Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management (WWCM) Showcase Project · This is the first urban Whole Water Cycle Management Project of this scale north of the Great Dividing Range.

Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management (WWCM)

Showcase Project Sharing the Lessons Report

1. Executive Summary 51.1 Project Description 6

1.2 Regulatory Environment 7

1.3 Innovation 9

1.4 Project Delivery 12

1.5 Independent Review 12

1.6 Project Analysis 13

2. Project Description 152.1 Project Scope 17

2.2 Local & Regional Context 17

3. Regulatory Environment 183.1 Outline of the Regulatory Framework 19

3.2 Conventional model of urban water management 20

3.3 Understanding urban water management in Bendigo 22

3.4 New directions of urban water 22

3.5 Price Regulation 23

3.6 Built environment regulation 24

3.7 Environment regulation 25

3.8 Public Health regulation 26

3.9 Regulatory Environment Learning 27

3.10 Regulatory Environment Further Recommendations 28

4. Innovation 294.1 Locality Variables 30

4.2 Professional Expertise 35

4.3 Water Treatment 35

4.4 Water Capture, Supply & Reuse 37

4.5 Flood Attenuation 37

4.6 Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change 38

CONTENT4.7 Funding Models 40

4.8 Innovation Learnings 41

4.9 Innovation Further Recommendations 42

5. Project Delivery 435.1 Management Model 44

5.2 Civil Construction 45

5.3 Maintenance 45

5.4 Project Delivery Learnings 45

5.5 Project Delivery Further Recommendations 45

6. Independent Review 466.1 Peak Stormwater Discharge

Modelling 47

6.2 Detention Modelling 47

6.3 Water Balance Modelling 48

6.4 Water Treatment Modelling 53

6.5 Technical Viability of Project Replication 56

6.6 Independent Review Learnings 56

6.7 Independent Review Further Recommendations 56

7. Project Analysis 577.1 Social Impacts 58

7.2 Environmental Impacts 59

7.3 Economic Impacts 59

7.4 Cost Benefit Analysis 61

7.5 Project Analysis Learnings 68

7.6 Project Analysis Further Recommendations 69

8. References 70

TablesTable 2-1 – Project Funding 16

Table 3-1 – Significant features and challenges affecting urban water for Bendigo 21

Table 3-2 – Institutions responsibility for urban water service delivery for Bendigo 22

Table 3-3 – Annual stormwater run-off for Bendigo 23

Table 3-4 – Entities Responsible for each of the elements of built environment regulation 24

Table 3-5 – Drinking Water regulation for Bendigo 26

Table 4-1 – Stormwater Quality Objectives 35

Table 6-1: Fully Developed Catchment Percentage Impervious Calculations 50

Table 6-2- Calculation of increase in impervious area from current to fully developed levels 51

Table 6-3- Current Catchment – Percentage Impervious Calculations 52

Table 7.3-1 – Willingness to contribute to recycled water schemes – unit cost value ($/kilolitre) 59

FiguresFigure 1-1: Water Storage /Detention Before and After 6

Figure 1-2: Terminal Building Landscape Before & After 9

Figure 1-3: Entrance Road Landscape Before & After 11

Figure 1-4: Aerial View of Landscape Before & After 12

Figure 2-1: Locality Map 17

Figure 3-1: Murray Darling Basin Catchment 20

Figure 4-1: Victoria Watershed 30

Figure 4-2: Kow Swamp Locality 31

Figure 4-3: Average Annual Rainfall 31

Figure 4-4: Annual Rainfall Variability 31

Figure 4-5: Average Annual Mean Temperature 31

Figure 4-6: Average Annual Maximum Temperature 31

Figure 4-7: Average Annual Minimum Temperature 32

Figure 4-8: Average Annual Evaporation 32

Figure 4-9: Average Annual Evapotranspiration 32

Figure 4-10: Annual Rainfall Anomaly 33

Figure 4-11: Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly 33

Figure 4-12: Annual Maximum Temperature Anomaly 33

Figure 4-13: Annual Minimum T emperature Anomaly 33

Figure 4-14: Trend in Mean Temperature 33

Figure 4-15: Fluxes involved of an urban building – air volume 34

Figure 4-16: Terminal Building Landscape Before & After 34

Figure 4-17: Entrance Road Landscape Before & After 34

Figure 4-18: Aerial View of Landscape Before & After 34

Figure 4-19: Traditional WSUD (Bio-Retention Basin) 35

Figure 4-20: Floating Wetland Treatment Process 36

Figure 4-21: Bendigo Airport Innovative WSUD (Floating Wetland) 36

Figure 4-22: Ultra Violet Treatment 36

Figure 4-23: Catchment Area 37

Figure 4-24: Four domains relevant for understanding water cultures (Lindsay, 2014) 38

Figure 4-25: The co- ‐evolutionary triangle 39

Figure 4-26: Value Capture Funding Model 40

Figure 4-27: Impact of Bannister Creek living stream on the value of a median residential property within 200m of the project site. 40

Figure 5-1: Project Hierarchy 44

Figure 5-2: Construction of Water Storage 45

Figure 5-3: Pump Station Installation 45

Figure 5-4: Third Pipe Installation 45

Figure 5-5: Installation of Floating Wetland 45

Figure 5-6: Landscaping 45

Figure 5-7: Bird Netting Installation 45

Figure 6-1- Conceptual daily rainfall – runoff model adopted in MUSIC Software 48

Figure 6-2: Mean Annual Loads - ‘Green Field’ Catchment 49

Figure 6-3: Node Water Balance - ‘Green Field’ Catchment 49

Figure 6-4: Mean Annual Loads - Future/ Fully Developed Catchment 50

Figure 6-5- Catchment Water Balance – Future/ Fully Developed Catchment 50

Figure 6-6- Current Catchment – Mean Annual Loads 52

Figure 6-7: Current Catchment – Catchment Water Balance 52

Figure 6-8: Treatment Train Effectiveness 53

Figure 6-9: Swale Drain – Node Water Balance 54

Figure 6-10: Detention Basin – Node Water Balance 55

Figure 6-11: Node Water Balance – Floating Wetland 55

Figure 7-1: Passive Area at Bendigo Terminal Building Before and After 58

Figure 7-2: As Constructed Treatment Train Effectiveness 59

Figure 7-3: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr (including Landscaping) 62

Figure 7-4: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping) 63

Figure 7-5: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr -Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (including Landscaping) 64

Figure 7-6: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr -Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (excluding Landscaping) 65

Figure 7-7: Economic Analysis for Demand of 93Ml/yr (including Landscaping) 66

Figure 7-8: Economic Analysis for Demand of 65Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping) 67

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 Project DescriptionThe Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management (WWCM) Showcase Project is funded by the Office of Living Victoria, City of Greater Bendigo (COGB), Coliban Water, North Central Catchment Authority (NCCMA) and the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities.

The Bendigo Airport WWCM showcase project incorporates best practice WWCM principals to attenuate, treat and harvest stormwater originating from an upstream catchment of 124.721ha. It leaves a legacy of community engaged in WWCM along with improved collaboration between stakeholders, each having increased understanding of WWCM principles.

This project Includes the construction of a 62,200m3 basin which includes 15,632m3 for permanent water storage and 46,568m3 for stormwater detention. This significantly mitigates an existing drainage issue, reducing peak stormwater flows in the catchment by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP (ultimate state of catchment development). Further to this potable water use is reduced by 31,289 Kl/year.

Figure 1-1: Water Storage/Detention Before Figure 1-1: Water Storage/Detention After

Onsite harvesting of the captured water is enabled through the installation of a “third pipe” pressure delivery system. This enhances the use of water onsite providing fit for purpose water to the existing toilet block and landscaped areas. This is designed to provide water for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation for the future Stage 3 Business Park & Commercial Precinct.

Pollutant discharge into downstream water ways is also significantly reduced. Utilising Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles, the project includes a sediment basin, swale drain and a floating wetland. These WSUD elements combined with the reuse of water for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation significantly improves water discharging into downstream waterways as follows:

• 86.4 % (55,990 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Suspended Solids

• 67% (89.3 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Phosphorus

• 38.5% (359 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Nitrogen

• 100% (12,400 kg/yr) Reduction Gross Pollutants

7

1.2 Regulatory Environment “Existing urban water management practices have been successful in delivering the water, sewerage and drainage services that Australian urban communities have demanded. However, the combined impacts of climate change, urban population growth and increasing urban densification are placing significant pressures on Australian hydrological systems and water service delivery mechanisms. These pressures are driving calls to reform the urban water sector and encourage a more ecologically sustainable approach which will ensure the long-term reliability of water supplies (Sharma, 2012).” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015).

Essentially there are three functional problems that are not adequately dealt with by current urban water management practices and regulatory responses:

1. Use of water is used in efficient and multi-functional ways. An example of such multi-functionality would be passive stormwater capture technologies which simultaneously provide drainage, public amenity and environmental benefits. The amenity and environmental benefits include preventing the degra-dation of urban waterways, from pollution and excess water flows. The amenity and environmental benefits also include the provision of water to irrigate street trees which in turn lowers city temperatures and to increases air quality; (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

2. The ability to exploit new, alternative sources of water, for example, by using water recycled from sewage; and (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

3. Measures to ensure healthier waterways and wetlands, for example, by protecting the quality and quantity of water in urban waterways. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Bendigo is a geographically sprawling city, currently undergoing significant population growth. Such population growth places stress on existing urban water supply systems. It also places existing urban water regulatory frameworks under pressure.

Bendigo has a low annual rainfall averaging 506.5 mm/year, with moderate variability. Such scarcity and variability inevitably means that security of water supply is a continuing concern. Bendigo has always been aware of the finite nature of water resources since its earliest development during the gold rush, however the community became more aware recently during the Millennium drought between 1997 and 2009.

The Millennium drought highlighted the finite nature of water resources and broader issues of climate change and sustainability, resulting in significant public concern about water security (Ferguson et al., 2013). Significant projects to improve water security were undertaken during this period, including the Goldfields Superpipe Pipeline (supply from the Waranga Western Channel at Colbinabbin) and the treatment and reuse of non potable water from the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant.

Significant water restrictions were in place during this period, significantly impacting on the liveability of the city. This included the drying out (to the extent of being unusable) of many sporting grounds and passive recreation areas.

Additionally, Bendigo is susceptible to urban flooding, this was most recently demonstrated in 2010, when Victoria was subject to widespread flooding. As result of this event, the Bendigo Flood Model has been developed in collaboration with the NCCMA and COGB. This flood model significantly improves understanding of how flood waters affect the Bendigo urban environment.

There is a need to adjust the regulatory frameworks existing in Bendigo, so that the combined impacts of climate change, urban population growth and increasing urban densification can be catered for.

8

1.2.1 Regulatory Environment LearningsImpedance in innovation

• Current regulation still largely reflects the conventional model of urban water management;

• The conventional model of urban water management and existing regulatory frameworks have been successful;

• Experimentation has occurred within current frame-works but these may still be impeding innovation;

• Property rights and allocation regimes have not kept pace with new water sources;

• Current regulations for alternative water source projects are inconsistent and partial;

• Current drinking water regulation models may not be suitable for all providers of water sensitive services;

• Current frameworks may impede and do not encour-age greater diversity in water service providers; and

• Current frameworks are not adequate to regulate private water service providers.

Economic Incentives

• There is limited evidence that independent price regulation encourages water sensitive innovation;

• Direct grant funding has been a powerful regulatory incentive;

• Regulations that require the best practice management of stormwater can incentivise water sensitive service delivery;

• Developer contributions can be a useful tool in encouraging water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulation to encourage the uptake of water sensitive service delivery at a building level is undeveloped; and

• Regulating point source pollution from sewage en-courages the uptake of recycled wastewater projects.

Institutional Arrangements

• Water governance arrangements are complex;

• A lack of coordination across institutions may be leading to lost opportunities;

• Current institutional arrangements impede diversity in water service provider;

• Clear institutional responsibility for waterways health may result in stronger controls for non-point source pollution by stormwater;

• There is an opportunity to improve coordination between land use and service planning;

• Publicly-owned water corporations can deliver innovation; and

• Current water service providers may be trusted to innovate in drinking water service provision.

1.2.2 Regulatory Environment Further Recommendations

Innovation

• Clear and consistent regulatory requirements and approvals processes for alternative water source projects should be developed;

• Property rights and allocation mechanisms for alternative water sources should be clarified;

• Drinking water regulatory regimes should be reconfigured to ensure these are suitable for water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulatory arrangements for private sector providers and developers third party access arrangements should be clarified and developed;

• The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) should be reviewed and updated;

• Regulatory mechanisms that recognise the urban catchment should be developed; and

• Improved waterway gauging of the Bendigo Creek, so that stormwater characteristics of the Bendigo urban area can be more accurately obtained.

Economic

• Governments continue to provide explicit grants to encourage innovation;

• Governments should consider regulatory tools that target the built environment;

• Water pricing reform to encourage more water sensitive innovation should be considered; and

• Governments should consider strengthening the enabling environment for wastewater recycling schemes through point source pollution regulation.

Institutional

• Institutional responsibility for waterways health and stormwater management should be clarified;

• Coordination between WWCM and land use planning should be strengthened; and

• Further research into the role of internal regulatory tools and professional practices should be conducted.

Political

• Environmental water entitlements should be clarified; and

• Australian Governments should clearly signal their policies around the potable use of recycled water.

9

Figure 1-2: Terminal Building Landscape After

Figure 1-2: Terminal Building Landscape Before

1.3 InnovationThis project is significant in its location being north of the Great Dividing Range, with watershed towards the Murray River, into Myers Creek, then Mount Hope Creek into Kow Swamp. Hence, only the additional water derived by the increase urbanisation within the catchment (i.e increase in impervious area) can be captured for reuse.

The success of this project relied on the ability to store, detain and treat water to a standard that was suitable for the release into downstream waterways along with mitigating public health risk associated with reuse of stormwater. To meet all these objectives an innovative floating wetland was incorporated into the project. This floating wetland is first to be installed on this scale in the Bendigo region.

This project captures 22.5% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (current state of development when compared to the predeveloped catchment) and is capturing 16.7% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (ultimate state of development compared to the predeveloped catchment).

This demonstrates that there is still 125.42 ML/year (current development state) and 180.53 ML/year (ultimate developed state) that can could be stored (with enlargement of current water storage) and used to provide raw water for use outside the airport environs.

This showcase project in itself presents one step in undertaking innovation and behavioural change. This project provides the community with a real on ground demonstration of what can be achieved when Whole

Water Cycle Management principles are incorporated into an environment.

Through this showcase project, societal innovation and behaviour change is influenced by the following factors:

• The creation of a passive recreation space at the Bendigo Airport;

• Installation of onsite signage demonstrating how the environs have been created and the WWCM principles incorporated;

• Education of key stakeholders and the community through the publication of this report and associated flyer; and

• Through the presentation of sharing the learnings workshop with key stakeholders.

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Office Living Victoria for the amount of $966,984.56. Further cash contributions from the City of Greater Bendigo $10,000 and Coliban Water $10,000 were provided for the publication of this report.

As is demonstrated through the delivery of this project direct funding is a powerful regulatory incentive. Other Innovation funding models have been employed around the world to upgrade infrastructure and service development.

