imported for operating purposes from locations remote from the mine, or transferred as surplus mine water from within the mine to a treatment and/or discharge location.

Water use in mining operations can be divided into three categories: mining, processing and mineral conveyance. In most types of mining relatively little water is used in actual ore production.

A notable exception is underground coal mining, where water is used as one of several measures to reduce the hazard of fires or explosions.

Many mined minerals are partially processed in the immediate vicinity of the mine site. The particle size of run-of-mine ore from hard rock mines often measures from a few centimetres to 30cm along the longest dimension, thus particles must be reduced in size so that mineral values can be recovered in downstream processes.

Water is used in crushing, mainly for dust control, but screening, grinding and milling can also require significant amounts of water depending on the scale of operation. Once ore is crushed, the mined product can be transported through a pipeline as aqueous slurry to a processing plant some distance away. Water use depends on the flow properties of the slurry and, in some cases, the purity or contaminants in the water used to prepare the slurry.

February 2014 water

38

Feature article Most mining operations require at least a nominal quantity of water with which to perform critical operations such as drilling, dust control and minimal ore processing. Many water uses are insensitive to water quality, merely requiring a nominal volume with which to perform essential operations. Other uses, typically mineral concentration based on flotation, might dictate that certain minimum standards of quality be maintained to recover economic percentages of mineral values at sufficient grade to keep the mine profitable.

Most mining operations reuse water to the largest extent possible, within constraints imposed by quality requirements, water availability and discharge considerations. Surplus water from precipitation or from the mine is discharged if it is not needed to operate the mine and associated crushing and grinding systems.

Transport of mineral products over long distances through conveyance pipelines can cause water resources at the point of origin to become depleted and introduce contaminants into the water during conveyance that make the water undesirable at the final destination. This can occur with coal, for example, with the leaching of common salts, boron, heavy metals, fluoride and other undesirable constituents. Water that accompanies coal through long-haul pipelines is not normally returned to the point of origin to be reused for additional coal shipments because of the cost of constructing a second, parallel pipeline, and because contaminants leaching from the coal would accumulate after many cycles of reuse.

Figure 2 shows a typical distribution of water use in mining.

Typical Water Use in Mining Processing

1% 3% 9%

Dust Supression

22%

Mining Camp Use

65%

Rehabilitation, Care & Maintenance Exploration

Figure. 2: Typical breakdown of water use in mining.

SOURcES OF WATER Access to a secure and stable water supply is critical to mining operations; without water a mine cannot operate. Water sources often need to be shared by multiple users, while at the same time leaving enough water for ecosystem functioning. Mines obtain water from a variety of sources, including direct harvesting from the environment (surface water and groundwater), water reused from other sources, on-site recycling and town water supplies, in line with approved water management plans.

Many mines recycle a significant amount of their water for reuse on-site, with some mines recycling up to 80 per cent of all water used. In other cases, mines source water from external effluent streams, with some mining operations sourcing up to 50 per cent of their water from local effluent. These practices reduce demand on water drawn from the environment.

Most mines penetrate into water-producing formations or fracture systems during exploration or operation. Depending on the nature of the ore and the geochemical conditions of the formation, this groundwater might either be of good quality or be contaminated to the extent that treatment is needed before discharge.

Mine water must be removed from operating mines to prevent flooding, the removal rate equalling the inflow rate. Except for cases in which the mine is elevated above the surrounding topography, mine water must be pumped to a treatment system or to a discharge point. Energy consumption can be significant, not only because of large volumes, but also because of appreciable lift from deep within the mine to the surface, often several thousand feet. If water is used in mining or in ore processing at a mine site, the mine water can be used for production. Some mines are water deficient, necessitating the import of water from offsite.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcTS Successfully treating mining effluents presents major challenges for water treatment companies, which are frequently faced with remote sites and extreme environmental conditions, significant fluctuations in water quality, and a variety of contaminants. Each mine requires a tailored wastewater treatment system to ensure the treated effluents (which can also be from tailing processes or mine dewatering) meet site-specific conditions and the required quality to allow reuse of the water within the mine. Ensuring sustainability of the water supply is an important factor for any mining operation. Wastewater quality fluctuates significantly from mine to mine.

The impact of the mining industry on the environment has been a public concern, with growing appreciation of the natural environment and increasing awareness of the possible harmful effects that the industry’s activities can cause. The extractive nature of mining operations creates a variety of impacts on the environment before, during and after mining operations. The extent and nature of impacts can range from minimal to significant, depending on a range of factors associated with each mine. These factors include: the characteristic of the ore body; the type of technology and extraction methods used in mining; and the on-site processing of minerals.

Mines often use water that is unsuitable for other purposes, such as deep saline groundwater or town sewage effluent. This lower-quality water can be used directly for purposes such as dust suppression, or it can be treated to a higher quality.

The environmental impacts of mining include erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. Mining can deplete surface and groundwater supplies.

The lowered pH and increased metal content may damage aquatic animals and vegetation, as well as humans and other organisms that drink from the streams or eat plants and animals that have bioaccumulated hazardous substances from the stream.

Groundwater withdrawals may damage or destroy streamside habitat many kilometres from the actual mine site.

Sometimes mines experience a natural and continuous inflow of water, for example in the pit or underground tunnels, and this water needs to be removed (through pumping) so that access to the mine workings stays open. This is known as dewatering. This water is often either released into a receiving water source or used by the mine in the production processes. However, dewatering can lower groundwater tables or deplete surface water.

Groundwater can be contaminated when there is a hydraulic connection between surface and groundwater, when there is mining below the water table, and when waters infiltrate through surface materials (including overlying wastes or other material) into the groundwater. Blasting, underground mine excavation and collapse, and exploration drilling can all create pathways for water seepage through mines into groundwater.

water February 2014

water in mining

39

Feature Article TREATMENT PROCESSES Environmental concerns, stringent regulations, resource management and access to water (along with general acceptance by the local community of the operation of the mine) have become major issues for mining companies worldwide during the last couple of decades. While the major wastes generated by mines are waste rock, tailings and overburden, the bulk of emissions can be found in discharged mine water.

Potable drinking water plant for MMG Golden Grove Mine.

Groundwater is also affected by the pumping of mine water that creates a cone of depression in the groundwater table, increasing infiltration. Mining effluents may contain many different types of contaminants, including those such as extreme pH values, heavy metals, suspended solids, materials, dissolved solids, and high conductivity. It can take decades or centuries for groundwater to return to its premining level after pumping stops. The key environmental impacts are: 1. Acid Mine Drainage Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) is a natural process whereby sulphuric acid is produced when sulphides in rocks are exposed to air and water. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is essentially the same process, greatly magnified. When large quantities of rock containing sulfide minerals are excavated from an open pit or opened up in an underground mine, they react with water and oxygen to create sulfuric acid. When the water reaches a certain level of acidity, naturally occurring bacteria kick in, accelerating the oxidation and acidification processes, leaching even more trace metals from the wastes. The acid will leach from the rock as long as its source rock is exposed to air and water and until the sulfides are leached out – a process that can last hundreds, even thousands, of years. Acid is carried off the mine site by rainwater or surface drainage and deposited into nearby streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater.

AMD severely degrades water quality and can kill aquatic life, making water virtually unusable.

2. Heavy Metal Contamination & Leaching Heavy metal pollution is caused when metals such as arsenic, cobalt, copper, cadmium, lead, silver and zinc contained in excavated rock or exposed in an underground mine come in contact with water. Metals are leached out and carried downstream as water washes over the rock surface. Although metals can become mobile in neutral pH conditions, leaching is particularly accelerated under low pH conditions such as are created by Acid Mine Drainage.

As mine water accumulates and water overflows from an openpit surface mine or an underground mine, the water must be pumped or drained out of the mine to ensure safety and stability. Depending on the water availability and quality, it may be reused for process applications on site such as make-up water, dust suppression or mill operations, grinding, leaching and steam generation.

Of all the pollutants from the mining industry, 60–70% are emitted into water; so the removal of these contaminants prior to discharge is receiving significant attention. It is critical to avoid a discharge of toxic components into the environment. Water and wastewater treatment is thus becoming a major focus of mine operations, changing the landscape of site water management and treatment.

Treatment of both heavy metals and other water quality constituents of interest to lower levels requires different and more sophisticated water management and treatment approaches to maximise benefits and minimise costs. There is a variety of water treatment and brine management technologies in readiness to meet these requirements. Because freshwater aquifers often do not yield sufficient water to supply all of the mines and communities in the area, it has driven other solutions to be developed to treat the alternate water and wastewater sources. Some of the key technologies used in these solutions are: • Membrane-based (eg, Reverse Osmosis (RO), Nanofiltration (NF), Ultrafiltration (UF), Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR) and Electrodialysis (ED)); • Ion exchange (IX) (eg, weak and strong base/acid polymeric resins, liquid extractants, adsorption media);

3. Processing chemical pollution Spilling, leaking or leaching of chemical agents (i.e. cyanide, sulfuric acid) from the minesite into nearby water bodies can cause considerable damage.

4. Erosion and sedimentation Erosion of cleared land surface and dumped waste material can result in the discharge of significant sediment loadings into the adjacent water bodies, particularly during rainfall.

Containerised potable drinking water plant for BHP mining camp.

February 2014 water

40

Feature article • Chemical treatment (eg, iron precipitation methods for sulphate and TDS); • Active biological treatment (eg, anoxic/anaerobic attached and suspended growth biochemical purification processes; • Passive biological treatment (eg, vertical flow biochemical reactors and horizontal flow wetlands).

cONcLUSIONS

• Water demands and sources: Identifying and quantifying water demands and supply methods, and aiming for a balance of supply and demand; • Recycling and reuse: Identifying the potential wastewater that can be reused after further treatment.

Technology will continue to be developed to find innovative

The water management strategy for each mining project involves solutions to the challenges of obtaining water, reducing demand segregation of catchment types to minimise the mine-affected water on water for mining processes, and designing more efficient and inventory, wherever possible meeting project demands with locally effective means of water management and treatment. WJ sourced water and releasing water from mineaffected catchments only when specific flow and ThE AUThORS water quality conditions are met in the receiving environment. The key aspects could be: yamuna balasubramaniam (email: Yamuna.Balasubramaniam@ • Diversions: Re-routing the flow path of creeks or other waterways to prevent water from entering the active mining area; • Water segregation: Separation of water based on quality in order to maximise opportunities for reuse and minimise the mine water inventory; • Controlled disposal: Disposal of water from mining areas to the environment, taking into consideration flow and water quality characteristics of the receiving environment;

siemens.com) has over seven years of experience in the field of process design and application engineering for industrial water and wastewater treatment plants, and is currently associated with Evoqua Water Technologies Pty Ltd (formerly Siemens Water Technologies Pty Ltd). ashit Panda (email: ashit.panda@siemens.com) has more than 15 years of experience in the field of process design and application engineering for water and wastewater treatment processes, and is currently associated with Evoqua Water Technologies Pty Ltd (formerly Siemens Water Technologies Pty Ltd) as Senior Manager – Proposals (Sales & Marketing). He has a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology in Roorkee, India.

www.coedrilling.com.au

water

• OIL & GAS Coe Drilling Pty Ltd • TELECOMMUNICATIONS 11-13 Gibbs Street, • WATER & WASTE WATER Arundel, Queensland • ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION 4214 Australia.

• POWER www.coedrilling.com.au • 50-500 TON CAPACITy • 6”- 54” COMPLETED Tel: +61 7 5500 5222 OIL & GAS February • 2014 • 100-2140M CROSSINGS COMPLETED Coe Drilling Pty Ltd Fax: +61 7 5500 6444 • TELECOMMUNICATIONS www.coedrilling.com.au 11-13 Gibbs Street, • WATER & WASTE WATER

www.coedrilling.com.au • • • • • • • •

OIL & GAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS WATER & WASTE WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION POWER 50-500 TON CAPACITy 6”- 54” COMPLETED 100-2140M CROSSINGS COMPLETED

Coe Drilling Pty Ltd 11-13 Gibbs Street, Arundel, Queensland 4214 Australia.

Tel: +61 7 5500 5222 Fax: +61 7 5500 6444

community engagement

41

Feature Article

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR WATER PLANNING Planning processes for drinking water supplies for the greater Sydney and lower Hunter regions recognise that integrating community engagement with the technical investigation and evaluation processes is critical to success, write Ruby Gamble and Cathy Cole of the Metropolitian Water Directorate.

Introduction The Metropolitan Water Directorate is a part of the NSW Department of Finance and Services and works closely with state agencies and water utilities, stakeholders and the community.

These relationships ensure the Metropolitan and Lower Hunter Water Plans reflect community values and priorities, and can meet the needs of population and business growth while adapting to a highly variable climate. An Independent Water Advisory Panel provides independent strategic and technical advice on urban water planning for the two regions.

Metropolitan Water Plan The Metropolitan Water Plan outlines the mix of measures that ensure Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains (greater Sydney) have enough water both now and for the future. In the face of a developing drought, which affected at least 80 per cent of NSW between 2002 and mid-2007, the government developed the first Metropolitan Water Plan in 2004. The plan set out how greater Sydney’s water supply would be secured in the short to medium term and put in place a range of water supply and river health initiatives.

Following a comprehensive review, an updated plan was released in 2006. The revised plan responded to the deepening drought and put in place a set of measures that met the government’s medium-term plan to secure greater Sydney’s water supply, including a comprehensive recycling strategy and further measures to protect river health. The 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan refined these measures further and secured greater Sydney’s water supply to at least 2025.

The current review of the plan aims to secure the water supply further into the future, while supporting liveable urban communities and continuing to protect the rivers that are impacted by the water supply dams.

Lower Hunter Water Plan While the lower Hunter’s water supplies are very reliable under typical climate conditions, and will be able to supply the water needs of a growing population for about 20 years, water storage levels in the region can fall quickly in prolonged periods of hot, dry weather.

The new Lower Hunter Water Plan is due to be released in early 2014 and will outline a package of water supply and demand

measures to secure the region’s water supplies. The plan will ensure there is enough water for the people and businesses of the region and set out how we will respond to severe droughts.

Research and engagement objectives The Metropolitan Water Directorate conducts social research and community engagement for both plans in line with the National Urban Water Planning Principles and consistent with the NSW Government’s commitment to NSW 2021 Goal 32 – Involve the Community In Decision Making On Government Policy.

In designing our community engagement processes we strive to achieve best practice through a holistic approach that doesn’t engage for engagement’s sake, but also provides direct support and input to the analytical framework for the plans.

Community engagement for the Metropolitan and Lower Hunter water plans is designed to: • Increase awareness and facilitate discussion; • Understand and take account of community preferences and priorities; • Better understand values, attitudes and behaviours; • Mitigate risks associated with poorly informed debate on water planning; • Increase transparency of the planning process; • Complement technical studies and research; • Facilitate understanding and acceptance of the plan.

multi-faceted engagement process A range of tools has been used to engage the community in the process for each plan, including: • Socio-economic research in the form of choice modelling and travel cost surveys; • Social research in the form of sentiment monitoring; • Meetings and deliberative workshops with community and stakeholders; • Discussion papers; and • Online engagement.

February 2014 water

42

Feature Article Sentiment monitoring

Community Planning Principles – 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan • Provide water that is affordable and safe to drink • Ensure enough water to meet both environmental and human needs – one is not more important than the other • Ensure a dependable long-term water supply for current and future generations • Maximise water efficiency and recycling, especially capturing stormwater, and invest in research and innovation • Restore clean healthy waterways and ensure health of catchments by reducing pollution • Ensure government and community take joint responsibility for water management

Community sentiment monitoring involves online and phone surveys with a randomly selected sample of people, and is conducted on a regular basis. The survey allows the Metropolitan Water Directorate to ‘keep a finger on the pulse’ and monitor community sentiment over time, around water planning and other broader water issues. The data is also useful in complementing and validating other engagement and research activities.

Workshop recruitment

• Share water – taking into consideration all relevant sectors and regions It is widely accepted as best practice for community engagement to use an integrated suite of tools like these to essentially cover all the bases and make engagement accessible, sustained and effective.

Offering multiple avenues for engagement also allows you to test feedback and often provides complementary information that builds your understanding of community values, views and preferences.

Socio-economic research Choice modelling is an economic survey technique that measures community preferences to estimate the value people put on social and environmental costs and benefits. The Metropolitan Water Directorate uses choice modelling as an input to the economic analysis of plans for both regions.

Choice modelling studies were conducted on river health benefits in greater Sydney as part of the assessment of options for environmental flows from Warragamba Dam. Separate studies for greater Sydney and the lower Hunter looked at the value people attach to water availability during droughts and will help determine the social costs of water restrictions.

A travel cost survey at different sites along the HawkesburyNepean River assessed whether there was a use value and benefit from releases, by looking at the distance users travelled to visit the river and what it would mean to them if environmental flows were implemented on the local stretch of river.

Online engagement The NSW Government’s online engagement platform ‘Have Your Say’ provides opportunities for the community and stakeholders to participate in the planning process via discussion forums, surveys and submissions.

‘Have Your Say’ also provides a way of feeding back results of engagement activities and progress on planning to the community, and allows the Metropolitan Water Directorate to gauge community sentiment on emerging issues and validate feedback from other engagement activities. The lower Hunter has used the ‘Have Your Say’ website throughout the planning process to invite community feedback on values, water supply and demand options, and portfolios (or combinations of options).

The lower Hunter page had over 7,900 page visits during a 12-month consultation period, and the greater Sydney page had over 947 page visits from July to December 2013.

water February 2014

A principal aim of community engagement workshops for both the Metropolitan and Lower Hunter Water Plans is to integrate the community engagement with each step of the planning process.

This process also takes participants on a journey, building their knowledge and understanding of water planning while providing multiple opportunities for input as the plans are developed.

To this end, a number of participants involved in workshops for the Metropolitan Water Plan in 2009 were invited to participate in the review of the 2010 Plan. The remaining participants for the first round of workshops were recruited to create a representative sample of about 210 people.

About 70 per cent of participants in the first round of workshops were willing and able to return for the second round. Subsequent engagements will use the existing pool of people that participated in the first and/or second round of workshops. While the participants are randomly selected, there has still been an over-representation of people with knowledge of, or an interest in, water services or water planning, as they are more likely to be willing to participate than other members of the community.

Stakeholders from identified groups were also invited to participate in workshops as part of the consultation for each plan.

The lower Hunter followed a slightly different process, with each round of engagement including workshops for a representative community group, as well as for stakeholder representatives and self-selected community members responding to advertising. The representative group was recruited to include a cross-section of the lower Hunter population. Sixty participants were recruited for the first workshop, with the intention that the same group should participate in the entire consultative process, while recognising that there would be some attrition over time.

For both planning processes, it was difficult to recruit young people, those from a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background, and Aboriginal people. Greater Sydney used Facebook advertising and advertising through universities to attract some younger participants. In the lower Hunter a separate workshop was held to involve Aboriginal community members. CALD representation was achieved through the general recruitment process, although numbers were sometimes below target.

Workshop techniques Workshops create a ‘space’ where we can understand community and stakeholder perspectives and explore the reasons behind their preferences.

community engagement

43

Feature Article

Figure 1. Options scores against community values.

The need for an open and transparent planning process was paramount. At each workshop, participants were advised as to how their input would be used and the consolidated feedback from each set of workshops was reported back to the next. This helped to validate and, where necessary, amend the input (for example, on community values), while also demonstrating that participants at different workshops may express a range of views and that all these views were important and being heard.

Importantly, the activities at each workshop were designed to integrate with the planning process, by providing both quantitative and qualitative data to incorporate in the decision-making process.

Visualisation tools proved valuable in the greater Sydney workshops to raise the community’s awareness and understanding.

• Buckets were used to demonstrate current water use and desired water use under voluntary water targets like those used in Melbourne and South-East Queensland during the millennium drought; • A collection of photographs inspired participants to talk about how they value water in their lives and within the landscape;

Tools to collect quantitative data during a workshop, such as workbooks, gave participants a chance to record ideas or behaviours privately, particularly when their behaviour went against social norms (for example, not wanting to ‘save’ water). The use of workbooks needs to be managed carefully to ensure their use doesn’t disrupt the flow of discussion. They also significantly increase the amount of data collected, which can impact on reporting timelines. Scribes (although increasing costs) can allow table facilitators to focus more on discussion and improve flow.

Community values In 2009, the Metropolitan Water Directorate conducted 10 workshops with the greater Sydney community to gauge their values and general attitudes towards water. Through this process, a review of social research and an online survey, seven community planning principles (see box, ‘Community Planning Principles – 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan’) were developed that were used to guide the assessment of water demand and supply options for the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan. The principles are being reviewed with the community to ensure currency.

• A model of a water system took workshop participants through the natural and managed water cycle.

Community values – 2014 Lower Hunter Water Plan

The lower Hunter community and stakeholders identified what mattered to them most about water planning through workshops and an online forum (see box, ‘Community Values – 2014 Lower Hunter Water Plan’).

• Sustainable solutions and water conservation • A fair and affordable system • Safe, healthy water for all uses • Protecting the natural environment • A secure, reliable supply for all • A strategic, balanced and adaptable plan • Investing dollars wisely • Respecting the Aboriginal cultural value of ‘life water’

Incorporating community preferences into the decision framework The planning framework for developing the Lower Hunter Water Plan included multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess and rank options against a mix of quantitative and qualitative criteria, and then develop a set of potential portfolios for further discussion with the community.

The multi-criteria analysis combined expert and community input to help assess the options by comparing: • The cost to improve drought security; • How well the option reflected community values; • Certainty in implementing the option;

February 2014 water

44

Feature article

Figure 2. Weighted ranking of options against five criteria.

• The potential to impact on the natural environment; • The flexibility to respond to drought in stages, without locking out other options in the future.

Quantitative data on consistency with community values was collected directly from the community and stakeholder workshops on options. Participants at each table were allocated one of the community values developed in earlier workshops. The key features of the options were presented a few at a time, and participants at each table then selected those options that best reflected their assigned value. The number of times each option was selected was counted (Figure 1), and the total count from three separate workshops was input into the MCDA for the criterion of ‘consistency with community values’ (Figure 2). This approach directly applied the feedback from the community in a manner that avoided risk of bias or misinterpretation.

The outcomes of the MCDA guided the development of portfolios, which were outlined in a discussion paper released as background material for the final set of workshops. Again, community feedback from these workshops was fed directly into the process to evaluate portfolios.

Participants at the workshops considered trade-offs among the cost, drought security and environmental features of six potential portfolios. They then ranked the portfolios and recorded the reasons for their preferences. This provided both quantitative data (rankings) and qualitative information (reasons) that were combined with expert evaluation in selecting the recommended portfolio for the Lower Hunter Water Plan.

Likewise, the evaluation process for the review of the Metropolitan Water Plan is being developed in a way that will enable the outcomes of community engagement to be integrated into the evaluation process.

water February 2014

The multi-faceted community engagement process adopted for the development of the Lower Hunter Water Plan and review of the Metropolitan Water Plans provides a number of direct and indirect benefits.

Engagement is a two-way process, with the community benefiting as much as the provider. The continued involvement of participants in the planning and review processes improves their water literacy and level of engagement with the process. This allows the community to provide informed feedback on the Plans.

Community preferences have and will be reflected in the final analysis of portfolios of options to secure water supplies, facilitating community understanding and acceptance of the final Plans. We have also gained insight into how people use water and what is important to them, helping us better forecast demand for water and target education campaigns to segments of the community.

This has demonstrated that a well-conceived and integrated community engagement program is critical to robust planning. Wj

tHe autHors ruby Gamble (email: ruby.gamble@finance. nsw.gov.au) is Senior Community Engagement Officer for the Metropolitan Water Directorate and leads community engagement for greater Sydney’s Metropolitan Water Plan review.

Cathy Cole is the Metropolitan Water Directorate’s Project Manager for the Lower Hunter Water Plan. Cathy is an engineer with extensive experience in the water industry and natural resource management.

technical papers

Application Of Sonar Technology For The Profiling Of Sludge In Wastewater Pond Systems

Water In Mining Moving Forward With Unconventional Gas

R Brockett

46

M Blackam

51

M Haque et al.

57

A review of regulatory frameworks for the extraction, treatment and disposal of water in CSG and shale gas

Source, Fate And Water-Energy Intensity In The CSG And Shale Gas Sector

An explanation of the relationship between energy and water in the unconventional gas industry

Climate Change Impact Of Climate Change On Future Water Demand

A case study for the Blue Mountains Water Supply System

Recycled Water Irrigation Continuous Real-Time Monitoring Of Salt Accumulation In The Soil Due To Recycled Water Irrigation A laboratory column study of soil samples collected from the University of New South Wales

MM Rahman et al.

63

JD Ward et al.

69

W Roshan et al.

75

Agriculture & Food The Urban Agriculture Revolution

Implications for water use in cities

Desalination The Victorian Desalination Plant’s Water Transfer System

An overview of the design and construction of the Wonthaggi desal project This icon means the paper has been refereed

Community Engagement Forestry Water Policy In South Australia

Are written submissions a good engagement method in a complex forestry-environment-agriculture water conflict?

Public Acceptance Of Recycled Water: The Impact Of Trust

An analysis of three case studies from Perth, the Gold Coast and Toowoomba

C Xu et al.

84

VL Ross et al.

89

NEXT ISSUE

APRIL 2014: SPECIAL OZWATER EDITION • EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION • FINANCING INFRASTRUCTURE/ ATTRACTING INVESTMENT TO THE WATER INDUSTRY • WATER MARKETS & TRADING

75 Pressure-reducing station.

• WATER QUALITY, WATER TREATMENT & MANAGEMENT • WATER LAW & POLICY • AUTOMATION & REMOTE MONITORING

WATER IN MINING

46

Technical Papers

MOVING FORWARD WITH UNCONVENTIONAL GAS A review of regulatory frameworks for the extraction, treatment and disposal of water in CSG and shale gas development R Brockett

ABSTRACT Unconventional gas is a potentially lucrative source of future energy supplies and Australia has substantial resources that are either currently being developed or may be developed in the future. Water plays a central role in the production of unconventional gas; however, despite industry assurances to the contrary, community concerns linger about potential water contamination. Robust regulatory frameworks in each state address these key issues. Nevertheless, given the infancy of the industry and outstanding concerns regarding potential long-term and cumulative impacts, it is pertinent to review and consider whether further regulatory reform is required. This article seeks to briefly consider some of the key issues and proffer some suggestions for necessary reform to ensure that the industry can develop in an ecologically sustainable manner.

INTRODUCTION Access to reliable and affordable energy, produced in an ecologically sustainable manner, is essential for ongoing global economic development. The International Energy Agency forecasts that global energy demand will grow by more than one-third over the period to 2035 (IEA, 2012) and will be characterised by a shift away from oil and coal towards natural gas and renewable energy.

Importantly for Australia, natural gas extracted from shale formations and coal seams, or ‘unconventional gas’, is anticipated to account for nearly half of the growth in global gas supply (IEA, 2012). Queensland has reaped the economic benefits of coal seam gas and now significant exploration investment beckons for the commercialisation of shale gas across Australia.

Water plays a central role in the discussion about unconventional gas.

While some claims of the anti-CSG lobby may be, as Fenton (2013) considers

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

“based on anecdotal evidence, untested hypothesis and incomplete scientific analysis” specifically “designed to evoke fear of the industry”, community concerns – particularly in areas directly impacted by activities – remain high. Notwithstanding that industry best practice can mitigate most risks associated with production, risks do remain and the long-term impact of unconventional gas activities remains relatively unknown. As a consequence the political and social debate about unconventional gas development remains unsettled.

For this reason it is timely to undertake a “regulatory snapshot” of how water’s role in onshore gas development is regulated and attempt to identify some areas where further regulatory reform is required.

THE ROLE OF WATER Water plays a central role in all unconventional gas development, but in differing capacities. CSG is held in place in coal seams via hydrostatic pressure. In order to extract the CSG, it is necessary to depressurise, or dewater, the coal seam, thereby reducing the hydrostatic pressure in the target coal seam, liberating the gas to the surface. While hydraulic fracturing may be used in CSG production to stimulate flow rates, it is not essential.

Substantial quantities of water, referred to variously as ‘CSG’, ‘produced’ or ‘associated’ water, are brought to the surface through the production process. The National Water Commission conservatively estimated water production from CSG wells in Queensland at up to 300 GL/yr or a total volume up to 7,500 gigalitres (NWC, 2011).