Financing models such as “Value Capture” and “Tax Increment” is utilised in the US, UK and EU to green communities, upgrade infrastructure and service development, using incremental increases in government revenues that result, to help finance the costs financing is identified. (Anstey et al.).

10

1.3.1 Innovation LearningsLocality Variables

• This project is located North of the Great Diving Range, where watersheds north towards the Murray River (Kow Swamp). This is opposed to all other WWCM projects in Victoria of this scale, which flow South into the Southern Ocean. Only the additional water derived by the increase urbanisation within the catchment (i.e increase in impervious area) can be captured for reuse i.e. No disruption to historical predeveloped discharge volumes;

• There was a need to treat water derived from an industrial catchment, suitable for the irrigation of landscaping and use for non potable water use i.e. toilet flushing, washing of outdoor equipment;

• Due to rainfall variability being moderate, the water storage needed to be sized accordingly. Sizing of the water storage took into account rainfall patterns from 1992 to 2010, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• With an approximate annual average evaporation of 1400mm/year the water storage need to be sized accordingly. Sizing of the water storage took into account evaporation patterns from 1992 to 2010 years, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• With an approximate annual average evapotranspi-ration of 500mm/year the water storage needed to be sized accordingly, to allow for adequate irrigation of plants and lawns. Sizing of the water storage took into account evapotranspiration patterns from 1992 to 2010, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• Alternate means to reducing evaporation (along with reducing bird strike risk) where considered. Armor Balls™ were determined suitable for employment at the Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management Showcase Project. Armor Balls would have reduced evaporation by 90%, hence reducing the size of the water storage required. Due to budgetary constraints this option wasn’t pursued for this project, but is recommended for consideration in the future;

• Historical patterns for rainfall, evaporation and evapotranspiration have been included in the water balance model;

• This project provides one adaption technique for mitigating impacts of reduced freshwater resources;

• Potential exist for reduction of urban warming and the formation of Urban Heat Islands (UHI), when irrigation landscaping is employed.

Professional Expertise

• Incorporation of best practice Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), including the ability the ability to model floating wetlands (a new

technology for Northern Victoria) in the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC);

• Adoption of best practice Water Balance Modelling practices used for the development of large scale mine sites;

• Extension of existing flood attenuation modelling expertise to cater for large catchment incorporating a range of land uses. Traditional expertise has been around the ability to convey flows from one point to another, expertise is continuing to develop from flow modelling to volumetric modelling (i.e storage and release of volumes over time – Full use of the one dimensional St Venants Equation); and

• The recently completed Bendigo Flood Model, provided minimal assistance for this project, due to this catchment only being modelled to a concept standard. However, it is noted that the Bendigo Flood Model offers the ability to understand, plan and measure outcomes of detention/retention schemes more accurately (In locations where Bendigo Flood Model has been modelled to a final standard).

Water Treatment

• Incorporation of new innovative floating wetlands to meet best practice stormwater treatment guidelines, whilst also incorporating stormwater detention and water storage; and

• Adoption of best practice Water Balance Modelling practices s used for the development of large scale mine sites.

Water Capture, Supply & Reuse

• Water Balance Modelling & demand estimates for the Bendigo Airport ( fully developed) indicate a total required raw water supply of 31.29 ML/year, this is detailed as follows:

o Required water for toilet flushing 9.45 ML/year; and

o Required water for landscape irrigation 21.84 ML/year.

• The current project uses 22.5% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (current state of development compared to the predeveloped catchment);

• The current project uses 16.7% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (ultimate state of development compared to the predeveloped catchment).

• There is still 125.42 ML/year (current development state) and 180.53 ML/year (ultimate developed state) that can could be stored (with enlargement of current water storage) and used to provide raw water for use outside the airport environs.

• Potable water use is decreased by 31,289 kl/year.

11

Flood Attenuation

• Reducing peak stormwater flows in the catchment by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP storm event (ultimate state of catchment development)

Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change

• A key element to the successful implementation of Whole Water Cycle Management is in the need to for Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change; and

• Four domains of understanding water culture are “Systems & Infrastructure”, “Social and Geograph-ic Capital”, “Everyday Practices and Values” and “Domestic Contexts and Technologies”.

Funding Models

• Ongoing direct grant funding is required to support innovation in whole water cycle management principles;

• The value of upstream benefits for this project were not captured. Upstream Benefits include:

o Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide onsite water detention;

o Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide Water Sensitive Urban design; and

o There is potential for the additional water to be captured and supplied through the extension of a raw water main (refer to Section 4.4).

• The value of onsite benefits will be captured through the increased sale/lease price of council controlled airport land.

1.3.2 Innovation Further RecommendationsLocality Variables

• It is noted that there is a significant lack of research on climate changes affects for Bendigo. Hence difficult to allow for the effects of climate change into this projects or any other water resource project in the region.; and

• Further research is required to quantify the effect, irrigated landscapes have on microclimates.

Professional Expertise

• Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of professionals tasked with employing Whole Water Cycle Management projects is required. A Formal CPD program should be developed in partnership with professional bodies and tertiary education providers.

Water Treatment

• Ongoing water quality testing should occur to determine onsite benefits of Floating Wetlands.

Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change

• To effect societal innovation and behaviour change ongoing input is required from all levels of government, relevant agencies and key stakeholders.

Funding Models

• Future WWCM project should consider “Value Capture” and “Tax Increment” models to offset government funding costs;

• Drinking water regulatory regimes should be reconfigured to ensure these are suitable for water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulatory arrangements for private sector providers and third party access arrangements should be clarified and developed;

• The NWQMS should be reviewed and updated; and

• Regulatory mechanisms that recognise the urban catchment should be developed.

Figure 1-3: Entrance Road Landscape After

Figure 1-3: Entrance Road Landscape Before

12

Figure 1-4: Aerial View of Landscape After

Figure 1-4: Aerial View of Landscape Before

1.4 Project DeliveryThe delivery of this project was delivered using PMBoK principles within a Prince 2 Governance framework. The City of Greater Bendigo was the key proponent of this project and made the governing decisions within the Project Control Group. Key to the success of this project was the ability to engage key stakeholders at the appropriate times.

The successful implementation of WWCM in the Bendigo Region requires the development of a Bendigo WWCM Framework in which projects can be identified, prioritised and investment justification built prior to proceeding.

Due the number of key stakeholders and affected agencies in the development and implementation of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects, an Independent Project Manager operating within a highly developed Project Management Framework should be utilised in realising these projects.

1.4.1 Project Delivery LearningsManagement Model

• Due to the number stakeholder/agencies and innovations Whole Water Cycle Management projects need to be delivered within a highly developed Project Management model to appropriately manage, risk, time, cost, quality and scope.

Construction

• Existing contracting capability exists within the Bendigo Region to undertake the construction of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects.

1.4.2 Project Delivery Further RecommendationsManagement Model

• The replication and extension of Whole Water Cycle Management in the Bendigo urban environment requires the development of a Bendigo WWCM Framework in which projects can be identified, prioritised and investment justification built prior to proceeding. As water is interconnected through the whole cycle and managed by different agencies through this cycle, the framework needs to be developed before proceeding with projects, to ensure investment is not squandered and unintentional dis-benefits are realised; and

• Due to the number of key stakeholders and affected agencies in the development and implementation of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects, an Independent Project Manager operating within a highly developed Project Management Framework should be utilised in realising these projects. It is suggested an independent Project Manager would report to a Project Control Group which includes key affected agency representation.

Maintenance

• In replicating WWCM projects outside the control environs of the Bendigo Airport, management and maintenance responsibility needs to be determined. As WWCM projects involve all aspects of the water cycle, management responsibility outside a controlled environs is unclear.

1.5 Independent ReviewAn independent review was conducted by final year La Trobe University Engineering Students Lachlan McMahon, Alex O’Brien-Dickson and Michael Gasz. The objectives of their research were as follows:

• Investigate peak flows & the volume of water exiting the catchment for the following scenarios:

o Completely undeveloped ‘greenfield’ catchment;

o Current state of development within the catchment; and

o Ultimate state of development, within the catchment in line with council planning guidelines.

• Determine detention volume required for a 1% AEP rain event; and

• Identify potential barriers that would prevent replication elsewhere.

13

1.5.1 Independent Review Learnings• Treatment train effectiveness improves as re-use

demand increases;

• Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for reduction of nitrogen are not being met by the as constructed treatment train. The guidelines require a 45% reduction of nitrogen; the treatment train is currently achieving a 38.5% reduction of nitrogen;

• Comparison between the green field and ultimate developed catchment indicated 217 ML/yr of additional flows are being generated;

• Comparison between the green field and current state of catchment development, indicated 161.87 ML/yr of additional flows are being generated;

• In the ultimate state of catchment development, 180.53 ML/yr of additional flows would exit the basin compared with predeveloped levels. This figure takes into account the construction of the WWCM project and the Airport Business Park using 31.3 ML/yr. Excluding evapotranspiration losses an additional 180.53 ML/yr could be re-used without affecting historical flow volumes.

• At the current level of catchment development, 125.42 ML/yr of additional flows would exit the basin compared with predeveloped level. This figure takes into account the construction of the WWCM project and the Airport Business Park using 31.3 ML/yr. Excluding evapotranspiration losses, an additional 125.42 ML/yr could be re-used without affecting historical flow volumes; and

• The as constructed detention basin was determined to reduce flows in 1% AEP storm event (ultimate state of catchment development) event from 17.6m3/s to 1.3m3/s (reduction of 92.5%).

1.5.2 Independent Review Further Learnings• The Bendigo Flood Model in this location should be

developed to final design stage;

• Develop MUSIC modelling guidelines that incorporate WWCM principles;

• Ongoing water quality testing should occur before and after the treatment train to calibrate results; and

• Conduct further investigation into the costs and benefits of replicating this type of project in a brown field development. There is potential to abandon the installation of small detention/ WSUD systems for whole of urban catchment based solutions. Analysis should cover the benefit of recovered land, the cost of upgrading drainage networks and installing and operating raw water reticulation systems.

1.6 Project Analysis A financial analysis of the project as constructed indicates a Net Present Value (NPV) of $0.12M and a Benefit Cost Ration (BCR) of 1.1.

However if water use was increased from the currently demand of 32Ml/yr to the maximum 93 Ml/yr (i.e increase in demand for raw water, relies on potable water supplement during periods of very low rainfall) the NPV increase to $2.12M and the BCR to 3.0.

There is significant benefits in investing in Whole Water Cycle Management which include:

• Social benefits;

• Environmental benefits; and

• Economic benefits.

1.6.1 Project Analysis LearningsSocial Impacts

• This project provides a passive recreation space at a key gateway to Bendigo, being the Bendigo Airport terminal.

Environmental Impacts

• A reduction in peak stormwater flows in the catchment by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP storm event (ultimate state of catchment development);

• Modelling by design engineers on the project indicated that the best practice design at the airport will decrease pollutant levels by:

o 86.4 % (55,990 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Suspended Solids

o 67% (89.3 kg/yr)Reduction in Total Phosphorus

o 38.5% (359 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Nitrogen

o 100% (12,400 kg/yr)Reduction Gross Pollutants

• This project realises a reduction of potable water use of 32 Ml/year.

• There is potential to supply a total water demand of 65Ml/yr without relying on potable water backup, should a demand be derived this would reduce potable water use by an additional 34 Ml/yr.

Economic Impacts

• Existing research indicates a Broader Community’s Willingness to Pay for recycled water projects, this has been conservatively estimated at 0.45 $/kl;

• Existing research indicates a Willingness to Pay to avoid water restrictions, this has been conservatively estimated at 3.00 $/kl;

14

• The long run value of avoided potable water source costs are often referred to as the Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC). Recent LRMC estimates have been published by economic regulators, this has been conservatively estimated at 1.82 $/kl;

• Viable water supply options negate the need for homeowners to install alternative water supply options such as tanks, the estimated saving is 3,000$/household; and

• The value of onsite benefits can still be captured through the sale/lease increase of council controlled airport land such as the proposed sale of business park allotments. It could be argued that the each allotment within the proposed business park could now achieve an increased site value of $10,000 per a lot.

Cost Benefit Analysis

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr and the inclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $118,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$613,342

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr and the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $398,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$333,342;

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr, the inclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping and the equalising of the Recycled Water Volumetric Charge to that of the Potable Volumetric Charge, the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $118,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$101,026;

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr, the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping and the equalising of the Recycled Water Volumetric Charge to that of the Potable Volumetric Charge, the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $398,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $178,974;

• With a reused demand of 93ML/yr (break even point from service provided perspective with irrigation costs included) and the inclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $2,119,600 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $41;

• 91% (85Ml/yr) of the service provider break even point demand of 93Ml/yr can be supplied without increasing the water storage capacity and

• With a reused demand of 65ML/yr (break even point from service provided perspective with irrigation costs excluded) and the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $1,486,381 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $80;

1.6.2 Project Analysis Further RecommendationsSocial Impacts

• Undertake choice survey specific to Bendigo to provide greater understanding of communities views and perceptions.

Environmental Impacts

• Understanding of the effects of peak storm discharges through the combination of a number of WWCM projects within the Bendigo Urban Catchment is outside the scope of this report. However it is anticipated that it would have significant impact in reducing flooding impacts through Huntly, possibility reducing capital cost on the existing levee banks. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact on flood events a series of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would have;

• The combined effect of the existing WSUD elements is not ascertained. It is suggested that delivery of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would provide improved pollutant reductions. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact on pollutant loadings a series of WWCM projects being undertaken in key strategic locations would have.; and

• Opportunity to extend the reticulation network into the Bendigo East industrial area, or alternatively explore additional demands for raw water should be explored so that full supply opportunity of 65Ml/yr (34Ml/yr above existing demand) can be exploited.

Economic Impacts

• Standard guidelines for the cost and benefits for the Bendigo region should be developed, to improve consistency in economic analysis of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects in the region.

Cost Benefit Analysis

• Whole Water Cycle Management incorporated into the whole Bendigo urban catchment should be explored further, and an economic model built based on best practice cost benefit principles, prior to adhoc investment.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

16

The Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management (WWCM) Showcase Project was funded by the Office of Living Victoria, City of Greater Bendigo (COGB), Coliban Water, North Central Catchment Authority (NCCMA) and the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities as detailed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 - Project Funding

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe purpose of this report is to share the lessons learnt through the delivery of this project and provide further recommendations for further implementation of WWCM in the Bendigo urban area.

This project was located with environs of the Bendigo Airport in East Bendigo (refer to Figure 2 1).

Contributor Cash Amount ($) Inkind Amount ($)

Office of Living Victoria (OLV) $966,984.59 $0.00

City of Greater Bendigo (COGB) $10,000.00 $224,138.00

Coliban Water $10,000.00 $8,360.00

North Central Catchment Authority (NCCMA $0.00 $8,360.00

CRC for Water Sensitive Cities $0.00 $15,972.00

Total Contribution $986,984.59 $256,830.00

17

2.1 Project ScopeThe Bendigo Airport WWCM showcase project incorporates best practice WWCM principals to attenuate, treat and harvest stormwater originating from an upstream catchment of 124.721ha. It leaves a legacy of community engaged in WWCM along with improved collaboration between stakeholders, each having increased understanding of WWCM principles north of the Great Dividing Range.

This project Includes the construction of a 62,200m3 basin includes 15,632m3 for permanent water storage and 44,568 m3 for stormwater detention. This significantly mitigates an existing drainage issue, reducing peak stormwater flows in the catchment by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP (ultimate state of catchment development). Further to this potable water use is reduced by 31,289 Kl/year.

Onsite harvesting of the captured water is enabled through the installation of a “third pipe” pressure delivery system. This enhances use of water onsite providing fit for purpose water to the existing toilet block and landscaped areas. This is designed to provide water for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation in the future Stage 3 Business Park & Commercial Precinct.

With the addition of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) through the installation of a floating wetlands, the project improves downstream waterways by significantly reducing pollutants from upstream industries.

2.2 Local & Regional ContextThe community of Bendigo as a whole has a good understanding of the importance of water. This was reinforced in the period 1997 to 2009 when Bendigo was in severe drought (“millennium drought”) resulting in the community being subjected to some of the harshest water restrictions in Australia.

Currently, a WWCM framework does not exist in Bendigo or the region as a whole. A framework is essential to ensure clear understanding of local interactions of urban stormwater discharge, water quality, water usage and catchment integrity north of the Great Dividing Range.

The Bendigo Airport WWCM project provides project stakeholders a better understanding of the application of WWCM principles on a regional level, enabling the development of a WWCM framework in Bendigo.

Figure 2-1: Locality Map

This project was underpinned by three pillars as follows

1. Regional Resilience

• Reduced potable water usage Using right water for right use;

• Reduced downstream impacts during storm events;

• Improved fire fighting water access; and

• Improved amenity for emergency services.

2. Health & Wellbeing

• Reduced pollutant load into waterways;

• Environmental Spill Protection; and

• Passive & Active recreation.

3. Economic & Community Development

• Community engaged in WWCM;

• Improved regional centre access;

• Airport gateway presentation; and

• Stakeholders engaged in WWCM.

3. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

19

3. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT3.1 Outline of the Regulatory FrameworkA review of regulation undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities found that “existing urban water management practices have been successful in deivering the water, sewerage and drainage services that Australian urban communities have demanded. However, the combined impacts of climate change, urban population growth and increasing urban densification are placing significant pressures on Australian hydrological systems and water service delivery mechanisms. These pressures are driving calls to reform the urban water sector and encourage a more ecologically sustainable approach which will ensure the long-term reliability of water supplies (Sharma, 2012).”

“As a result, there is a growing realisation that existing practices may need to change, and become more sustainable, if Australian cities are to continue to benefit from high quality urban water management (Brown, 2008) (Newman, 2001).”

Indeed, this is not just an Australian problem. Countries across the developed world face similar challenges in maintaining their current, reliable water supplies (OECD, 2015).

A comparative review undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities looked at the urban water regulatory space in three Australian metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. This review identified how regulation in these three cities impacted on innovation. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Regulation for urban water management in each of these three cities is complex, consists of many

webs of regulatory controls seeking to meet multiple, and potentially competing, policy objectives in areas as diverse as public health, environmental protection, water security, urban amenity and consumer protection. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015).

A similar web of urban water management regulations exists for Bendigo and surrounding areas. Areas north of the Great Dividing Range are further impacted by regulations protecting the flow of water generated within the Murray Darling Basin Catchment. Refer to Figure 3 1.

Essentially there are three functional problems that are not adequately dealt with by current urban water management practices and regulatory responses:

1. Use of water is used in efficient and multi-functional ways. An example of such multi -functionality would be passive stormwater capture technologies which simultaneously provide drainage, public amenity and environmental benefits. The amenity and environmental benefits include preventing the degradation of urban waterways, from pollution and excess water flows. The amenity and environmental benefits also include the provision of water to irrigate street trees which in turn lowers city temperatures and to increases air quality; (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

2. The ability to exploit new, alternative sources of water, for example, by using water recycled from sewage; and(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

3. Measures to ensure healthier waterways and wetlands, for example, by protecting the quality and quantity of water in urban waterways. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

20

(Murray-Darling-Basin-Authority)

As detailed in the comparative review of Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, it was identified that the current regulatory frameworks, supply options and institutional arrangements have been shaped in response to a conventional model of urban water management and service delivery. “Yet these very frameworks and institutional arrangements may now impeding innovation. For example, our institutional arrangements are not integrated across the water cycle. Nor do our legal definitions of water and the mechanisms we employ to allocate and protect water resources fully capture the variety of potential water sources available for exploitation.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“Also, our current frameworks may impede, and certainly do not encourage, greater diversity in water service providers. As problematic as restrictive regulation are those gaps within existing regulatory frameworks which make discerning the allocation of legal risk under the background law extremely costly and time consuming. Enabling regulation can provide certainty and lower transaction costs. Enabling regulation may also allow the risks of the new practice to be specifically allocated, and potentially shared, in more desirable ways.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

3.2 Conventional model of urban water management“Urban water services traditionally encompass three bundles of related services (Productivity Commission, 2011); water supply services, sewerage services and drainage services. In developed nations, the conventional model for urban water service provision involves water being collected, distributed and treated in large infrastructures which are centrally organised at the city level (OECD, 2015). In this model there is a

heavy reliance on technology to augment supply and policy is primarily focused on maintaining water quality and supply (OECD, 2015) In this model, urban water services are delivered by corporatised utilities focused on achieving economic efficiency in service delivery”. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“Primary concerns of this dominant paradigm have long been water quality and public health, reliability of supply, sanitation through wastewater disposal and flood mitigation for flood risk through a ‘dams and pipes’ approach (Head, 2014). Current regulation and policy in the Australian urban water space often represents this dominant engineering approach (Head, 2014).”

“Water also has some distinctive economic features, these features have influenced the pricing of water and he property rights regimes that have developed for water. These features also influence the service delivery models that have developed for the urban water sector and the type of investments that are typically made by the sector.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“These features have influenced the types of property rights regimes that have emerged for water and often make water governance arrangements challenging.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015) These features are as follows:

1. Water is both a public and a private good – water has aspects of a private good. These aspects enable it to be enjoyed by an individual, for example when drunk. Yet, when left in situ in the environment, water also has aspects of a public good. These aspects mean that it can be enjoyed simultaneously by many people, for example, a great number of people may enjoy recreational activities on a lake. This makes water hard to value because a public good is valued in different ways to a private good. Accordingly, valuations of water must incorporate the value placed on water left in the environment by many people;

2. Water is mobile - water flows and can be reused. These mobile qualities make it hard to enforce property rights on return flows and have led to the development of ‘collective rights’ in water;

3. Water is bulky and expensive to transport - to deal with shortages there must either be rationing or stockpiling of the resource, for example in a dam;

4. Water infrastructure is long lived, capital intensive and benefits from considerable economies of scale - this is particularly the case in relation to potable water. These qualities mean that the water industry is heavily influenced by fixed costs, has short run marginal costs, is well suited to being a natural monopoly and is also well suited to collective action and public provision. A consequence of water provision being best suited to collective action is that it is also subject to the problems that all attempts at collective action are subject to such as free riding (where those who benefit

Figure 3-1: Murray Darling Basin Catchment (Murray-Darling-Basin-Authority)

21

do not pay) and rent seeking (where an attempt is made to grab a bigger share of existing wealth with-out creating new wealth). In addition, these qualities mean that the water industry is subject to lumpiness in investment, which favours occasional large-scale supply augmentations;

5. Price of water - water prices tend to reflect the physical cost of supply, not the scarcity of the resource. As a consequence, water users tend to pay for the costs of the infrastructure not the costs of the resource itself. Water, typically being a government owned resource, is given away for free or nearly for free.

6. Essentialness of water - up to a certain low threshold water is essential for life. However, this quality says little about the value of water above this threshold.

“The conventional model has generally served cities extremely well (OECD, 2015). However, the conventional engineering approach has been heavily criticised for its limitations, which are particularly apparent in times of drought, and for its ineffectiveness in addressing increasingly complex water problems (Blomquist et al., 2004).“

Exposure to Water Risk

Urban Features Institutional Architecture

ephemeral Bendigo Creek

Population – 106,971 (ABS 2014)

Urban characteristics – affluent, sprawling and growing.

Urban surroundings –Bendigo north of the Great Diving Range surrounded by ironbark forest, agricultural land, industrial land, metropolitan areas, state parks and protected areas.

The Victorian Government is responsible for water planning and with the support of various departments.

The Department of Environment Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) manages groundwater, catchments and waterways, infrastructure, water saving and re-use projects, flood management, governance and water legislation. Their expertise ranges from river hydrology and environmental science to water engineering, planning and specialist industry technologies.

Coliban Water provides water and sewerage services, along with providing bulk water, storage, treatment.

North Central Catchment Authority (NCCMA) provides catchment management, waterway health and flood plain management services.

Murray Darling Basin Authority

• Prepares, implements and reviewing an integrated plan for the sustainable use of the Basin’s water resources;

• Operation of the River Murray system and efficiently delivering water to users on behalf of partner governments;

• Measuring, monitoring and recording the quality and quantity of the Basin’s water resources;

• Supporting, encouraging and conducting research and investigations about the Basin’s water resources and dependent ecosystems;

• Advising the Australian Government Minister for Water Resources on the accreditation of state water resource plans

• Providing water rights information to facilitate water trading across the Basin

• Engaging and educating the Australian community about the Basin’s water resources.

Table 3-1 – Significant features and challenges affecting urban water for Bendigo

22

3.3 Understanding urban water management in Bendigo“The OECD (2015a) has developed a typology through which to understand the particular water challenges faced by particular cities and the capacity of individual cities to respond to these challenges. This typology considers three dimensions; exposure to water risks, distinctive urban features and institutional architecture.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Table 3-1 provides a simplified version of this typology for Bendigo.

Bendigo is s a geographically sprawling city currently undergoing significant population growth. Such population growth places stress on existing urban water supply systems. It also places existing urban water regulatory frameworks under pressure.

Bendigo has a low annual rainfall averaging 506.5 mm/year, with moderate variability. Such scarcity and variability inevitably means that security of water supply is a continuing concern. Bendigo has always been aware of the finite nature of water resources since its earliest development during the gold rush, however the community became more aware recently during the Millennium drought between 1997 and 2009.

The Millennium drought highlighted the finite nature of water resources and broader issues of climate change and sustainability and resulted in significant public concern about water security (Ferguson et al., 2013). Significant projects to improve water security were undertaken during this period, including the Goldfields Superpipe Pipeline (supply from the Waranga Western Channel at Colbinabbin) and treatment and reuse of non potable water from the Bendigo Water Reclamation Plant.

Significant water restrictions were in place during this period, significantly impacting on the liveability of the city. This included the drying out (to the extent of being unusable) of many sporting grounds and passive recreation areas.

Additionally, Bendigo is susceptible to urban flooding, this was most recently demonstrated in 2010, when Victoria was subject to widespread flooding. As result of this event, the Bendigo Flood Model has been developed in collaboration with the NCCMA and COGB. This flood model significantly improves understanding of how flood waters affect the Bendigo urban environment.

3.4 New directions of urban water“Ensuring the provision of sanitation services and an adequate supply of water to urban users, at an acceptable quality and price, will continue to be the focus of urban water service provision. However, future supply options may be constrained by financial constraints, aging assets and less availability of tradition-al resources (OECD, 2015). There is also an increasing expectation in Australia that the water industry should play an important role in water resource conservation, environmental protection and that it should make a contribution to the overall liveability of our cities (National Water Commission, 2011).”

“Recently in Australia there has been a gradual emergence of a more collaborative approach to water governance and a more integrative approach to the sustainable management of all water resources in cities (Brown et al., 2009). This focus heralds a shift beyond traditional concerns of water supply, sanitation and drainage. Sustainable urban water management envisions an increasingly integrated mix of centralised and decentralised technologies, to augment water supply with treated wastewater or stormwater, as well as a focus on waterway protection and enhanced urban amenity (Dobbie and Brown, 2013). This is leading to experimentation with new ideas in service delivery. For example, the use of recycled wastewater in dual reticulation systems and the capturing and treating of stormwater as a resource to water open spaces or to replenish aquifers.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“With increasing urban population and climate variability there have been calls for adaptive management and planning in the urban water sector (Tan et al., 2012) and solutions that are contextual and provisional (Head, 2014). A Water Sensitivity City requires urban water regulatory frameworks which are resilient to change, which recognise drought and flood as part of the natural hydrological cycle, and which are able to adapt to changing circumstances. Yet recent experiences indicate that water planning, management and investment in Australia is still often undertaken in the context of political impetus rather than as part of a longer term strategic rationale.(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“As supply concerns remain a significant issue in Western Australia, it has been suggested that Perth provides an example of a city beginning to adopt adaptive, resilient and integrated water

Table 3-2 – Institutions responsibility for urban water service delivery for Bendigo

Water Service Type Institution

Water Supply ServicesBulk Water – Coliban Water

Retail Water – Coliban Water

Sewerage ServicesBulk Sewerage – Coliban Water

Retail Sewerage – Coliban Water

Drainage Services City of Greater Bendigo

23

management (Jones and Brooke, 2005). Perth’s adaptive responses assume that climate change will continue to see declines in rainfall in the south-west of the State, rather than reacting once these eventuate. However, to date the response to such challenges has been largely focused upon developing climate independent water supplies, such as desalination plants (Water Corporation, 2009). A far broader set of responses is likely to be required in the future.”

In addition, modern approaches to drainage service provision focus both on providing adequate drainage and on controlling for the environmental harms from urban stormwater run- off (Wong et al., 2013). Newer stormwater management practices involve capturing water closer to its source and finding uses for it that do not involve discharge to rivers and the bay. This in turn is leading to stormwater to be considered as an alternative water resource for exploitation. The amount of stormwater falling” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015) on Bendigo is extensive, refer to Table 3 3.

(Estimated based on Huntly stream gauge No. 407255. This gauge includes significant catchment which is not urban, it is assumed that 50% of the flows between 1992 and 2010 are derived from urban Bendigo, hence 50% of 13.40Gl/yr. Improved gauging of the Bendigo Creek is required to ascertain this more accurately)

To put this amount of run-off in context, the current volume of drinking water consumed in the Bendigo Metropolitan Area is approximately 10.69 GL/yr (38,204 households on urban Bendigo with an average use of 280 kl/yr) “Urban stormwater runoff does therefore appear to represent a significant, and currently underutilised, water resource.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“In conclusion, the literature supports the general assertion that there are perceived regulatory barriers to water sensitive innovation. These barriers appear to be largely due to overlapping responsibilities and unclear regulations which in turn create a complex and uncertain regulatory environment. It has been suggested that this uncertainty has created a climate of risk aversion (Tjandraatmadja et al., 2008) which results in a reluctance to invest in innovative water solutions.”