Produced water varies in quality but is typically brackish in nature, with total dissolved solids ranging from 1,000–10,000mg/L, is high in bicarbonate, hardness and silica and may contain other ions of concern,

including fluoride, bromine, silicon, sulphate and trace metals (Ly, 2013).

Consequently, untreated CSG water is unsuitable for beneficial use applications (Jia, 2013; Ly, 2013). Accordingly, CSG water treatment, reuse and disposal technologies are essential to the longterm development of the industry.

Water issues associated with shale gas production differ from those presented by coal seam gas production.

Shale gas production, due to its reliance on fracturing, requires significant quantities of water (as opposed to producing water in CSG production, although there is some produced water) (ACOLA, 2013). Groundwater systems will often be the sole water resource available to producers. Relevantly, natural groundwater recharge rates are low, particularly in many areas where shale gas resources exist (English, 2012).

Therefore, robust regulation and management will be required to ensure the sustainable management of the industry’s water use.

KEY ISSUES Some of the key water issues arising from unconventional gas developments include: • Where to source and how to manage allocations of water for production activities (including hydraulic fracturing) within an overall management framework; • How to avoid or minimise aquifer interference and interconnectedness and perturbation of groundwater flow; • The containment, management and disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids; • Disposal, processing and use of produced water; • Identifying and managing the industry’s cumulative impact on regional water management issues.

EXTRACTION OF WATER Efficient, effective and sustainable management or allocation of water resources between the agricultural, grazing and extractive industries (among others) and domestic uses will be of paramount importance for Australia’s future economic development.

Unconventional gas production requires the extraction of significant quantities of water from aquifers and groundwater sources. The management of environmental issues associated with these high extraction levels will be a key issue for the sustainability of the industry.

The importance of a national approach to water management has been recognised through the establishment of the National Water Commission and the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI is a national blueprint for water reform and is a shared commitment by all governments to achieve a “nationally compatible market regulatory and planning-based system of managing surface water and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes” (NWI, 2011).

Notably, Western Australia1, New South Wales2 and South Australia3 all require gas proponents to hold water licences for the water that they intend to extract or use as part of their operations. Consequently, any potentially adverse impacts of unconventional gas developments should be managed within an overall framework.

For example, in New South Wales, coal seam gas extraction is deemed to be an “aquifer interference activity”, which is regulated pursuant to the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) (WM Act) and the NSW Aquifer Interference Policy (NSW, 2012a).

All water taken from a water source by an aquifer interference activity, regardless of its quality or whether it is taken for consumptive purposes (i.e. irrigation) or incidentally (i.e. through depressurising of a coal seam), must be accounted for within the long-term

extraction limit specified for that water source in water sharing plans created pursuant to the WM Act.

Relevantly, the FNPWA plan heavily regulates the taking of water from the GAB. For example:

The Minister may not grant a water licence unless satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to ensure that no more than minimal harm will be done to any water source as a consequence of water being taken under a licence (NSW, 2012a). Importantly, given potential cumulative impact issues, the volume of water taken from a water source pursuant to planned CSG activities needs to be predicted (in accordance with appropriate groundwater modelling guidelines) prior to project approval and then measured and reported in annual returns or environmental management plans.4 The Minister (and consequently proponents) must also assess a proposal against ‘minimal impact considerations’ and the water management principles, which include the protection of the broader social and economic benefits of the water resource.5

• The taking of water must not result in any unacceptable drop in pressure in the vicinity of the GAB springs; and

If the impacts fall outside of permitted ranges then the Minister must otherwise be satisfied that the impact will not compromise the long-term viability of the water resource (NSW, 2012a).

The position is similar in South Australia and Western Australia. The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) (NRM Act) divides South Australia into natural resources management regions, with separate management boards responsible for developing and implementing natural resources management plans. These plans must include a water allocation plan for each of the prescribed water resources in the region. As in NSW, the taking of water from a regulated water source in South Australia is only permitted if the person is authorised under a gazettal notice as part of a water allocation under a water licence. The Cooper-Eromanga Basin, a highly prospective region for unconventional gas, is regulated as part of the Far North Prescribed Wells Area (FNPWA), which covers the Great Artesian Basin (GAB).

• For the whole FNPWA, no more than 60 ML/d may be taken for use as a byproduct of petroleum production.

The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1911 (RIWI) regulates the taking of all water in Western Australia. However, while there are regional plans at present, these do not have legal force. The RIWI is currently the subject of a comprehensive review by the Western Australian government in “Securing Western Australia’s Water Future”. Importantly, one of the proposed reforms is the creation of statutory water allocation plans.

While a moratorium continues to prohibit unconventional gas development in Victoria, the ‘management plan and licensing model’ has been endorsed by the recent Victorian Gas Market Taskforce Final Report, which has recommended compliance with the licensing requirements and integrated management processes under the Water Act 1989 (Vic).

In contrast the Queensland Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld) (P&G Act) permits a petroleum producer to, without limitation as to volumes, take or interfere with underground water from within the area of their tenement in the course of undertaking authorised activities without obtaining a separate water licence under the Water Act 2000 (Qld).

These unrestricted extraction rights are balanced by the requirement of a petroleum authority holder to enter into and comply with “make-good agreements” with affected landholders whose water bores are impaired by petroleum operations. Impairment is deemed to occur where, because of the exercise of the petroleum holder’s exercise of the underground water rights, there is a decline in the water level of

1

See generally Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967, the Schedule of Onshore Petroleum Exploration and Production Requirements 1991, the Code of Practice for Hydraulic Fracturing and the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1911.

2

See generally Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, NSW Aquifer Interference Policy – NSW Government policy for the licencing and assessment of aquifer interference activities.

3

See generally Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA), Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 (SA) and Environmental Protection Act 1993 (SA).

4

Department of Primary Industries Office of Water, NSW Aquifer Interference Policy – NSW Government policy for the licencing and assessment of aquifer interference activities, September 2012.

5

Section 71 of the Water Management Act 2000.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

WATER IN MINING

47

Technical Papers

WATER IN MINING

48

Technical Papers

the bore such that the bore can no longer provide a reasonable quantity or quality of water for its authorised use (Water Act, s412). A make-good agreement may require the petroleum holder to deepen the bore, increase its capacity, or provide an alternative water supply such as to restore the landholder’s supply to its previous capacity.

While the environmental impacts associated with the taking of this water will be assessed through the environmental impact assessment process, significant volumes of water may be taken without being the subject of any water planning processes or allocations under the Water Act 2000 (Qld).

While this exception was introduced largely to facilitate the coal seam gas industry, it has significant implications for potential shale gas producers. If they can source underground water from within the area of their tenements for hydraulic fracturing operations, these extractions will not be accounted for as part of the broader water management and allocation processes under the Water Act.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Given the relative uncertainty regarding the long-term cumulative impact of CSG (and shale) development on the GAB it is concerning that this exception continues to apply in Queensland.

Relevantly, the National Water Commission noted in its triennial assessment of the NWI that “the rapid and significant potential impacts of the coal seam gas industry on water resources represent a risk to sustainable water management and “given the importance of both good water management and the minerals and extractive sectors for Australia’s future, there is a need for greater coordination and alignment of regulatory settings” (NWC, 2011).

to ensure sustainable management of water resources and development of domestic and industrial uses of water.

FRACKING Fracking has become almost synonymous with the industry as a whole and a shorthand expression for a wide range of associated anxieties (Rural Affairs Committee, 2011).

These sentiments have been echoed by the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative and the Standing Council of Energy and Resources.

Fracking is the use of fluid pressure to create fissures in the shale or coal seam to stimulate, or optimise, flow rates of gas. Water, sand (proppant) and various chemical additives are pumped down a well at high pressures to create fractures in the relevant substrate. The proppants act to keep the cracks open and to allow the gas to flow into the production wells.

Virtually every shale gas well needs to be fracked, potentially up to 10–15 times, to optimise production, while coal seam gas wells may only need to be fracked in a minority of instances (ACOLA, 2013).

It is contended that there is a clear necessity for a systematic and harmonised approach to the regulation of water entitlements

Industry estimates of the amount of water returned following each frack vary between 15% and 65%. Rates of return vary depending on the nature

of the geology in which the frack took place. Water that is not returned to the surface remains underground, where it is either likely to be trapped in the target reservoir or potentially migrate, very slowly, to adjacent aquifers. As with produced water, fracking wastewater typically contains additional total dissolved salts and suspended solids along with other contaminants.

It may either be reused for further fracks or, alternatively, for other purposes if it is treated appropriately.

A number of potential risks associated with fracking have been identified, including possible aquifer and groundwater contamination caused by leaks or accidents during surface activities, inadequate cementing of wells, or through geological structures.

In general, industry and independent scientific observers – for example, the CSIRO (CSIRO, 2011) – consider that, subject to appropriate planning, modelling and best practice drilling practices, these risks can be substantially mitigated. Many relevant mitigation strategies are set out in regulatory requirements.

Relevantly, the NSW Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas Fracture Stimulation (NSW, 2013b) requires any fracture stimulation activity to have been assessed and managed in accordance with a Fracture Stimulation Management Plan (FSMP). An FSMP must describe in sufficient detail the proposed location and scale of operations and set out how a proponent will manage the associated risks. Affected stakeholders must be consulted as part of the FSMP process and final FSMPs are publicly available.

The FSMP must assess the pre-existing water quality and uses and the risks of potential cross-contamination between target coal seams and water sources, changes to groundwater levels and pressures and changes to water quality.

The Code of Practice recommends that stimulation modelling software be used to understand and control the proposed fracture operations and the FSMP must incorporate risk assessment and management strategies in accordance with Australian standards.

This must include an assessment of the risk, likelihood and consequence of injected chemicals affecting the beneficial use of impacted aquifers and details of those chemicals that are to be used, by volume and concentration.

If this assessment identifies a medium to high risk of establishing a connection between the coal seam and aquifers, a proponent must undertake a fate and transport model study to quantify the impacts on water resources and potential changes to the beneficial uses (NSW, 2012b).

Finally, once operations have been completed, proponents must submit a report to the Government that must include details of the operations and an assessment of the operations including well casing pressures, flow rates, composition and volumes of fracturing fluids (including proppants and chemicals) and whether any material environmental harm was caused.

In Queensland the Petroleum and Gas Regulation 2000 requires a petroleum tenure holder to give landowners at least 10 business days’ notice prior to conducting fracturing activities and lodge a notice with the Government about the completion of fracturing activities. This report must contain, among other things, an assessment of the implications of the activity for the future management of the natural underground reservoir, the rate at which the hydraulic fracturing fluid was pumped into each petroleum well, the concentration of proppant and the volume of fluid pumped into each petroleum well.

Despite these robust regulatory requirements the political and community debate about fracking, and by extension onshore gas, remains unsettled. Notably, fracking is: • The subject of a Parliamentary Committee review in Western Australia; • The subject of an ongoing investigation by the New South Wales Chief Scientist and Engineer; • The subject of a potential moratorium in South Australia; • Prohibited in Victoria until at least July 2015.

The issue will continue to be a divisive one and subject to ongoing regulatory focus. It will be paramount to ensure that the final balance point between industry, Government and the community is one that identifies the risks, requires appropriate mitigation strategies be in place, and permits industry to develop unconventional gas in an efficient and environmentally sustainable manner.

PRODUCED WATER A fundamental environmental concern for CSG production is the extraction, treatment, storage and disposal of large volumes of produced and fracking water. In addition, any treatment process produces vast amounts of salt, which presents its own environmental issues.

However, these concerns are beyond the scope of this article.

As discussed, produced water is generally brackish and contaminated with substances that are not safe for consumption. As a result, its beneficial uses are limited without treatment.

Subject to being treated it may be used for: • Water supplies to local farmers and communities; • Irrigation; • Dust suppression; • Industrial purposes.

Alternatively, if beneficial uses are not available, it may be discharged or reinjected into suitable underground aquifers or discharged as surface water.

These options are, however, heavily regulated.

In Queensland, the taking, handling, discharge, and recycling of produced water is regulated by the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety Act) 2004 (Qld), the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), the Water Act 2000 (Qld) and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2000 (Qld). The Government’s general management strategy is set out in its ‘Coal Seam Gas Water Management Strategy 2012’.

Proponents must identify how they intend to manage produced water as part of their environmental management plans, which must be compiled as part of their environmental authorisation process. The plan must include information on the flow rate, quantity and quality of expected produced water, proposed use, treatment, storage or disposal, and monitoring and assessment of management strategies.

The Government may impose conditions on proponents as to how they must manage their produced water in the environmental authority. Under the EP Act, CSG water is considered to be a waste, as it is deemed to be a leftover by-product from an industrial activity.

However, it may be approved as a

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

WATER IN MINING

49

Technical Papers

WATER IN MINING

50

Technical Papers “resource” on a case-by-case basis if it has a beneficial use other than disposal. When used for an approved beneficial use, CSG water is no longer defined as waste.

The Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy states that the Government’s overriding objective is to encourage the beneficial use of CSG water in a way that protects the environment and maximises its productive use as a valuable resource.

There are two priorities of uses: a.

b.

produced water is used for a purpose that is beneficial to the environment, existing or new water users, or existing or new water-dependent industries; or if beneficial uses are not feasible, appropriate treatment and disposal.

Approval processes and guidelines are in place that specify the conditions and standards to which produced water must be treated in order to obtain a beneficial use approval. In general, the guidelines require producers to treat the CSG water to reach Australian guidelines (i.e. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000).

CUMULATIVE IMPACT The long-term cumulative impact of the industry remains relatively uncertain. Notably, the National Water Commission cautioned in 2011 that the “potential impacts of CSG developments, particularly the cumulative effects of multiple projects, are not well understood”.

While complex and substantial modelling work was undertaken by each of the CSG proponents in Queensland as part of their environmental permitting processes, there have been concerns expressed by independent bodies such as Geoscience Australia which, while giving qualified approval at the individual project level, raised system-wide issues (Geoscience Australia, 2011). It called for a “regional-scale, multilayer groundwater flow model which incorporates data from both public and private sector sources”.

Work of this scale has commenced, at least in Queensland, with the commissioning and release of a series of Underground Water Impact Reports relating to the Surat Cumulative Management Area, which covers the area of planned CSG development in the Surat Basin and the southern Bowen Basin. Importantly, the Surat CMA has

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

predicted relatively substantial and widespread predicted drawdowns of important aquifers underlying the CSG project areas.

Irrespective of the work that proponents and Government continue to do on modelling potential cumulative impacts, the greatest concern potentially resides in the fact that the “difficulty in the Great Artesian Basin is that groundwater flow velocities are slow, waters are old and any unforeseen consequences of extraction will take decades or centuries to work through the aquifers”, and that “the overriding issue is the uncertainty of the potential cumulative, regional impacts of multiple developments” (Prosser, 2011).

The establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on CSG and Coal Mining (IESC) is an important step forward and will go some way to attempting to deal with this uncertainty.

It will oversee bioregional assessments and research and development activities that will build knowledge and capacity to provide society with increased certainty for management of CSG operations to mitigate their potential impacts on water resources (Stubbs, 2012). However, further ongoing research and regulatory reform will be required to ensure that the industry can develop and operate in an ecologically sustainable manner into the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Author would like to thank John Briggs (Partner, Ashurst) for his insights and Tamieka Gilmour (Lawyer, Ashurst) for her research assistance.

THE AUTHOR Richard Brockett (email: Richard.Brockett@ashurst. com) is a Senior Associate at Ashurst, an international law firm advising corporates and financial institutions. He has 10 years’ experience advising companies in the energy and resources industry.

Richard is currently undertaking his PhD at the University of Queensland’s Centre for International Minerals and Energy Law with a focus on the regulation of unconventional gas.

REFERENCES Cook P, Beck V, Brereton D, Clark R, Fisher B, Kentish S, Toomey J & Williams J (2013): Engineering Energy: Unconventional Gas Production. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA, 2013).

English P, Lewis S, Bell J, Wischusen J, Woodgate M & Bastrakov E (2012): Water for Australia’s Arid Zone – Identifying and Assessing Australia’s Palaeovalley Ground Water Resources: Summary Report (National Water Commission, 2012).

Fenton R (2013): Demystifying Science – Communication of Complex Science to Reduce Community Fear of Industry, APPEA Journal 2013, p 295.

Geoscience Australia & Dr M A Habermehl (2010): Summary of Advice in Relation to the Potential Impacts of Coal Seam Gas Extraction in the Surat and Bowen Basins, Queensland, Phase One Report Summary (Canberra, September 2010).

Hunter T (2011): Shale Gas Resources in Western Australia: An Assessment of the Legal Framework for the Extraction of Onshore Shale Gas. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law (2011), 18, 2.

International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012 (France, 2012).

Jia H & Poinapen J (2013): Coal Seam Gas Associated Water Treatment and Management – Opportunities and Limitations. APPEA Journal 2013, p 185.

Ly L (2013): CSG Water: Desalination and the Challenge for the CSG Industry: Developing a Holistic CSG Brine Management Solution.

APPEA Journal 2013, p 193.

National Water Commission & The National Water Initiative (2011): Securing Australia’s Water Future – 2011 Assessment (September, 2011).

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Office of Water, NSW Aquifer Interference Policy – NSW Government Policy for the Licencing and Assessment of Aquifer Interference Activities, September 2012.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Office of Water, NSW Aquifer Interference Policy – An Overview of the Aquifer Interference Policy. August 2013.

New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Service, NSW Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas Fracture Stimulation Activities, 2012.

Prosser I, Wolf L & Littleboy A (2011): Water in Mining and Industry, in CSIRO, Water (CSIRO, 2011).

Stubbs WJ & Milligan A (2012): An Analysis of Coal Seam Gas Production and Natural Resource Management in Australia. A report prepared for the Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors by John Williams Scientific Services Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia.

Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, Management of the Murray Darling Basin Interim Report: The Impact of Mining Coal Seam Gas on the Management of the Murray Darling Basin (November 2011).

SOURCE, FATE AND WATER-ENERGY INTENSITY IN THE COAL SEAM GAS AND SHALE GAS SECTOR An exploration of the relationship between energy and water in the unconventional gas sector M Blackam

ABSTRACT This paper describes the occurrence of coal seam gas and shale gas in Australia and explores the relationship between energy and water in the unconventional gas sector, affording an opportunity to consider how the water industry and regulators can respond to the challenges.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY AND WATER Energy resources underpin and drive industrialised economies. Because of the close and intricate relationship between water and energy, economic development frequently generates conflict due to the natural pressure caused by energy industry expansion on water resources and the environment.

Hydroelectric schemes have the most obvious and direct relationship between energy generation and environmental water factors; but what about other energy sectors, including the widely debated ‘unconventional’ coal seam gas and shale gas resources that seldom fail to polarise the opinions of interest groups? This paper looks at the unconventional gas sector with a focus on water-related issues.

Unconventional gas assets have become strategically important, leading to a revolution in energy economics. However, this revolution has also generated a level of conflict surrounding water issues, and has precipitated opposition from environmentalists, community groups and filmmakers. Regrettably, the public debate has been tarnished by misinformation, and in some jurisdictions regulation has been influenced by political motivation and populist causes, in ignorance of science. In addition, geographic and demographic issues have led to conflict between developers and communities in both rural and urban areas in Australia and elsewhere.

UNCONVENTIONAL GAS IN AUSTRALIA In Australia, coal seam gas (CSG) and shale gas resources dwarf conventional onshore gas and oil resources and are expected to contribute greatly to Australia’s energy mix over the next 20 years (RPS, 2011).

Prospective unconventional gas fields occur in geological sedimentary basins (Figure 1) with significant development prospects predominantly in Mesozoic and Palaeozoic settings.

In Queensland, CSG plays are predominantly hosted in the Surat Basin (Jurassic), Bowen Basin (Permian) and the Galilee Basin (Permian). Production of CSG in Australia first commenced in 1996 in the Bowen Basin (Baker and

THE GLOBAL RISE OF UNCONVENTIONAL GAS In many petroleum and gas basins across the world, unconventional gas is taking over as production declines from depleting conventional gas reserves.

Technological advances, including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal ‘inseam’ drilling, have gradually opened up many unconventional gas plays for commercial production. In the US this has redefined energy markets with substantial demonstrated and producing reserves of on-shore gas from lowpermeability formations.

Figure 1. Prospective onshore gas basins in Australia.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

WATER IN MINING

51

Technical Papers

WATER IN MINING

52

Technical Papers Slater, 2008). In New South Wales coal seams are prospective for gas in the Sydney, Gunnedah and Gloucester Basins (Permian), and the Clarence-Moreton Basin (Jurassic). In NSW, production of CSG commenced in the Sydney Basin at Camden in 2001.

In Victoria, some exploration has been undertaken in the Otway and Gippsland Basins but with mixed or disappointing results (Baker and Slater, 2008). In South Australia, the Arckaringa Basin is prospective, and targets for CSG in Tasmania are being explored in the Fingal-Dalmayne coalfields on the east coast. CSG prospects are less significant for Western Australia; however, exploration is underway at two sites, within the Perth Basin near Busselton and also near Geraldton.

The fortuitous and strategic location of Australia’s major CSG reserves to infrastructure and shipping facilities has led to rapid exploration and development, and in this regard the Bowen and Surat Basin reserves in Queensland are the low-hanging fruit of the industry. In NSW, the adverse regulatory environment has dampened expansion of the existing (small) CSG industry in that State. This is despite the strategically advantageous resource locations and comparatively dry coal formations.

Australian CSG 2P reserves (proven and probable) at the present time are almost fully committed to export (Cook et al., 2013); however, exploration of potential resources will increase demonstrated reserves over time.

Shale gas resources in Australia are significantly less explored and developed than CSG resources. Estimates carry uncertainty and range from 396 trillion cubic feet (TCF) technically recoverable resources (US EIA, 2011) to as high as 1000 TCF (Cook et al., 2013). Many of the more prospective shale gas basins are geographically remote and, with the exception of the Cooper Basin, located away from existing infrastructure and processing facilities.

The Cooper Basin in south-west Queensland and northern South Australia is Australia’s most prospective and commercially viable shale gas target, with 342 TCF of gas in place and an indicated risk-recoverable amount of 85 TCF (CSIRO, 2012).

Production commenced at Australia’s first commercially producing shale gas well (Santos Moomba-191) in 2012 (Hoff,

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

2013). Although remote, the Cooper Basin enjoys the convenience of existing production facilities from conventional gas fields, with established pipelines to the eastern seaboard.

The largest indicated shale gas resources are located in Western Australia, where there are substantial prospects both onshore and offshore, including Mesozoic shales of the Perth and Carnarvon Basins, and Palaeozoic shales of the Canning Basin. These resources (not yet demonstrated as economic reserves) make Western Australia the world’s 5th largest shale gas province (CSIRO, 2012).

Australia also has substantial estimated tight gas resources in place, in particular within the Perth, Cooper and Gippsland basins, but no current certified reserves (Geoscience Australia, 2012). Tight gas production is technology-dependent, however, and it is likely that in the near future technical advances and reduced drilling costs will help lead to the delineation of economic reserves from these deep low-permeability resources.

COMPARISON WITH THE US In the United States, extensive sedimentary basins also host unconventional gas prospects. Significant development has occurred in the Barnett Formation, Haynesville Shale and Marcellus Shale. The Barnett Formation has over 10 years of production in Texas, while development of the extensive Marcellus Shale is progressing rapidly.

Although the development cost for these deep shale targets is high, this is offset by the onshore locations close to industrial and metropolitan centres, a factor that has driven changes in the US energy market, with 40 per cent of

natural gas production now from shale gas reserves (US EIA, 2012).

In Australia, less favourable locations of many shale gas targets, combined with the present low gas prices, means that these resources may not be so easily won. Significant shale gas development in this country will require longer lead times due to the lower population density, limited industrial demand, and high cost of establishing infrastructure such as processing plants, pipelines and shipping facilities in remote areas.

WATER IN CSG AND SHALE GAS CO-PRODUCED WATER FROM COAL SEAM GAS

The fractures (known as ‘cleats’) within a coal seam contain groundwater, with the gas content held to the coal by a pressuredependent process called adsorption. The adsorbed gas can be liberated from the coal seams and mobilised by pumping water to reducing the hydrostatic pressure within the formation. Hence, gas production and water production occur simultaneously. The pumped water is referred to as co-produced water or associated water, and production rates per unit of gas vary provincially, with some basins having greater gas/water ratios compared with others.

Figure 2 shows a typical water production curve associated with a CSG well. Water production is initially high and gas flow low; however, as pumping reduces the formation pressure in the well vicinity, gas flow increases. Over time water production and, eventually, gas flow declines.

Figure 2. Typical CSG gas/water production relationship.

The quality of produced water from CSG target formations is typically poor.

The water chemistry is influenced by the geology and hydrology of the basin, and the characteristics of the coal. Generally, deep CSG target seams contain water that is geologically old and that has acquired hydrochemical characteristics influenced by the host formation. CSG water is commonly of the sodium chloride type, although sodium bicarbonate type waters are also encountered. Total dissolved solids (a measure of salinity) range between a few hundred mg/L to more than 10,000 mg/L (for comparison, seawater has a salinity of around 35,000 mg/L and potable drinking water is usually below 500 mg/L). Trace metals and dissolved hydrocarbons may also be present and some form of treatment is required for many reuse applications.

The main CSG-producing basins in Australia also host extensive agricultural lands and Tertiary and Quaternary shallow aquifer systems that are significant groundwater resources for rural towns, farmers and communities.

The National Water Commission projects that the Australian CSG industry – predominantly in Queensland and New South Wales – could extract in the order of 7,500 gigalitres of coproduced water over the next 25 years, approximately equivalent to 300 gigalitres per year. Dealing with these significant quantities of saline water is one of the main environmental challenges. Water issues require careful management and competent regulation to mitigate both surface environmental impacts as well as social/economic impacts caused by competing resource demands, such as those for town water and irrigation supply.

Nevertheless, if suitably regulated and managed through treatment, and with beneficial uses offsetting existing extractive uses, the gross water balance impacts in these basins are likely to be bearable in the short term and sustainable in the long term. Beneficial use offsets include providing alternative supply to existing groundwater and surface water users, such as irrigators, industrial users, and urban water supply users, through negotiation and regulation.

CO-PRODUCED WATER FROM SHALE GAS

Shale gas differs from CSG in that little produced water is generated as a by-product of gas production.

Chesapeake Energy in the US reports

Figure 3. Typical fraccing fluid composition. long-term produced water from shale gas ranging from 0.6 to 1.8 gal/MMBtu (approximately equivalent to 2.2 to 6.5 megalitres per petajoule), but these estimates are representative of that company’s assets and may differ from Australian shale gas tenements, for which data are not presently available.

Nevertheless, the range is consistent with US Geological Survey estimates of 1.2 to 1.3 gal/MMBtu. It is not possible to develop shale gas resources without some form of well stimulation (hydraulic-fracturing) to increase the permeability of the host formation. In contrast, many coal seam gas targets are sufficiently permeable to enable development without additional stimulation, due to the intrinsically fractured nature of these shallower and weaker rocks.

WATER USE IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (FRACCING) Water usage in hydraulic fracturing operations is well understood based on the extensive experience gained in the US and Australia in recent decades. Large volumes of water-based fraccing fluid in the range of 10 to 30 megalitres (DECC, 2013) are required on average to stimulate a shale gas well prior to production.

As a result, shale gas development is water intensive, but ‘front-loaded’ with little ongoing water requirement (unless additional late stage fraccing is necessary).

Normally little co-produced water is generated, a significant contrast with many CSG projects.

Typically 90 per cent of shale gas water use is incurred prior to gas production (Accenture, 2012). In Pennsylvania in the US, where shale gas has become a substantial component of the energy sector, water consumption by the

industry is less than 0.2% of the total state water use (Accenture, 2012).

However, the relative impact of water use is closely related to available water supply and in arid and semi-arid Australian shale gas environments competition with other freshwater users may be unavoidable.

Despite public misperception that fraccing fluid is a cocktail of toxic chemicals, the reality is generally otherwise and fluid compositions have been evolving over time. In the US, for example, gel-based fluids are being replaced by ‘slickwater’ fluids that incorporate friction-reducing additives (Accenture, 2012).

Figure 3 shows a typical fraccing fluid composition (based on data from Primer, 2009) with the bulk of the fluid (>99%) comprising water with sand or ceramic particles that function as a ‘proppant’ to hold the fractures open following the fraccing event. A range of additives (<1%) are tailored to suit the well and formation, and these include functional chemicals such as biocides, surfactants, acids and inhibitors. In practice, fraccing may involve several stages using a range of different fluid compositions.