The CRC for Water Sensitive Cities recommends the development of statutory definitions and allocation mechanisms for all sources of water, clear and consistent regulatory requirements and approvals processes for alternative water source projects, statutory licensing for service providers and third party access regimes.(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

3.5 Price Regulation“Water has been historically under-priced in all Australian jurisdictions (Cullen, 2004). However, significant reform has taken place over the past twenty years. Early reforms involved the introduction of consumption-based pricing by way of a two-part tariff composed of an access and a usage component (Council of Australian Governments, 1994). More recent reforms, following the 2004 the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initia-tive (NWI), introduced upper bound pricing. Following these changes water pricing now seeks to recover the full range of costs, including social and environmental externalities, incurred in providing urban water services (Department of Environment, 2015). Yet, the recent Harper Review of Competition Policy (Harper et al., 2015) found that urban water pricing still fails to reflect its cost of provision and suggested this was discouraging private sector involvement in urban water. Indeed, distinctive features of water as a resource mean that under-pricing is common in most countries, as water is priced on a historic cost of supply not a future cost of replacement (Hanemann, 2005)

“Currently only Victoria prices water to include externalities (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2010) and there remain significant difficulties in deriving a price for such externalities (Frontier Economics, 2011). Moreover, due to recent investments in supply augmentation during the Millennium drought, price paths do not yet fully reflect cost recovery (PriceWaterhouse-Coopers, 2010). Therefore, water is still under-priced across Australia. Various reasons have been given for this state of affairs including historical precedent, institutional inertia, lack of political will and a lack of public understanding about the need for better water pricing (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2010)

“The relatively low cost of current potable water has significant implications for the adoption of alternative water sources, particularly those which may only be suitable for non-potable purposes.37 For example, Dimitriadis (2005) notes that some water recycling schemes have failed because they do not seem economically viable in comparison to traditional drinking water supply sources.”

“Current pricing practices for urban water services are considered adequate when there are limited supply concerns. However, during the Millennium drought, existing mechanisms did not allow for prices to readily respond to fluctuations in available supply. This would have enabled prices to have reflected the true value of water in times of scarcity and to signal efficient water use. Accordingly, it has been suggested that scarcty pricing could be a useful regulatory tool for ensuring a sustainable supply and demand balance in urban water frameworks (Frontier Economics, 2011). This has been endorsed by Western Australia’s economic regulator in relation to recycled water (Economic Regulation

Bendigo

Estimated annual stormwater runoff in

metropolitan Bendigo

6.70 GL/yr

Table 3-3 – Annual stormwater run-off for Bendigo

24

Authority, 2009) and the Productivity Commission (2008). Scarcity pricing, where there is a variable price for water reflecting differences in seasonal and spatial supply and demand, could also help mitigate the environmental externalities of inefficient water practices (Gardner et al., 2006).”

3.6 Built environment regulation“In Australia, the uses that the urban environment can be put to are controlled by formal statutory planning regulatory systems. The objectives of such statutory planning systems are to balance the competing societal uses for the urban environment. In addition, there are a number of other planning and management systems, such those relating to catchments, floodplains and waterways, which impose other controls on the use of land and waterways in the wider urban area.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“These statutory planning regulatory systems may also influence the type of infrastructure that can be developed. However, this issue is also subject to extensive control from many other regulatory sources, such as those involving public procurement rules, and through industry specific regulation. Water industry infrastructure regulation involves establishing which bodies have responsibility for providing the necessary infrastructure to deliver urban water services and setting some parameters around the planning for such infrastructure, to promote wider social objectives.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“In contrast, how built infrastructure is designed and constructed, and the standards to which building and plumbing work is done, tend to be controlled by separate, formal systems of building and plumbing regulation. The objectives of such building and plumbing regulation systems include ensuring public health and safety, protecting consumers from poor quality work and promot-ing other desirable social objectives, such as sustainability.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“Therefore, Australian built environment regulatory systems cover a number of discrete but overlapping systems of control aimed at ensuring our cities are productive, pleasant and safe while ensuring that competing uses of our cities are balanced. More-

Table 3-4 – Entities Responsible for each of the elements of built environment regulation

over, each system has its own preferred regulatory institutions, tools and approaches. In this report we are only concerned with these systems so far as they concern water in the urban area.”(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

These systems interact with water by:

• By controlling the location and type of infrastructure that is used to supply water, sewerage and drainage services in the urban area;

• determining land use planning systems to fund new water service infrastructure; and

• By controlling how individual buildings in the urban environment use water and get rid of used water.

(McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Built Environment Element

Responsible Entity

Land use in Catchments DELWP and NCCMA

Land use on FloodplainsCity of Greater Bendigo, DELWP

and NCCMA

Use of Waterways NCCMA and DELWP

Statutory PlanningCity of Greater Bendigo

and DELWP

Water infrastructure requirements/funding

Coliban Water

Building Quality Victorian Building Authority

Plumbing Quality Victorian Building Authority

25

3.7 Environment regulationIn Australia environmental regulation has been enacted to control the discharge of polluted waters into the environment and to control other threats to water quality. Pollution to waterways and the broader environment can arise from point source pollution, for example, from discharges from sewage treatment plants. It can also arise from non-point source pollution, such as from contaminants collected by stormwater flows. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“In relation to water quantity, threats largely arise from the over-extraction of water resources and regulation has been developed to increase efficient and environmentally sustainable water resource allocations. However, urban water dependent environments and their ecosystems can be degraded by receiving too much water, too little water or water flows which do not match historical patterns. For example, changes to stormwater flow patterns caused by urbanisation are causing significant environmental degradation to urban waterways (Fletcher, Walsh et al. 2011). This threat is only starting to be acknowledged and controlled for.”

Urban water management practices may also threaten the health of the environment in other ways. For example, current practices often fail to recover nutrients, such as nitrogen or phosphorous, from sewage and often produce significant amounts of climate changing gases. Emerging water sensitive technologies, offer the potential to change practices in the water industry so that these can become more energy efficient and able to recover resources from waste. Parts of the wider Australian regulatory environment may act as enablers or impediments to the uptake of such technologies. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Institutional arrangements for the management of non-point source pollution, such as stormwater, are shared between environment protection agencies and those other bodies responsible for waterways protection and urban drainage. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Point source pollution has long been managed largely through licensing systems established by environmental protection legislation and administered by environmental protection agencies across Australia. These licensing schemes require prescribed or scheduled premises, or entities undertaking environmentally relevant activities, to obtain a licence. The licence sets out conditions which control the operation of the premises, or the activity, to minimise the adverse effect on the environment. Conditions will generally address waste acceptance and treatment, as well as air and water discharge limits and requirements. Licence holders are generally required to pay an annual fee. There are specific

penalties for a breach of licensing conditions and penalties apply to those operating a premise, or undertaking an activity, without a licence. Australia is gener-ally perceived to perform well in water quality management (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2010)

“The review of water quality regulation conducted for the NWC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers Australia 2011) expressed concern about the ability of Australia’s water quality regulations to meet the challenges of emerging models of service delivery which are likely to use diversified and interconnect-ed water sources and complex treatment systems. In particular, concerns were raised about emerging regulatory gaps and the complexity of approvals processes (PriceWaterhouseCoopers Australia 2011).”

Some degree of regulation has developed to manage the specific water quality issues that alternative water source projects raise. However, as identified by De Sousa (2013) these are limited. The arrangements that currently apply evolved to deal with recycled wastewater projects and typically consider water quality issues, at least to some extent, from both the environmental and public health perspectives. (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

Specific regulation for stormwater re-use is still emerging in Australia. However, in all locations the general law of negligence imposes a duty of care on those operating stormwater harvesting and reuse regimes not to cause reasonably foreseeable damage other people (Department of Sustainability and Environment and Department of Health, 2009)(

“ In V ic tor ia , the S ta te Government recommends that the relevant guidelines in the AGWR relating to stormwater are followed in the design and management of stormwater reuse schemes. However, following this recommendation is not mandatory.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“To manage the risk of having inadequate water in the environment, Australian governments have adopted the concept of an environmental water allocation in their water resource management frameworks. However, environmental water allocation decisions are generally subject to ministerial discretion which frequently prioritises short term economic and social considerations to the cost of the environment (Bonyhady 2012). This is also common at the international level, with caps on water consump-tion often being overlooked in practice (OECD 2015b).” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015).

There is no substantive duty for environmental conservation (Gardner et al., 2006). Nor do water management frameworks identify over-allocated or overused systems and provide recovery measures (National Water Commission, 2011). As a consequence the challenge of ensuring supply and demand, including for the environment, in times of increasing water scarcity, mean that current abstraction or entitlement regimes are likely to require reform (Young 2014).

26

3.8 Public Health regulationDrinking water service delivery in Australia has been long provided by publicly owned water corporations. The regulation of public health is overseen by the State Government health department. However, on occasion, this role is shared with local councils, environmental regulators, catchment managers and water departments. Refer to Table 3 5.

“Public health in the supply of drinking water has generally been well managed in Australia and our research indicates that, at least in Victoria, there is a great deal of trust in the current regulatory arrangements. Our research also indicates that alternative water service provision may be supported by health regulators when undertaken by trusted water service providers with a history of successful drinking water quality management” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015).

“In light of this, a certain level of conservatism from public health regulators about water sensitive service delivery may be expected. Also new water service providers without a record of successful risk management and without longstanding relationships with health regulators are likely to find it harder to

satisfy these regulators that the public health risks of innovative projects will be well managed.” (McCallum and Boulot, 2015)

“There is a potential tension between existing risk based regulatory models for water quality regulation, which require significant institutional resources, and innovative technologies. These technologies may lead to more decentralised supply solutions and supply by smaller providers without such institutional resources. Smaller suppliers tend to find the complexity and costs of compliance with health regulations prohibitive (Economic Regulation Authority, 2009). Indeed, the balancing of public health standards with cost has been identified as significant regulatory challenge (National Water Commission, 2011). New models for regulatory control which are simpler, cheaper and potentially more prescriptive may suit such providers.” Regulatory Environment Learnings.

Regulatory Learnings from the Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management Project are in line with those identified by the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities in its review of Australian Water Regulation.

Table 3-5 – Drinking Water regulation for Bendigo

Control over entity able to supply drinking water

Regulator set/endorsed drinking

water quality standards

Audit/oversight mechanisms for

standards compliance

Consequences of failure to comply with standards

Regulation defining acceptable sources of drinking water

Regulation to protect water catchments

public. Water suppliers are

defined authorities within the meaning of the Water Act

1989 (Vic).

The SDA and the Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2005 (Vic) provide the

statutory framework for the regulation of

drinking water quality in Victoria

and include elements of

prescriptive, process and of performance regulation. They rely

on the public disclosure of information.

The DHHS is the public health reg-ulator for drinking water quality in

Victoria. The SDA requires water

suppliers to prepare risk management

plans and arrange for independent au-dits of these plans and report to the DHHS. The DHHS may undertake

audits of drinking water suppliers.

Failure to comply with drinking water standards results in monetary penalties

under the Safe Drinking Water

Regulations 2005 and under the Food

Act 1984 (Vic).

The SDA and the Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2005

(Vic) do not define acceptable sources of drinking water. However, the EPA

and the DHHS recommend against

using rainwater, stormwater and

recycled water for potable purposes.

NCCMA manages the catchments

covering Bendigo. The water catchment

protection regime is set out under

the Catchment and Land Protection Act

1994 (Vic).

27

3.9 Regulatory Environment Learning3.9.1 Barriers to innovation• Current regulation still largely reflects the conventional

model or urban water management;

• The conventional model of urban water management and existing regulatory frameworks have been successful;

• Experimentation has occurred within current frameworks but these may still be impeding innovation;

• Property rights and allocation regimes have not kept pace with new water source;

• Current regulations for alternative water source projects are inconsistent and partial;

• Current drinking water regulation models may not be suitable for all providers of water sensitive services;

• Current frameworks may impede and do not encourage greater diversity in water service providers; and

• Current frameworks are not adequate to regulate private water service providers.

3.9.2 Economic Incentives• There is limited evidence that independent price

regulation encourages water sensitive innovation;

• Direct grant funding has been a powerful regulatory incentive;

• Regulations that require the best practice management of stormwater can incentivise water sensitive service delivery;

• Developer contributions can be a useful tool in encouraging water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulation to encourage the uptake of water sensitive service delivery at a building level is undeveloped; and

• Regulating point source pollution from sewage encourages the uptake of recycled wastewater projects.

3.9.3 Institutional Arrangements• Water governance arrangements are complex;

• A lack of coordination across institutions may be leading to lost opportunities;

• Current institutional arrangements impede diversity in water service provider;

• Clear institutional responsibility for waterways health may result in stronger controls for non-point source pollution by stormwater;

• There is an opportunity to improve coordination between land use and service planning;

• Publicly-owned water corporations can deliver innovation; and

• Current water service providers may be trusted to innovate in drinking water service provision.

28

3.10 Regulatory Environment Further RecommendationsIt is noted the delivery of this project required to overcome regulatory barrier and agency conse rvatism. Due to this showcase project being delivered in a relatively controlled location (Bendigo Airport), these regulatory and conservatism barriers were able to be overcome.

However, to enable the replication of Whole Water Cycle Management in the general urban environment, there are significant regulatory changes required. This is due to a number of water users being present along with the need to define management responsibility of the infrastructure and legal risk associated with health etc.

Regulatory Further Recommendations from the Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management Project are in line with those identified by the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities in its review of Australian Water.

3.10.1 Innovation• Clear and consistent regulatory requirements and

approvals processes for alternative water source projects should be developed;

• Property rights and allocation mechanisms for alternative water sources should be clarified;

• Drinking water regulatory regimes should be reconfigured to ensure these are suitable for water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulatory arrangements for private sector providers and develop third party access arrangements should be clarified and developed;

• The National Water Quality Management (NWQMS) should be reviewed and updated;

• Regulatory mechanisms that recognise the urban catchment should be developed; and

• Improved waterway gauging of the Bendigo Creek, so that stormwater characteristics of the Bendigo urban area can be more accurately obtained.

3.10.2 Economic• Governments continue to provide explicit grants to

encourage innovation;

• Governments should consider regulatory tools that target the built environment;

• Water pricing reform to encourage more water sensitive innovation should be considered; and

• Governments should consider strengthening the enabling environment for wastewater recycling schemes through point source pollution regulation.

3.10.3 Institutional• Institutional responsibility for waterways health

and stormwater management should be clarified;

• Coordination between WWCM and land use planning should be strengthened; and

• Further research into the role of internal regulatory tools and professional practices should be conducted.

3.10.4 Political• Environmental water entitlements should be

clarified; and

• Australian Governments should clearly signal their policies around the potable use of recycled water.

4. INNOVATION

30

4. INNOVATION4.1 Locality Variables4.1.1 Physical LocationBeing located in Bendigo, the project posed some specific variables which required consideration. Bendigo is located between the Campaspe and Loddon River, with the only localised above ground water flowing through the Bendigo Creek. This creek is an Ephemeral Creek which is not suitable for the provision of sustainable water supply for any use.

Further to this the creek is the main drainage conduit for Bendigo and is subject to relatively quick rising and falling during significant storm events. Historical works through the most urban area of Bendigo have included the lining of this channel with concrete and bluestone to deal with sludge movement during the mining activities,

whilst also converting the flow from subcritical flow to supercritical flows during large storm event. Hence the depth of flow is reduced and velocity increased to reduce flooding in the most urbanised area of Bendigo.

Further to this levee banks in Epsom and Huntly are critical in prevent the flooding of industrial and residential areas north of the CBD of Bendigo.

This project is also located downstream of the East-Bendigo Industrial Precinct, which includes a highly impervious catchments deriving a high pollutant load into downstream waterways. Refer to Section 4.3 and Section 4.5 for further details.

However of most significance, is that this project is located north of the Great Dividing Range, with watershedtowards the Murray River, into Myers Creek, then Mount Hope Creek into Kow Swamp.

Figure 4-1: Victoria Watershed

31

Figure 4-2: Kow Swamp Locality

Figure 4-3: Average Annual Rainfall Figure 4-5: Average Annual Mean Temperature

Figure 4-4: Annual Rainfall Variability Figure 4-6: Average Annual Maximum Temperature

Kow Swamp is a large expanse of water, swampy wetlands and vegetation, and is recognised for the maintenance and conservation of biological diversity. The swamp was converted into water storage raising the full supply level of the natural wetland. Today, Kow Swamp is an important part of the Torrumbarry Irrigation System (TIS) and allows water to be harvested from the River Murray at significant rates and stored for use during periods of high demand. Kow Swamp can be drawn down as required to pass water into other Victorian Mid Murray Storages (VMMS).(Company, 2014).

This is the first urban Whole Water Cycle Management Project of this scale north of the Great Dividing Range.

4.1.2 ClimateBendigo is located on the boundary between a Tem-perate and a Grassland climate with a winter season rainfall (i.e. wet summer and low winter rainfall). Bendigo has a moderate Average Annual Rainfall of 506.5mm/year (refer to Figure 4 3) which has a moderate level of variability (refer to Figure 4 4.)

The Average Annual Maximum Temperature is 21.1 Degrees Celsius (refer to Figure 4 6) and the Average

Annual Minimum Temperature is 7.9 Degrees Celsius (refer to Figure 4 7).

Further to this, the Average Annual Evaporation is ap-proximately 1400mm/year (refer to Figure 4 8) and the Average Annual Evapotranspiration is approximately 500mm/year (refer to Figure 4 9)

32

Figure 4-7: Average Annual Minimum Temperature

Figure 4-8: Average Annual Evaporation

Figure 4-9: Average Annual Evapotranspiration

4.1.3 Climate Change SusceptibilityThe effects of climate change were not specifically accounted for in this project, although it could be argued by using rainfall, evaporation and evapotranspiration input data from 1992 to 2010 (including “millennium drought”) that it has been partially accounted for.

This project could be considered as one adaption technique for mitigating impacts of reduced freshwater resources. However it is noted that there is a significant lack of research on climate changes affects for Bendigo.

The Department of Environment identifies that “much of Victoria lies within the Murray Darling Basin region where climate change is likely to have serious impacts on water resources. Projections indicate a 13 per cent reduction in average surface water availability in the south of the Murray Darling Basin as a median outcome by 2030. The reduction would be greatest in the south-east where the majority of runoff is generated and where the impacts of climate change are expected to be greatest” (Department of Environment, 2015).

“Parts of Victoria are likely to experience increased bushfire risk due to higher temperatures and drier conditions. For example, in Bendigo the number of days experiencing high or extreme fire weather is predicted to increase from 18 days to 30 days annually by 2050”. (Department of Environment, 2015)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability” make clear predictions that impact on the Australasian region, these are summarised as follows:

• The regional climate is changing (very high confidence);

• Warming is projected to continue through the 21st century (virtually certain) along with other changes in climate;

• Uncertainty in projected rainfall changes remains large for many parts of Australia and New Zealand, which creates significant challenges for adaptation;

• Recent extreme climatic events show significant vulnerability of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence), and the frequency and/or intensity of such events is projected to increase in many locations (medium to high confidence);

• Without adaptation, fur ther changes in climate, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and ocean acidity are projected to have substantial impacts on water resources, coastal ecosystems, infrstructure, health, agriculture, and biodiversity (high confidence);

• Some sectors in some locations have the potential to benefit from projected changes in climate and increasing atmospheric CO2 (high confidence;

• Adaptation is already occurring and adaptation planning is becoming embedded in some planning processes, albeit mostly at the conceptual rather than implementation level (high confidence);

• Adaptive capacity is generally high in many human systems, but implementation faces major constraints, especially for transformational responses at local and community levels (high confidence);

• Indigenous peoples in both Australia and New Zealand have higher than average exposure to climate change because of a heavy reliance on climate-sensitive primary industries and strong social connections to the

33

Figure 4-10: Annual Rainfall Anomaly

Figure 4-12: Annual Maximum Temperature Anomaly

Figure 4-14: Trend in Mean Temperature

Figure 4-11: Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly

Figure 4-13: Annual Minimum Temperature Anomaly

natural environment, and face particular constraints to adaptation (medium confidence);

• Significant synergies and trade-offs exist between alternative adaptation responses, and between mitigation and adaptation responses; interactions occur both within Australasia and between Australasia and the rest of the world (very high confidence); and

• Understanding of future vulnerability of human and mixed human-natural systems to climate change remains limited due to incomplete consideration of socioeconomic dimensions (very high confidence).

(Kitching et al., 2014)

34

4.1.4 MicroclimateThe CRC for Water Sensitve Cities identifies that “Urban development drastically alters the natural hydrology of the landscape as impervious surfaces replace natural vegetation and soils. This reduces the infiltration of water into soils, and increases surface runoff. This leads to a deficit of water in the urban landscape and reduces evapotranspiration. This is widely documented as a con-tributor to increased urban warming and the formation of the urban heat island (UHI). Water sensitive urban

design (WSUD) and urban greening can help to restore a more natural hydrology in urban areas and increase levels of evapotranspiration and help cool the local scale urban environment.” (Coutts et al., 2014)

(for the urban external water balance (blue symbols) where P + Ie + F = E + R + ΔS, and the surface energy balance (black symbols) where Q* + QF = QE + QH + ΔQS. UCL is the urban canopy layer, RSL is the rough-ness sub-layer (Oke, 1987; Järvi et al., 2011; Coutts et al., 2012))

Whilst the Bendigo Airport showcase project incorpo-rates irrigation and landscaping, it is employed over a sparse area for the purposes of aesthetics. Although no specific research on micro climate affects resulting on this project, the irrigated landscape around the terminal building offers some insight about the micro climate benefits achieved.

The CRC for Water Sensitive Cities notes that irrigation is an excellent way to disperse water throughout the landscape and can increase local scale evapotranspi-ration rates. Widespread irrigation was most effective, as it could be applied at any time. In response to an increase in evapotranspiration, there was a subsequent reduction in atmospheric heating. (Coutts et al., 2014)

Figure 4 15: Fluxes involved of an urban building - air volume

Figure 4-16: Terminal Building Landscape After

Figure 4-16: Terminal Building Landscape Before

Figure 4-17: Entrance Road Landscape After

Figure 4-17: Entrance Road Landscape Before

Figure 4-18: Aerial View of Landscape After

Figure 4-18: Aerial View of Landscape Before

35

4.2 Professional ExpertiseExisting professional expertise exist and are well developed for the traditional urban water services encompassing water supply, sewerage and drainage. However prior to this project, professional expertise was considered immature with regard to best practice Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) and Water Balance Modelling, in particular the ability to integrate all of these expertise in one Whole Water Cycle Management (WWCM) Project.

Like traditional governance and regulation practices for managing water, the coexisting professional expertise has developed accordingly, focusing on one element of water urban water service alone, without consideration or integration of the other water services.

To realise this project upskilling in professional expertise was required. This included adapting existing expertise to undertaking the engineering design.

4.3 Water TreatmentThe success of the project relied on the ability to store, detain and treat water to a standard that was suitable for the release into downstream waterways along with mitigating public health risk associated with reuse of stormwater.

Traditional Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) practices focus on the treatment of stormwater water to reduce pollutants into downstream waterways. State Environment Protection Policies require treatment of stormwater to the levels detailed in Table 4 1.

Treatment of stormwater to meet these objectives is traditional through a primary, secondary and tertiary treatment using infrastructure such as:

• Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s);

• Sediment Basins;

• Sand Filters

• Swales;

• Bio-Retention Filters; and/or

• Wetlands.

The issue with each of the above traditional WSUD infrastructure elements is there limited ability to cater for large flows (i.e. 1% AEP storm event scouring out bio- retention filter) and the need to maintain low water levels (i.e traditional wetland maximum extended detention depth of 0.5m to maintain plant liveability).

Figure 4-19: Traditional WSUD (Bio-Retention Basin)

Table 4-1 – Stormwater Quality Objectives

Pollutant TypeStormwater Quality

Objectives

Suspended Solids (SS)80% retention of the typical urban

annual load

Total Phosphorus (TP)45% retention of the typical urban

annual load

Total Nitrogen (TN)45% retention of the typical urban

annual load

Litter70% reduction of typical urban

annual load

36

Due to the constraints of traditional WSUD treatment infrastructure with regard to flow and storage an innovative floating wetland was incorporated into the project. This floating wetland is first to be installed on this scale in Bendigo (another floating wetland has subsequently been installed at Gateway Park Lake, Kangaroo Flat). The wetland provides the ability to treat stormwater, whilst also storing water (i.e. not limited to a maximum extend detention depth of 500mm) and allows for the passing of large storm events (i.e AEP 1% storm event).

Figure 4-20: Floating Wetland Treatment Process (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric

Research)

Figure 4-21: Bendigo Airport Innovative WSUD (Floating Wetland)

Figure 4-22: Ultra Violet

Treatment

In Victoria the guidelines in the AGWR relating to storm-water are recommended. In accordance with these guidelines and to further enhance the treatment of water being supplied through the raw water supply pipe (for landscape irrigation, toilet flushing and outdoor equipment washdown) further treatment was incorporated which includes a sediment filter (to prevent blocking of irrigation valves) and Ultraviolet treatment.

As detailed in the AGWR “Ultraviolet (UV) light is currently the most common disinfection treatment used for storm-water harvesting schemes (Hatt et al 2004, DEC NSW 2006)”. “UV is likely to remain the preferred disinfection technique for stormwater reuse, at least for small-to -medium sized schemes. Practicable levels of UV disinfection are effective on protozoan parasites, where-as practicable levels of chlorine disinfection are not.” (National Resource Management Ministerial Council, 2009)

37

Figure 4-23: Catchment Area

4.4 Water Capture, Supply & ReuseThe catchment servicing the permanent water storage is 124.17 ha, servicing industrial, residential, open spaces and forested areas. Innovation was required to understand the volumetric runoff generated pre development, as currently developed and as ultimately developed.

As noted in Section 4.1.1, being located north of the Great Dividing Range there was a need to only capture the additional water derived by increase in impervious area in the catchment i.e. No disruption to historical (prior to development) discharge volumes.

Project Engineers estimated the raw water demand within the Airport Business Park is 31.29 ML/ yr (Refer to Section 6.3 for further details)

Modelling indicates that 107 ML/year flows from the catchment without any development i.e. greenfield upstream catchment. The flow increases to 269 ML/year when the catchment is modelled in its current state of development, and further increases to 324 ML/year when modelled in the fully developed state in accordance with the current planning scheme. (Refer to Section 6.3 for further details).

This project as constructed is therefore capturing 22.5% of the additional volume of water in the catchment current state of development (when compared to the predeveloped catchment) and is capturing 16.7% of the volume of water in the ultimate state of development (when compared to the predeveloped catchment).

This demonstrates that there is still 125.42 ML/year (current development state) and 180.53 ML/year (ultimate developed state) that can could be stored (with enlargement of current water storage) and used to provide raw water for use outside the airport environs.

4.5 Flood AttenuationThe use of detention basins to attenuate flows in large storm events is a well established Engineering mechanism. The innovation comes from the ability to combine and integrate storm water attenuation, water treatment and water storage in on piece of infrastructure.

This project significantly mitigates an existing drainage issue, reducing peak stormwater flows in the catchment by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP (ultimate state of catchment devlopement)s. Further to this potable water use is reduced by 31,289Kl/year.

38

4.6 Societal Innovation and Behaviour ChangeA key element to the successful implementation of Whole Water Cycle Management is in the need to for Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change.

This showcase project in itself presents one step in undertaking that innovation and behavioural change. This project provides the community with a real on ground demonstration of what can be achieved when Whole Water Cycle Management principles are incorporated into an environment.

Through this showcase project, societal innovation and behaviour change is influenced by the following factors:

• The creation of a passive recreation space at the Bendigo Airport;

• Installation of onsite signage demonstrating how the environs have been created and the WWCM principles incorporated;

• Education of key stakeholders and the commu-nity through the publication of this report and associated flyer; and

• Through the presentation of the learning in workshops to be held with key stakeholders.

Although this project provides provide one step in societal

innovation and behaviour change, there is still much work to do from all levels of government, relevant agencies and key stakeholders to influence this change. This is reinforced in the change of water use patterns since the end of the Millennium drought in 2010, to now where our water storages are at adequate levels. When direct affects such as closure of sporting grounds, in ability to water gardens on any given day and drying out of public space are not apparent it is easy for the community to lose sight of the importance of our water resources.

The CRC for water Sensitive Cities notes that “the built form of Australian cities reflects the economic and cultural preferences of generations of migrants and settlers for low-density suburban living and the detached “home” rather than the urban apartment. This has resulted in some of the most sprawling cities in the world. In seeking to understand why our expanding cities seem to make such poor use of scarce water supplies, it helps recognise the power of historical and cultural dwelling and lifestyle preferences that cannot easily be undone. The path to more sustainable water usage will mean that the vast bulk of residential buildings that have been constructed over more than two centuries, and the ways in which residents use these, will need to be adapted to meet the new urban water challenges.” (Lindsay, 2014)

Figure 4-24: Four domains relevant for understanding water cultures (Lindsay, 2014)

System & Infrastructure

Social & Geographic

Capital

Everyday Practices &

Values

Domestic Contexts &

Technologies

Laundry, bathrooms

and kitchens

Cleanliness, comfort and convenience

Good water/ Bad water

Trust

Water users/ Water savers Gardens

Alternative water sources/Water recycling

‘Big water’ Local community dynamics

Gender

Class

Ethnicity

Water governance policies and pricing

Water supply and sewerage

Path dependancy

39

Figure 4-25: The co- ‐evolutionary triangle (from Sofoulis and Williams 2008, p 54)

“A socio- ‐technical perspective is premised on the understanding that human societies co- ‐ exist with many non- ‐human entities (technologies, plants, animals, climate) and these are interwoven in our everyday lives. It links relations between users, technologies and large systems. In a socio- ‐technical perspective users are regarded as active participants.” (Lindsay, 2013)

“The way in which the socio-technical model has been taken up by various researchers to understand the interrelationship between objects, systems and practices provides a useful tool in thinking about how water practices can be changed to incorporate new habits which promote water sustainability. Importantly, through a socio- ‐technical perspective the emphasis is just not on individuals water use, but must necessarily incorporate real change to the systems, infrastructure and objects that bring water into the home (Soufoulis and Williams, 2008). Further, a socio- ‐technical perspective, emphasizes that ‘changes in practice can generate new social values and social identities, for example, water saving practices can lead people to identify as ‘water savers’ (Soufoulis and Williams, 2008). Thus, ‘acknowl-edging people’s unique cultural histories is important, but cultural innovation may also require building new kinds of identities’.”(Lindsay, 2013)

“Australia’s dominant sociotechnical system for municipal water supply, where a centralised public or corpora-tized utility pursues large scale engineering projects – dams, pipelines, central sewage treatment plants – and assumes almost complete responsibility for the supply of drinking quality water for disposal after all- ‐purpose, one- ‐time use.” (Lindsay, 2013)