Following a fraccing operation, large quantities of ‘flowback’ water may be returned to the surface, comprising a mixture of degraded fraccing fluid and formation water. The water recovery rates vary from well to well and depend on the geology (making it problematic to generalise); however, returns can exceed 75 per cent of the injected fluid.

This flowback water may be returned to the surface rapidly – often many megalitres over times that could range from as little as a few hours to several weeks (Accenture, 2012). Thereafter,

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

WATER IN MINING

53

Technical Papers

WATER IN MINING

54

Technical Papers as gas production rises from the newly stimulated well, these produced water volumes diminish rapidly.

of reservoir pressure is not necessary for unconventional gas plays, where reduction of pressure is necessary to liberate adsorbed gas.

Flowback water contains the legacy of any additives used in the fraccing water, as well as salts and organics leached from the formation, including potential naturally occurring radioactive materials at low concentrations (US EPA, 2013). The high TDS and composition of flowback water from many formations has important implications for reuse and recycling, and the ultimate fate of the water.

The CSG industry faces the greatest challenges, due not only to the high volumes of produced water in most (although not all) CSG developments, but also due to the locations of many developments in agricultural basins where consumptive water issues may exist.

DISPOSAL AND FATE OF WATER Due to the large volume and often poor quality of co-produced water, its management presents significant technical and environmental challenges.

In the conventional petroleum sector, reinjection of co-produced water to maintain reservoir pressures may account for significant volumes, but maintenance

Nevertheless, the industry is gaining experience rapidly as flagship projects achieve environmental approval and commence development. Together with this, regulatory evolution has allowed legislation to adapt to the industry enabling more efficient outcomes. One key change has been the push away from large evaporation basins as a disposal method for co-produced water due to the environmental impacts and land degradation caused by the salt legacy remaining after project completion.

BENEFICIAL USE WATER DISPOSAL

The greatest opportunities for successful water management involve applying treated co-produced water to direct beneficial use, including irrigation re-use, industrial use, livestock watering, farm water supply and supplemented urban supply. Indirect beneficial uses include recharge to depleted groundwater systems, or managed aquifer storage and recovery schemes. In particular, a significant benefit can be had where supply offsets reduce third-party demand on surface or groundwater resources, such as irrigation and urban supply extraction.

A fundamental problem arises where desalination is required to reduce TDS, such as for irrigation or potable reuse.

A range of technologies are applicable, including reverse osmosis and ionexchange, but the salt problem does not completely ameliorate and the secondary

UNDERSTANDING UNCONVENTIONAL GAS In conventional gas production, wells are drilled to target accumulations of free gas that have been trapped over geological time in permeable porous rocks such as sandstones. The gas in these formations has migrated from source rocks (such as organic shales) and become trapped between underlying water and low-permeability ‘seal’ rocks. These traps have typically resulted from faulting, folding or other stratigraphic and structural features. In contrast, unconventional gas is dispersed within predominantly low-permeability formations such as shale, coal and low-porosity or ‘tight’ sandstone. In coal seam gas and shale gas plays, the host formation is also usually the source rock, and hence the gas in these targets has not migrated significantly.

Coal Seam Gas Coal seam gas (also known as coal-bed methane) occurs in geological basins where methane-bearing coal seams occur, usually at a depth of between 200m and 1000m. The produced gas comprises predominantly methane, sometimes with minor ethane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Water content of the coal seams is often very high.

Shale Gas Shale is a low porosity sedimentary rock comprised of clay and silt-sized mineral grains. Shales that are high in organic material – known as black shales – may host commercially economic quantities of natural gas as well as some low-density petroleum liquid. The gas is contained within pore spaces in the rock, in fractures, and adsorbed onto carbonaceous matter (kerogens). Due to the low porosity, the water content of the shale is low.

Gas Play

Tight Gas

Shale Gas

Coal Seam Gas

Rock Type

Sandstone

Organic Shale

Black Coal

Target Depth (m)

>1000

1000 to 4000

300 to 1000

Reservoir Occurrence

Reservoir separate from source

Reservoir in source rock

Reservoir in source rock

Gas Phase

Free gas in pores

Free gas in pores and adsorbed gas

Mainly adsorbed gas

Organic Carbon %

0.01 to 3 (low)

>0.001 (very low)

0.5 to >150 (low to high)

SS

S

SSSSSS

Co-produced Water

Hydraulic Fracturing (Fraccing) Because of the very low permeability of shale (and some coals) to develop these rocks as gas resources, it is necessary to artificially fracture the formation to improve permeability and enable transmission of gas to the well.

This hydraulic fracturing process (well stimulation) involves pumping fluids at very high pressures into the formation at depth to generate fractures in the rock, and in doing so connects the gathering well to a greater extent of gas-bearing formation. During production, gas migrates to the well from the low permeability rock via the fractures. Although essential for shale gas development, hydraulic fracturing is not always necessary for CSG. Many CSG tenements produce economically without well stimulation.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

brine waste stream requires careful management. Solar evaporation is still useful for brine disposal, with the salt recovered for industrial use or refinement (desirable), or ultimately landfill (less desirable). Deep injection of brines to non-resource or saline aquifers is another option.

a tenement, and the relatively short life of CSG projects (20 to 35 years), means that the economics of infrastructure investment for some beneficial uses may be challenging, despite the low cost of the water. As a result of this, and other factors, not all CSG co-produced water may find the highest beneficial use.

Environmental outcomes can be improved with innovative and targeted beneficial uses, particularly in the power generation sector, where water supply from CSG operations can be provided for coal washing, power station boiler feed and cooling tower supply.

NON-BENEFICIAL USE WATER DISPOSAL

Non-beneficial disposal options include deep aquifer injection of untreated co-produced water and discharge to surface water systems. It is noted that the latter can have some beneficial effect where the water supports Limited reliability of supply, caused environmental flows, but salt load must by the moving source of water following be managed, surface water ecosystems progressive gas field development across protected, and Table 1. Water intensity of unconventional gas, partial treatment conventional fossil fuels and biofuels. prior to disposal Energy Intensity Notes may be required.

Fuel Type (ML/PJ) (refer below) SHALE GAS Shale gas (US) (average) 0.33 a WATER Conventional gas (US) 0.35 b DISPOSAL Coal

0.95

c

CSG – Sydney Basin

1.15

d

Crude oil (secondary)

17.3

b

CSG – Bowen Basin

50.4

d

67

d

192.5

d

Ethanol (corn-derived)

250

e

Biodiesel (rapeseed-derived)

4436

f

Biodiesel (soy-derived)

14111

c

Conventional gas (Aus) CSG – Surat Basin

a – US Geological Survey data b – Mielke (2010) c – US Department of Energy data d – RPS (2011) e – Wu et al. (2009) cited in Mielke (2010) f – Berndes (2008) cited in Mielke (2010)

Figure 4. Water intensity of unconventional gas, conventional fossil fuels and biofuels (logarithmic value axis).

In the US large volumes of shale gas water are being increasingly recycled; however, freshwater is still required in large quantity to account for formation loss (imbibition).

In addition, the greater depths and lateral extent of shale gas wells means that freshwater requirements for drilling are greater than for CSG, with attendant recycling/disposal requirement.

Disposal in underground injection wells is the most widely used option in the US for flowback and co-produced water (Accenture, 2012), but the economics of this may differ in Australia. Here, the higher cost and reduced availability

of water in the arid and semi-arid shale gas basins may improve the economics for significant recycling. However, the specifics of basin geology will exert an influence over this, as demonstrated in the US. For example, high rates of recycling are reported for the Marcellus Shale gas fields compared with low rates for the Haynesville Formation, where high TDS (110,000 mg/L) and low returns of flowback water are experienced. At present, data are unavailable to support further comment regarding Australian shale gas basins, due to the infancy of the sector.

WATER INTENSITY OF UNCONVENTIONAL GAS AND THERMAL FUELS The impact of energy resource development on water resources is a primary environmental concern in the parched Australian setting. A useful metric for water usage associated with energy production is water intensity in megalitres per petajoule (1PJ = 1015 joules) of energy content. For context, Australia’s domestic energy consumption (i.e. industry, household energy use and government use, excluding exports) was 4,083 PJ in 2011–12 (ABS, 2014), approximately equivalent to 3.85 TCF of natural gas (based on sales gas conversion rates).

Table 1 and Figure 4 provide data for water intensity of unconventional gas together with conventional fossil fuels and biofuels for comparison.

Table 1 includes both US and Australian data. CSG is variable but comparable in terms of water intensity to conventional gas in Australia. It is important to note the significant difference between the comparatively dry coals of the Sydney Basin with the wet coals of the Surat Basin. Water production per unit of energy differs by more than an order of magnitude between these basins.

The water intensity of biofuels, in comparison, is demonstrated to be very high, while in contrast shale gas ranks very low, requiring a logarithmic scale to adequately display the range of data (Figure 4).

In considering the relative water-intensity differences between energy sources it is important to consider additional factors related to specific projects and energy end uses. One of these factors is whether the water usage accounted for is consumed water (for example, environmental water take for irrigation of biofuel feed crops or for coal washing) or co-produced water. Where CSG developments provide

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

WATER IN MINING

55

Technical Papers

WATER IN MINING

56

Technical Papers beneficial uses of co-produced water that offset existing environmental takes, such as provision of alternative supplies for industrial or irrigation uses, the effective water intensity will be reduced. Consider also that the bulk of the water produced from CSG and shale gas developments is sourced from non-resource formations.

Another factor is the full energy/ end-use lifecycle, and where unconventional gas is used largely for electricity generation, advantages can be had through technology or offsets. For example, water consumption rates for combined-cycle gas turbine power plants are lower than other major technologies such as gas- or coal-fired steam turbine plants, or coal-fired IGCC plants (integrated gasification combined cycle) (Mielke et al., 2010). In addition, development integration may enable coproduced water use in power plant cooling and boiler feed for steam turbine plants.

In contrast, however, where the gas production is destined for offshore LNG markets limited opportunity is available for direct benefits in Australia through full lifecycle offsetting. At present, offshore contract sales represent a significant portion of the Australian coal seam gas market.

OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE FOR THE WATER INDUSTRY AND REGULATORS Significant opportunities will arise as the unconventional gas industry expands over the next few years. These opportunities will include application and development of infrastructure and technology for brine waste stream processing, and supply chains. For CSG the primary opportunities are associated with water treatment and distribution of co-produced water for beneficial use. The potentially greater cumulative impacts of multiple CSG developments provide significant opportunity for the development of regional crystallisation plants to effectively manage brine streams, and to improve opportunity for commercial use of salts as end product, as opposed to landfill. At a large scale, and incorporating innovative technology, such plants may provide reasonable treatment costs to justify research and establishment.

For shale gas, where co-produced water is a relatively small component, the primary opportunities for the water industry may be associated with water supply and flowback water recycling to support

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

First commercial gas well – producing from Devonian shales (New York State)

First hydrofracturing of petroleum well in Kansas

First commercial oil-well drilling in USA

1836 1821

1940s 1859

First producing gaswell in Britain lights railway station in Sussex

First CSG production in Australia – Dawson Valley QLD

1991 1947

Sydney Harbour colliery methane compressed and sold as motor fuel

2012 1996

First horizontal shale gas well in Barnett Shale, Texas

First shale gas production well in Australia – Cooper Basin, S.A.

Timeline of key events in unconventional gas. the ongoing development of well fields.

Injection of brine waste streams from treated flowback water to deep aquifers may remain the most practical solution (consistent with US practice) and have less environmental dis-benefit compared with evaporation basins.

Regulators have had major challenges in recent years to adapt to the CSG developments, and in particular this has precipitated significant legislative and policy change. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (Commonwealth) was amended in 2013 for the referral for assessment and approval of coal seam gas developments that are likely to have a significant impact on a water resource. In Queensland, changes have been made to the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, the Water Act (Qld), the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008, and to a range of other plans, policies and regulations.

For shale gas, regulators can look to the US industry, not to follow US regulatory practice, but rather to leverage the significant data available there and ensure suitable reporting frameworks are emplaced to enable understanding of full lifecycle and cumulative impacts, and to facilitate proactive water resource and waste management regulation.

THE AUTHOR Michael Blackam (email: Michael.Blackam@ coffey.com) is a Senior Principal with Coffey, and a specialist in groundwater and hydrology. He has worked as a consultant across a wide range of sectors including natural resources, mining, coal seam gas, contaminated land and water. His experience in surface water hydrology includes catchment, basin and river analysis, stream flow modelling, and mine-site water balance.

REFERENCES ABS (2009): Australian Bureau of Statistics. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ Lookup/4604.0main+features42011-12#USE%20 OF%20ENERGY (accessed 4 January 2013).

Accenture (2012): Water and Shale Gas Development: Leveraging the US Experience in New Shale Developments. New York.

Baker G & Slater S (2008): The Increasing Significance of Coal Seam Gas in Eastern Australia, in PESA Eastern Australian Basins Symposium III, Sydney.

Cook P, Beck V, Brereton D, Clark R, Fisher B, Kentish S, Toomey J & Williams J (2013): Engineering Energy: Unconventional Gas Production. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies.

CSIRO (2012): Australia’s Shale Gas Resources.

DECC (2013): About Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing. Department of Energy & Climate Change, London.

Geoscience Australia (2012): Unconventional Gas and Water Resources in Australia. Dr Stuart Minchin, Chief, Environmental Geoscience Division, Geoscience Australia.

Hoff D (2013): Moomba 191 and Beyond.

Santos, August 2013.

Mielke E, Anadon L & Narayanamurti V (2010): Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing and Conversion.

Energy Technology Innovation Policy Research Group. Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Primer (2009): Cited in Accenture (2012): Water and Shale Gas Development: Leveraging the US Experience in New Shale Developments. New York.

RPS (2011): Onshore Co-Produced Water: Extent and Management. Australian Government National Water Commission. Waterlines Report No. 54. September 2011.

US EIA (2011): World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States. US Energy Information Administration.

US EPA (2013): Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing. www2.epa.gov/ hydraulicfracturing#wastewater (accessed 5 January 2013).

57

Technical Papers

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FUTURE WATER DEMAND M Haque, A Rahman, D Hagare, G Kibria

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

A significant body of current scientific literature has found that an increase in temperature and change in rainfall patterns around the globe are due to changes in the climate. These changes are expected to affect the water demand pattern and availability of freshwater resources at local, regional and global scales. In addition, population growth, rapid development in urban areas, other competing demands for water and changes in socio-economic conditions will put additional pressure on the water supply, particularly during prolonged dry spells. Therefore, prediction of the potential future impacts of climatic changes on water demand is crucial to take appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change on water supply and, hence, ensure that water demand is met under prolonged drought periods.

Climate change has emerged as an increasing concern among water planners and managers around the globe, as it is likely to change water management tasks by altering the availability of freshwater resources and by changing water demand patterns. Rises in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns are expected to occur in many parts of the world due to the potential changes in the future climatic conditions (IPCC, 2007). These changes are likely to affect the water balance at local, regional and global scales in a negative way, which will make water supply a challenging task for many cities.

This paper evaluates the impact of climate change on residential water demand in the Blue Mountains Water Supply System in New South Wales (NSW). Forecasting is done by a longterm water demand forecasting model developed using a multiple linear regression technique for the period of 2021â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2040. In this study, three climatic scenarios are considered during the forecasting including B1 (low), A1B (medium) and A2 (high) scenarios.

The results of this study suggest that the future climate will have a minimum impact on future water demand in the study area.

However, water demand projections show an increasing trend, which is mainly attributed to the rise in the number of households (dwellings) due to the increasing population in the area. The results of this study will help water planners/managers to carry out effective and efficient long-term planning for the sustainable supply of water under different weather conditions and population scenarios.

Moreover, some other factors such as population growth, increased water demand, rapid urbanisation and water pollution are likely to affect water availability in future. In order to secure the balance between water supply and demand in the changing climate context, a reliable forecast of demand is necessary to identify suitable management alternatives.

Climate changes are expected to have some impacts on water demand as water demand varies with climatic variables to some extent, especially temperature and rainfall. Rainfall and temperature have an influence on outdoor activities, particularly gardening. During hot days and low rainfall periods, more water is required in gardens. Moreover, use of water in swimming pools and for personal hygiene increases during the hotter periods.

Influence of the climatic variables on water demand has been reported by many studies in the literature. For example, Babel et al. (2007) found that rainfall is one of the significant demand variables to predict domestic water demand in Kathmandu, Nepal. Gato et al. (2007) found that temperature and rainfall have a statistically significant correlation with water usage in Melbourne. In a review of the significant variables of domestic water demand,

Corbella and Sauri Pujol (2009) found that climatic conditions are among the major drivers of domestic water demand.

Babel and Shinde (2011) concluded that future water demand in Bangkok could be significantly affected by climate change, as meteorological variables such as temperature, rainfall and relative humidity have a considerable influence on longerterm demand projection. Xiao-jun et al.

(2013) found that future water demand in Yulin City, Northwest China would rise due to changes in climatic conditions, especially rises in temperature.

In Australian cities, water supply is more vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions as it is highly dependent on rainfall and storage capacity of surface water reservoirs (ABS, 2010; ABS, 2012).

However, rainfall in Australia is highly variable (Sahin et al., 2013) and about 50 to 70% of the country is in the semiarid and arid regions where rainfall is very low (Zaman et al., 2012).

During the recent droughts in Australia (2003â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2009), most of the major reservoirs reached critical low water levels, thereby putting water supply at risk. Consequently, different levels of water restrictions, based on the severity, were imposed by the water authorities in many cities to limit residential water consumption to deal with inadequate water supply. For example, the highest levels of water restrictions were imposed in 2007 on around two million people in South-East Queensland, which contributed towards the reduction of their residential consumption from about 450 L/p/d to 140 L/p/d as the dam storage level fell below 40% (QWC, 2010).

The annual average temperature in Australia increased by 0.90C from 1910 to 2011 (CSIRO, 2012) which is higher than the global average increase of 0.70C for the same period (Cleugh et al., 2011).

Most of this increment in temperature has occurred since the 1950s, with the highest increment in the eastern part of Australia by 20C and the lowest

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

CLIMATE CHANGE

A case study for the Blue Mountains Water Supply System

58

Technical Papers

CLIMATE CHANGE

increment in the northwest part by -0.40C (Head et al., 2013). Moreover, from 1957 numbers of hot days and nights have increased, and just the opposite has been observed for the number of cold days and nights (Nicholls and Collins, 2006).

In addition, projection of temperature in Australia indicates that the annual average temperature may go higher by approximately 10C by 2030 relative to 1990, with an increment of about 0.7-0.90C in coastal areas and 1–1.2 0C in inland areas (CSIRO, 2012). By 2050 and 2070, the increment may go up to 2.20C and 50C respectively, under high emission scenarios (CSIRO, 2012).

Significant changes in rainfall have also been observed in Australia since 1950, mainly in northwest Australia, southwest Western Australia, southeast Australia and northeast Australia (Keenan and Cleugh, 2011). An increase in annual rainfall has been observed only in the northwest region, whereas southwest Western Australia has experienced a steady decline in rainfall over the past 30 years; the southeast and eastern parts of Australia have become drier since the mid-1990s, including a reduction in March-May rainfall by 61% (Murphy and Timbal, 2008; Cleugh et al., 2011).

Rainfall in Australia generally shows significant variability from year to year, partly in connection with the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Hennessy et al., 2008). Hot and dry years are likely to be linked with El Niño events in Australia and mild and wet years are likely to be linked with La Niña events (Power et al., 2006). Noticeable increase in the frequencies of El Niño and decrease in La Niña events have been observed since the mid-1970s (Power and Smith, 2007). Moreover, annual average rainfall is expected to be altered by around -10% to +5% in northern areas and -10% to little change in southern areas by 2030, although a high level of uncertainty is present in the predictions, due to the variation in the results of different global climate models (CSIRO, 2012). Projected changes in rainfall are larger in the latter part of this century.

These past changes and probable forecast of climatic conditions have raised concern about meeting the necessary requirements of water supply to the current and future population of Australia. Therefore, impacts of climate change on water demand need to be identified in order to plan for appropriate

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

DEL_CASCADE & DEL_GREAVES

Figure 1. Blue Mountains region and Cascade and Greaves Creeks water supply system (Bluemountainsaustralia, 2013). measures to supply water to the community with a desired level of reliability.

In this study, the impact of climate change on water demand is estimated in the Blue Mountains Water Supply System, NSW. Future water demand up to 2040 is estimated for three different climatic scenarios proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC): B1 (low emission), A1B (medium emission), and A2 (high emission) and for the current climate. In this paper, current climate refers to the average of total rainfall and mean maximum temperature in a monthly time step for the period of 1960 to 2010. More details about the three future climatic scenarios (B1, A1B and A2) can be found in Nakicenovic and Swart (2000). Then the estimated water demand scenarios under the three emission scenarios are compared with the demand projections under the current climate to identify the potential changes due to future climatic conditions. The estimation of future water demand was done by a multiple linear regression model.

STUDY AREA This study focuses on the Blue Mountains region (Figure 1) of New South Wales.

The Blue Mountains Water Supply System services a population of around 48,000 from Faulconbridge to Mount Victoria,

which are considered as Upper and Middle Blue Mountains area (Sydney Catchment Authority, 2009). Data on monthly metered residential consumption and the number of dwellings were obtained from Sydney Water for the period of 1997–2011.

It was found that the single dwelling residential sector (i.e. free-standing houses/semi-detached houses) is responsible for about 94% of residential water consumption, while the multiple dwelling sector (i.e. apartment blocks/ units) accounted for the rest (Figure 2), as around 91% dwellings belong to the singular dwelling sector and the other 9% to the multiple dwelling sector. In this study, climate change impact analysis was done for the single and multiple dwelling residential sectors, separately.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY WATER DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL

In this study, forecasting of water demand was done by a water demand model, which was developed by a multiple linear regression technique using a number of predictor variables (Table 1). Modelling was done to forecast per-dwelling monthly water demand for the single and multiple dwelling sectors separately by two separate water demand models. Detailed

59

Technical Papers

Table 1. Selected dependent and independent variables in developing the long-term water demand forecasting model in the Blue Mountains region.

Description

Y

Monthly metered water consumption of a dwelling in kL

X1

Monthly total rainfall in mm

X2

Monthly mean maximum temperature in 0C

X3

Water usage price in AU$/kL

X4

Water savings from conservation programs in kL/dwelling/month

X5

Water savings from water restrictions in kL/dwelling/month

Dependent variable Independent variables

where ß0 is the model intercept, ß1...n are the regression coefficients, and p is the number of predictor variables.

Data for Y (monthly per dwelling water use in kL) and X3 (water price in AU$/kL) were obtained from Sydney Water for the period January 1997 to September 2011. The monthly metered water consumption values were divided by the number of dwellings to get ‘per dwelling monthly water consumption’. The climatic data X1 (monthly total rainfall) and X2 (monthly maximum temperature) were also gathered from Sydney Catchment Authority for the study area.

Data on approximate average monthly water savings for each of the water conservation programs (e.g. rainwater tank, WaterFix (installation of new showerheads, flow restrictions and minor leak repairs undertaken by a licensed plumber), DIY (Do-It-Yourself) kits (self-installed flow restrictors), water-efficient washing machines and toilets) implemented in the Blue Mountains region during the study period were obtained from Sydney Water.

The average monthly savings of each program were multiplied by the number of participating households in any month to get the total monthly water conservation savings. These monthly total savings were divided by the total number of households in that month to get the ‘per dwelling water conservation saving’ (X4) from all of the conservation programs (Haque et al., 2013).

Water savings due to these water restrictions (X5) during the drought period 2003–2009, were calculated by deducting monthly per dwelling water conservation savings from monthly per dwelling total water savings.

Total monthly per dwelling water savings were estimated by deducting observed water consumption for any month from the base water consumption of that month and then dividing the total savings by the total number of households in that month.

In this study, the period 1997–2002 was chosen as the base consumption period since during these periods no water restrictions were imposed and little participation of the water conservation programs was observed in the study area, which was deemed to be negligible in terms of the water savings quantity.

Based on these growth rates, the number of participating households was estimated for the forecast period 2021– 2040. Thereafter, per dwelling monthly water savings from conservation programs were estimated by the method described in the “Water Demand Forecasting Model” section. Future scenarios of water demand were estimated under no water restriction conditions.

In this study, three possible climatic scenarios were considered, adopting three different emission scenarios: B1, A1B and A2, which represent low, medium and high future emission scenarios, respectively, to identify the potential impacts of climate change on water demand. Each of these scenarios considers future growth of greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol emissions and was developed by the IPCC based on possible changes in global

100% 98% 96% 94%

Multiple Dwelling S Sector

92%

Single Dwelling Sector

90% 88%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

log10Y = ß0 + ß1X1 + ß2X2 + ... + ßnXp (1)

The NSW Government imposed three different levels of water restrictions over three different periods based on the drought severity during the period 2003–2009 to manage the water supply shortages in the Sydney region. Levels 1 and 3 were the most liberal and severe levels of restrictions, respectively (Sydney Water, 2010).

of total residen ntial consumpttion % o

descriptions of the models can be found in Haque et al. (2013). A log-linear form of multiple regression technique was adopted to develop the models. The regression coefficients of the independent variables were estimated by using the ordinary least square regression approach.

The functional form of the log-linear model is given by equation 1:

Probable future values of the predictor variables are needed as input to the developed water demand model to forecast future demand scenarios. From the data it has been found that the monthly growth rate of the number of households is about 0.07 % and 0.17 % for single and multiple dwelling residential sectors, respectively. Based on this growth rate, numbers of single and multiple dwellings were estimated for the period 2021–2040. From the water price data for the period of 1997–2012, it has been found that water price has increased at a rate of AU$0.085/kL/year. The water price was estimated based on this increasing rate for the forecast period. Monthly growth in the number of participating households in each conservation program has been estimated based on the data for the recent two–year period, September 2009–September 2011.

Year Figure 2. Percentage of water use by single and multiple dwelling residential sectors out of the total residential consumption.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

CLIMATE CHANGE

Symbol

FORECAST VALUES OF THE PREDICTED VARIABLES

60

Technical Papers

3150 3100 A1B

3050

A2

3000

B1

2950

Current climate

2900

Year

Figure 3. Projection of water demand under A1B, A2, B1 and current climate conditions for the period 2021–2040.

2040 2039 2038 2037 2036 2035 2034 2033 2032 2031 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021

Current climate B1 A2 A1B

0

5

10 15 20 25 30 Percentage changes as compared to 2010

35

40

Figure 4. Percentage changes in the forecasted water demand for the period 2021–2040 compared to 2010. demographic, economic and technological conditions in the 21st century (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000).

Climate projections (e.g. projection of temperature and rainfall) by CSIRO Mark 3.0 global climate model (GCM) were downscaled by statistical downscaling method to a finer spatial scale (around 5km × 5km) to be used in the forecasting model. These downscaled future climatic data for the Katoomba weather station were obtained from Sydney Catchment Authority for the period 2021–2040.

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ANALYSIS

In this study, forecasting of water demand was done for three climatic scenarios and for current climate with other predictor variables. Then the estimated water demands for future climatic scenarios were compared with the projection of water demand under current climatic conditions to identify the impact of climate change. Here, average of total rainfall in a month and mean maximum

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Percentage changes in average decadal projections for 2030–2040 for B1, A1B and A2 scenarios in comparison to the demand projections with the current climate were found to be 0.16%, 0.25% and 0.38%, which implies that the future water demand would be higher due to the changed climatic conditions but the impact would be negligible.

Percentage changes in the water demand projections in comparison to the observed water demand data in 2010 in the single dwelling sector are presented in Figure 4. It can be seen that forecast water demand indicates an increasing trend during the forecasting period (2021–2040).

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Water de emand (ML/ year)

3200

2850

Year

CLIMATE CHANGE

3250

temperature for the period of 1960–2010 were considered as the current climate.

Forecasting was done for the period of 2021–2040 in a monthly time step and then monthly forecast values were aggregated to obtain the yearly figure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Projections of water demand under three climatic scenarios are presented in Figure 3, where it can be seen that water demand projections under the current climate are quite close to the projections under three other future climatic scenarios, which indicate that future water demand conditions in the Blue Mountains regions would not be affected appreciably by the future climate.

It can also be seen that variations between the three different scenarios are quite small. In a few instances, the predicted value was found to be higher for the A2 scenario among the three scenarios, and in other instances it was lower for A2, which indicated uncertainty in the forecast climatic variables.

Water demand would rise around 33% in 2040 in comparison to the water demand in 2010, with an average increasing rate of 29.79%, 29.23%, 30.03% and 29.38% for B1, A1B, A2 and current climate scenarios, respectively.

These results also indicate a minor impact of future climate on the future water demand in the Blue Mountains region. The forecasted increase in the water demand would be mainly associated with the increase in household numbers in 2040; the single dwelling sector is expected to increase by 28% as compared to 2010.

In order to verify the climate impact on future water demand in the Blue Mountains region, three hypothetical climatic scenarios were also considered to input to the demand forecasting model, which were (i) increase in mean maximum temperature by 10C, and decrease in monthly total rainfall by 10%; (ii) increase in mean maximum temperature by 20C, and decrease in monthly total rainfall by 20%; and (iii) increase in mean maximum temperature by 30C, and decrease in monthly total rainfall by 30% from current climate values.

Forecast water demand results with these three hypothetical climatic scenarios and other two predictor variables were compared with the forecasts under current climate conditions and other two predictor variables for the year 2040. It was found that the changes in the water demand projections were 1.19%, 2.40% and 3.50% for the hypothetical climactic scenario 1, 2 and 3, respectively, compared to the water demand projections under the current climate condition. These results also indicate that there would be minor impact in water demand due to possible future climatic conditions in the Blue Mountains region.

61

Technical Papers ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

300 250 200

A1B

150

A2 B1

100

Current climate

50 0

Year

Figure 5. Projections of water demand under A1B, A2, B1 and current climate conditions for multiple dwelling sector.

Projections of water demand for the period of 2021â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2040 under three different climatic scenarios and current climate conditions for the multiple dwelling sector are presented in Figure 5, where it can be seen that future water demand shows a steady increasing trend.

However, projections with the three climatic scenarios were found to be quite close to the projection with the current climate. Moreover, little variation was found among the projections with the three climatic scenarios.

These results indicate a minor influence of future climate on water demand in the multiple dwelling residential sector.

Percentage changes in average decadal projections for 2030â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2040 for B1, A1B and A2 scenarios in comparison to the demand projections with current climate were found to be 0.09%, 0.12% and 0.21%, which also indicate that impact of future climatic conditions on water demand would be negligible. However, water demand in 2040 was found to be around 70% higher than the observed water demand in 2010, which would be due to the increase in the household numbers in the multiple dwelling sector, which is expected to be around 83% higher than the number in 2010.

CONCLUSION This study examined the impacts of future climate on water demand in the single and multiple dwelling residential sectors in the Blue Mountains region, New South Wales. Three IPCC proposed possible future climate scenarios, namely, B1 (low emission), A1B (medium emission) and A2 (high emission), were considered to estimate the potential impacts of climate change on water demand. Forecasting was done for the period 2021 to 2040 for the single and multiple dwelling sectors, separately.

These estimates were compared with those obtained assuming current

climate conditions (average rainfall and temperature values for the period of 1960 to 2010), to identify the probable impact. The results indicate that the future water demand under climate change scenarios would increase by just 0.09 to 0.38% above the current climatic conditions for both the single and multiple dwelling residential sectors.

Further, water demand projections with the hypothetical climatic conditions (that is, the rise in temperature and decrease in the rainfall by (i) 10C, 10% (ii) 20C, 20% and (iii) 30C, 30% from the current climate) by 2040 showed that the water demand may increase by 1.19%, 2.40% and 3.50%, respectively, under the hypothetical climactic scenario 1, 2 and 3, above the water demand under current climate conditions.

The above results indicate that the impact of potential future climate change on water demand would be negligible for the Blue Mountains area. However, both the sectors have shown an increasing trend in the water demand. These increases are mainly associated with the increase in household numbers, as a result of increasing population. The findings of this study are based on only one global climate model results (CSIRO Mk. 3).

Further research needs to be conducted with the results of other global climate models to gain a better understanding, as there are notable differences in the output of different climate models. The method presented in this paper can be applied to other water supply systems to identify the possible impacts of future climate on water demand.

Disclaimer: Opinions or comments presented in this paper are those of authors only and do not reflect, in any way, those of any of the organisations mentioned.

Water consumption data were obtained from Sydney Water on 4 May 2012. The best available data at the time of study has been used, which may be updated in the near future. The Authors wish to thank Pei Tillman and Frank Spaninks of Sydney Water for their assistance in collating and providing the data. They are also grateful to Lucinda Maunsell and Peter Cox of Sydney Water, and Mahes Maheswaran of Sydney Catchment Authority for their cooperation and assistance.

THE AUTHORS Md Mahmudul Haque (email: m.haque@uws.edu. au) is a PhD student at the University of Western Sydney.

He obtained his BSc and MSc in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. He worked as a project manager in Nokia Siemens Networks BD Ltd before joining UWS and is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP).

Associate Professor Ataur Rahman (email: a.rahman@ uws.edu.au) has over 20 years of experience in water engineering. His research expertise includes hydrologic modelling, water demand forecasting, rainwater harvesting and water quality assessment. He obtained his PhD degree from Monash University in 1993. He is heavily involved in the current revision of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff. He has published over 200 technical papers and received the GN Alexander Medal from Engineers Australia in 2002..

Dr Dharma Hagare (email: d.hagare@uws. edu.au) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney. He has over 20 years of academic and industrial experience in wide-ranging areas of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

He is currently working in the areas of water supply and demand, water and wastewater treatment, recycled water and stormwater management, and risk assessment and management.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

CLIMATE CHANGE

Water d demand (ML/yyear)

350

62

CLIMATE CHANGE

Technical Papers Golam Kibria (email: golam.kibria@sca.nsw. gov.au) holds a Master of Science degree in Computational Hydraulics from Delft, Netherlands and is currently working at Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) as Team Leader Supply System Strategy, where he is accountable for managing the long-term supply system planning. He has extensive experience in water resources planning and management, hydrologic and hydraulic modelling and system analysis. He is also responsible for climate change impact assessment in SCA’s water supply yield.

REFERENCES ABS (2010): Measures of Australia’s Progress.

2010 Ed. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS (2012): 2012 Year Book Australia, Canberra, Australia, The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Babel M, Gupta AD & Pradhan P (2007): A Multivariate Econometric Approach for Domestic Water Demand Modeling: An Application to Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Resources Management, 21, 3, pp 573–589.

Babel MS & Shinde VR (2011): Identifying Prominent Explanatory Variables for Water Demand Prediction Using Artificial Neural Networks: A Case Study of Bangkok. Water Resources Management, 25, 6, pp 1653–1676.

Bluemountainsaustralia.com (nd), Location and maps, viewed 10 February 2013, www.bluemts. com.au/info/about/maps/ Cleugh H, Smith MS, Battaglia M & Graham P (Eds) (2011): Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

Corbella HM & Sauri Pujol DS (2009): What Lies Behind Domestic Water Use?: A Review Essay on the Drivers of Domestic Water Consumption.

Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 50, pp 297–314.

CSIRO (2012): State of the Climate 2012, www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/technical_ report.php Gato S, Jayasuriya N & Roberts P (2007): Forecasting Residential Water Demand: Case Study. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133, 4, pp 309–319.

Haque MM, Hagare D, Rahman A & Kibria G (2013): Quantification of Water Savings Due to Drought Restrictions in Water Demand Forecasting Models, accepted for publication in Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.19435452.0000423 Head L, Adams M, McGregor HV & Toole S (2013): Climate Change and Australia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1002/wcc.255.

Hennessy K, Webb L, Ricketts J & Macadam I (2008): Climate Change Projections for the Townsville Region.

IPCC (2007): Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US. Keenan T & Cleugh H (2011): Climate Science Update: A Report to the 2011 Garnaut Review: Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.

Murphy BF & Timbal B (2008): A Review of Recent Climate Variability and Climate Change in Southeastern Australia. International Journal of Climatology, 28, 7, pp 859–879.

Nakicenovic N & Swart R (Eds) (2000): Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US, 599 pp.

Nicholls N & Collins D (2006): Observed Climate Change in Australia Over the Past Century.

Energy & Environment, 17, 1, pp 1–12.

Power S, Haylock M, Colman R & Wang X (2006): The Predictability of Interdecadal Changes in ENSO Activity and ENSO Teleconnections.

Journal of Climate, 19, 19, pp 4755–4771.

Power SB & Smith IN (2007): Weakening of the Walker Circulation and Apparent Dominance of El Niño Both Reach Record Levels, But Has ENSO Really Changed? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, p 18.

QWC (2010): South East Queensland Water Strategy, City East, Queensland, Queensland Water Commission.

Sahin O, Stewart R & Helfer F (2013): Bridging the Water Supply-Demand Gap in Australia: A Desalination Case Study. Paper Presented at the 8th International Conference of EWRA: Water Resources Management in an Interdisciplinary and Changing Context.

Sydney Catchment Authority (2009): Blue Mountains Water Supply System: Strategic Review.

Sydney Catchment Authority, Penrith, Australia.

Sydney Water (2010): Water Conservation and Recycling Implementation Report, 2009–10. Sydney Water, New South Wales, Australia.

Xiao-jun W, Jian-yun Z, Shamsuddin S, Rui-min H, Xinghui X & Xin-li M (2013): Potential Impact of Climate Change on Future Water Demand in Yulin City, Northwest China.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, pp 1–19.

Zaman MA, Rahman A & Haddad K (2012): Regional Flood Frequency Analysis in Arid Regions: A Case Study for Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 475, pp 75–83.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

63

Technical Papers

CONTINUOUS REAL-TIME MONITORING OF SALT ACCUMULATION IN THE SOIL DUE TO RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION A laboratory column study of soil samples collected from the Hawkesbury campus of the University of Western Sydney MM Rahman, D Hagare, B Maheshwari, P Dillon

ABSTRACT

A salt mass balance showed that the total cumulative leached salt mass was less than the total cumulative applied salt mass, therefore contributing to an increasing pattern of salt mass stored in the soil profile. However, spatial variation of salinity distribution obtained from sensor data was more useful to understand salt movement from depths of 0.1m to 0.35m. During the study period, soil water electrical conductivity at both depths increased by twice the initial value (from 1.0 dS/m to 2.0 dS/m).

A regression equation was developed to predict soil water electrical conductivity from bulk electrical conductivity (ECbulk) and volumetric water content (VWC). The equation predicted the soil water electrical conductivity (ECSW) at a depth of 0.1m with 97% and at a depth of 0.35m with 83% efficiency.

The understanding of salt movement

increased salinity due to the prolonged use of recycled water for irrigation (Dikinya & Areola, 2010; Jahantigh, 2008; Klay et al., 2010 and Adrover et al., 2012).

Keywords: Column experiment, bulk electrical conductivity, soil water electrical conductivity, urban irrigation, Hawkesbury water reuse scheme.

Recycled water has been used as irrigation water in the Hawkesbury Water Reuse Scheme (HWRS) for over 60 years (Aiken, 2006). The HWRS receives treated effluent from Sydney Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Richmond sewage treatment plant and stores it in the Turkey Nest dam. The HWRS has always been under the attention of the scientific community of the Western Sydney region because of its long-term recycled water use for irrigation. Several studies on HWRS have been reported, including healthrisk assessment (Derry et al., 2006), risk perception for using the recycled water for irrigation of sports fields and food production (Derry and Attwater, 2006), development of risk communication toolkit (Attwater et al., 2006), impact of wastewater treatment upgrade on effluent quality and water quality in onsite storages (Aiken et al., 2010), and the statistical analysis of irrigation demand (Stewart, 2006).

INTRODUCTION Recycled water use in irrigation schemes is getting more attention from agriculturists because of its high nutrient content and as part of a sustainable way of reusing wastewater. Despite the significant benefits of recycled water, there are several concerns related to environmental and health risks. One such concern relates to the increase of salinity, including sodicity and bicarbonate hazards in irrigated fields.

Salinity is the concentration of soluble salts in water that are measured as total dissolved salts or electrical conductivity of soil water. From an environmental point of view, sodium and chloride are the most concerning constituents of recycled water, as they are more likely to remain as ions in soil water and contribute to the effects of salinity on plant growth (NRMMC, 2006). As water evaporates from soils or is used by plants, salts are left behind. This phenomenon increases the concentration of salts in the soil over time, which can adversely influence the amount of water a plant takes up from the soil due to the osmotic effect it creates.

As the recycled water contains elevated levels of salt, there is a potential risk of salt increase in the vadose zone when it is used for irrigation. Several studies have reported

A limited study has been conducted on the changes in soil properties due to recycled water irrigation (Aiken, 2006).

However, no study has so far been conducted on the salt accumulation in the soil of paddocks that have been under the HWRS and subjected to recycled water irrigation. This paper presents the results of a column study that was conducted to understand the salt accumulation at different depths.

Results from this study can be used to simulate the salt accumulation in paddocks, and to assess the risk of salinisation of the soil.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

Resource recovery by recycling wastewater is important for achieving a sustainable and secure water supply in urban areas. However, the current, but limited, literature suggests that there is an increased risk of salinity in the vadose zone of soil that is irrigated with recycled water. This is due to the presence of increased levels of salt in the recycled water compared to that of town water supplies. A laboratory column study was carried out to investigate the accumulation of salt in the vadose zone due to continuous application of recycled water over a period of 100 days. Soil samples were collected from a paddock located in the Hawkesbury campus of the University of Western Sydney, Australia.

This paddock has an irrigation history of over 18 years using recycled water as part of the Hawkesbury Water Reuse Scheme.

from this column study will assist in developing salt management strategies for this paddock, which may be applied for other fields that are irrigated with recycled water.

64

Technical Papers The GS3 sensors were connected to a data logger (CR800, manufactured by Campbell Scientific) for continuous data collection. Two soil water samplers (Slim tube, 150mm in length, manufactured

by Soil Moisture Equipment Corp) were installed at the same depths as the GS3 sensors. All three columns were packed with a bulk density of 1,340 kg/ m3. Figure 1 shows the schematic of the C3 column set-up. Recycled water (RW) was collected from Turkey Nest dam on the Hawkesbury campus. The electrical conductivity of the RW was measured as 0.831 dS/m.

Table 1. Physico-chemical properties of soil.

Soil properties

Value

Sand (%)

88.1

Silt (%)

6.0

Clay (%)

5.9

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

Texture class

Loamy Sand

Bulk density (kg/m3)

1340

Volumetric water content (g/g)

0.09

EC 1:5 (dS/m)

0.04

EC of saturation extract, ECe (dS/m)

0.38

The objective of this study was to investigate salt accumulation at two depths of soil columns due to recycled water irrigation under controlled conditions. To achieve this objective, salinity in terms of bulk electrical conductivity was measured, and the relationships between bulk and soil water electrical conductivity were established and statistically tested. In addition, the data related to spatial distribution of soil salinity with respect to time were collected and analysed.

done to monitor salt accumulation at these two specified depths (Figure 1).

The whole set-up was established inside the laboratory, which is located at the Kingswood campus of the University of Western Sydney.

The GS3 sensor measured the dielectric permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity and temperature of the soil. The dielectric permittivity value was then converted to volumetric water content by the Topp et al. (1980) equation:

MATERIALS AND METHODS EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The soil sample was collected from paddock D21 (S 33°37.478’ E 150°45.706’), which has 18 years of irrigation history (from 1990 to 2008) under the Hawkesbury Water Reuse Scheme. A soil sample was collected from 0–0.2m depth by an open pit method and transported to the laboratory; roots and worms were removed, and it was sieved through a 2.36mm sieve. The soil was then air dried at room temperature for three days. The air-dried samples were tested for different physical and chemical analysis (Table 1). Results shown in Table 1 are considered as the initial condition of the soil packed in the column.

The experiment was conducted using 0.6m long columns constructed of 2.5mm thick plexiglass tube. The columns had an external diameter of 160mm. A 200 x 200mm baseplate was used at the bottom of each column. The base plates were perforated with 0.5mm diameter holes.

A rubber mesh (mesh size < 800 µm) was used at the bottom of the columns. Three columns (C1, C2 and C3) of the same dimensions were prepared. One of the three columns (C3) was fitted with two dielectric sensors (GS3, manufactured

by Decagon Inc.) at depths of 0.1 and 0.35 m from the soil surface. This was

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

(1) Where, θ = Volumetric water content [L3L-3] and ε = Soil permittivity [unitless] Equation 1 is widely used for mineral soils. The detailed specification of a GS3 sensor can be found in Decagon (2011).

Figure 1. Schematic of C3 column set-up.

Meteorological parameters such as temperature, relative humidity and wind speed were monitored continuously by a weather station.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The experiment was conducted for a period of 103 days. Irrigation (recycled) water was applied at the same frequency as in practice. Irrigation water was applied three times per week. On average 97.2mm of irrigation water was applied per month.

Leached water at the bottom of each column was collected, the volume was measured and it was analysed for electrical conductivity by an EC meter (HACH Inc). Soil water samples were collected from the column as shown in Figure 1, by the samplers, at the end of each week. The soil water samplers were operated at a suction of 60-80

65

Technical Papers kPa to collect soil water samples at the specified depths. Volume and electrical conductivity of collected soil water samples were measured. Electrical conductivity of the soil water was temperature compensated according to USSL (1954).

Using bulk electrical conductivity as measured by the GS3 sensor and the soil water electrical conductivity as determined by the extraction of soil water, a regression equation was developed between the soil water electrical conductivity and bulk electrical conductivity. The developed regression equation was compared with the Rhoades et al. (1976) equation, widely used to convert ECbulk to ECSW, which is given as:

Where, T is a soil-specific transmission coefficient to take into account the tortuosity of the flow path as water content changes (=a x VWC + b, where a and b are constants), ECS is the electrical conductivity of dry soil. Constants a and b were determined by plotting (ECbulk – ECS)/(ECSW x VWC) vs. VWC (Rhoades et al., 1976).

The performances of both the developed regression equations and Equation 2 were evaluated by calculating mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE).

The mean absolute error between observed and predicted values is given by: (3) Where, Oi represents observed values; Pi represents predicted values; and N is the number of observations. Similarly, the RMSE can be calculated by:

(4) MAE and RMSE indicate the presence and extent of outliers between the modelled and observed values (Ramos et al., 2011). Prediction applicability of the regressed equation was verified by Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) analysis.

The Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency was calculated as follows:

(5) Where, Ō is the average of observed values. The range of NSE lies between 1.0 (perfect fit) and -∞. An efficiency of lower than zero indicates that the mean

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Day Maximum Temperature (Deg. C)

Minimum Temperature (Deg. C)

Relative humidity (%)

Wind speed (km/day)

Figure 2. Meteorological conditions measured in the laboratory during the study period. value of the observed data would have been a better predictor than the model (Krause et al., 2005).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meteorological conditions affect water evaporation from soil, which is one of the dominating factors of salt accumulation in soil profiles. Figure 2 shows the meteorological conditions recorded in the laboratory, where the experiment was conducted. Generally, there is not much variation in the minimum and maximum temperatures. Minimum temperatures ranged between 18°C and 23°C, and maximum temperatures ranged from 19.6°C to 24.9°C. A significant variation in relative humidity was observed, which ranged between 30% and 60%. The wind speed in the laboratory depends on the flow from the air-conditioner in the laboratory. Working hours for the airconditioner in the laboratory were between 6am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and the air-conditioner did not operate during weekends. This is the reason for some zero values for the wind speed in Figure 2.

SALT MASS BALANCE

Conventionally, in the field, leaching fraction is used to calculate the salt build-up in the soil (Ramos et al., 2011).

Leaching fraction represents the fraction of applied water that is above the crop water requirements and is calculated by dividing the volume of leached water out of the plant root zone by volume of infiltrating irrigation water (USSL, 1954).

The cumulative amount of applied salt (g/m2) was calculated by multiplying total dissolved solids (TDS) in recycled water (g/ m3) by the volume (m3) of recycled water applied. Salt concentration in applied recycled water was measured as electrical conductivity (dS/m) and converted to TDS by using a multiplication factor of 640 (Stevens et al., 2008). Leached salt load (g/m2) was calculated in a similar manner.

Leached salt load from all three columns varied with a standard deviation of 0.4 to 2.7 g/m2, except for the first day, which was 6.9 g/m2 (results not shown). This variation in the leaching of salt can be attributed to variations in the packing of the columns. On an average, 26% salt applied in 100 days was leached below 0.5m. Leaching of salt is considered as one of the irrigation management options by field managers. In this study, an average leaching fraction of 0.13 was recorded during the study period.

Throughout the study period, the total cumulative leached salt mass (averaged for three columns) was less than the total cumulative applied salt mass (Figure 3).

Thus, total cumulative salt mass stored in the soil profile showed an increasing pattern. The salt mass balance provided a picture of salt accumulation in the columns, but was unable to evaluate the absolute salinity level and the spatial distribution of salinity throughout the soil profile (Thayalakumaran et al., 2007).

Data recorded from the sensors was useful in determining the spatial distribution of

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

(2)

Temperature, humidity and wind speed

70

66

Technical Papers SOIL WATER ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AS A MEASURE OF SOIL SALINITY

350

Salt mass load, g/m 2

300 250 200 150

100 50 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Day of study Cumulative drained salt load (g/m2)

Cumulative stored salt (g/m2)

0.20

40

0.18

35

0.16

30

0.14 0.12

25

0.10

20

0.08

15

0.06

10

0.04

5

0.02

Irrigation water applied (mm)

Figure 3. Cumulative salt mass applied, salt mass leached and salt mass stored in the column profile (averaged over the results from three columns).

ECbulk (dS/m)

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

Cumulative Applied salt load (g/m2)

0

0.00 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Day Irrigation water (mm)

ECbulk (dS/m) at depth 0.35 m

ECbulk (dS/m) at depth 0.1 m

Figure 4. Dependency of ECbulk on volumetric water content. salt accumulation and is discussed in the later sections of this paper.

BULK ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT

Results of bulk electrical conductivity measured by GS3 sensors at depths of 0.1m and 0.35m are presented in Figure 4. The fluctuation of ECbulk was strongly influenced by applied irrigation water and, thus, by volumetric water content. As shown in Figure 4, initially (up to day 9), relatively higher amounts of recycled water were applied. These higher applications were required to soak the soil in the column.

In the first nine days, 270mm of recycled water was applied, after which the columns were kept dry for 13 days. This period helped to understand more clearly the impact of drying and wetting of columns and

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

its subsequent effect on spatial and temporal variation of bulk electrical conductivity (Figure 4). Knowledge of spatial distribution of VWC aids in the understanding of when to apply irrigation water (not shown in Figure 4). During the study period, moisture content at depth 0.1m reduced by 45% (from 0.22 to 0.12) and at depth 0.35m by 14% (from 0.29 to 0.25). This result is expected because the top portion of the column is subjected to more evaporation than the bottom portion.

The measured ECbulk was dependent on VWC. As expected, the ECbulk increased when the VWC increased and viceversa. As such, ECbulk is not a proper representative of salt accumulation in the soil. Therefore, ECbulk was converted to soil water electrical conductivity, which is a more acceptable measure of soil salinity (Malicki & Walczak, 1999).

Water obtained by soil water samplers was measured for electrical conductivity.

The variation of ECSW for two depths is shown in Figure 5. In both depths, an increasing pattern of soil water electrical conductivity over time was observed.

The measured ECSW was higher at a depth of 0.1m compared to a depth of 0.35m. ECSW increased substantially at 0.1 m depth between five and 60 days then stabilised. ECSW at 0.35m depth was stable until about 70 days, then increased gradually to 100 days. That is salt accumulation shifts from shallower to deeper in the profile and ECSW is higher in shallower depth due to lower volumetric water content due to evaporation. The ECSW increased about 1.9 times from its initial value (from 1.0 to 1.9 dS/m) at a depth of 0.35m and about 2 times (from 1.0 to 2.0 dS/m) at a depth of 0.1m.

Although the results show an increasing pattern of ECSW (Figure 5), this is not high enough to affect the growth of pastures commonly harvested at the D21 paddock of HWRS. Salinity tolerance thresholds of pastures (in terms of ECSW), including clovers and ryegrass, vary from 3.0 to 11.2 dS/m (NRMMC, 2006), which is well above the observed soil water electrical conductivity. However, over the long term, it is possible that the soil water electrical conductivity may reach or go above the lower limit of 3 dS/m.

It should be noted that, in practice, due to the occurrence of rain at regular intervals, the increase in soil water electrical conductivity may not be as drastic as was observed in the column study. Nevertheless, depending on the recycled water application and rainfall intensity and frequency, there could be some increase in soil salinity due to irrigation with recycled water. The accumulations over longer periods of irrigation are shown via mathematical modelling in Rahman et al. (2013).

Interestingly, the calculated ECSW values at different depths are significantly different to the measured ECbulk at these depths. As shown in Figure 4, ECbulk was higher at a depth of 0.35m than 0.1m.

On the other hand, ECSW values at 0.1m depth were higher than those at 0.35m.

This is because of the dependency of ECbulk on VWC. Therefore, this necessitates development of an equation for converting ECbulk to ECSW while considering VWC. This soil-specific equation is needed because,

67

Observed and predicted ECsw (dS/m)

Technical Papers

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Day Observed Ecsw at depth 0.35 m(dS/m) Predicted Ecsw at depth 0.35 m(dS/m) Lower threshold value of salinity tolerance for pasture ECsw at 0.1 m based on Rhoades et al. (1976)

Observed Ecsw at depth 0.1 m(dS/m) Predicted Ecsw at depth 0.1 m(dS/m) ECsw at 0.35 m based on Rhoades et al. (1976)

Figure 5. Observed and predicted ECSW at depths 0.1m and 0.35m by Equations 5 and 6, and by Rhoades et al. (1976).

(6)

(7) The p-value of both predictor variables, i.e. ECbulk and VWC of Equation 6, are zero. For Equation 7, the p-values were 0.07 and zero for ECbulk and VWC, respectively. The low p-value suggests the predictors as a meaningful entity in these regression equations. Equations 6 and 7 were compared with observed ECSW visually and statistically. Figure 5 shows spatial and temporal variation of proposed regressed equations for the prediction of ECSW. The statistical parameters are reported in Table 2 for Equations 6 and 7. The values of R2, MAE and RMSE are showing

Equations 6 and 7 were compared with Rhoades et al. (1976) equations, which were applied at depths 0.1 and 0.35m to predict the ECSW (Figure 5). The constants a and b of transmission coefficient T in Equation 2 were determined as -0.885 and 0.592 for the depth of 0.1m, and 4.575 and -0.6274 for the depth of 0.35m. The value of ECS was determined as 0.001 dS/m when the soil was very dry.

The ECSW predicted by Rhoades et al. (1976) equations also showed good agreement with measured ECSW (Table 2). However, the developed regression Equation 6 was found to have better predictability for ECSW at depth 0.1 m for the specific soil type used in this study.

Again, the regressed Equations 6 and 7 were developed with data collected during real-time monitoring, which is advantageous compared to laboratory batch experiment constructing a calibration equation.

The real-time monitoring is useful for efficient irrigation scheduling. The

Table 2. Statistical analyses of developed regressed and Rhoades et al. (1976) equations.

Depth 0.1m

Depth 0.35m

Predicted

by Eq. 6

Predicted

by Rhoades et al. (1976)

Coefficient of correlation, R2

0.97

0.94

0.83

0.81

Mean absolute error (MAE)

0.05

0.11

0.09

0.09

Root mean square error (RMSE)

0.07

0.16

0.12

0.12

Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE)

0.97

0.86

0.83

0.84

Statistical Parameter

Predicted Predicted

by Rhoades

by Eq. 7 et al. (1976)

The determined empirical parameters of the Rhoades et al. (1976) equation and the proposed regression equations at two different depths will be useful in implementing real-time monitoring for irrigation in the D21 paddock.

CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the results of a column study that was conducted to investigate the salt accumulation in the soil of a paddock that uses recycled water for irrigation. The results of the study indicate the accumulation of salt within the soil. The salt accumulation within the top 0.1 m of the soil layer appears to be higher than the lower depths of the soil. This means the top layer of the soil has a tendency to retain higher amounts of the applied salt load.

However, it is necessary to continue the monitoring over a longer period of time in order to identify the long-term accumulation rates.

Sensor-based real-time continuous monitoring of salinity was found to be more effective than the conventional leaching method in estimating the salt accumulation at different depths. Bulk electrical conductivity was dependent on volumetric water content; hence soil water electrical conductivity was used to represent salinity. A regression equation was developed to predict soil water electrical conductivity using information on bulk electrical conductivity and VWC. The equation predicted the ECSW at the depth of 0.1m below the soil surface with 97%

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

good agreement between regressed and observed values. The NSE values show better predictability for the top part of the soil as compared to the bottom part.

during the real-time monitoring of the irrigation field, information on only ECbulk and VWC is obtained from the data logger, and an equation is needed, showing the relationship between ECSW and ECbulk.