“Perceptions of risk are key to understanding everyday water practices and the possibility of using alternative water sources to augment existing water supply (Lindsay, 2013)

“The realist perspective recognises risk as an ‘ objective reality’ and is regarded as a techno- ‐ scien-tific view espoused mostly by water professionals and policymakers. In this view ‘risks are understood as phenom-ena that can be identified and scientifically measured.” (Lindsay, 2013)

“By contrast, cultural meanings of risk take into account perceptions of risk ‘as a reflection and manifestation of wider social processes and cultural contexts’ (Marks et al., 2008)”

Scoial and Cultral Capital provide a key in realising the required Soccietal Inovationa and Behavioral Change. “The concepts of social and cultural capital have been used in understanding domestic water practices. The two kinds of capital have distinct meanings. Social capital in a water cultures context draws on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1984), and further developed by Robert Putnam (2000). Social capital can be defined as ‘the social connectedness of a community or the glue that enables people, organisations, communities, and nations to work together collaboratively for mutual benefit’ (Miller and Buys 2008, p 245). Cultural capital also draws on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1984) and can be broadly defined as cultural competencies and resources (such as, education) that reproduce and reinforce status and power.” (Lindsay, 2013)

“The concepts of social and cultural capital assist in understanding variation in everyday water practices. Two studies were identified that pointed to the ways in which a social and cultural approach might incorporate ideas of cultural and social capital (Askew and McGuirk 2004; Miller and Buys 2008). Social and cultural capital can encourage environmentally sustainable water practices at an individual and community level (at micro and meso levels). By enhancing social and cultural capital within households we may encourage people to ‘act at a community level and work together for mutual benefit on environmental and sustainable initiatives.”(Lindsay, 2013)

‘OBJECTS’Symbolic and material

qualities of technologies, objects

‘USER CULTURES’Users habits,

practices, expectations

‘SYSTEMS’Sociotechnical systems, collective conventions

and arrangements

Dimension 1 Dimension 2

Dimension 3

Three dimensions of sociotechnical co-evolution. Adapted from Elizabeth Shove (2003) Comfort,

Cleanliness and Convenience, Berg. p. 48

40

4.7 Funding ModelsFunding for this project was provided by a grant from the Office Living Victoria for the amount of $966,984.56. Further cash contributions from the City of Greater Bendi-go $10,000 and Coliban Water $10,000 were provided for the publication of this report.

As detailed in Section 3.8.2, direct grant funding has been a powerful regulatory incentive. Further to this, Section 3.5 identifies that urban water pricing still fails to reflect its cost of provision and hence discourages private sector involvement in urban water. The under-pricing is common in most countries, as water is priced on a historic cost of supply not a future cost of replacement.

Although direct funding is a powerful regulatory incentive, as is demonstrated through the successful delivery of this showcase project. Innovation funding models have been employed around the world to upgrade infrastructure and service development.

Financing models such as “Value Capture” and “Tax Increment” is utilised in the US, UK and EU to green communities, upgrade infrastructure and service development, using incremental increases in government revenues that result, to help finance the costs financing is identified. (Anstey et al.).

Figure 4-26: Value Capture Funding Model (Consult Australia/AECOM, Value Capture Roadmap, June 2015)

Figure 4-27: Impact of Bannister Creek living stream on the value of a median residential

property within 200m of the project site. (Fogarty et al., 2015)

“A study of the amenity benefits of the Bannister Creek living steam project in the suburb of Lynwood in Perth, Western Australia provides evidence that there is a positive net effect on house prices in the neighbourhood of the living stream. While there was an initial negative impact on local house prices during the construction stage of the project, after the natural wetland ecosystem has established, the median home within 200m of the restoration site increased in value by $17,000 to $26,000 above the trend increase in house values in the area. This gain more than offsets the initial outlay of the restoration project and early project disturbances to surrounding residents.” (Dr. James Fogarty, 2015).

Whilst this project didn’t “capture the value” of the works, Figure 4 27 does demonstrate the value that can be created through the restoration of urban drains.

With regard to this project there is immediate benefit for upstream industrial development that hasn’t been captured. This includes the following:

• Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide onsite water detention;

• Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide Water Sensitive Urban design; and

There is potential for the additional water to be captured and supplied through the extension of a raw water main (refer to Section 4.4).

41

4.8 Innovation Learnings4.8.1 Locality Variables• This project is located North of the Great Diving Range,

where watersheds north towards the Murray River (Kow Swamp). This is opposed to all other WWCM projects in Victoria of this scale, which flow South into the Southern Ocean. Only the additional water derived by the increase urbanisation within the catchment (i.e increase in impervious area) can be captured for reuse

• t i.e. No disruption to historical predeveloped discharge volumes;

• There was a need to treat water derived from an industrial catchment, suitable for the irrigation of landscaping and use for non potable water use i.e. toilet flushing, washing of outdoor equipment;

• Due to rainfall variability being moderate, the water storage needed to be sized accordingly. Sizing of the water storage took into account rainfall patterns from 1992 to 2010, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• With an approximate annual average evaporation of 1400mm/year the water storage need to be sized accordingly. Sizing of the water storage took into account evaporation patterns from 1992 to 2010 years, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• With an approximate annual average evapotranspi-ration of 500mm/year the water storage needed to be sized accordingly, to allow for adequate irrigation of plants and lawns. Sizing of the water storage took into account evapotranspiration patterns from 1992 to 2010, to ensure variability was accounted for;

• Alternate means to reducing evaporation (along with reducing bird strike risk) where considered. Armor BallsTM were determined suitable for employment at the Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management Showcase Project. Armor Balls would have reduced evaporation by 90%, hence reducing the size of the water storage required. Due to budgetary constraints this option wasn’t pursued for this project, but is recommended for consideration in the future;

• Historical patterns for rainfall, evaporation and evapotranspiration have been included in the water balance model;

• This project provides one adaption technique for mit-igating impacts of reduced freshwater resources; and

• Potential exist for reduction of urban warming and the formation of Urban Heat Islands (UHI), when irrigation landscaping is employed.

4.8.2 Professional Expertise• Incorporation of best practice Water Sensitive

Urban Design (WSUD), including the ability the ability to model floating wetlands (a new technology for Northern Victoria) in the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC);

• Adoption of best practice Water Balance Modelling practices used for the development of large scale mine sites;

• Extension of existing flood attenuation modelling expertise to cater for large catchment incorporating a range of land uses. Traditional expertise has been around the ability to convey flows from one point to another, expertise is continuing to develop from flow modelling to volumetric modelling (i.e storage and release of volumes over time – Full use of the one dimensional St Venants Equation); and

• The recently completed Bendigo Flood Model, provided minimal assistance for this project, due to this catchment only being modelled to a concept standard. However, it is noted that the Bendigo Flood Model offers the ability to understand, plan and measure outcomes of detention/retention schemes more accurately (In locations where Bendigo Flood Model has been modelled to a final standard).

4.8.3 Water Treatment• Incorporation of new innovative floating wetlands to

meet best practice stormwater treatment guidelines, whilst also incorporating stormwater detention and water storage; and

• Adoption of best practice Water Balance Modelling practices s used for the development of large scale mine sites.

4.8.4 Water Capture, Supply & Reuse• Water Balance Modelling & demand estimates for

the Bendigo Airport ( fully developed) indicate a total required raw water supply of 31.29 ML/year, this is detailed as follows:

o Required water for toilet flushing 9.45 ML/year; and

o Required water for landscape irrigation 21.84 ML/year.

• The current project uses 22.5% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (current state of development compared to the predeveloped catchment);

• The current project uses 16.7% of the additional volume of water created due to urbanisation (ultimate state of development compared to the predeveloped catchment).

42

• There is still 125.42 ML/year (current development state) and 180.53 ML/year (ultimate developed state) that can could be stored (with enlargement of current water storage) and used to provide raw water for use outside the airport environs.

• Potable water use is decreased by 31,29Kl/year.

4.8.5 Flood Attenuation• Reducing peak stormwater flows in the catchment by

90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP storm event (ultimate state of catchment development)

4.8.6 Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change• A key element to the successful implementation of

Whole Water Cycle Management is in the need to for Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change; and

• Four domains of understanding water culture are “Systems & Infrastructure”, “Social and Geograph-ic Capital”, “Everyday Practices and Values” and “Domestic Contexts and Technologies”.

4.8.7 Funding Models• Ongoing direct grant funding is required to support

innovation in whole water cycle management principles;

• The value of upstream benefits for this project were not captured. Upstream Benefits include:

o Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide onsite water detention;

o Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide Water Sensitive Urban design;

o There is potential for the additional water to be captured and supplied through the extension of a raw water main (refer to Section 4.4); and

o The value of onsite benefits will be captured through the increased sale/lease price of council controlled airport land.

4.9 Innovation Further Recommendations4.9.1 Locality Variables• It is noted that there is a significant lack of research

on climate changes affects for Bendigo. Hence difficult to allow for the effects of climate change into this projects or any other water resource project in the region.; and

• Further research is required to quantify the effect, irrigated landscapes have on microclimates.

4.9.2 Professional Expertise• Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of

professionals tasked with employing Whole Water Cycle Management projects is required. A Formal CPD program should be developed in partnership with professional bodies and tertiary education providers.

4.9.3 Water Treatment• Ongoing water quality testing should occur to

determine onsite benefits of Floating Wetlands.

4.9.4 Societal Innovation and Behaviour Change• To effect societal innovation and behaviour change

ongoing input is required from all levels of government, relevant agencies and key stakeholders.

4.9.5 Funding Models• Future WWCM project should consider “Value Capture”

and “Tax Increment” models to offset government funding costs;

• Drinking water regulatory regimes should be reconfigured to ensure these are suitable for water sensitive service delivery;

• Regulatory arrangements for private sector provid-ers and third party access arrangements should be clarified and developed;

• The NWQMS should be reviewed and updated; and

• Regulatory mechanisms that recognise the urban catchment should be developed.

5. PROJECT DELIVERY

44

5. PROJECT DELIVERY5.1 Management ModelThe delivery of this project was delivered via PMBoK principles within a Prince 2 Governance framework. The City of Greater Bendigo was the key proponent of this project and made the governing decisions within the Project Control Group. Key to the success of this project was the ability to engage key stakeholders at the appropriate times. The Project Hierarchy employed for this project is detailed in Figure 5 1.;

Figure 5-1: Project Hierarchy

Project Control Board Stan Liacos (COGB) - Executive

Rachel Lee (COGB) - Senior Supplier Phil Hansen (COGB) - Senior User

Project Manager Tim Dunlop

(Regional Management Group)

Detailed Design GroupTim Dunlop (RMG)- Chair

Phil Hansen (COGB)Brett Martini (COGB)

Camille White (NCCMA)Jason Crowden (Coliban Water)

Consultant Engineers (TBA)

Community & Stakeholder Engagement Group

Jasmin Bradshaw (RMG)- ChairRachel Lee (COGB)Phil Hansen (COGB)Tom Laurie (COGB)

Anthony Sheean (COGB)Jon Anstey (Coliban Water)

Roslyn Salmon (Coliban Water)

Procurement & Delivery GroupTim Dunlop (RMG)- Chair

Rachel Lee (COGB)Phil Hansen (COGB)

Paul Sherwood (COGB)

EvaluationTim Dunlop (RMG)- ChairAnthony Sheean (COGB)

Megan Kreutzer (Coliban Water)

Rowan Hogan (NCCMA)Jamie Ewert

(CRC Water Sensitive Cities)

45

5.2 Civil ConstructionThe implementation of this project was able to utilise the existing skill set of contractors with the Bendigo region. All procurement packages were competitively tendered and won by locally based business.

5.3 MaintenanceMaintenance of the newly installed infrastructure will be undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo.

5.4 Project Delivery Learnings5.4.1 Management Model• Due to the number stakeholder/agencies and

innovations Whole Water Cycle Management projects need to be delivered within a highly developed Project Management model to appropriately manage, risk, time, cost, quality and scope.

5.4.2 Construction• Existing contracting capability exists within the

Bendigo Region to undertake the construction of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects.

Figure 5-2: Construction of Water Storage

Figure 5-3: Pump Station Installation

Figure 5-4: Third Pipe Installation

Figure 5-5: Installation of Floating Wetland

Figure 5-6: Landscaping

Figure 5-7: Bird Netting Installation

5.5 Project Delivery Further Recommendations5.5.1 Management Model• The replication and extension of Whole Water

Cycle Management in the bendigo urban environment requires the development of a Bendigo WWCM Frame-work in which projects can be identified, prioritised and investment justification built prior to proceeding. As water is interconnect through it whole cycle and managed by different agencies through this cycle, the framework needs to be developed before proceeding with projects to ensure investment is not squandered and unintentionally disbenfits are realised; and

• Due the number of key stakeholders and affected agencies in the development and implementation of Whole Water Cycle Management Projects, and Independent Project Manager operating within a highly developed Project Management Framework should be utilised in realising these projects. It is suggested an independent Project Manager would report to a Project Control Group which includes key affected agency representation.

5.5.2 Maintenance• In replicating these project outside the control environs

of the Bendigo Airport, management and maintenance responsibility needs to be determined. As these proj-ect involve all aspects of the water cycle, management responsibility outside a controlled environs is unclear.

6. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

47

An independent review was conducted by final year La Trobe University Engineering Students Lachlan McMahon, Alex O’Brien-Dickson and Michael Gasz. The objectives of their research were:

• Investigate peak flows & the volume of water exiting the catchment for the following scenarios:

o Completely undeveloped ‘greenfield’ catchment;

o Current state of development within the catchment; and

o Ultimate state of development within the catchment, in line with council planning guidelines.

• Determine detention volume required for a 1% AEP rain event; and

• Identify potential barriers that would prevent replication elsewhere.

6.1 Peak Stormwater Discharge ModellingThe Rational Method was used to determine the peak flow rate for an 1% AEP rain event. In order to utilise the rational method, the catchment characteristics needed to be determined. The catchment area was established by using 0.5m contour maps on MapInfo Exponaire to determine catchment boundaries. The catchment area was determined to be 124.172 ha.

Rational Method Calculations also required the rainfall intensity and runoff coefficient to be calculated. This was completed in line with Australian Rainfall & Runoff.

Peak flow rates were calculated for the undeveloped catchment, current level of development and fully

developed catchment.

Peak flow rates were determined to be:

• Current Level of catchment development: 14.2 m3/s

• Fully developed catchment: 17.6 m3/s

6.2 Detention ModellingThe rational method was used to calculate the required detention volume using a spreadsheet that compared system inflows and outflows. The excess water that was incapable of being taken by the outflow pipe was determined as the volume of water that was required for detention in a 1% ARI storm event.

The basin is both a detention basin and permanent storage facility. In calculating the detention requirements it was assumed that the permanent storage would already be at full capacity when a rain event occurred. The detention basin is taken as the area above the permanent storage facility.

In order to assist with downstream drainage issues, the maximum outflow was limited to 1500 L/s. An acceptable flow of 1319 L/s was obtained by designing for a 750mm diameter pipe at a grade of 1 in 100. Peak flows were reduced from 17.6 m3/s to 1.3 m3/s, a reduction of 92.5%.