Regression equations for depths 0.1m and 0.35m are developed as below:

sensors can be used to determine some important aspects of VWC monitoring of irrigated sites, which are important for irrigation scheduling. By implementing an efficient irrigation schedule it is possible to save one or two irrigations per year (Wood et al., 1998). The current study has indicated that along with VWC, it is necessary to consider the salt concentration within the soil while developing the recycled water irrigation schedule. Using the sensor data on both VWC and salt concentrations, it is possible to develop more appropriate irrigation schedules with the recycled water. Through the real-time monitoring, if it is found that the salt levels are very high, it may be necessary to use a large quantity of recycled water to flush down the salt so that the salt concentration at the monitoring depth is within the desired level. However, there may be some concerns related to sensor installation and cost, which need further investigation.

68

Technical Papers accuracy. This study provides some insight into different tools that can be used for real-time monitoring of salt accumulation in the soil due to recycled water irrigation.

It is possible to use some of the sensors that are available in the market for close monitoring of salt accumulation in the soil.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Authors would like to acknowledge the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, for providing support for the research reported in this manuscript.

The lead author also acknowledges the support of CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Program through a postgraduate research top-up award.

RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION

THE AUTHORS Muhammad Muhitur Rahman (email: muhit. rahman@uws.edu.au) is a PhD Candidate in the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, NSW. He currently works in the area of application of Bayesian Belief Network for risk assessment and management, and use of recycled water for urban irrigation.

Dr Dharma Hagare (email: d.hagare@uws.edu.au) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney. He has over 20 years of academic and industrial experience in a wide range of areas of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He has successfully completed several Risk Assessment and Management projects including Environmental Management Plans for Mines and use of Recycled Water, and wastewater treatment projects.

Professor Basant Maheshwari (email: b.maheshwari@uws.edu. au) is in the School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, NSW. He has over 30 years of research experience in water management, irrigation, environmental management and regional water resources planning. His work involved modelling and analysing the water cycle for long-term water resource planning at regional level and examining the implications of social, economic, cultural, policy and institutional aspects of water cycle management.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Dr Peter Dillon (email: peter.dillon@csiro.au) leads the CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship’s Sustainable Water Systems Stream in CSIRO Land and Water, SA. He has 25 years of research experience in surface watergroundwater interaction, groundwater quality protection from diffuse and point sources and agricultural water reuse. He is the founding Chairman of the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) Commission on Management of Aquifer Recharge.

Model Assessment, Advances in Geosciences, 5, pp 89–97.

Malicki MA & Walczak ET (1999): Evaluating Soil Salinity Status from Bulk Electrical Conductivity and Permittivity, European Journal of Soil Science, 50, pp 505–514.

NRMMC (2006): Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1).

Rahman MM, Hagare D, Maheshwari B & Dillon P (2013): Modelling Salt Accumulation in an Oval Irrigated with Recycled Water, In Piantadosi J, Anderssen RS & Boland J (eds), MODSIM2013,

REFERENCES

20th International Congress on Modelling and

Adrover M, Farrús E, Moyà G & Vadell J (2012): Chemical Properties and Biological Activity in Soils of Mallorca Following Twenty Years of Treated Wastewater Irrigation. Journal of Environmental Management, 95, pp S188–S192.

Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society

Aiken JT, Derry C & Attwater R (2010): Impact of Improved Recycled Water Quality on a Sydney Irrigation Scheme, Water Journal, 37, 4, pp 86–90.

Aiken JT (2006): A Soil Microbial Response to Urban Wastewater Application – Bacterial Communities and Soil Salinity, PhD Thesis.

Attwater R, Aiken JT, Beveridge G, Booth S, Derry C, Shams R & Stewart J (2006): An Adaptive Systems Toolkit for Managing the Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme, Desalination, 188, pp 21–30.

Derry C, Attwater R & Booth S (2006): Rapid Health-Risk Assessment of Effluent Irrigation on an Australian University Campus, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 209, pp 159–171.

Derry C & Attwater R (2006): Risk Perception Relating to Effluent Reuse on a University Campus, Water Journal, 33, pp 57–62.

Decagon Devices Inc (2011): GS3 Operator’s Manual. www.catec.nl/folders/Decagon/GS3Manual.pdf Dikinya O & Areola O (2010): Comparative Analysis of Heavy Metal Concentration in Secondary Treated Wastewater Irrigated Soils Cultivated by Different Crops. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 7, pp 337–346.

Jahantigh M (2008): Impact of Recycled Wastewater Irrigation on Soil Chemical Properties in an Arid Region. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11, pp 2264–2268.

Klay S, Charef A, Ayed L, Houman B & Rezgui F (2010): Effect of Irrigation With Treated Wastewater on Geochemical Properties (Saltiness, C, N and Heavy Metals) of Isohumic Soils (Zaouit Sousse Perimeter, Oriental Tunisia).

Desalination, 253, pp 180–187.

Krause P, Boyle D & Bäse F (2005): Comparison of Different Efficiency Criteria for Hydrological

of Australia and New Zealand, December 2013, pp. 2730–2736. ISBN: 978-0-9872143-3-1. www. mssanz.org.au/modsim2013/L9/rahman.pdf.

Ramos TB, Simunek J, Goncalves MC, Martins JC, Prazeres A, Castanheira NL & Pereira LS (2011): Field Evaluation of a Multicomponent Solute Transport Model in Soils Irrigated with Saline Waters, Journal of Hydrology, 407, pp 129–144.

Rhoades JD, Raats PAC & Prather RJ (1976): Effects of Liquid Phase Electrical Conductivity, Water Content, and Surface Conductivity on Bulk Soil Electrical Conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 40, pp 651–655.

Stevens DP, Smolenaars S & Kelly J (2008): Irrigation of Amenity Horticulture With Recycled Water: A Handbook for Parks, Gardens, Lawns, Landscapes, Playing Fields, Golf Courses and Other Public Open Spaces.

Arris Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Stewart J (2006): Assessing Supply Risks of Recycled Water Allocation Strategies, Desalination, 188, pp 61–67.

Thayalakumaran T, Bethune MG & McMahon TA (2007): Achieving a Salt Balance – Should it be a Management Objective?, Agricultural Water Management, 92, pp 1–12.

Topp GC, Davis JL & Annan AP (1980): Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content: Measurement in Coaxial Transmission Lines, Water Resources Research, 16, pp 574–582.

USSL (1954): Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook, 60.

Wood M, Malano H & Turral H (1998): RealTime Monitoring and Control of On-Surface Irrigation Systems, Final Report. npsi.gov.au/ files/products/national-program-sustainableirrigation/er980345/er980345.pdf

69

Technical Papers

THE URBAN AGRICULTURE REVOLUTION Implications for water use in cities JD Ward, PJ Ward, CP Saint, E Mantzioris

ABSTRACT Urban agriculture accounts for almost one-fifth of global food production, contributing to food security and livelihoods for many people in the developing world. Non-commercial urban food production – in household backyards, schools and community gardens – is also a fast-growing activity in developed countries due to rising food costs and greater awareness of the health and social benefits from fresh, local and largely organically produced fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, commercial food production in the periurban fringe remains under threat from urban encroachment due to ongoing greenfield property development.

This paper addresses the large knowledge gap relating to water consumption in urban food production.

We first explore the theoretical extra water use (per capita) demanded by a realistic selection of fruit and vegetable crops grown in Adelaide, Melbourne, Hobart and Perth. We then extend this to a hypothetical practical irrigation rate that is – plausibly – less efficient than the theoretical crop water use, but more consistent with irrigation practice in urban gardens. We conclude that although urban water use would increase substantially, in principle the surplus volume of recycled wastewater and stormwater should be sufficient to offset the growth in water demand from urban food crops. Moreover, we find that

INTRODUCTION Urban agriculture (UA) accounts for almost one-fifth of global food production (van Veenhuizen, 2007) and contributes to food security and livelihoods for many people in the developing world. Non-commercial urban food production – in household backyards, schools and community gardens – is also a fast-growing activity in developed countries due to rising food costs and greater awareness of the health and social benefits from fresh, local and largely organic fruits and vegetables (Dixon et al., 2009).

Commercial food production in the peri-urban fringe has long been under threat from conversion to residential property due to ongoing urban sprawl (Houston, 2005). This leaves urban areas dependent on food sourced from increasingly distant agricultural land (Edwards and Mercer, 2010). UA is viewed as having a role in increasing the food security of modern cities, prompting theoretical studies of the potential for future cities to become self-reliant in certain foods (Gladek, 2011; Grewal and Grewal, 2012).

In 2011–2012 in Australia, the agriculture industry consumed almost six times as much freshwater as households (ABS, 2013a), so it is reasonable to postulate that a considerable quantity of extra water may be required if cities are to internalise a significant proportion of their food supply in the future. In the developing world, this ratio is much higher and UA competes with already scarce drinking water supply in cities; as a result, many growers use untreated wastewater to irrigate crops (FAO, 2010).

On the other hand in the developed world, some argue that the convenience of reticulated water in cities actually gives UA a competitive advantage over rural areas where farmers often have to

develop, test and maintain their own water supplies – for the urban farmer, at least in the US, “all they need to do is turn on the faucet” (Satzewich and Christensen, 2011).

Despite its increasing prominence in the developed world, there is a paucity of data regarding the water required to support widespread growth of UA. In particular, it is unknown whether the scaling up of urban food production would result in a costly increase in mains water consumption.

Some have contended that urban gardeners are inherently more efficient than commercial horticultural growers (Holmgren, 2005). There are good reasons to expect that urban food production might be more water efficient, for instance due to intensive practices such as mulching, drip irrigation and the creation of sheltered environments that may not be practical or cost-effective on a large scale. Food gardens in Australian cities (especially coastal cities) may also appear to be more water efficient simply because they tend to be situated in areas of higher rainfall than much of the irrigated horticulture located in, for instance, the semi-arid Murray-Darling Basin.

On the other hand, there are also reasons to expect that UA may be less water efficient than large-scale commercial production, which can afford overheads such as soil moisture monitoring and precise irrigation scheduling. Lilienfield and Asmild (2007) found that excess water use on farms in the US was markedly higher on smaller land holdings, indicating that larger holdings are better able to regulate their irrigation in keeping with theoretical crop water requirements. Moreover, urban producers are generally irrigating a diverse polyculture, with different crops and microclimates leading to widely variable water use requirements across their garden. It seems unlikely that a typical urban gardener would

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

AGRICULTURE & FOOD

There is a paucity of data regarding resource inputs – in particular irrigation water – required to support urban agriculture. As such, it is unknown whether the scaling up of urban food production would result in an impractically large increase in mains water consumption. On the other hand, this may create a much-needed demand for surplus irrigation-quality treated stormwater and wastewater that is currently discharged to the sea in many cities.

certain crops may simply be uneconomic in an urban setting, due to the high costs of either mains or recycled water.

70

Technical Papers

Table 1. Crop types, expected yields and dietary contribution.

Expected yield (kg/m2/yr)

Dietary food group

% minimum intake per square metre

Orange

1.91

Fruit

1.3%

Peach

0.62

Fruit

0.50%

Crop

Pear

2.01

Fruit

1.9%

Plum

0.68

Fruit

0.40%

Broccoli

1.46 †

Green and brassica vegetables

5.0%

Cauliflower

1.47

Green and brassica vegetables

4.0%

Green beans

0.51

Green and brassica vegetables

1.7%

Lettuce (cos)

2.32

†

Green and brassica vegetables

5.0%

Spinach

0.98

†

Green and brassica vegetables

2.8%

0.14

Nuts and seeds

0.013 serves ††

4.16 †

Orange vegetables

10%

Pumpkin

1.42

Orange vegetables

4.8%

Garlic

1.2

Other vegetables

17.2%

Tomato

4.8

Other vegetables

9.7%

Almonds Carrot

Yield for these crops assumes two planting cycles per year †† Minimum intake for this food group is listed as 0 serves (Dietitians Association of Australia, 2011) †

AGRICULTURE & FOOD

apply water accurately at the different rates needed to match these differing water use requirements.

Monitoring the water use efficiency of UA is difficult. Urban food gardens tend to share a water meter with a building (such as a house, school or community centre) without differentiating irrigation water use from overall consumption, and thus without providing any feedback of water use information to the gardeners themselves. Moreover, records of crop yields – if recorded at all – are generally the private information of individual gardeners and are, therefore, not widely available.

In the absence of data collected by urban growers, in this paper we predict the irrigation that would theoretically be required to deliver a specific level of food security in several southern Australian cities, under a standard set of assumptions. The cities chosen (Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth and Hobart) are broadly similar in terms of a temperate climate. We use readily available data sources for expected yields of crops typical of urban gardens, and link these to theoretical crop water use figures to determine the overall water footprint.

We also modify the predicted water use to simulate a watering regime more typical of practical urban irrigation.

item with its expected yield. Fruit and vegetable yields are assumed to be equal to Australian average production taken from FAOSTAT (2013). For each crop type, the dietary food group (Dietitians Association of Australia, 2011) is also listed.

The final column represents the extent to which one square metre of growing space could contribute to the minimum daily intake of that food group. Intake is expressed in terms of dietary serves, where a serve is the quantity required to deliver a specified number of kilojoules; the energy delivered per serve for each food group is described by the Dietitians Association of Australia (2011). Energy content for each food item is from NUTTAB (2010).

Based on Table 1 we establish a plausible, hypothetical urban garden assuming a size of approximately 40m2 per capita. The garden is designed to deliver a significant but balanced dietary

contribution across the various food groups – the expectation is that the garden could deliver approximately 25% self-sufficiency in fruits and vegetables (with the exception of starchy vegetables), plus a small quantity of nuts. The proposed allocation of land is given in Table 2, and is used as the test-bed for water consumption calculations in four cities (Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne and Hobart).

In our first estimate of minimum water use in the food garden, we adopt the widely used FAO56 method (Allen et al., 1998) to determine theoretical crop water requirements. The method is briefly summarised as follows.

Monthly data for reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and rainfall from the Bureau of Meteorology are averaged by location over the four most recent full years for which data are readily available (2009– 2012). For consistency, in each city under investigation the representative weather data are taken from the city’s airport.

Crop factors are available (Allen et al., 1998) for all fruits and vegetables in this analysis. For crops that can be grown at different times of year, the starting month is varied within an appropriate range (Grover, 1977) until the minimum irrigation rate is found.

The irrigation rate (in L/m2) is divided by the yield (kg/m2) per crop, giving an irrigation water footprint (litres of irrigation water per kilogram of product).

An inherent assumption in this analysis is that observed average crop yields (e.g. from FAOSTAT, 2013) can be expected to coincide with the theoretical crop water requirements from FAO56.

A second method of predicting water use in UA is presented, building on the results of the first method, but attempting to simulate a more realistic approach to irrigation in a garden environment. Here, we assume that the gardener irrigates uniformly at a “modified irrigation rate”

Table 2. Allocation of area (per capita) in hypothetical urban food garden.

Total area allocated † (m2)

% daily intake provided (approx.)

Fruit (Orange, Peach, Pear, Plum)

20

20%

Green and brassica vegetables (Broccoli, Cauliflower, Green beans, Lettuce, Spinach)

7.0

25%

Food group (crops grown)

METHOD

Nuts and seeds (Almonds)

5

0.05 serves

For this analysis we consider a set of common fruits and vegetables that could plausibly be grown in urban gardens in southern Australia. Table 1 shows each

Orange vegetables (Carrots, Pumpkins)

4

30%

1.6

20%

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Other vegetables (Garlic, Tomatoes) †

We assume that the area allocated to a food group is divided evenly among its constituent crops

71

Technical Papers

Table 3. Planting months to give minimum crop water use in each city.

Planting month† for minimum water Crop

Adelaide

Melbourne

Hobart

Perth

Almonds

Sep

Sep

Sep

Sep

Green beans

Feb

Sep

Oct

Aug

Broccoli (winter)

Mar

Sep

Sep

Jul

Broccoli (summer)

Dec

Apr

Jan

Mar

Carrot (winter)

Aug

Aug

Jun

Aug

Carrot (summer)

Mar

Mar

Feb

Apr

Cauliflower

Mar

Mar

Aug

Mar

Garlic

Sep

Oct

Oct

Sep

Lettuce (winter)

Jul

Jul

Jul

Jul

Lettuce (summer)

Apr

Apr

Apr

May

Oranges

Jul

Jul

Jul

Jul

Peach

Sep

Sep

Sep

Sep

Pear

Sep

Sep

Sep

Sep

Plum

Sep

Sep

Sep

Sep

Pumpkin

Aug

Aug

Oct

Aug

Spinach (winter)

May

May

Aug

Jun

Spinach (summer)

Sep

Oct

Apr

Mar

Tomato

Aug

Sep

Sep

Aug

For perennial crops, e.g. fruit and nut trees, this is the month that irrigation is assumed to start

Table 4. Theoretical irrigation footprint of crops grown in different cities.

FAO56 irrigation water requirement (L/kg) Crop

Adelaide

Melbourne

Hobart

Perth

Almonds

6186

3679

3529

7950

Green beans

494

233

420

337

Broccoli (winter)

179

140

399

378

Broccoli (summer)

877

470

452

349

Carrot (winter)

75

73

88

59

Carrot (summer)

255

150

65

268

Cauliflower

88

92

165

186

Garlic

569

396

389

609

Lettuce (winter)

40

64

22

14

Lettuce (summer)

39

53

24

12

Oranges

318

161

151

402

Peach

1453

868

819

1829

Pear

483

298

277

604

Plum

1325

791

747

1668

Pumpkin

151

84

170

142

6

57

47

6

Spinach (summer)

322

163

102

0

Tomato

113

94

90

119

Spinach (winter)

The irrigated area is assumed to be the total area planted to vegetables, plus the area of all fruit trees in leaf (i.e. deciduous trees are assumed to not be irrigated during winter). The modified irrigation rate reflects the gardener’s likely response to seasonal variations, while recognising the intrinsic difficulty in applying spatially variable theoretical irrigation rates across a diverse, smallscale polyculture.

The overall water footprint is calculated for each crop in the same way as in the theoretical method above, except that now the modified irrigation rate is aggregated over each crop’s growing season to determine its effective irrigation rate (L/m2). In this simplified study, we assume that crop yields remain constant irrespective of water applied, and we must acknowledge that this is one of numerous knowledge gaps in UA.

RESULTS Table 3 gives the starting month for each crop considered in the analysis.

A number of vegetables are able to be grown twice per year and are notionally referred to as “summer” and “winter”, although the planting months were varied to give minimum overall water use and are not always strictly in summer or winter as a result.

Table 4 shows the results of the theoretical (FAO56) irrigation requirement for each crop. The crops with the highest water demand are the fruit and nut trees, due to a combination of a long irrigated season (240 days), relatively high crop coefficients and generally lower yields than vegetables. The notable exceptions are oranges and pears, which both have significantly higher recorded yields than the other trees. For almonds (by far the highest water footprint), it should be noted that this food has a much greater nutritional density (i.e. energy and protein per unit mass) than any of the other fruit and vegetable crops.

Due to their relatively high reference evapotranspiration and low summer rainfall, Perth and Adelaide have generally much higher water requirements than Melbourne and Hobart.

Table 5 gives water footprint figures based on the modified irrigation rate.

The pattern observed across the cities (with Adelaide and Perth requiring more

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

AGRICULTURE & FOOD

†

that varies by month according to the highest theoretical water application rate (L/m2) of all of the crops in the garden for that month.

72

Technical Papers

Table 5. Modified irrigation footprint of crops grown in different cities.

Modified irrigation water requirement (L/kg) Adelaide

Melbourne

Hobart

Perth

Almonds

8073

5172

5007

8744

Green beans

998

563

562

844

Broccoli (winter)

654

338

537

688

Broccoli (summer)

981

662

647

887

Carrot (winter)

205

110

142

166

Carrot (summer)

326

216

142

355

Cauliflower

325

176

292

342

Garlic

590

398

392

645

Lettuce (winter)

285

157

165

272

Lettuce (summer)

262

162

147

292

Oranges

751

469

459

806

Peach

1823

1168

1131

1974

Pear

562

360

349

609

Plum

1662

1065

1031

1800

Pumpkin

374

248

270

410

Spinach (winter)

384

219

278

763

Spinach (summer)

567

394

489

262

Tomato

141

101

98

154

irrigation than Melbourne and Hobart) is more pronounced than in the theoretical case. With the modified irrigation rate, winter-growing crops that theoretically needed little to no irrigation now receive irrigation because the gardener is assumed to be watering indiscriminately across the entire planted

area based on the crop with the highest water requirement.

For our hypothetical food garden (see Table 2), the modified irrigation rates can be applied to determine overall water consumption each month. The resultant irrigation rates are shown in Figure 1.

200 Modified irrigation rate (L/day)

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Adelaide

Melbourne

Hobart

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

0 Jan

AGRICULTURE & FOOD

Crop

Perth

Figure 1. Modified irrigation rate (per capita) for a planted area of hypothetical food garden (25m2 of fruit and nut trees and approximately 10m2 of seasonal vegetables).

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

The most dramatic feature of this graph is that in all cities there is a marked drop in water use from May to August. This occurs because the deciduous trees (peach, pear, plum and almond) do not require water during these months and the remaining crops have low water requirements at this time of year. It is also interesting to note that in the other months, the modified irrigation rate stays relatively constant at about 140–160 L/ day in Adelaide and Perth, and about 80–100 L/day in Melbourne and Hobart.

Finally, in Table 6 we show the overall water use and cost of water in our hypothetical food garden. Baseline water consumption is based on 2011– 2012 per-capita water consumption (ABS, 2013a) and an assumed 2.6 people per household (national average). In this analysis Adelaide has by far the highest irrigation water cost due to a combination of high price and high crop water demand. It is interesting that Perth, despite having the highest water requirement of all four cities, has an overall irrigation cost comparable to that of Melbourne, due to its low water prices. Hobart has only a single, comparatively low water price for its mains water, and coupled with its low crop water use, the cost of growing food in this city is by far the lowest of the four.

DISCUSSION It should be noted that several factors may point to this analysis being overly pessimistic with respect to water use in UA. First, as a result of applying extra water (as in our modified irrigation rate), the yield for a number of crops may be higher than the assumed average yield. Moreover, in an intensive ecological polyculture system such as “permaculture” (Mollison and Holmgren, 1978), it may be possible for deep-rooted plants to capture and utilise surplus irrigation water after it has drained past the root zone of adjacent shallow-rooted crops, leading to conservation of water use efficiency by the whole system, despite apparent over-irrigation of individual components.

Notwithstanding these possibilities, we contend that the modelling approach presented in this study (using yields based on commercial production and irrigation based on standard crop water requirements) remains a reasonable first attempt to quantify the likely water footprint of urban food production, given the paucity of data on this subject.

73

Technical Papers CONCLUSIONS

Table 6. Cost of irrigating a hypothetical food garden in different cities.

Adelaide

Melbourne

Total fruit & veg produced (kg/yr) Baseline consumption per household (kL/yr)

Hobart

52.2 187.2

145.6

283.4

Additional irrigation per capita (kL/ yr)

38.7

24.5

24.3

Total household consumption (kL/yr)

287.9

209.3

346.7

Water price ($/kL)

$3.23

$3.07

$0.92

$125.15

$75.27

$22.40

$2.40

$1.44

$0.43

Total irrigation cost per capita ($/yr) Average produce cost ($/kg) From the results of our analysis, Adelaide clearly emerges as a poor performer in terms of sustaining urban fruit and vegetable production. The combination of local climate and water pricing causes significant differences between cities, with the cost of irrigating a food garden in Adelaide some six times higher than an equivalent food garden in Hobart. It should be noted, however, that the lower evapotranspiration in Melbourne and Hobart may lead to lower crop yields than the average yields assumed here, which has not been quantified in this initial treatment.

In all four cities, even with our modest hypothetical food garden, the predicted increase in overall household water demand is substantial, ranging from 22% in Hobart to 53% in Adelaide. This suggests that – notwithstanding the issue of watering costs to the gardener – the widespread uptake of UA could have quite significant implications for city-wide water use if reticulated mains water is to be relied upon.

This analysis has assumed that garden irrigation occurs as an additional water demand on top of existing household consumption. On the other hand, Holmgren (2005) proposes that historically a significant proportion of urban water consumption has been used to sustain inedible landscapes

At this point it is worth considering alternatives to mains water for urban irrigation. Rainwater tanks, while popular, deliver surprisingly expensive water. In a study by Marsden Jacob Associates (2007) it was shown that the combined cost of the tank, plus pump, plumbing, electricity and ongoing maintenance leads to highly variable effective costs of rainwater that can exceed mains water prices. On the other hand, recycled water – either large reticulated schemes or on-site reuse such as greywater systems – may provide a hopeful alternative.

In Adelaide, as an example, recycled water is available in certain locations, with a price of $2.03/kL (2013–2014 prices), offering almost 40% savings over mains water. The water recycling capacity in Adelaide in 2012 was over 76GL (SA Government, 2013), but less than 25GL pa has been utilised in recent years (NWC, 2013) with the remainder discharged to sea. Ignoring issues of distribution, the surplus 51GL of recycled water would theoretically be sufficient to irrigate the equivalent of 1.3 million of our hypothetical food gardens – sufficient for every resident in Adelaide to make a modest contribution to food security.

Nationally, the average proportion of sewage that is treated and supplied as recycled water is 15%, half the rate of recycling in Adelaide (NWC, 2013). This suggests that there may actually be a synergy between widespread uptake of UA – with its significant water requirement – and large-scale wastewater recycling schemes in need of increased demand.

Comparing the four southern-most capital cities in Australia we have found that, particularly in Adelaide, the combination of a dry climate and high water prices may make urban food production uneconomic. Lowcost alternative water sources such as recycled water would improve costeffectiveness, providing the grower can ensure food safety when irrigating with such sources. It is interesting to note that the simulated increase in per-capita water demand due to our hypothetical food garden could be readily met by an existing per-capita surplus of recyclable wastewater, providing this water could be distributed to the gardens at a sufficiently low price.

Further research is needed to validate theoretical studies such as this one, using data on irrigation practices in urban food production, crops grown, yields obtained, and the effectiveness of water-efficiency measures such as mulching. There is also a strong opportunity for such research to be extended into evaluating alternative, low-cost water management strategies such as greywater reuse and simple bioretention swales.

Urban agriculture is growing in popularity worldwide and even in small gardens there is great potential for households seeking to improve their access to safe, nutritious, seasonal food.

In this context, the current paper has shown that it remains critically important, especially in dry climates such as that of southern Australia, to remain cognisant of the high water requirements – and

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

AGRICULTURE & FOOD

Nonetheless, based on these figures (which do not include other costs such as fertiliser or compost), it is questionable whether garden produce grown in Adelaide could compete with retail prices. This may be a recent phenomenon; water prices in Adelaide rose almost 70% from 2007 to 2011 to cover the costs of water security measures such as the desalination plant (Engineers Australia, 2010). Many older backyards in Adelaide still contain remnant fruit trees that would have been irrigated more cost-effectively when water prices were lower.

(particularly lawns) and that it is appropriate to view urban agriculture as a more productive reallocation of this water. However, this spare water capacity may be diminishing, as in recent years many households have taken steps to reduce garden watering (ABS, 2013b) due to water restrictions and rising water prices.

In the absence of realPerth world data available for urban food production, we have investigated the 330.2 water use requirements 41.3 of a hypothetical urban 437.5 food garden providing approximately 25% of $1.84 minimum dietary intake $75.92 of fruit and vegetables. $1.45 Our calculations provide a useful first step in quantifying the likely impact of widespread urban food production on water supplies. We find that our hypothetical food garden would increase household water demand by around 20– 50%, and demonstrates the importance of considering the local climate and water price structure, as well as the types of garden crops being irrigated throughout the year.

74

Technical Papers resultant high costs – of growing food plants. If urban agriculture is to scale up sustainably in dry cities such as Adelaide, there is a need to optimise both the selection of fruit and vegetable crops and the irrigation method for water and cost efficiency.

THE AUTHORS Dr James Ward (email: james.ward@unisa.edu.au) is a Lecturer in Water and Environmental Engineering at the University of South Australia, whose research interests include Urban Agriculture and Permaculture.

Peter Ward (email: peter. ward@unisa.edu.au) is a Research Assistant in the School of Natural and Built Environments in the University of South Australia, working in Urban Agriculture and Natural Resources Management.

Professor Christopher Saint (email: christopher.saint@ unisa.edu.au) is a Water Quality expert and Director of the SA Water Centre for Water Management and Reuse at the University of South Australia.

Dr Evangeline Mantzioris (email: evangeline. mantzioris@unisa.edu.au) is a Lecturer in Nutritional Sciences at the University of South Australia, whose research interests include the Food-Environment Nexus.

REFERENCES ABS (2013a): 4610.0 Water Account, Australia 2011–2012, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS (2013b): 4602.0.55.003 Environmental Issues: Water Use and Conservation, Mar 2013, Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D & Smith M (1998): Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56 (FAO 56), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), Rome, Italy.

Accessed online (3-12-2013), www.fao.org/ docrep/x0490e/x0490e00.htm Dietitians Association of Australia (2011): A Modelling System to Inform the Revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.

Report to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Commonwealth of Australia.

Edwards F & Mercer D (2010): Meals in Metropolis: Mapping the Urban Foodscape in Melbourne, Australia, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 15, 2, pp 153–168.

Engineers Australia (2010): Infrastructure Report Card 2010 South Australia, accessed online (2-12-2013), www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ infrastructure-report-card/south-australia FAO (2010): Water Management for Urban and Peri-Urban Horticulture, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), Rome, Italy, 2010. Accessed online (25 Nov 2013), www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/ fao_urban_agri_factsheet.pdf FAOSTAT (2013): Statistical Division, FAO. Database accessed online (July–August 2013), faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/ download/Q/*/E Gladek E (2011): Polydome: High Performance Polyculture Systems, InnovatieNetwerk, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Grewal SS & Grewal PS (2012): Can Cities Become Self-Reliant in Food? Cities, 29, 1, pp 1–11.

Grover H (1977): The Australian Vegetable Grower’s Diary, Thomas Nelson (Australia) Limited, Melbourne.

Holmgren D (2005): Garden Agriculture: A Revolution in Efficient Water Use, Water Journal, 32, 8, pp 4–6.

Houston (2005): Re-valuing the Fringe: Some Findings on the Value of Agricultural Production in Australia’s Peri-Urban Regions, Geographical Research, 43, 2, pp 209–223.

Lilienfield A & Asmild M (2007): Estimation of Excess Water Use in Irrigated Agriculture: A Data Envelopment Analysis approach, Agricultural Water Management, 94, pp 73–82.

Mollison BC & Holmgren D (1978): Permaculture One: A Perennial Agricultural System for Human Settlements, Transworld Publishers, Melbourne.

NUTTAB (2010): Nutrient Tables for Use in Australia, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, online database accessed July-August 2013, www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/ monitoringnutrients/nutrientables/ NWC (2013): National Performance Report 2011–2012 – Urban Water Utilities, Report by the National Water Commission, March 2013, ISBN 978-1-922136-15-2.

SA Government (2013): SA Strategic Plan, Target 74. Recycled Water, resource accessed online (2-12-2013), saplan.org.au/targets/74-recycledwastewater Satzewich W & Christensen R (2011): SPINFarming Basics: How to Grow Commercially on Under an Acre, ISBN: 978-0-615-38409-2. van Veenhuizen R (2007): Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture, FAO Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Service, Rome.

Tenix. Leaders in sustainable engineering water solutions.

Tenix provides cradle-to-grave engineering services for water infrastructure delivery, including project management, design, construction, commissioning, operations and maintenance.

Our in-house design team provides strategic planning, detailed design and commissioning with a specialisation in water, recycling and wastewater treatment plants.

As a leader in sustainable engineering water solutions we are the first in Australia to receive an (IS) Infrastructure Sustainability design rating for two Wastewater treatment plants in Queensland.

TX592 – 0114

www.tenix.com WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Follow us on LinkedIn

75

Technical Papers

THE VICTORIAN DESALINATION PLANT’S WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM An overview of the design and construction of the Wonthaggi desal project W Roshan, J Xenophontos, R Boreham, G Chevrier, O Shahin

ABSTRACT The Victorian Desalination Plant is the largest desalination plant built in Australia.

The Public Private Partnership project was awarded to AquaSure in July 2009; AquaSure then contracted the Thiess Degrémont Joint Venture to deliver the design, construction and commissioning.

Thiess Degrémont subcontracted the water transfer pipeline and the high voltage cables to a joint venture between themselves and Nacap Australia Pty Ltd, a specialist pipeline constructor.

The design and construction began under an accelerated engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning (EPCC) program.

The scope for the EPCC of the water transfer system began simultaneously with that of the desalination plant. The water transfer system enabled the desalinated water to be transferred from the plant in Wonthaggi to a Melbourne Water network connection at Berwick and, ultimately, to Melbourne Water’s Cardinia reservoir.

Precision planning by the project team was critical to the successful management of simultaneous challenges throughout the project delivery phases, including: • Implementing an intensive community and stakeholder engagement program to minimise the impact on the community;

• Undertaking a thoughtful procurement strategy and construction program to manage long lead items;

The approach taken by the multidisciplinary team meant that the project was delivered to the highest quality, meeting contract and stakeholder requirements and with an outstanding safety record.

• Completing engineering in accordance with project requirements and obtaining certification under an independent review process to allow procurement and construction to commence;

This paper highlights the major challenges in delivering this critical infrastructure from engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning points of view.

• Ensuring the requirements of multifaceted durability were achieved;

INTRODUCTION

• Ensuring stringent environmental guidelines were achieved;

• Designing and implementing largescale traffic management plans to ensure the smooth delivery of the many thousands of construction components and minimise impact on roads and traffic; • Planning for construction of the pipeline in flood-prone areas with varying geology, topography and conditions (such as acid sulphate soils) to ensure compliance with regulations.

Australia recently experienced one of its worst droughts in recent history.

Across the eastern seaboard of Australia, existing water resources that were primarily sourced from open water catchments were diminishing. At the same time, threats from bushfires were increasing, with Victoria experiencing its worst bushfires in a century. This, in turn, directly affected water supplies in several towns and impacted a third of Melbourne’s water supply catchments, without threatening the city’s two major storages.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

DESALINATION

The scope of the EPCC included the approximately 2m-diameter mild steel cement-lined (MSCL) transfer pipeline over an 84km length with a capacity of 200 GL per annum; transfer pump station to convey up to 150 GL per annum; booster pump station; surge mitigation system to withstand pressures of up to 3,000 kPa and vacuum conditions; 87km of 220kV highvoltage below-ground electrical cables in trefoil configuration; two separate fibre optic cables and appurtenances along the pipeline easement.

Figure 1. An aerial view of the Wonthaggi plant.

76

Technical Papers The decision was made to build a desalination plant at Wonthaggi in Victoria. To date it is the largest desalination plant in Australia, with a guaranteed capacity of 150 GL per annum and with future expansion available to 200 GL per annum.

The project was contracted by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Capital Projects Division under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to AquaSure. AquaSure in turn contracted Thiess Degrémont Joint Venture (TDJV) to deliver the design, construction and commissioning of the infrastructure. The water transfer system, which was the main link between the desalination plant and connected water authorities, was subcontracted by the Thiess Degrémont Joint Venture and the Thiess Degrémont Nacap Joint Venture.

PROJECT OVERVIEW The Victorian Desalination Project is one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken in Victoria.

The plant is located on the outskirts of the Wonthaggi township 135km southeast of Melbourne. Construction began in September 2009. The engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of the project involved a complex and challenging scope of works. The project’s personnel peaked at 4,500, some 800 of whom were on the pipeline easement. The project construction site covered over 500 hectares of land and water. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the site.

The project had four key delivery areas: • Marine intake/outlet

DESALINATION

• Desalination plant • Transfer pipeline • Power supply.

The marine intake/outlet component comprises a 4m-diameter, concretelined 1.2km inlet tunnel, a 4m-diameter 1.5km outlet tunnel, 200 GL per annum seawater lift pump station/outlet structure, and the screen and feed pump station sized to 150 GL per annum.

The desalination plant is divided into three modular trains, each of 50 GL per annum capacity, under one roof. The main treatment process includes a screen and feed station, pre-treatment utilising dual media pressure filtration (DMPF), two-pass reverse osmosis and posttreatment/remineralisation.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

The transfer system starts downstream of the remineralisation process where desalinated water is transferred via large glass reinforced pipes to two 35 ML treated water storages (TWS). The transfer pump station (TPS) pumps water from the TWS into the 84km underground transfer pipeline (of approximately 2m diameter MSCL) to Cardinia reservoir. The pipeline contains seven delivery points (DP), which allow water to be transferred to four connected water authorities, and Melbourne Water’s network at connection point 1 (CP1).

Two one-way surge tanks (OWST) protect the pipeline from surge pressures, while an inline booster pump station (BPS) will assist the TPS for flows above 100 GL/yr. At CP1, a pressurereducing station with a capacity of 325 ML/d supplies the local Melbourne Water network. There are 10 water-monitoring stations and 350 appurtenances such as air valves and drain valves.

Melbourne

Cardinia Reservoir

Cranbourne Yard KP 87

Facilitate transfer of 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 and, ultimately, 200 GL/ yr of desalinated water to Cardinia Reservoir and delivery points;

2.

Allow reverse-flow operation from Cardinia Reservoir by gravity when not pumping desalinated water to regional areas via the delivery points.

The combined pipeline and power supply easement extends from the desalination plant to Clyde. From Clyde, the pipe and power easement splits. The pipeline easement continues to KP84 (DP1) at Berwick where it connects to the Melbourne Water (MW) network and the high voltage (HV) power easement extends a further 9km west to Cranbourne terminal station where it connects to SPAusnet’s power network.

The high-voltage power cables are buried in trefoil formation where they connect to the desalination plant terminal station. The cable system comprises 72 individual trefoiled sections (216 lengths of cable) ranging from 900m to 1300m.

The power supply system is equipped with a transformer station, a compensating reactor station and a connection site at Cranbourne terminal yard. Figure 2 shows the pipe and power alignment.

The project had five key delivery milestones:

KP 78

DP7

Booster Pump Station Power Transformer Station

DP3 DP2

DP4 P4

French Island

Power Reactor Station KP 37.3

KP 29 29.7 One Way Surge Tank

DP6 KP 10.3 One Way Surge Tank

KP

Water Delivery Point Transfer Pipeline High Voltage Cables Kilometre Point

DP5

KP 0 D Desalination li ti Plant Pl

Wonthaggi

Figure 2. Pipe and power alignment.

1.

Preliminary commercial acceptance (PCA) marking completion of 50 GL/yr water treatment capability, the entire transfer system, the entire power system, including testing and commissioning;

2.

Commercial acceptance (CA) marking the completion of the entire 150 GL/ yr water treatment capability, including testing and commissioning;

3.

Reliability testing finalisation (RTF).

This milestone marked the completion of the testing of the plant operating at full capacity over a defined period and commencement of the defect liability period;

4.

Operation and maintenance (O&M phase): commencement of the 27-year operation and maintenance phase;

5.

Close-out: marking completion of the construction activities.

The main function of the transfer system is to: 1.

KP 84

DP1 D P1 - B Berwick i k

THE REVIEW PROCESS A key factor of a PPP project and a major challenge to an accelerated program is the design review process. This process was necessary to ensure the project met the intended scope and requirements.

The design review process had two major stages – the concept/preliminary design and the detailed design review and approval. Figure 3 shows the formal stages of the design review.

77

Technical Papers ENGINEERING A matrix structure was developed to integrate disciplines. TDJV subcontracted the design services to a joint venture of PB and Beca (PBB). EPCC integration was fundamental to ensure design, procurement, construction and commissioning were fully co-ordinated and functional.

Figure 3. Key formal stages of the design review process.

The design review sequence was: 1.

A rigorous internal review by the design team with a multitude of sign-offs;

2.

Review by the Design Reviewer (DR) engaged independently of the design team;

3.

Review by the Proof Engineer (PE), who was responsible for the structural aspects of the design;

4.

Review by the Independent Reviewer and Environmental Auditor (IREA), who was jointly appointed by DEPI and AquaSure.

Each party had a defined timeframe to review the design. Three to five days was the typical timeframe for each party to review and respond sequentially.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

This built on the work of DEPI prior to the contract award in 2009, which established a Council Liaison Group; this was subsequently transformed into a Community Liaison Group (CLG) after the award of the contract and expanded to include community representatives, AquaSure and its D&C contractor, joining DEPI and the three relevant councils.

The CLG continued until late 2013 and was independently chaired. A separate strategy (and dedicated team) was developed for the O&M phase.

As part of early planning works with stakeholders, a streamlined process for the hand-back of third-party assets affected by the project, known as Returned Works, was established with the aim of achieving an efficient handover process at project completion.

The engagement approach sought to establish a collaborative relationship to understand and manage each party’s expectations. This process was described in a process map showing key activities and milestones that each asset owner agreed to and signed off at the start of the project. This step was critical to minimise disruption and rework.

Engagement with landowners and third-party asset owners during the D&C phase was structured into three key stages: design, construction and project completion (Returned Works). The first stage provided stakeholders with the opportunity to review the design to assess their needs and provide input.

The construction phase involved close cooperation and coordination with asset owners. The Returned Works phase was in two key stages: Stage One provided asconstructed drawings for asset owners to review and sign off, noting any exceptions to be rectified; Stage Two of this process required acceptance of the reinstatement works and returning of the asset.

The design team peaked at some 500 personnel project wide. Engineering resources were spread across different offices around Australia, New Zealand and France (Degrémont). More than one million hours of design services were booked to the entire project. An additional 397,000 hours were booked to engineering site services during the construction and commissioning phases.

PROCUREMENT An overarching procurement strategy proved to be an important factor during the engineering, procurement and construction phases. Procurement of high-cost items and critical path items was closely managed by a dedicated team. The pumps were manufactured outside Australia. Having a quality control team monitor their production at the manufacturing plant ensured that progress and quality expectations were met.

DESALINATION

Effective community and stakeholder engagement was identified as an integral and critical part of successful project delivery to ensure the project’s objectives were met. A comprehensive strategy was developed, including a dedicated community and stakeholder team for the design and construction (D&C) phase.

During the D&C phase, stakeholders included directly and indirectly affected landowners and third-party asset owners whose assets were likely to be affected by the project, as well as local community members. The early engagement of these stakeholders aimed to ensure their necessary input was available at the design phase.

Safety, environment, quality, program and cost were critical success factors to deliver the design to expectations.

Processes such as safety in design, environmental assessment and robust cost planning were implemented throughout the design phase by the EPCC team.

Figure 4. Pipeline construction.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

78

Technical Papers CONSTRUCTION Construction of the transfer system was divided into three main areas: facilities; pipeline; and power supply; which began within three months of the project award.

Key activities at this initial stage included: • Engagement with some 125 directly affected landowners; • Engagement with third-party asset owners, including local councils, waterway managers, road managers and third-party minor asset owners; • Detailed survey of the easement;

Figure 5. Key pipeline EPC dates.

• Dilapidation survey; • Additional geotechnical investigation for pipeline design and building foundations; • Traffic management plan for major haulage activities; • Construction of access roads; • Dewatering sections of the right of way; • Establishment of a complex EBA agreement; • Hiring of significant numbers of project personnel in a challenging timeframe; • Creation of management plans.

Safety was a key consideration for the project. More than 18 million man hours were worked on the project overall, 2.3 of them on the transfer system, all with an outstanding safety record without any major injuries.

DESALINATION

EPCC CHALLENGES Management of EPCC priorities was an important factor to achieve program efficiency, as priorities were in a state of dynamic change either due to weather, access, procurement or review process.

Targeted scheduling was critical to balance EPC priorities. The design management team was required to be flexible and efficient in delivering design on time. An example where this worked well was the design delivery strategy for the pipeline. Figure 5 illustrates a simplified program as at October 2009, indicating design completion in May 2010.

The construction start date was fixed for February 2010, given time available to complete the works to achieve the PCA milestone. With a fixed construction start date and associated personnel and plant and equipment on stand-by, it meant the pipe had to be procured at least six weeks earlier to fit in with the

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Figure 6. Transfer system schematic. manufacturing timeline. To procure the pipe, the design had to be complete

by December 2009. This was the biggest engineering challenge faced to reduce the design program by some 18 weeks to meet procurement and construction targets. At the same time the construction team was recruiting fast, mobilisation was progressing, and clearing and grading of the pipeline route had already started.

An EPCC delivery strategy was adopted to manage this challenge. It included the restructure of the design team and design delivery packages.

One dedicated design team focused on completing preliminary design in four weeks and a separate team was established to complete the detailed design. Matching skills with tasks improved efficiency. A small team of EPCC was also deployed to review the design simultaneously to minimise delays and improve efficiency in the process.

A value engineering process was also put in place to ensure project objectives were met efficiently. Cost planning, environmental assessment and community impact reviews were key parts of this process.

SYSTEM HYDRAULICS Transfer system hydraulics assessment covered the entire system from Wonthaggi to Cardinia Reservoir, including 13.2km of existing MW DN1700 pipeline from DP1 at Berwick to Cardinia Reservoir.

System hydraulics were needed to finalise the design of the pipeline, followed by pipeline structural design to commence procurement. Extensive hydraulic modelling analyses were carried out to assess various scenarios, including a range of pipeline friction factors, given the pipeline is a dualpurpose system with pumped flow from Wonthaggi and gravity flow from Cardinia Reservoir. Figure 6 shows the transfer system schematic and hydraulic profile.

A key criterion in designing the water transfer pipeline was the pipeline friction factor. Hydraulic assessments were carried out based on different friction factors, flow rates, operating levels and combinations of all. Friction factors ranging from 0.03mm (new pipe during commissioning) to 0.3mm (aged pipeline) were analysed for both pumping and gravity flow of the system.

Pipeline suppliers and operators were also consulted to ensure an optimum hydraulic efficiency was achieved.

79

Technical Papers The water hammer, transient and surge mitigation system design was complex. Firstly, the pipeline profile was challenging, with the highest points in the first part where the pressure wave magnitudes were the greatest.

Secondly, there were stringent project requirements in terms of pressure and shock waves at MWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CP1 connection point interface near DP1. Several transient and water hammer models were run, based on planned and unplanned events. Worst cases were identified during complete or partial power failure.

The surge protection system final design featured surge protection vessels at both pump station sites, two one-way surge tanks, air valves on key locations on the pipeline and a high-reliability level control system. The vessels were bladder type, operating in passive mode with 123m3 volume each. TPS was equipped with three duty vessels and one standby vessel, while BPS was equipped with six duty vessels and one standby vessel for the 150 GL/annum flows.

From an EPCC point of view, commissioning of the transfer system was an important input to the design phase. It was considered a good early investment to carry out dynamic modelling of the transfer system to understand the behaviour of water motion within the pipeline. Understanding momentum from pump starts and shutdown, system stabilisation and balance was important in the development of the operation philosophy of the system. The aim was to achieve an optimum ramp-up and rampdown of the pumps and avoid lengthy delays during commissioning.

DURABILITY ENGINEERING

TRANSFER PIPELINE Structural design of the pipeline had to consider a range of factors, including the variable ground conditions, their impact on pipe wall thickness, and availability of heavy wall steel in Australia. Variable ground conditions along the alignment would create a multitude of various pipe wall thicknesses to meet the structural strength of the pipes. Adopting a conservative approach with a single pipe wall thickness based on worst case would have a significant impact on manufacturing and delivery lead time.

Based on these important factors, it was decided to design the pipe with wall thicknesses to meet variable ground conditions. A key risk with this approach was logistical complication for pipeline delivery and also the risk of possibly installing incorrect pipe wall thickness in any given location. Careful consideration was given by the construction team to manage this risk on site given the construction program benefited from this strategy. The final outcome provided significant cost and program benefits and enabled the local manufacturers to be used for the supply of some 80,000 tonnes of steel.

From an engineering perspective, adequate geotechnical data was required for this optimisation strategy. In addition to the geotechnical information provided with the project documents, some further 200 boreholes were investigated along the alignment to improve design certainty. The additional investigation presented better conditions, which helped significantly reduce the amount of heavy wall steel required from outside Australia.

A section of the pipeline was subject to heavy soil loads due to its location below a landscaping earth mound. Several options were considered to ensure a robust solution in terms of durability, program and procurement. These included lightweight polystyrene blocks as fill material for the mound, tunnelling below the earthen mound to contain the pipeline, and complicated ribbed pipe structure to withstand the loads; lightweight fill was used (see Figure 7, lightweight fill mound during construction).

Pipeline construction was divided into seven zones and undertaken by six open-cut crews and two micro-tunnel crews. There were also fencing, clear and grade, pipe cutting, pipe stringing, scour and air-valve installation, mainline valve, hydro-test and various reinstatement crews on the right of way (RoW).

Congestion on the easement was a key risk, given that up to 11 HV cable crews were also carrying out cable installation and jointing, plus a further four crews for the fibre optic cables.

Geology and topography along the easement, combined with areas of sensitive ecosystem, provided challenges and meant that a conventional excavation and pipe-laying approach was not always possible. The rate of pipeline installation in some sections was extremely slow due to very soft ground that required sheet piles to support trench walls, limited access and sensitive areas of vegetation.

Ground stability was a key concern, given co-located assets near to parallel trenching works. Priority was given to energise the HV cable first. Sections of

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

DESALINATION

Durability engineering was fundamental to achieve the desired lifespan of assets and sought to achieve a 100year design life. Corrosion mitigation is a critical factor for a buried pipeline system; the strategy adopted was based on proven industry best practices.

Mitigation measures included pipeline lining (internal and external) and a cathodic protection (CP) system using impressed current. The challenge with large steel pipelines below ground is the possibility of interference with third-party existing pipeline CP systems. Through a process of investigation, monitoring and consultation with other asset owners, a solution was developed to ensure the installation would not adversely impact existing assets.

Figure 7. Lightweight fill mound.

80

Technical Papers

Figure 9. Pipeline internal welding.

TREATED WATER STORAGES

Figure 8. Flooding along the easement. the alignment were located in extreme cross-cut slopes.

These factors, combined with above average rainfall (2011 was the wettest year on record, and 2010 was in the top seven wettest years in the Lang Lang area), had a significant impact on productivity. Figure 8 shows flood conditions.

DESALINATION

The project constructed 80km of dedicated RoW haul road to enable work to continue throughout the year and work was only prevented by rain or flooding that occurred with some frequency over parts of the right of way. The haul road was critical to the success of the construction effort. Most of the 90,000m3 of crushed stone used in the construction of the haul road was removed during reinstatement and provided to landowners for farm access improvement.

Work in less affected areas was undertaken during winter, while the most weather-affected areas and steep sections were tackled during summer.

Industrial relations had to be carefully managed every day to ensure that production was maintained.

Value engineering was a fundamental part of the pipeline construction process to capitalise on any efficiency gains. These activities included detailed engineering assessment to minimise the number of cuts and welds between crew start and finish points (tie-in), trench design optimisation given ground conditions were varying, pipe wall thickness, minor alignment changes to improve interface works, and difficult terrains and existing service

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

crossing works. This process not only improved efficiency but also safety and environmental outcomes.

Transport logistics for the pipeline was a major activity, amounting to an estimated 120,000 heavy vehicle trips. With some 200 light and heavy vehicles on the road daily in the project area, in addition to soil, sand and pipe transport, the number of project vehiclekms travelled exceeded 18 million.

Maintenance of local roads was a major activity for the project, as were traffic management planning and traffic control measures.

Treated water storages (see Figure 10) are earthen structures fitted with a membrane liner and floating chlorosulfonated polyethylene membrane cover. Key design factors for the storages included strict pump NPSH (net positive suction head) requirements, embankment height due to visual performance requirements, water levels during operation of overflow weirs and spillways, and chlorine contact time.

Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling was extensively used to determine optimum hydraulic residence time. Given the long, narrow shape of the storages, the internal configuration required the water to flow along the entire length of the storage twice to achieve the contact time.

Internal baffles and inlet configuration were adopted to achieve this. The NPSH requirement was addressed with a combination of robust operation philosophy and pump selection that met the requirements of hydraulic efficiency.

Pipeline welding was a major activity.

Each joint consisted of two fillet welds in the bell and spigot jointed pipes, internal Construction of the embankments and external, which represents over required critical planning during the design phase to address settlement 7,000 joints welded, using gas metal arc due to the presence of soft compressible welding with a flux-cored wire. Personnel soils and sequencing of large earthworks. safety and fatigue management were This was paramount, given embankment important; all work performed within the pipe was managed under a permit system settlement was a key consideration from and all personnel were trained in working in confined spaces.

An innovative trolley system was introduced, which allowed the welder to easily move from joint to joint within the pipeline and carry consumables.

Temporary access manholes were also introduced along pipeline sections to provide two means Figure 10. Treated water storages and TPS during of ingress and egress. construction.

81

Technical Papers a three-megawatt motor, with efficiency in excess of 95%. Total hydraulic efficiency was approximately 84%. A dedicated water-cooling system in closed loop was adopted for pump motors and the variable speed drives.

Figure 11. Transfer pump station.

Figure 12. Booster pump station during construction. long-term and short-term viewpoints.

Uncontrolled settlement would cause damage to large pipes (deformation) at the inlet and outlet and also to the liner. Pre-loading of the storage structure footprint with excavated soil from the desalination plant was implemented to assist in consolidating the soft compressible soils. In addition, settlement and pore pressure monitoring was carried out at various locations during construction to confirm predictions of settlement. The inlet and outlet pipes were installed at the end of the consolidation period.

The construction of pump stations involved multi-disciplinary challenges, including sequencing of activities due to priority conflicts. Critical activities included building foundation works, placement of large pipes below ground outside the building, installation of large pumps and manifolds, and installation of gantry cranes, electrical and lighting. Priority management helped productivity, identified critical choke points and allowed the teams to focus closely on tasks that required input from each discipline. Due to the accelerated nature of the program, delivery of equipment and material was not always in line with construction sequences, because of long lead items or other manufacturing constraints.

Installation of manifold piping both outside and inside the pump station

required specific conditions to meet stringent installation tolerances.

Critical planning, in particular precise measurement and set-out with efficient sequencing, was a key factor that allowed the piping to be assembled in the correct order and tolerances.

This activity was well coordinated between all disciplines to ensure the risks were identified and minimised during both the design and construction phases.

Concealing facilities from view was a key challenge from both an architectural and construction point of view.

Natural earthen mounds and screen plantings were the main screening techniques for most facility sites. Where earthen mounds could not fully conceal the sites, a multipart painting scheme was applied to blend the asset with its background environment. Paint application for these structures required careful planning, such as drawing the design template on walls first to conform to architectural drawings. Figure 13 illustrates the BPS paint scheme.

PUMPING SYSTEM

DESALINATION

The pumping system was required to be efficient to minimise power consumption and have a degree of flexibility to meet operational needs.

Desalinated water is conveyed from TWSs via large MSCL pipes above ground to the inlet manifold of the pumps. The pumps are configured as five duty pumps and one standby pump in parallel.

CFD modelling was carried out to assess several manifold options to achieve smooth flow presentation for efficiency and to prevent cavitation.

Selection of pumps was critical to meet the system requirements and flow regimes to ensure the system as a whole operates efficiently. A key objective from a safety and operational point of view was to ensure the pump building was located above ground and accessible from the ground level to manage flooding risk.

The pumps selected were two-stage, double suction in horizontal configuration (see Figure 11). Each pump is powered by

Figure 13. The BPS paint scheme.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

82

Technical Papers

Figure 14. Construction of OWST KP10.3.

SURGE MITIGATION SYSTEM

DESALINATION

The transfer system is equipped with two OWSTs and nine on-duty surge vessels at both pump stations. The operation of the OWSTs and vessels is passive during pumping. Water is recirculated in the tank to keep it chlorinated and potable. During a surge event, OWST is capable of discharging a high flow rate (11,000L/s) through large outlets into the pipeline to keep the pressure in the pipeline equal to the tank water level.

Supply of clean air to the tank is necessary during a surge event to compensate for the sudden drop in water level, so the air supply is filtered.

The OWST at KP10.3 (see Figure 14) is located at one of the highest points along the pipeline route. The tank was designed as a rectangular concrete structure holding approximately 2ML of water, which is required as part of the surge mitigation design. Due to site constraints, construction of large concrete members and complexity with concrete curing, the structural design of the tank required a careful approach. Cast in-situ options versus pre-cast concrete options were assessed. Given the risk of slow concrete casting, potential quality issues and associated program impacts, the cast in-situ option was discounted.