The storm durations used are in accordance with an AEP of 100 years, using the corresponding rainfall intensities for each duration. The rainfall intensity for a given storm duration was represented in 5 minute increments in accordance to the temporal patterns provided for Bendigo (ARR zone 8). In designing the detention system,

6. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

48

storm durations of 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes were utilised to see which was most critical.

The inflow into the detention system was calculated by selecting the largest value for each increment over all storm durations, providing a cumulative volume of flow into the detention basin as the time period increases. The outflow through the 750mm pipe is also provided as a cumulative volume, the cumulative volume of outflow is subtracted from the cumulative volume of inflow to obtain the retardation required. The retardation volume used in detention basin design is the maximum value for cumulative retardation required. The volume required to attenuate flows in a 1% ARI flood was 45,624 m3. The as constructed detention basin has a detention volume of 45,567m3. The as constructed basin is determined to have sufficient volume given there a variance of only 57m3 between modelled and as constructed detention volume.

The as constructed detention basin would result in maximum flows exiting the catchment in a 1% AEP rain event being reduced from 17.6m3/s to 1.3m3/s (reduction of 92.5%).

With the current level of development within the catch-ment peak flows would be reduced from 14.2m3/s to 1.3m3/s (90.8% reduction).

6.3 Water Balance ModellingFor the as constructed design, the permanent water storage volume was determined by estimating annual raw water demand within the Business Park. Landscaping irrigation demand was estimated at 2mm/m2/day in line with Draft Stormwater Harvesting Guidelines (2009). Reuse for toilet flushing was calculated using the Melbourne City Council Household Water Calculator (toilet usage = 5 litres x 35 flushes per week x occupants per building.

The independent investigation looked to determine the volume of runoff that would be created by the upstream catchment being fully developed. Further models were then developed assuming the catchment was completely undeveloped and at the current level of development. The amount of additional runoff being generated by development was determined by comparing the models.

Modelling was completed using the Water Balance tool within MUSIC software. Figure 6 1 provides a graphical representation of how the water balance model works.

Figure 6-1- Conceptual daily rainfall – runoff model adopted in MUSIC Software (MUSIC Development Team, 2005)

49

Figure 6-2: Mean Annual Loads - ‘Green Field’ Catchment

Figure 6-3: Node Water Balance - ‘Green Field’ Catchment

The rainfall-runoff model was calibrated with parameters recommended in the City of Greater Bendigo MUSIC guidelines. Rainfall data from the Bendigo Airport gauging station from 1992 to 2010 was imported to the model. Evapotranspiration rates, soil properties and system losses were entered in line with the CoGB modelling guidelines. MUSIC modelling guidelines recommend calibrating the rainfall-runoff model to using local flow data. There was no local flow data available to calibrate the model.

Three Models were created as part of the Water Balance modelling process:

• Model 1: Undeveloped ‘Green Field’ Catchment;

• Model 2: Fully Developed/ Future Upstream Catchment; and

• Model 3: Current Level of Development Within Upstream Catchment.

6.3.1 Model 1: Undeveloped ‘Green Field’ CatchmentThe first model developed assumed the catchment was a completely undeveloped green field. This model was created to demonstrate the additional water that is generated by development. The area of the model was determined to be 124ha and the impervious percentage was set to 0%.

It was determined the Greenfield catchment would generate an annual flow of 107ML/yr. (Refer Figure 6 2).

The Total outflow as made up of 37.92 ML/yr of base-flow, 22.57 ML/yr of impervious flow and 63.71 ML/ yr of pervious flow. (Figure 6 3)

Mean Annual Loads - Receiving Node

Node Water Balance - Green Field

Inflow

Flow (ML/yr) 107

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 14.3E3

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 34.1

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 284

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 0.00

Flow (ML/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) GP (kg/yr

Rain In 536.91

ET Loss 430.79

Deep Seepage Loss 0.00

Baseflow Out 39.92 542.30 6.64 86.59

Imp. Stormflow Out 0.00

Perv. Stormflow Out 67.06

Total Stormflow Out 67.06 13841.95 27.37 196.11

Total Outflow 106.98 14384.24 34.01 282.70 0.00

Delta Soil Storage -0.86

Warmup is ON

50

6.3.2 Model 2: Fully Develop/ Future Catchment.A second model was created which assumed that the upstream catchment were fully developed in line with CoGB planning guidelines. The catchment impervious area was determined using the typical impervious factors set out in CoGB MUSIC modelling guidelines. The guidelines recommend applying typical impervious area factors depending on land use. A planning map that specified land zones was overlaid with the catchment area established in peak flow calculations. The total area of the land zones within the catchment was identified and the fraction impervious values recommended in modelling guidelines applied.

Figure 6-5- Catchment Water Balance – Future/ Fully Developed Catchment

The catchment area and percentage impervious for the fully developed catchment were entered into MUSIC software. Modelling indicated the fully developed catchment generate a mean annual flow of 324 ML/yr. (Refer Figure 6 4)

The 324 ML of annual flows consisted of 14.7 ML/yr of baseflow, 284.7 ML/yr of impervious stormflow and 24.8 ML/yr of pervious stormflow. (Refer Figure 6 5). It is important to note that MUSIC modelling outputs are simulated results which are generated using sto-chastic results. Ideally, music models would have been calibrated for further accuracy with local flow data if it were available.

Comparing the ‘green field’ and fully developed models indicates an additional 216.97 ML of flows are being generated annually. Project engineers determined the Airport Business Park once fully developed has an estimated annual demand of 31.29 ML/yr. This consisted of 21.84 ML/yr for irrigation and 9.45 ML/yr for toilet flushing. The detention basin also results in additional evapotranspiration losses of 5.16ML/yr. As such, 36.44 ML/yr would be required to supply the business park with 31.29 ML/yr of raw water.

Therefore, there is 180.53 ML/yr (216.97 – 31.29 – 5.16) of additional flows would exit the basin from predeveloped levels. Modelling indicates there are vast amounts of water that are being generated as a result of development that could be captured and re-used locally. There is potential for the permanent storage area and pipe network to be expanded utilise the additional 180 ML /yr of flows being generated by development.

Table 6-1: Fully Developed Catchment Percentage Impervious Calculations

Mean Annual Loads - Receiving Mode

Land Zone

Area (ha)

Fraction Impervious Co-efficient

Impervious Area (ha)

IN1Z 62.52 0.9 56.27

PUZ1 0.57 0.0 0.00

PCRZ 19.16 0.0 0.00

PUZ7 2.00 0.6 1.20

PUZ4 5.16 0.7 3.62

RDZ2 2.57 0.6 1.54

IN3Z 14.95 0.5 7.47

PPRZ 0.22 0.1 0.02

LDRZ 6.11 0.2 1.22

GRZ 10.91 0.6 6.55

TOTAL 124.17 77.89

TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPERVIOUS 62.7%

Figure 6-4: Mean Annual Loads - Future/ Fully Developed Catchment

Mean Annual Loads - Receiving Node

Inflow

Flow (ML/yr) 324

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 64.9E3

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 134

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 931

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 12.4E3

Node Water Balance - Future - Fully Developed Catchment

Flow (ML/yr)

TSS (kg/yr)

TP (kg/yr)

TN (kg/yr)

GP (kg/yr)

Rain In 536.91

ET Loss 213.28

Deep Seepage Loss

0.00

Baseflow Out 14.77 200.75 2.46 32.06

Imp. Stormflow Out

284.37

Perv. Stormflow Out

24.81

Total Stormflow Out

309.19 64469.53 130.30 899.62

Total Outflow 323.95 64670.29 132.76 931.68 12456.14

Delta Soil Storage

-0.32

Warmup is ON

51

Table 6-2- Calculation of increase in impervious area from current to fully developed levels

6.3.3 Model 3: Current Level of Development with the Upstream Catchment.The catchment upstream of the detention basin has large areas that are currently undeveloped. A geo-referenced aerial photograph was overlaid with the catchment area in AutoCAD. Areas that are not currently developed were identified and measured to determine their area. The areas that are currently undeveloped are all zoned either Industrial 1 or Industrial 3 land. The recommended imper-vious factor of these lots was changed from 0.9 (INZ1)

and 0.5 (INZ3) to 0.3. The factor of 0.3 was adopted as although many lots are currently undeveloped, they have been largely cleared and in many cases shaped to fall towards drainage infrastructure. It was felt that utilising a lower coefficient would underestimate the flows from these lots.

It was found there would be a 21.39 ha increase in im-pervious area between the current level of development and the fully developed catchment (Refer Table 6 2).

Area (ha) Land ZoneFuture

Impervious Factor

Future Impervious Area (ha)

Current Impervious

Factor

Current Impervious Area (ha)

1 2.68 IN1Z 0.9 2.41 0.3 0.80

2 9.91 IN1Z 0.9 8.92 0.3 2.97

3 0.22 IN1Z 0.9 0.20 0.3 0.07

4 0.82 IN1Z 0.9 0.74 0.3 0.25

5 1.39 IN1Z 0.9 1.25 0.3 0.42

6 0.59 IN1Z 0.9 0.53 0.3 0.18

7 0.26 IN1Z 0.9 0.23 0.3 0.08

8 0.16 IN1Z 0.9 0.15 0.3 0.05

9 0.76 IN1Z 0.9 0.69 0.3 0.23

10 1.80 IN1Z 0.9 1.62 0.3 0.54

11 5.29 IN1Z 0.9 4.76 0.3 1.59

12 0.50 IN1Z 0.9 0.45 0.3 0.15

13 8.94 IN1Z 0.9 8.05 0.3 2.68

14 6.13 IN3Z 0.5 3.06 0.3 1.84

15 0.81 IN3Z 0.5 0.40 0.3 0.24

TOTAL 40.27 33.47 12.08

Increase in impervious area from current to fully developed (ha) 21.39

52

Catchment modelling parameters were again entered into MUSIC to determine the annual flow generated by the catchment. MUSIC modelling indicated the catchment with its current level of development would generate 269 ML of flow (Refer Figure 6 6). This was made up of 21.16 ML/ yr of baseflow, 212.2 ML/yr impervious stormflow and 35.54 ML/yr of pervious stormflow (refer Figure 6 7).

By once again comparing the green field with the fully de-veloped model, it and fully developed models indicates an additional 161.87 ML of flows are being generated annually. If re-use within the Business park is taken out along with evapotranspiration losses due to the detention basin, there is an additional 125.42 ML/yr of flow from predeveloped levels. This result again indicates that even with the current level of development within the catchment, vast amounts of additional runoff is being generated. Flows could be matched to be closer to pre-development levels by expanding the permanent storage volume and increasing the numbers of raw water users.

When 21.39 ha of impervious area was subtracted from the impervious area calculated in model 2, the catchment was determined to have an impervious percentage of 45.50% (Refer Table 6 3)

Figure 6-7: Current Catchment – Catchment Water BalanceNode Water Balance - Current Catchment

Flow (ML/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) GP (kg/yr)

Rain In 536.91

ET Loss 268.52

Deep Seepage Loss 0.00

Baseflow Out 21.16 287.40 3.52 45.94

Imp. Stormflow Out 212.15

Perv. Stormflow Out 35.54

Total Stormflow Out 247.69 52240.40 104.05 727.26

Total Outflow 268.85 52527.79 107.57 773.20 10274.00

Delta Soil Storage -0.45

Warmup is ON

Table 6-3- Current Catchment – Percentage Impervious Calculations

Fully Developed Impervious Area (ha) 77.89

Subtract currently undeveloped area previously assumed impervious (ha)

21.39

Current Impervious area (ha) 56.50

Total catchment area (ha) 124.17

Current Percentage Impervious 45.50%

Figure 6-6- Current Catchment – Mean Annual Loads

Mean Annual Loads - Receiving Node

Inflow

Flow (ML/yr) 269

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 52.5E3

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 108

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 773

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 10.2E3

53

6.4 Water Treatment ModellingThe review investigated the suitability of the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment train implemented in the showcase project. The treatment model incorporated the catchment characteristics for the fully developed catchment in 6.3.2 (124 ha catchment, 63% impervious). The treatment train replicated the as constructed WWCM project and consisted of:

• 120m long vegetated swale;

• 45,624m3 detention basin above a 15,645m3 permanent water storage;

• 110m2 floating wetland.

6.4.1 Treatment Train EffectivenessThe treatment train was able to adhere to Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (BPEMG) (refer Figure 6 8) for the reduction of:

• Total Suspended Solids: 86.4% reduction (80% reduction required);

• Total Phosphorus: 67% reduction (45% reduction required);

• Gross Pollutants: 100% reduction (70% reduction required);

The did not meet the BPEMG for reduction of nitrogen. The guidelines require a 45% reduction in nitrogen; the treatment train is only achieving a 38.5% reduction.

A sedimentation basin was removed due to budget

constraints. This would have assisted to reduce nitrogen levels but would not achieve the 45% reduction required. Nitrogen reduction could be achieved by increasing the amount of water supplied for re-use. It was found that when re-use was increased from 32.29 ML/yr to 67.5 ML/yr, the recommended 45% reduction in nitrogen was achieved.

The re-use of water from the detention basin aids in the treatment of water as pollutants exit the treatment train and are treated elsewhere. Water that ends up being used in toilet flushing ends up in the sewerage system and the irrigation of plants take up nutrient loading. It should be noted that full pollutant reduction levels won’t be achieved until the business park is developed and water re-use begins to occur.

The effectiveness of the treatment train increases with re-use demand. Additional Modelling was completed to display how water treatment improves with increasing re-use:

6.4.2 Swale DrainThe first element of the treatment train is the Swale Drain. The swale drain achieves the following load reductions (refer Figure 6 9).

• 55.2% (35,785 kg) reduction in Total Suspended Solids (TSS);

• 3 7.8% (50.16 kg) reduction in Total Phosphorous (TP);

• 8.3% (77.46 kg) reduction in Total Nitrogen (TN)

• 100% (12,418 kg) reduction in Gross Pollutants (GP)

Figure 6-8: Treatment Train EffectivenessTreatment Train Effectiveness - Receiving Node

Sources Residual Load % Reduction

Flow (ML/yr) 324 288 11.1

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 64800 8810 86.4

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 133 43.7 67

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 932 573 38.5

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 12400 0 100

54

6.4.3 Detention BasinThe as constructed detention basin was modelled. Assumptions/ input parameters for the modelling included:

• Catchment was fully developed (124ha catchment, 63% impervious).

• Water re-use in line with estimates made by project engineers (32.28 ML/ yr)

The detention basin was able to achieve the following load reductions (refer Figure 6 10).

• 69.5% (20,196.3 kg) reduction in TSS;

• 46.7% (39.2 kg) reduction in TP;

• 32.9% (286.5 kg) reduction in TN;

• 10.74% (36.81 m3) reduction in flow.

6.4.4 Floating WetlandThe detention basin was able to achieve the following load reductions (Refer Figure 6 10):

• 0.6% (47.6 kg) reduction in TSS

• 0.4% (0.2 kg) reduction in TP

• 0.1% (0.9 kg) reduction in TN

Load reductions being achieved by the floating wetland were lower than expected.