Construction of the pre-cast concrete one-way surge tank at KP10.3 faced considerable complexities. These included delivery of large pre-cast concrete panels up to 35t each along narrow and windy rural roads, location of site with significant steep slopes around the perimeter and very windy conditions. Figure 15 gives an appreciation of the location. In collaboration with local authorities

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Figure 15. Aerial view of KP10.3 OWST. and a safe haulage strategy, delivery of the large panels was completed without any major incident.

PRESSURE-REDUCING STATION Connection points at the Berwick end of the transfer pipeline near DP1 required a large pressure-reducing station (PRS) with a capacity of 325 ML/d. The PRS allows the transfer pipeline to convey water directly to the water supply network at CP1 connection point, while still allowing the main flow to Cardinia Reservoir. Given strict pressure and shock wave requirements at CP1, the PRS significantly influenced the design of the surge mitigation system to protect the downstream network.

In addition, the PRS was close to existing dwellings and existing buried pipelines.

Several combinations of PRS configurations were considered to ensure these criteria in conjunction with procurement, constructability and operation of the asset are met. A key operational requirement was to ensure the valves operate smoothly during low flows. The pressure-reducing valves were modified by adding special trims and cages inside the valves to allow operation at lower flows and mitigate the risk of high-flow pressure in case of major accidental failure. Figure 16 shows the selected PRS.

TESTING AND COMMISSIONING Testing and commissioning were among the most important stages of the project, given the limited amount of time available. Parts of existing MW pipelines had to be shut down and finding the right opportunity to commission the system was a key element of the program.

To approach this critical challenge, the testing and commissioning scope required

a robust and failsafe strategy. During the initial design phase, significant focus was put into the functional characteristics of the transfer system. A team of experienced operational staff assisted with the creation of a detailed operational philosophy and functional description. Dynamic hydraulic modelling also proved to be beneficial.

During the construction phase, the commissioning team continued their involvement to familiarise themselves with the system. A dedicated commissioning working group was set up to manage the interface with MW. This approach avoided surprises during the commissioning phase. The commissioning working group comprised project personnel, AquaSure, DEPI and MW, and operated over a 24-month period.

Before system commissioning, the pipeline was hydro-tested using water from Cardinia Reservoir. Prior to hydrotesting the pipeline was cleaned and sanitised. Multiple crews were deployed at various locations via designated manholes for cleaning.

The commissioning of the transfer system was divided into five key stages, developed as part of joint risk assessment workshops with the commissioning working group. Some of the key criteria that influenced the various stages of commissioning were: pH level due to contact with cement lining; turbidity; temperature; and stratification when commissioning water was introduced to Cardinia reservoir.

As part of every stage of commissioning, testing of the surge system was also conducted. This was a risk-based approach to test the system with lower flows initially. These tests were based on simulated power failure.

83

Technical Papers THE AUTHORS Wahid Roshan (MIEAust CPEng) (email: wahidroshan@outlook.com) has over 16 years of design and construction experience in the water, wastewater, gas, power and industrial sectors. He has been employed by various leading design and construction organisations.

Key roles include design and engineering management of several major multidisciplinary capital projects, including the recent Victorian Desalination Project.

James Xenophontos has over 38 years’ experience working in both the public and private sectors in Australia and internationally.

He has been involved in the management of major engineering infrastructure projects in Australia and Asia and has held senior positions with a number of engineering consultants prior to joining AquaSure.

Figure 16. Pressure-reducing station.

CONCLUSION The design and construction of the Victorian Desalination Project is now complete. The timeframe for the design, construction and commissioning of the entire system was a significant challenge, but Victoria is now the custodian of a rainfall-independent water source with guaranteed supply if required when drought returns.

Safety: A robust focus on safety at every phase of the project delivered an excellent safety record.

Delivery structure: A robust organisational structure was one of the key elements of success to achieve outstanding safety, environment, productivity, efficiency and cost outcomes.

Integration: EPCC integration strategy is fundamental in getting the multidisciplinary teams to work together and focus on common goals; it assisted immensely with decisionmaking processes.

Quality: Quality management requires an efficient and practical review process.

A complex review process is not necessarily the answer to manage quality or risk.

Procurement: Project-wide procurement strategy at an early stage can save significant time and cost; minimises rework; improves quality (with fewer complicated alternatives) and allows other opportunities to be explored during the delivery phase.

Value engineering: It is imperative to have a reasonable level of geotechnical and hydrogeological information to assess opportunities for improving the program outcome.

It pays to focus on value engineering throughout, to capitalise on gains that may improve project outcomes.

This paper is an extract from the paper ‘Delivering the Challenge, the Water Transfer System’. The objective of this paper is to share knowledge as part of a lessons learned initiative.

Gael Chevrier is a Senior Hydraulic and Mechanical Engineer who has been with Degrémont for 10 years specialising in the design, build and operation of water treatment plants. He joined the Victorian Desalination Project at the end of the bid period. Responsibilities included plant design development and procurement of all the major equipment for the plant. Gael was also hydraulic discipline lead for the project covering the marine works and the transfer pipeline. His final role on VDP was the transfer pipeline commissioning lead.

Omar Shahin is Engineering Services Manager for Thiess Australia.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

DESALINATION

Industry success: The project provided rare and significant opportunities for the water industry – a sound start for many of the young professionals involved.

Early planning: Investing time in early planning proved a solid return during the delivery phase.

Rick Boreham has worked in the construction industry for 30 years since graduating with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering from University of Melbourne.

Rick joined Nacap Australia in 2003 and since then has worked on various pipeline projects in Australia and South East Asia, including the North Queensland Gas Pipeline, the Dampier-Bunbury Pipeline Stage 4 Looping, the TTP Gas Pipeline in Thailand and, more recently, the Transfer Pipeline and Power Supply for the Victorian Desalination Project. His current role is General Manager – Operations with Nacap Australia Pty Ltd.

84

Technical Papers

FORESTRY WATER POLICY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Are written submissions a good engagement method in a complex forestry-environment-agriculture water conflict?

C Xu, J McKay, G Keremane

ABSTRACT In Australia, the community is often invited to make written submissions on natural resource management issues, especially regional water plans.

This is seen as a method of increasing democracy by allowing citizens to provide input to the plan. Most Australian water plans have radically decreased water allocated to agriculture (McKay, 2011). In that context, this paper focuses on the process of the development of an innovative forestry water policy to incorporate plantation forestry as a Water Affecting Activity into the Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

This is the first plan in Australia explicitly imposing a regulation on forestry to account for interception losses and the use of shallow aquifer water by forest roots. There had been four public consultations in the forestry water policy development process, and written submissions were one way of stakeholder engagement in all of these public consultations. This paper is based on the analysis of the 31 confidential written submissions, received during the third public consultation on the Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan Policy Issues – Discussion Paper.

The analysis included three approaches in that the submissions were examined through: (1) the key elements of engagement – the objectives of the engagement, the timing of the participation, the level of participatory impact, the types of interested party involved, and the participatory method; (2) the perceptions of the participants who represented different stakeholder groups – forestry, agricultural, environmental and government groups; and (3) four factors generated via a literature review to evaluate stakeholder engagement processes, including expectations, public values, information, and justice.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Overall, the results of the analysis indicated that written submissions did not provide much help in resolving the complex forestry-environmentagriculture water conflicts during the forestry water policy development process, and that written submissions were ‘tokenistic’ to some degree. The results demonstrated that, even though this engagement method nominally included most of the key elements of an effective engagement procedure, the participants expressed dissatisfaction with the process, mostly due to consultation fatigue and loss of trust.

The results also illustrated that there was great disparity between expectations and public values among the different groups. The participants also complained about the availability, timeliness and accuracy of the information, mainly in relation to the scientific evidence supporting the policy decision.

BACKGROUND In Australia, with more concerns generated on the impact from plantation forestry on water resources, as demonstrated in many studies, South Australia has been the first state to account for plantation forestry water use by incorporating it as a Water Affecting Activity into water allocation plans, and thus heralds institutional innovation relating to it in Australia and worldwide.

While the history of the forestry water policy development process in the south-east of South Australia has been discussed in detail in another paper (Xu et al., 2013), this paper focuses on the stakeholder engagement methods used during the process, particularly written submissions.

Written submissions are used during the public consultation periods to collect opinions from various self-selected communities (DWLBC, 2005), as this engagement approach provides an opportunity to consult the community at large. During the forestry water policy

development process, there were four public consultations, and all of them adopted written submissions as one way of engaging the communities (Xu et al., 2013). The public consultation on the Draft Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan Policy Issues – Discussion Paper (the Discussion Paper) was the third, and this paper is based on the written submissions from that public consultation.

The Discussion Paper was released by the Department for Water (now the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources) on 24 March 2011. The draft outlined the possible management options for the region’s water resources, and included a licensing regime for forestry plantations for the first time, which was to assist in managing the allocation of shallow aquifer water. The announced time period for receiving submissions was from 24 March to 20 April 2011, but all submissions received from 29 March to 9 May 2011 were accepted.

During the public consultation, 31 written submissions were received from a range of individual landholders, forestry companies, peak industry bodies, unions, environmental organisations and local government councils. These submissions were worthy of being investigated because they were original written documents which came directly from the participants, thereby avoiding the problems of information transfer. These documents were very useful for exploring the opinions of those communities.

METHOD The 31 written submissions were collected and stored by the Department for Water (DfW) and were not released to the public. The researcher received approval to access these internal documents for research purposes after

85

Technical Papers contacting the DfW and explaining the University of South Australia ethics protocol, which requires the researcher to maintain confidentiality and anonymity during data collection. Thirty-one written submissions were coded by DfW from “Number 1” to “Number 31” in order of their submission by the community.

The same numbering was retained for easy reference when conducting the analysis. The personal information of the respondents was concealed by the researcher in order to meet the confidentiality requirements.

There have been numerous publications discussing stakeholder engagements in water resources management in different countries (Ozerol and Newig, 2008; Razzaque, 2009; Slavikova and Jilkova, 2009).

However, the literature review had shown that no evaluation criteria are widely accepted and used to evaluate stakeholder engagement in water resources management. Thus, this research was intended to use three different evaluation approaches, in that the submissions were examined through: (1) the key elements of engagement – the objectives of the engagement, the timing of the participation, the level of participatory impact, the types of interested party involved, and the participatory method; (2) the perceptions of the participants who represented different stakeholder groups – forestry, agricultural, environmental and government agencies; and (3) four factors generated via literature review to evaluate stakeholder engagement

processes, including: expectations; public values; information; and justice. Thus, it contributed the empirical examination of stakeholder literatures and experiences of stakeholder engagement in forestry water management.

For easy comparison analysis, the submissions were divided into four groups based on response source: forestry, agricultural, environmental, and government groups. The forestry group included forestry companies and associations. The agricultural group was made up of associations and individual participants from industries other than forestry, including dry-land farmers, irrigators, potato growers, and dairy farmers, etc. The environmental group was represented by conservation groups, and the government group included local governments and government associations.

THE RESEARCH FINDINGS Examination through particular elements of engagement demonstrated that this engagement process followed the engagement procedure closely, including a clear and flexible objective, early engagement, pre-decision consultation, and intention to consult the community at large (however, there was overrepresentation of certain participants).

The examination of perceptions of the participants and four factors under study illustrated that the stakeholders were not satisfied (as shown by consultation fatigue and the loss of trust), and there were great disparities among stakeholders on some of the main issues.

Table 1. Submission receipt per participant group.

Respondent Groups Forestry - Companies - Associations

Number of Submissions

Number of Words

Average Number of Words

9

15,346

1,705

6

6,903

1,151

8,443

2,814

13,608

907

- Individuals

9

6,007

667

- Associations

6

7,601

1,267

2

1,663

832

2

1,663

832

5

3,083

617

4

2,396

599

Environment - Associations Government - Government agencies/ departments - Associations Total

1

687

687

31

33,700

1,087

Over-representation of certain participants

The analysis of these written submissions demonstrated over-representation of particular participant groups (see Table 1). First, even though the participants of submissions were self-selected, the analysis demonstrated that most of the participants were from key stakeholder groups, rather than the community-at-large. Second, the analysis illustrated an imbalance in communication skills which could cause over-representativeness. For example, a limited number of large forestry companies provided lengthy submissions with specific foci, which demonstrated the stronger communication skills of the forestry group when compared to the agricultural group, because of the resources available to them. Third, the analysis demonstrated that the agricultural group presented mutual support within the group on issues of concern, which illustrated good communication before submitting. This situation could have resulted in overrepresentation of this group. Thus, these written submissions could not represent the community at large as expected.

2.

Great disparities among groups on some of the major issues

The analysis also illustrated great disparities among groups on some of the major issues related to forestry water management, mainly including five aspects: • Different attitudes toward forestry water management (making forestry account for its water use) About their attitudes toward forestry water management (see Figure 1), the analysis demonstrated that 45% of participants agreed to forestry water management, but most of them were members of the agriculture group.

Meanwhile, all the submissions from the forestry group expressed negative attitudes towards forestry water management as they challenged the accuracy of the scientific evidence.

It is noteworthy that the attitude of the government group was highly conservative. Only two of the five submissions from the government group agreed to forestry water management, while the remaining three expressed concerns about the policy impact on the forestry industry and/or local area, or remained neutral (did not express opinions). This illustrated the different opinions on forestry water management among different government agencies,

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

3 15

Agriculture

1.

86

Technical Papers • Different attitudes toward the science review

Figure 1. Attitudes toward forestry water management.

Figure 2. Preference for legislative tool.

Figure 3. Attitude toward the science review in the submissions.

The science behind the issue was a controversial topic and received many ongoing queries during the engagement process, particularly from the forestry industry. Under the circumstances, the Taskforce organised and released an independent scientific review. As an important technical document, the scientific review received much attention, occupying a large portion of the submissions (see Figure 3). The analysis illustrated around 48% (15) of the submissions did not discuss this topic. This may be because ‘non-expert members of the citizen groups are at a distinct disadvantage as they struggle to understand and assess scientific and technical disputes’ (Bryner, 2001, p 51).

Almost all of the submissions from the forestry group, except one, expressed their negative attitude towards the science review. The one forestry participant who did not mention the science review did not agree with the entire policy. Four of the five submissions from the government group took a positive attitude, showing support for the policy. However, one submission that showed a negative attitude again illustrated the difficult political situation that exists among different government agencies and organisations.

As established earlier, the consistent attitude of the agricultural group presented good communication among these industries.

• Different interests among groups

Figure 4. Number of submissions on different interests. and the difficult political situation during the policy development process.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• Different preference on legislative tools In the Discussion Paper, two mechanisms, ‘forest water licenses’ and ‘water affecting activity permits’, were proposed. About their preference on legislative tools (see Figure 2), the analysis illustrated that 32% of participants agreed to licensing, 20% agreed to permits, and 19% disagreed with the policy, while 29% participants didn’t mention it. Obviously, the majority

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

of the forestry group either refused to accept the policy, or requested a re-draft of the policy. However, in selecting between the two mechanisms, some of the submissions from the forestry group expressed a preference for licensing.

Meanwhile, the analysis also illustrated significant differences in preference of the legislative tool within the agricultural group. In general, licensing was the preferred legislative tool, as it has the advantage of transfer and trading, and it provides the same rules for the licensees of the forestry group as those of the agriculture group.

All of the submissions agreed on the importance of sustainability; however, there were different views about the meaning of sustainability between the environmental group and the other groups – agriculture, forestry and government. The environmental group was against any ‘compromise’ and emphasised a prioritisation of the environment. Opinions from the other three groups considered sustainability to be the balance among economic, environmental and social factors. They emphasised equity among the three factors, and the balancing of these factors is a type of ‘compromise’, the triple bottom line.

Different groups demonstrated various attitudes to the triple bottom line concept. Apart from the environmental group, attention to the environment by the groups was limited. As forestry water

87

Technical Papers decision-makers from the participants.

However, the analysis also demonstrated this did not result in the participants being against the consultations; on the contrary, many participants requested more consultation, but on subjects they were concerned about and/or higher level engagement.

DISCUSSION

Figure 5. Written submissions located in eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation. management has a direct impact on the forestry industry, the forestry group emphasised the contribution of forestry and its subsidiary industries, particularly on local economic development and employment. As the government group was made up of government organisations, they were also more concerned about the potential impact on the economy and society. Comparing other groups, the agricultural group showed wide interests besides forestry water policy. Figure 4 illustrates five themes outside of the forestry water policy, presented by submission numbers by group.

The diagram illustrates the difference in the interests among the different groups. First, it shows a limited involvement by the forestry group on these topics. Even though the submissions from the forestry group were much longer than the submissions from other groups, they only concentrated on the forestry issue.

3.

Consultation fatigue and the loss of trust

Even though there were few discussions directly related to stakeholder engagement in the submissions, consultation fatigue and loss of trust were demonstrated from the perception of participants, particularly from the forestry group. Consultation fatigue could be attributed to overabundance of requests on participation during lengthy processes, and doubts about the instruments (Richards et al., 2004). The forestry water policy development process was lengthy, and the participants resented repeated consultations. Meanwhile, some participants complained that there had been no follow-up or feedback on their previous suggestions.

Another criticism, largely from the forestry group, related to its doubt as to the real influence on policy decisionmaking through consultation. All of these strongly influenced the trust in

However, focusing on the entire process of the forestry water policy development that had been underway for many years before this consultation, the participants had provided their opinions repeatedly in past consultations.

Written submissions were a repeatedlyused engagement method during this entire process, which probably worsened consultation fatigue, as demonstrated in the submissions. Thus, focusing on the whole process this engagement method was ‘tokenism’ to some degree, and consultation fatigue and the loss of trust in decision-makers could be partly attributed to its ‘tokenism’.

Meanwhile, the findings also demonstrated three main challenges during the consultation process when dealing with complex environment issues – different interests among competing users, uncertainty caused by science, and the loss of trust. First, the great disparities among groups were illustrated, not only on different attitudes toward some policy options such as forestry water management and preferred legislative tools, but also on some basic principle, such as different understandings of sustainability. As demonstrated in the submissions, different groups had their own interests.

These disparities, finally, were driven by the different interests among groups.

Thus, the findings illustrated that how

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

This reflects the potential impact of forestry water management on the forestry industry. It also implies that forestry, being a water user outside of the water budget in the past, was not concerned about water resources management. Second, protecting wetlands and groundwater-dependent ecosystems were mentioned in a few submissions. This showed a limited attention on environment in the

submissions. Third, the agricultural group referred to a number of specific topics in comparison to the other three groups.

Holding licenses, and farm forestry, as the issues of most concern for dry-land farmers, were also the most popular topics of the agriculture group based on the numbers of submissions. Water reduction in the Border area was another topic of concern for the agricultural group.

Using Arnstein’s ladder (1969), written submissions can be placed between ‘informing’ and ‘consultation’ level engagement and, hence, are considered to be in a ‘degree of tokenism’ (see Figure 5). Cook (2002) also pointed out that old solutions (formal consultation on plans) were ‘often tokenistic, unrepresentative and not engaging’ (p 517). Accordingly, the findings in this study illustrated, if focusing on a single consultation period of 2008–2012 (the State level policy development), the submissions, as a traditional consultation mode, assisted the Taskforce to obtain opinions on the perspectives and preferences of the participants in relation to forestry water policy in a short space of time.

88

Technical Papers to balance the different interests among groups is critical for dealing with the conflicts during the forestry water policy development process.

Second, as illustrated in the findings, the environment group required the priority of environmental water use, while the industries, as the consumptive water users, emphasised a balance among the environmental, economic and social needs.

This was a common dilemma when dealing with complex environmental issues among numerous competing water users.

For example, a study on the MurrayDarling Basin Plan (MDBP) (Davis and Skinner, 2011) showed considerable debates were generated on the MDBP, largely on how much water was enough for the environment, as well as balancing among triple bottom line indicators.

However, the same study also pointed out, ‘the current state of knowledge makes it difficult to confidently link environmental objectives with volumes of water’ (Davis and Skinner, 2011, p 2). Thus, given that it was difficult to have perfect science, how to balance triple bottom line indicators through the consultation process was another challenge for dealing with the conflicts during the forestry water policy development process.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Third, the findings illustrated consultation fatigue and loss of trust in decision-makers. This could be partly attributed to the disparity on engagement expectations between policy planners and participants. As pointed out by Cook (2002) in a UK study on consultation, policy planners took a consumerist approach to consulting with stakeholders, and the stakeholders considered consultation as an opportunity for democratic empowerment.

Reviewing the entire consultation process since the development of forestry water policy, there were public meetings, written submissions and focus groups (individual meetings with various industries), which were all traditional modes of consultation and good ways of obtaining information from participants on policy issues (Murray et al., 2009). However, participants had different expectations with policy planners, seeing consultation as a way to participate meaningfully in decisionmaking or, at least, to influence policy.

Obviously, these differing expectations had frequently led to frustration and disappointment for many participants.

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

CONCLUSIONS Although the literature demonstrated that public consultation could increase democracy through consulting the community at large, this study demonstrated the possibility of over-representation of particular participants. Focusing on the whole policy development process the study illustrated that written submissions, as a repeatedly used engagement method, could be seen as ‘tokenism’, because the contents were not perceived to be referenced in the subsequent water plan.

Meanwhile, as one of the complex environmental issues, the development process of forestry water policy involved different interests among competing water users, and thus generated various conflicts among them. The conflicts occurred not only between the environment water use and the consumptive water uses, but also within the different consumptive water uses (such as by the agriculture group and the forestry group). It needed trade-offs or compromises among the different interests and/or the interest groups.

Furthermore, complex environmental issues often need a long time to resolve.

As illustrated in the present case, the process has run for almost 10 years, which resulted in consultation fatigue, and the lack of response led to a loss of trust in government by stakeholders.

Prof Jennifer McKay (email: Jennifer.McKay@unisa.edu.au) is Director of the Centre for Comparative Water Policies and Laws, School of Law, University of South Australia.

Dr Ganesh Keremane (email: ganesh.keremane@unisa.edu. au) is a Research Fellow of the Centre for Comparative Water Policies and Laws, School of Law, University of South Australia.

The three are associated with the NCGRT.

REFERENCES Arnstein SR (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4, pp 216–224.

Bryner G (2001): Cooperative Instruments and Policy Making: Assessing Public Participation in US Environmental Regulation. European Environment, 11, pp 49–60.

Cook D (2002): Consultation, For a Change?

Engaging Users and Communities in the Policy Process. Social Policy & Administration, 36, 5, pp 516–531.

Davis S & Skinner D (2011): The Role of Science and Values in Setting Sustainable Diversion Limits.

Viewed 20 February 2013, www.ceda.com.au/ media/271676/waterprojectdavisskinnerfinal.pdf DWLBC (2005): Guidelines for the Preparation of Water Allocation Plans: Natural Resources Management Act 2004. No.44627, Internal Document, Adelaide.

To conclude, the written submissions can be useful if they attract wide engagement and the analysis of them is communicated with the entire stakeholder group as a basis for future iterations of the policy. This avoids the tokenism and consultation fatigue evidenced here.

Under such a situation, intensive twoway communication and effective policy influence through involvement were needed to help improve the trust and encourage involvement of stakeholders in the consultation process. This was difficult to achieve through the public consultation method provided by written submissions, which was only one-way communication.

McKay J (2011): Australian Water Allocation Plans and the Sustainability Objective – Conflicts and Conflict-Resolution Measures. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56, 4, pp 615–629.

THE AUTHORS

Richards C, Blackstock KL & Carter CE (2004): Practical Approaches to Participation. In: SERG policy brief, Macauley Institute, Scotland.

Chunfang (Janet) Xu (email: Chunfang.xu@mymail. unisa.edu.au) is a PhD candidate in the Centre for Comparative Water Policies and Laws in the University of South Australia. Her current research concentrates on the forestry water policy change process and its stakeholder engagement in southeast South Australia.

Murray M, Fagan GH & McCusker P (2009): Measuring Horizontal Governance: A Review of Public Consultation by the Northern Ireland Government Between 2000 and 2004. Policy & Politics, 37, 4, pp 553–571.

Ozerol G & Newig J (2008): Evaluating the Success of Public Participation in Water Resources Management: Five Key Constituents. Water Policy, 10, pp 639–655.

Razzaque J (2009): Public Participation in Water Governance. In: Dellapenna JW & Gupta J (eds.): The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water. Springer, Doredrecht.

Slavikova L & Jilkova J (2009): Implementing the Public Participation Principle Into Water Management in the Czech Republic: A Critical Analysis. Regional Studies, 45, 4, pp 545–557.

Xu C, McKay J & Keremane G (2013): Forestry Water Policy in South Australia: Review of the History and Policy Change Process in the South-East of South Australia. Water, 40, 4, pp 104–107.

89

Technical Papers

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF RECYCLED WATER: THE IMPACT OF TRUST An analysis of three case studies from Perth, the Gold Coast and Toowoomba VL Ross, KS Fielding, WR Louis

ABSTRACT Three projects in Perth, the Gold Coast and Toowoomba were analysed using a conceptual model not previously applied.

The results highlighted the need for water authorities and policy makers to build and maintain public trust through fair procedures (e.g., consulting with the community and providing accurate information), building a sense of the water authority as a member of the community who shares the same values as the community, and demonstrating technical competence and concern for public welfare.

INTRODUCTION Positive public perceptions and acceptance of water reuse are now considered to be crucial to the successful implementation of water reuse projects (Dolincar and Hurlimann, 2011; Ross, Fielding and Louis, 2014; Steirer and Thorsen, 2013). There have been noteworthy examples in Australia and the US, where proposed potable reuse projects have been rejected by the public because of perceived health risks.

In Australia, proposals for potable reuse projects by the Maroochy, Caloundra and Toowoomba councils in the decade 1996–2006 were opposed by their respective communities and ultimately rejected. Public opposition to the projects was fuelled by negative media reports and campaigns from opposition groups such as CADS (“citizens against drinking sewerage”), who warned of alleged health risks associated with drinking recycled water (Hurlimann and Dolincar, 2010; Uhlman and Head, 2011).

RISK PERCEPTIONS, TRUST AND ACCEPTANCE Slovic (2010) states that as industrialised nations strive to make life safer and healthier, the public has become more, rather than less, concerned about risk.

People now perceive themselves as exposed to more serious risks than in the past, and they believe that this situation is worsening (Slovic, 2010). In the failed reuse cases discussed in the previous section, the public perceived the possible health risks associated with recycled water as unacceptable, despite reassurances by authorities and scientists (Dolnicar et al., 2010; Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2010; Uhlmann and Head, 2011).

In the field of risk research, it is generally agreed that trust in authorities to manage risk is a critical factor in the perception and acceptance of risks (Earle et al., 2007; Lofstedt and Cvetkovich, 2008). It has been argued that many individuals lack the resources such as knowledge, time and interest to make decisions and take action in relation to science and technology, and therefore need to trust in the relevant authorities or government agencies to make decisions (Siegrist, Cvetkovich and Roth, 2000).

The trust, risk and acceptance relationship has been examined in the risk communication literature (Eiser et al., 2002; Pavlou, 2003; Siegrist, 2000; Siegrist et al., 2007) and also specifically in relation to public acceptance of potable reuse (Nancarrow et al., 2008; Nancarrow et al., 2009).

In this paper we describe the key findings of three case studies conducted as part of a PhD thesis program. The studies build on previous research by specifically focusing on the role of trust in reducing risk perceptions and thus increasing acceptance, and testing this relationship across three different perceived risk contexts. Using a strong theoretical and empirical framework, the research developed and tested a socialpsychological model of the characteristics and drivers of trust in authorities and acceptance across low, medium and high perceived risk contexts. This type of research approach provided a unique opportunity to gain insight into the social psychological variables that are important drivers of the acceptance or rejection of recycled water projects.

Given the length constraints of this paper, the focus will be to describe the key findings with regard to the impact of trust on risk perceptions and acceptance of water provision in each context, rather than detail the psychological and theoretical significance of the research.

METHOD Three community-based quantitative telephone surveys were conducted to investigate the drivers of trust and the relationship between trust, risk perceptions and acceptance of urban water provision across the three different risk contexts of drinking water quality (low perceived risk), non-potable reuse (medium perceived risk), and potable reuse (high perceived risk).

MEASURES The hypothesised trust model investigated the relationships between the following variables: Fair procedures One of the most widely replicated findings in the justice literature is that people are accepting of even negative, unfavourable and non-preferred outcomes when they are determined by

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

More recently, the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project in South-East Queensland was put on hold by the State Government, despite completion of the extensive infrastructure necessary for the project. Negative media speculation regarding possible health risks (e.g., Roberts, 2008) impacted significantly

on community confidence in the project. As a result of erosion of public confidence (as well as unexpected rainfall that began to restore dam levels), the Government changed its policy so that recycled water would only be added to drinking water supplies as an emergency measure, to be triggered if combined SEQ dam levels drop to below 40% (Queensland Water Commission, 2009).

90

Technical Papers fair institutional procedures (Skitka and Mullen, 2002). Within the context of water management strategies, research has shown that perceptions of fair procedures predict the acceptability and compliance with urban and rural water management and policy issues (Hurlimann et al., 2008; Nancarrow et al., 2002; Syme et al., 1999), including community intentions to drink water from potable reuse schemes (Nancarrow et al., 2009).

Social identification Research has shown that people are more willing to trust those with whom they feel they share a social connection, such as a similar background (Hogg, 2007). If water management authorities are perceived as part of the community, then people who feel more identified with their community will have greater trust in the water management authorities. In the model, social identification referred to the extent to which participants identified with, and felt they belonged in their community.

Community membership of the water authority This refers to perceptions of the water authority as part of the community. In the context of water management, identification with one’s community (as already described) and the belief that the water authority is a part of the community (i.e., “one of us”) are expected to lead to trust in the authority.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Shared values Earle and Cvetkovich (1995) argue that in complex situations where most people may not have the resources or interest to make a detailed assessment of trustworthiness, trust is based on agreement rather than on reasoned arguments or actual knowledge. When people do not have reliable information about the trustworthiness of a person or organisation, trust and subsequent cooperation are based on perceptions of value similarity (Siegrist, Cvetkovich and Roth, 2000). In the model, shared values were measured as perceptions that the water authority had similar beliefs and values in relation to the provision of a quality water supply.

Source credibility Source credibility reflects the extent to which the water authority is perceived to be competent and has the public’s interests rather than vested interests at heart (Frewer et al., 1996; Siegrist et al., 2003; Tyler and Degoey, 1996). Past research has demonstrated that sources are trusted more when they are perceived to be competent and credible (Frewer et al.,

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

1996; Sutherland et al., 2013; Tyler and Degoey, 1996). Given the technical nature of water recycling processes, and the potential impacts on the health of the population if the process were to go wrong, this variable is likely to be a critical predictor of trust.

Trust Based on the relevant literature (Frewer et al., 1996; Lewicki et al., 2006; Rousseau et al., 1998; Siegrist, Cvetkovich and Roth, 2000), for the purpose of this research, trust was defined as: a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of the authority responsible for the recycled water scheme.

Consistent with this definition, trust was measured as positive and confident expectations, as well as willingness to depend on the water authority.

Risk perception This refers to perceptions of the likelihood of any possible problems or risks associated with the water supply in each context (i.e., drinking water, nonpotable reuse, potable reuse).

Acceptance Acceptance was measured as the acceptability of the water supply specific to each context (drinking water supply, non-potable reuse, potable reuse).

To summarise, the model proposed that social-psychological predictors of trust would lead to greater trust in the water authority. In each context it was predicted that greater trust in the water authority would lead to lower perceptions of risk, which would in turn result in greater acceptance of the water supply. In addition to the proposed trust-risk-acceptance relationship, past research (e.g., Hurlimann and McKay, 2004) also suggests a direct link between trust and acceptance (Figure 1).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS The studies aimed to address a number of questions, including the following: • How does trust in the water authority impact on acceptance of water management schemes?

• Do perceptions of risk play a mediating role between trust in the water authority and acceptance of water management schemes?

• What are the key predictors of trust?

STUDY 1: DRINKING WATER QUALITY IN PERTH Conducted in Perth in Western Australia, the first study applied the trust model to the low perceived risk context of acceptance of drinking water quality. This allowed the model to be first tested in the context of an established drinking water supply with which the public is familiar and of which community members are generally accepting. At the time of the study, Western Australia, which obtains its water supply from a combination of dams and aquifers, had been subject to drought conditions for several years.

Four-hundred-and-four residents from the metropolitan area of Perth were interviewed by telephone from randomly selected households.

The interviews were conducted by trained interviewers and each took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

The mean ratings of trust and acceptance demonstrated that respondents trusted the water authority and found their drinking water supply to be acceptable. Mean perceptions of risk relating to their drinking water were relatively low, as would be expected for a well-established drinking water supply.

Social identification

Community membership of the water authority

Fair procedures

Acceptance

Shared values with the water authority

Trust

!

Source credibility

!!

!

Figure 1. Hypothesised model.

Risk perceptions

91

Technical Papers Using path analysis, the best-fitting model indicated that social identification and perceptions of the water authority as part of the community led to a stronger sense of shared values and procedural fairness, and greater trust. The model also indicated that perceived value similarity, rather than trust per se, was the greatest predictor of acceptance of drinking water quality. In other words, the more that people perceived the water authority as having similar values to their own in relation to drinking water quality, the more accepting they were of their drinking water supply.

Value similarity was found to have a negative relationship with perceived risk (i.e., those with perceptions of shared values with the water authority had lower risk perceptions regarding the quality of their drinking water). However, in this low perceived risk context, risk perceptions did not have a significant effect on acceptance of drinking water quality.

STUDY 2: NONPOTABLE REUSE ON THE GOLD COAST The second study was conducted in the Pimpama Coomera Water Futures community, where Class A+ recycled water is supplied to specially plumbed, dual-reticulated homes in the Pimpama Coomera region. The recycled water is used for non-potable purposes only, such as toilet-flushing and external use.

At the time the data was collected for the study, the dual reticulation system had not yet come online. Two hundred residents from the area covered by the Pimpama Coomera Masterplan were interviewed by telephone. The sample was randomly selected from telephone listings. Those who were not connected to the main supply were not included in the study.

The means for trust and acceptance of the scheme indicated relatively high trust in the water authority and acceptance of the non-potable scheme.

Mean perceptions of risk were quite low, suggesting that respondents did not think it likely that there would be any problems or risks associated with the non-potable scheme.

Factors that may have differentiated the Pimpama Coomera research context from the Toowoomba and Perth research contexts include the size of the community and the community engagement conducted by the water authority as part of the project. In Pimpama Coomera, the smaller community may have been more trusting of the local council and, thus, more prepared to accept the innovative water system. However, it is likely that strong community engagement also increased community awareness of the water authority and perhaps made it a more visible part of the community.

STUDY 3: POTABLE REUSE IN TOOWOOMBA The third study was conducted in Toowoomba at the time when the potable reuse scheme had been proposed by the local council to augment diminishing water supplies. The data for this research was collected only weeks before the project was rejected in a referendum, so the issue was extremely salient to the community at the time.

A randomly selected sample of 401 residents from Toowoomba was interviewed by telephone. Those who were not connected to the main water supply were not included in the study.

Unlike in Studies 1 and 2, the means for trust and acceptance of the proposed scheme were both relatively low, indicating that Toowoomba respondents did not have high trust in their water authority nor high acceptance of the proposed potable reuse project.

Perceptions of risk were also significantly higher than for the potable reuse context compared to the lower risk contexts of drinking water or non-potable reuse.

Consistent with model predictions, higher levels of trust were associated with lower risk perceptions and greater acceptance, and vice versa. Trust also had the greatest overall impact on acceptance

of the proposed potable reuse scheme.

These findings are in keeping with the risk communication research (Eiser et al., 2002; Pavlou, 2003; Siegrist et al., 2007), and the recycled water literature (Hurlimann et al., 2008; Hurlimann and McKay, 2004). As predicted, the model variables of fair procedures, social identification, community membership, shared values and source credibility were all significant predictors of trust.

CONCLUSIONS In light of the pivotal role that community acceptance plays in successful implementation of recycled water schemes, this research developed and tested a social-psychological model of the relationship between trust, risk and acceptance of a proposed potable reuse project and, importantly, the factors that potentially influence trust.

The research made a significant applied contribution by advancing current knowledge about community attitudes to water management schemes, particularly reuse schemes.

The results addressed each of the research questions by demonstrating that, across all three risk contexts, trust in the water authority was a significant predictor of acceptance of water management schemes. The model differed slightly in each context, with perceived value similarity playing a stronger role in the low perceived risk context in Perth, and perceptions of community membership of the water authority having the greatest impact on acceptance in the smaller, potentially more engaged community of Pimpama Coomera.

The findings from the research clearly have a practical application in the water industry through demonstrating the importance of trust in authorities in reducing risk perceptions and, thus, increasing acceptance of these schemes.

These results also provide important information for policy development in terms of the planning and implementation of future water recycling schemes.

In particular, the results highlight the need for water authorities and policy makers to build and maintain public trust through fair procedures (e.g., consulting with the community and providing accurate information), building a sense of the water authority as a member of the community who shares the same values as the community, and through demonstrating technical competence and concern for public welfare.

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Consistent with model predictions, greater trust in the water authority was related to lower perceptions of risk, which were in turn related to greater acceptance of the non-potable scheme.

In addition to the mediated relationships between trust, risk and acceptance, trust also impacted directly on acceptance.

Although trust was a significant independent predictor of acceptance, perceptions of the water authority as a part of the community were the strongest predictor of acceptance of the non-potable scheme. In other words, perceptions of the water authority as being â&#x20AC;&#x153;one of usâ&#x20AC;? were more important to acceptance of the nonpotable scheme than trust in the authority.

This result is consistent with the literature, which suggests that people perceive other group members (e.g., members of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s community) to behave in ways that protect and promote the group (Hogg, 2003).

92

Technical Papers Through identifying the variables that are related to trust in water authorities, the research can provide critical information to water authorities about how they can develop greater public trust and thereby promote more positive attitudes to potable reuse schemes.

THE AUTHORS Vicki Ross (email: victoria. ross@griffith.edu.au) is a Social Psychologist and Research Fellow at the Smart Water Research Centre, Griffith University.

Her research interests include public trust, risk perceptions and acceptance of recycled water; climate change adaptation; and enhancing science, policy, and practice communication. Her research has been applied across a range of Australian and international contexts.

Kelly S Fielding (email: k.fielding@uq.edu.au) is a Social and Environmental Psychologist in the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on understanding people’s environmental decisions and behaviour, and how to promote more sustainable actions on the part of individuals, institutions and communities. Her research is conducted in a range of contexts with an emphasis on urban water management, climate change communication, and household sustainability.

Winnifred R Louis (email: (w.louis@uq.edu.au) is an Associate Professor in Psychology at the University of Queensland.

Her research interests focus on the influence of identity and norms on social decision-making. She has studied this broad topic in contexts from political activism to peace psychology to health and the environment.

REFERENCES

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Dolnicar S & Hurlimann A (2011): Water Alternatives – Who and What Influences Public Acceptance? Journal of Public Affairs, 11, pp 49–59.

Dolnicar S, Hurlimann A & Nghiem LD (2010): The Effect of Information on Public Acceptance – The Case of Water from Alternative Sources. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, pp 1288–1293.

Earle TC, Siegrist M & Gutscher H (2007): Trust, Risk Perception and the TCC Model of Cooperation, in: Siegrist M, Earle TC,

WATER FEBRUARY 2014

Gutscher H (Eds). Trust in Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. Earthscan, London.

Eiser JR, Miles S & Frewer LJ (2002): Trust, Perceived Risk and Attitudes Toward Food Technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, pp 2423–2433.

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D & Shepherd R (1996): What Determines Trust in Information About Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, pp 473–486.

Hogg MA (2003): Social Identity and the Group Context of Trust: Managing Risk and Building Trust Through Belonging, in: Siergrist M, Gutcher H (Eds). Trust, Techology and Society: Studies in Cooperative Risk Management.

Earthscan, London.

Hogg M (2007): Social Identity and the Group Context of Trust: Managing Risk and Building Trust Through Belonging, in: Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (Eds), Trust in Risk Management. Earthscan, London.

Hurlimann A & Dolnicar S (2010): When Public Opposition Defeats Alternative Water Projects – The Case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research, 44, pp 287–297.

Hurlimann A, Hemphill E, McKay J & Geursen G (2008): Establishing Components of Community Satisfaction with Recycled Water Use Through a Structural Equation Model. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, pp 1221–1232.

Hurlimann A & McKay J (2004): Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 2.

Trust. Water, 31, 5, pp 40–45.

Lewicki RJ, Tomlinson EC & Gillespie N (2006): Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence and Future Directions.

Journal of Management, 23, pp 991–1022.

Lofstedt RE & Cvetkovich G (2008): Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies.

Earthscan, London.

Nancarrow BE, Kaercher J & Po M (2002): Community Attitudes to Water Restrictions, Policies and Alternative Services. A Longitudinal Analysis, 1988–2002 in: CSIRO (Ed.), Land and Water Consultancy Report. CSIRO, Perth.

Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Po M, Porter NB & Tucker DI (2008): What Drives Communities’ Decisions and Behaviors in the Reuse of Wastewater? Water Science & Technology, 57, pp 485–491.

Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z & Tucker DI (2009): Measuring the Predictors of Communities’ Behavioural Decisions for Potable Reuse of Water. Water Science & Technology, 60, pp 3199–3209.

Pavlou PA (2003): Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model.

International Journal of Electronics and Communications, 7, pp 101–134.

Queensland Water Commission (2009): Advice to the Queensland Government on Purified Recycled Water, in www.qld.gov.au/QWC+advice Roberts G (2008): Disease Expert Warns on Recycled Sewage, The Australian. Retrieved October 30 2008. www.theaustralian.com.au/ news/expert-warns-on-recycled-sewage/storye6frg600-1111117895549.

Ross VL, Fielding KS & Louis WR (in press): Social Trust, Risk Perceptions and Public Acceptance of Recycled Water: Testing a Social-Psychological Model. Journal of Environmental Management.

Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS & Camerer C (1998): Not So Different After All: A Cross Discipline View of Trust. Academy Management Review, 23, pp 393–404.

Siegrist M (2000): The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology, Risk Analysis, 20, pp 195–204.

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G & Roth C (2000): Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception. Risk Analysis, 20, pp 353–362.

Siegrist M, Earle TC & Gutscher H (2003): Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks. Risk Analysis, 23, pp 705–716.

Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S & Wiek A (2007): Laypeople’s and Experts’ Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, pp 59–69.

Skitka LJ & Mullen E (2002): Understanding Judgements of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A Test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, pp 1419–1429.

Slovic P (2010): The Psychology of Risk. Health Society, 19, 4, São Paulo Oct/Dec. Steirer MA & Thorsen D (2013): Potable Reuse: Developing a New Source of Water for San Diego. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 105, 9 pp 34–35..

Sutherland L.A, Mills J, Ingram J, Burton RJF, Dwyer J & Blackstock K (2013): Considering the Source: Commercialisation and Trust in Agri-Environmental Information and Advisory Services in England. Journal of Environmental Management, 118, pp 96–105.

Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE & McCreddin JA (1999): Defining the Components of Fairness in the Allocation of Water to Environmental and Human Uses. Journal of Environmental Management, 57, pp 51–70.

Tyler TR & Degoey P (1996): Trust in Organizational Authorities, in: Kramer, RM, Tyler TR (Eds), Trust in Organizations. Frontiers of Theory and Research. Sage, London.

Uhlmann V & Head B (2011): Water Recycling: Recent History of Local Government Initiatives in South East Queensland. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report.

93

water Business

WATER BUSINESS PENTAIR – MAKING A DIFFERENCE FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

PARTNERING WITH AN EXPERT IN WATER AND WASTEWATER

Pentair has delivered 19kms of ductile iron pipes, valves and fittings for construction of the $40 million Harcourt Rural Modernisation Project. Pentair’s 500mm TYTONXCEL PN35 ductile iron pipe will be used to construct the backbone of the new, modernised rural pipeline system.

NHP understands the value of our most precious resource and has quickly adapted to the shift towards the need to recycle and sustain water and wastewater. Be it pumping stations, treatment plants or pipelines, NHP can provide a complete product range suitable for the most complex of water and wastewater applications.

Damian Mackey, Pentair Vice President – Water Solutions, said that Pentair is unique in Australia, providing a full range of pipeline products and services.

“Pentair is Australia’s leading manufacturer of pipes and fittings for the Australian water industry and for export. For our customers, Pentair provides the ability to partner with a very large and quality manufacturer that can deliver a premium product on time and to their specifications.

“Pentair recently joined forces with St Gobain PAM, the world’s largest supplier of ductile iron pipelines. This alliance means that Pentair can deliver world’s best innovation and value for our Australian customers like Coliban Water.

Pentair’s 500mm TyTONXCeL PN35 ductile iron pipe.

“For Coliban Water’s Harcourt project, Pentair manufactured a custom DN500, PN35 high pressure valve to incorporate a DN150 integral bypass valve at our Currumbin Foundry in Queensland.

“This provides a smaller installation footprint to reduce construction costs, and will reduce the risk of injury to operators and structural damage to pipeline components for the operational life of the pipeline,” Damian explained.

Victorian Minister for Water, Peter Walsh, said Harcourt’s concrete and earthen channel system had serviced rural customers for more than 100 years but had become inefficient.

“The Harcourt Rural Modernisation Project will provide a year-round pressurised supply of water to irrigators in the region,” he said. “By providing irrigators with greater water security, there will be improved business certainty. This will underpin the sustainability of agriculture in the area.”

Pentair is also providing logistics support and Pentair’s respected industry training for pipe installation. This training is critical to ensuring that the installed system quality of the pipeline meets the design requirements for quality, performance and longevity.

Pentair Vice President Water Solutions Damian Mackey (left) and Victorian Minister for Water Peter Walsh.

For more information please contact Leif.

Ericson@pentair.com

NHP’s proud involvement in a number of important water and wastewater projects not only highlights our capability in this important industry sector, but the increasing value that projects across Australia are placing on partnering with an expert to achieve results.

NHP’s involvement in the Cleaner Seas Project in Cairns serves as one such example of where NHP, together with exclusive distribution partner Rockwell Automation, have proven they are ideal for sustainable projects and are able to service a wide range of custom applications.

As part of their obligation to meet the requirements of the Queensland State Government’s Coastal Management Plan, Cairns Regional Council initiated the Cleaner Seas Alliance, which involved extensive upgrades at four major wastewater treatment plants in the region. The $188M project was based around upgrading the Marlin Coast Treatment Plant, the Northern Treatment Plant, the Southern Treatment Plant, and the Edmonton Treatment Plant.

The major goals of the work undertaken on these projects included: • Reducing the nutrients being discharged to the Great Barrier Reef by up to 80%; • Increasing the capacity of the plants given the rapidly increasing population and region of Cairns;

February 2014 water

94

Water Business • Capturing water enabling the re-use of recycled water around the botanical gardens and the airport.

Meeting these goals required the development of a number of new facilities that included Bioreactors, SMF Structures, Clarifiers, Pre-Treatment Areas and UV Disinfection.

“Prior to the upgrade, the plants had limited automation, which meant most operation was performed manually. The technological advancements have ensured full automation, with minimal operator intervention required,” said Karen Eaton, Principal Control & Instrumentation Engineer at UGL Infrastructure Water, who were an integral member of the Alliance and responsible for the electrical design and delivery of the project.

“One of the big modernisations of the project was the automation and control element. Operators can monitor the plant from a central location, and all the plants are networked to council chambers”.

In line with the objectives of these four separate upgrades, with the help of NHP, the projects were fitted with a number of Cubic MCCs and Main Switchboards, Finder Relays, IME Current Transformers, Fuses and Terminals.

A large range of Rockwell Automation products, including the Allen-Bradley® range of integrated drives software, were also installed, proving to be a vital component in terms of minimising energy consumption.

All the right connections for the water industry.

“NHP represent the Rockwell Automation products in Cairns and for this project we used a large suite of these including PLCs, Ethernet switches and Allen-Bradley PowerFlex VSDs – so it was really a showcase project for this range,” Eaton continued when speaking of the value of the Rockwell Automation range to the project.

“Throughout the project we were conscious that all decisions needed to take this into account and it’s been a real advantage that NHP have a specialised branch in Cairns. We deal with NHP quite regularly and their service and accessibility has always been excellent.”

Given that Cairns is relatively remote from the rest of Australia, the technology needed

HI 9829 Kit

Whether it’s for drinking, irrigation or industry, Australia’s climate and reliance on water has produced some of the world’s most innovative suppliers of water products and services.

Now there’s an online tool that brings all these suppliers together in one central location. ICN’s Water Directory is a pivotal connection point for project and procurement managers looking for the best water industry suppliers in our region.

This comprehensive directory has a powerful search function that allows you to find suppliers with capabilities that exactly match your needs.

Multiparameter Meter

Combine this with the experience and knowledge of ICN’s consultants and you can be sure you’ll never miss an opportunity to find the perfect partner.

Start exploring Australia’s ICN Water Directory today at water.icn.org.au

water February 2014

pH/ORP/ISE, EC/TDS/Resistivity/Salinity/ Seawater Specific Gravity, Turbidity, DO, Temperature and Atmospheric Pressure

tel:

(03) 9769 0666

email:

sales@hannainst.com.au

web:

www.hannainst.com.au

95

water Business to be designed in a way that would ensure it would be easily maintainable while also providing easy-to-access spares in the event that equipment would need to be replaced.

“At NHP, we are committed to not only fitting projects with the required products, but equally value our after sales service.

We are pleased to have established a Parts Management Agreement (PMA) with the Cairns Regional Council to decrease the size of the spares required to support this vital infrastructure, and ensure we are there when required,”, said Mark Smedts, Business Development – Projects WA. The upgraded facilities have considerably expanded capacity to meet population growth predictions catering for a population of more than 200,000 people, and the highquality recycled water will aid non-drinking re-use purposes such as industrial cooling applications, concrete production and dust suppression, irrigation on golf courses, parks and sporting grounds, and agriculture.

A NEW TOOL FOR WATER TREATMENT OPERATORS Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) is a new tool and approach for water treatment and distribution operators in the detection of microbiological loads. The real-time, accurate quantification of total bioburden provides operators with the ability to pinpoint the problem area within a system, apply treatment and quantify the efficacy of this treatment within a matter of hours, compared to days or weeks with traditional methods. This rapid feedback enables the expedient and proactive adjustment of system operations to ensure that localised problems do not evolve into major problems.

Water treatment operators typically use Heterotrophic Plate Counts to estimate the total population of microorganisms in a water sample and to supplement regulated

Call us to discuss your applications: Melbourne 03 9793 9999 Sydney 02 9671 3666 Brisbane 07 3200 6488 Email: info@brownbros.com.au Web: www.brownbros.com.au DELIVERING PUMPING SOLUTIONS

Since results are not known until several days later, HPC tests provide minimal value as a control tool, since changes in the water system have already occurred well after they have been detected. Culture test results may vary according to the media used, highlighting its reliance on detection of cultivable organisms (which typically represent a small proportion of total microorganisms). As well, some species such as algae are difficult to remove once they are established, so it is important to detect changes in water quality as early as possible.

In general, since the main goal of an HPC test is to reveal changes in the overall water quality, the value would undoubtedly be much higher if the results were known at the time the sample was collected instead of several days afterward.

For more information on NHP’s offering in the water and wastewater industry, plus access to a range of exclusive literature and video content, visit nhp.com.au/media/mobile to download our NHP eCatalogues App.

HYDROVAR, the modern variable speed pump drive is taking pumping to a new level of flexibility and efficiency.

parameters such as Total Coliform and E. coli tests. While it can be useful as a general indicator of water quality, the shortcomings of the HPC are well documented. Several species that can cause significant problems in water systems such as nitrifiers, sulfatereducing bacteria, iron bacteria and algae are not easily culturable and, therefore, would otherwise go unnoticed.

The tested & proven mechanical seal that requires no maintenance, tolerates movement & exhibits longlife.

RESISTANT TO: * AIR *CHEMICALS *FUELS *WATER *GAS

Bolt Pressure plate Pipe of any size (up to 2.4m dia.)

2 hour Fire Rating

www.projex.com.au (02) 8336 1666

mail@projex.com.au

February 2014 water

96

Water Business it a high enough calorific value to produce the energy required for transport fuel. It will also make it highly flammable – which is why it is important to keep levels of oxygen low during the process. The XTP601 provides stable, accurate readings and is capable of measuring oxygen from 0–1% up to 0–50% as well as suppressed zero ranges, such as 90–100%.

In terms of measuring total microorganisms, ATP monitoring provides, in real-time, more complete and therefore more accurate results when compared to HPC. When applied to municipal water management, ATP analyses allow the operator to assess microbial content of raw influent, disinfectant demand, and monitor the overall effectiveness of treatment.

When the microbial content at any point in the process increases, it is either a sign that a change in the incoming microbial loading had increased or some aspect of disinfection has failed. Either way, it provides the operator with real-time knowledge of this change and allows them to investigate it more closely.

While this enables operators to act quickly when changes are detected, culture-based methods offer little in the way of rapid response, since the long incubation times associated with them only notify users of elevated risk after the problem has occurred.

Beyond the treatment process, ATP monitoring also provides great value to monitor downstream points in the distribution system for biological activity such as regrowth, infiltration, nitrification and biofilm accumulation. ATP monitoring is especially effective to monitor biological activity in chloramine-treated systems because it can detect nitrifiers, unlike HPC tests.

Since nitrifiers are difficult to detect, the problem sometime goes unnoticed until it begins to cause more serious problems (i.e. biofilm) and is not noticed until problems have long compounded (i.e. formation of organic-consuming heterotrophic microorganisms). The hard work of operators and engineers in even the most efficient water treatment processes is essentially negated if downstream regrowth is not effectively monitored and controlled.

While the benefits of ATP monitoring are numerous, it is important to point out that ATP monitoring will not replace compliance tests required by most governments and regulatory bodies (i.e. E. coli, Coliform, etc).

While ATP monitoring detects all species, it also will not differentiate between different species. Furthermore, since viruses do not contain significant quantities of ATP, they cannot be detected using ATP monitoring.

water February 2014

However, despite the fact that ATP monitoring cannot replace this required testing, it is a powerful tool to guide disinfection programs and water management programs to ensure that compliance targets are met. Since upstream changes in water quality can be immediately detected using a routine ATP monitoring program, it will give operators an early indication that increased disinfection may be required. In addition, when used in concert with currently employed TOC measurements, it can indicate if changes in influent water quality are biological in nature.

For details contact arthurk@roycewater. com.au or visit www.roycewater.com.au

ENSURING SAFETY OF BIOGAS PRODUCTION A major Scandinavian producer of Biogas has selected Michell Instruments’ XTP601 oxygen analysers to monitor O2 levels for safety and quality at two sites in Sweden.

The XTP601 Oxygen Analyser is used to continuously provide readings of the levels of O2 in the process. In general, the lower level of oxygen in these applications should be no more than 0.5%, with a danger level of 4%.

The XTP601 has alarms to shut down the plant if oxygen levels approach the danger level.

There are three options for configuration: a transmitter; a transmitter with status LEDs; or a full display version. All of these options may be rated for either safe or hazardous area use, with hazardous area classifications available for ATEX, IECEx and CSA. The full display version of the XTP601 has a touch screen interface to enable easy operation without needing to remove the lid. This means that users can calibrate, change settings and interrogate the instrument in the hazardous area without the need for a ‘hot permit’ or permission to carry out work.

Menus allow easy access to information on oxygen concentration; analyser status; a graph showing oxygen trends over a user-defined time period; alarm history; minimum and maximum concentrations and other parameters to aid diagnosis of plant conditions.

For more information please visit www.ams-ic.com.au

One plant produces biogas from sewage, while the other uses food and garden waste; however, the biogas from both plants is used as a transport fuel. Despite the different feedstocks, the process of upgrading the gas for use is the same. The biogas must beupgraded to 95% methane, which will give

Advertisers Index Aquatec-Maxcon 15 Bintech 18 Brown Brothers

95

Comdain 5 Desal Discovery Centre & Training 93 Hach Pacific Hanna Instruments ICN – International Capability Network James Cummings & Sons Mears

OBC 94 94 62 40

NHP Electrical Engineering Products Pentair

7 IFC

Projex Group

95

Simmonds & Bristow

16

Sydney Water

20

Tenix 74 Transfield 17 Water Infrastructure Group

21

Xylem 11 Zetco IBC

ON-SITE TESTING FOR REAL-TIME RESULTS. Hach Hydraulic Fracturing Water Analysis Kit Designed to deliver simple, fast, on-site analysis in oil and gas applications, including source water, frac fluid, produced water, flowback water, water treatment, drilling fluids, and enhanced oil recovery.

hachpacific.com.au/fracwater | 1300 887 735