Figure 6-9: Swale Drain – Node Water BalanceNode Water Balance - Swale

Flow (ML/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) GP (kg/yr)

Rain In 322.72 64847.95 132.62 932.30 12418.41

ET Loss 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Infiltration Loss 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Low Flow Bypass Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

High Flow Bypass Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pipe Out 322.81 29062.19 82.46 854.84 0.00

Weir Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transfer Function Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reuse Supplied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reuse Requested 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% Reuse Demand Met 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% Load Reduction -0.03 55.18 37.82 8.31 100.00

55

Figure 6-10: Detention Basin – Node Water Balance

Figure 6-11: Node Water Balance – Floating Wetland

Node Water Balance - Detention Basin

Node Water Balance - Floating Wetland

Flow (ML/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) GP (kg/yr)

Rain In 322.81 29062.19 82.46 854.84 0.00

ET Loss 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Infiltration Loss 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Low Flow Bypass Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

High Flow Bypass Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pipe Out 286.09 8520.97 43.28 568.37 0.00

Weir Out 2.04 345.92 0.66 5.32 0.00

Transfer Function Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reuse Supplied 31.16 644.86 4.11 47.09 0.00

Reuse Requested 31.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% Reuse Demand Met 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% Load Reduction 10.74 69.49 46.71 32.89 0.00

Flow (ML/yr) TSS (kg/yr) TP (kg/yr) TN (kg/yr) GP (kg/yr)

Rain In 255.3 8030.3 39.3 517.1 0.0

ET Loss 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Infiltration Loss 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Low Flow Bypass Out 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

High Flow Bypass Out 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pipe Out 4.8 72.7 0.5 8.1 0.0

Weir Out 250.4 7910.0 38.6 508.7 0.0

Transfer Function Out 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Reuse Supplied 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Reuse Requested 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Reuse Demand Met 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Load Reduction 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0

56

• Comparison between the green field and current state of catchment development indicated 161.87 ML/yr of additional flows are being generated;

• In the ultimate state of catchment development, 180.53 ML/yr of additional flows would exit the basin compared with predeveloped levels. This figure takes into account the construction of the WWCM project and the Airport Business Park using 31.3 ML/yr. Excluding evapotranspiration losses an additional 180.53 ML/yr could be re-used without affecting historical flows;

• At the current level of catchment development, 125.42 ML/yr of additional flows would exit the basin compared with predeveloped levels. This figure takes into account the construction of the WWCM project and the Airport Business Park using 31.3 ML/yr. Excluding evapotranspiration losses, an additional 125.42 ML could be re-used without affecting historical flow volumes; and

• The as constructed detention basin was determined to reduce flows in a 1% AEP storm event being reduced from 17.6m3/s to 1.3m3/s (reduction of 92.5%).

6.7 Independent Review Further RecommendationsFollowing the independent review, the following recommendations are made:

• The Bendigo Flood Model in this location should be developed to final design stage;

• MUSIC modelling guidelines to incorporate WWCM principles;

• Ongoing water testing should occur before and after the treatment train to calibrate results; and

• Conduct further investigation into the costs and benefits of replicating this type of project in a brown field development. There is potential to abandon the installation of small detention/ WSUD systems fow whole of urban catchment based solutions. Analysis should cover the benefit of recovered land, the cost of upgrading drainage networks and installing and operating raw water reticulation systems.

6.5 Technical Viability of Project ReplicationModelling indicates there is replication would be viable in both green field and brown field developments due to the large amount of water that is created by development. Replication in green field environments may be easier for design and construction as there would be less design constraints and there would be cost savings and efficiencies in areas such as joint trenching services. Replication in brown field developments may require upgrades to upstream pipe networks and would likely have far greater design constraints. Green field sites would be suitable as:

• Large amounts of stormwater water are generated by the increased impervious surfaces;

• I nfrastructure could be installed with greater ease via joint trenching; and

• There is potential for developers to pay a contribution towards the project.

Technical barriers to replication of this project include:

• Presence of high ground water tables in parts of Bendigo, limiting the depth in which water storages can be constructed;

• Brown field sites are limited by the size of outfall drainage networks. Existing residential developments include numerous small detention/WSUD systems that limit outfall flows hence pipe sizes. Opportunity to abandon these small detention/WSUD systems needs to consider the benefit of the land recovered, the cost of upgrading outfall drainage networks and the cost of including additional raw water reticulation; and

• Green field sites provide the most technically viable location for project replication, provided planning and regulatory restriction detailed in Section 3 are appropriately dealt with.

6.6 Independent Review LearningsKey learnings of the independent review were:

• Treatment train effectiveness improves as re-use demand increases;

• Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for reduction of nitrogen are not being met by the as constructed treatment train. The guidelines require a 45% reduction in nitrogen; the treatment train is currently achieving a 38.5% reduction of nitrogen;

• Comparison between the green field and ultimate developed catchment indicated 217 ML/yr of additional flows are being generated;

7. PROJECT ANALYSIS

58

7. PROJECT ANALYSIS7.1 Social Impacts7.1.1 Health Benefits of irrigated Public SpacesA study conducted by Medibank Private in 2008 found the physical inactivity costs the Australian economy $13.8 Billion annually. Physical activity is beneficial to both physical and psychological health. Irrigating public

Figure 7-1b: Passive Area at Bendigo Terminal Building Before

Figure 7-1a: Passive Area at Bendigo Terminal Building After

open spaces helps improve both the aesthetics and functionality of the areas. For example, irrigating a sporting field provides an improved surface that increases enjoyment and reduces the risk of injury. Irrigating a sporting field with recycled stormwater may also allow facilities to be watered during times where water restrictions are in place.

This project provides a passive recreation space at a key gateway to Bendigo, being the Bendigo Airport terminal.

59

7.2 Environmental Impacts7.2.1 Reduced flood eventsThis project reduces the peak flow from 17.6 m3/s flow to 1.3m3/s in a 1% AEP storm event when the catchment is fully developed.

Understanding of the effects of peak storm discharges through the combination of a number of WWCM projects within the Bendigo Urban Catchment is outside the scope of this report. However it is anticipated that it would have significant impact in reducing flooding impacts through Huntly, possibility reducing the need for capital cost being spent on the existing levee banks. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact that a series of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would have on flood events.

7.2.2 Reduced Pollutant LevelsModelling by design engineers on the project indicated that the best practice design at the airport will decrease pollutant levels by:

• Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) – 86.4%

• Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) – 67 %

• Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) – 38.5%

• Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) – 100%

7.3 Economic Impacts7.3.1 Willingness to PayBroader Community’s Willingness to Pay

A number of studies have revealed customer willingness to pay for recycled water projects, even if the customer does not directly benefit through use of the recycled water, for example to avoid “waste” of a water resource or reduce wastewater discharge. (Pickering, 2013)

Marsden Jacob undertook a study to quantify the willingness of a community to contribute to non-potable water recycling. (see Marsden Jacob (2013) Technical Report 2: Community values for recycled water in Sydney) The study establishes a broader societal “willingness to pay” for recycled water projects for use in the economic framework.” A summary of the outcome of this study are detailed in table 7.3-1.

Similar to Section 7.2.1 a number of WSUD infrastructure elements exist with the Bendigo Urban Catchment. The combined effect of the existing WSUD elements is not ascertained. It is suggested that delivery of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would provide improved pollutant reductions. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact that a series of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would have on pollutant loading.

7.2.3 Reduced potable water demandThis project realises a reduction of potable water use of 31.28 Ml/year. This is a significant saving on its own, without mentioning the other benefits.

Understanding of the possible reductions of potable water use through the combination of a number these projects with the Bendigo Urban Catchment is outside the scope of this report. However it is anticipated that it would be significant. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact that a series of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would have on potable water use.

Figure 7-2: As Constructed Treatment Train Effectiveness

SourcesResidual

Load%

Reduction

Flow (ML/yr) 324 288 11.1

Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr)

64800 8810 86.4

Total Phosphorus (kg/yr)

133 43.7 67

Total Nitrogen (kg/yr)

932 573 38.5

Gross Pollutants (kg/yr)

12400 0 100

Table 7.3-1 – Willingness to contribute to recycled water schemes – unit cost value ($/kilolitre)

End use Value/kL

Western Sydney homes (non-potable)

$0.45 - $1.22

Environment $0.96 - $1.35

Council $1.49 - $1.51

Business and Industry $2.06 - $3.80

60

Avoiding Outdoor Water Restrictions“A number of studies have estimated the willingness to pay to avoid water restrictions. These studies include:

• Studies conducted in South East Queensland by ACIL Tasman (2007) using a contingent valuation approach and DBM Consulting (2007) using a choice model-ling approach, concluded (amongst other results) that consumers were willing to pay an average of $180 and $174 per year respectively to reduce Stage 4 water restrictions from 50% of the time to less than 1% of the time (approximately $7.70/kL);

• A study conducted in the ACT by Hensher et al (2006) found that water consumers were prepared to pay relatively little to avoid low levels of restriction, but up to $239 per year to avoid longer and/or more severe restrictions (e.g. total sprinkler bans lasting for the whole of summer). assuming average outdoor use of 50 kL per year, this translates to approximately $4.80/kL;

• A choice modelling survey was also previously con-ducted in the ACT by Gordon et al. (2001) in the late 1990’s. In contrast to the study by Hensher et al, this study concluded that residents were willing to pay an average of only $10 per year (in 1997 dollars) to prevent a 10 per cent reduction in water use ($0.52/kL); and

• A study conducted in Perth by Tapsowan et al (2007) using choice experiments found that water users would pay relatively little to avoid low level restrictions, but that they would be willing to pay $130 per year to finance a new source of supply instead of enduring severe water restrictions ($2.80/kL).” (Pickering, 2013)

“A Rouse Hill study identified that properties with recycled water connections commanded a premium of around $5,000 compared with properties with similar characteristics that were not connected to recycled water. Based on use of 100 kilolitres per year over a 50 year period, the premium translates to a unit cost of just over $3 per kilolitre.” (Pickering, 2013)

7.3.2 Avoided Potable Water Costs“The long run value of avoided potable water source costs are often referred to as the Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC). Recent LRMC estimates have been published by economic regulators for both Sydney ($1.82 to 2.54 per kilolitre) and Perth ($1.37 to $2.86 per kilolitre).” (Pickering, 2013)

“In addition to water source savings, the savings in the reticulation system can also potentially be significant. In some jurisdictions, where recycled water has been approved for fire fighting use, there size of the potable

water reticulation mains can be reduced. If fire fighting can only be conducted with potable water, then the size of the potable water reticulation mains is unlikely to change. The savings in the existing distribution network are generally less pronounced as the majority of costs are often sunk.” (Pickering, 2013)

“For new distribution mains, the potential savings will depend on the risk appetite of the water service provider. Pipelines in particular are often sized to meet the ultimate requirements of the region and therefore the water service provider may prefer to install sufficient capacity to backup the recycled water scheme in case of failure. This practice will reduce the cost savings that can be attributed to the recycled water scheme.” (Pickering, 2013)

7.3.3 Avoided Rainwater Tank uptake“If recycled water is the only viable water supply available to an industrial user then the value of water to the business will be the full economic value of the business’s product. In practice it is difficult for the proponent of a water recycling scheme to determine the value to each industrial customer unless the proponent volunteers that information.”(Pickering, 2013)

“However, it is often the case that other viable water supply options are available. In these cases, the value of the recycled water supply will be the value to the customer of avoiding the alternative water supply option. Alternative water supplies could include, for exam-ple, potable water scheme supplies, groundwater, river extraction or rainwater tanks. Each of these options has a unique set of capital and operating costs, but can often be estimated by a water service provider as many of these options are also available to supply potable water customers.”(Pickering, 2013)

“While the avoided cost estimates provide an indication of the value to the customer, the actual willingness of a business to pay for water will be determined by a complex range of factors that may include different ‘hurdle’ rates or payback periods, or the ability of the business to access capital. Therefore, the actual value to industrial users is often difficult to determine with precision unless the industrial customer provides full disclosure of their commercial costs and benefits ”(Pickering, 2013)

7.3.4 Value CaptureAs noted in Section 4.7 this project did not capture the immediate benefit for upstream industrial development, the benefits for the upstream industrial area are:

• Upstream development can now occur without the need to contribute/provide onsite water detention;

• Upstream development can occur without the need to contribute/provide Water Sensitive Urban design; and

61

• There is potential for the additional water to be captured and supplied through the extension of a raw water main (refer to Section 4.4).

However, the value of onsite benefits can still be captured through the sale/lease increase of council controlled airport land such as the proposed sale of business park allotments.

“A study of the amenity benefits of the Bannister Creek living steam project in the suburb of Lynwood in Perth, Western Australia provides evidence that there is a positive net effect on house prices in the neighbourhood of the living stream. While there was an initial negative impact on local house prices during the construction stage of the project, after the natural wetland ecosystem has established, the median home within 200m of the restoration site increased in value by $17,000 to $26,000 above the trend increase in house values in the area. This gain more than offsets the initial outlay of the restoration project and early project disturbances to surrounding residents.” (Fogarty et al., 2015)

It could be argued that the each allotment within the proposed business park could now achieve an increased site value of $10,000 per a lot.

7.4 Cost Benefit Analysis“In 2013, Marsden Jacob Associates undertook an analysis on the Economic Viability of Recycled Water Schemes for the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence. The study provided a framework to help assess the economic viability of recycled water schemes, including not only the commercial value to businesses, but also the broader economic value to the community and environment.” (Marden Jacob Associates, 2015)

“In response to industry support and feedback, Mars-den Jacob and the Centre developed a Recycled Wa-ter Economic Assessment Tool to assist users apply the framework and principles from the 2013 study to on-the-ground projects.” (Marden Jacob Associates, 2015)

“The tool is a spreadsheet that allows users to undertake a practical cost benefit analysis of non-drinking water recycling schemes. The tool is designed to be relatively easy to use and can assess a range of different water recycling situations” (Marden Jacob Associates, 2015)

This tool has been utilised to undertake the Cost Benefit Analysis of the Bendigo Airport Whole Water Cycle Management Project.

7.4.1 Assumptions• Discount Factor = 3.85%

• Analysis Period = 20 years

• Willingness to Contibute = 0.45 $/kL (Western Sydney Study Potable Homes – Lower Range);

• Avoid Outdoor Water Restrictions = $3.00 $/kL (Rouse Hill Study);

• Long Run Marginal Cost of Potable Water (bulk) = $1.82 (Sydney Lower Range)

• Potable Water Volumetric Charge = 2.18$/kL (Coliban Water 2015)

• Untreated Water Volumetric Charge = 1.07$/kL (Coliban Water 2015)

• New Customer Contributions = 771 $/lot (Coliban Water 2015)

• Value Capture of Business Park Allotments = 7,000 $/year ((35 Business Park lots x $10,000 increase per lot)/50 years)

62

7.4.2 Demand of 32Ml/yr (including Landscaping)• Economic Analysis with reused demand 32ML/yr which

is the expected demand for irrigation of the proposed business park and installed irrigated landscape;

Figure 7-3: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr (including Landscaping)

• This Economic Analysis includes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park.

63

7.4.3 Demand of 32Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping)• Economic Analysis with reused demand 32ML/yr which

is the expected demand for irrigation of the proposed business park and installed irrigated landscape;

• This Economic Analysis excludes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park.

Figure 7-4: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping)

64

Figure 7-5: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr -Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (including Landscaping

7.4.4 Demand of 32ML/yr - Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (including Landscaping)

• Economic Analysis with reused demand 32ML/yr which is the expected demand for irrigation of the proposed business park and installed irrigated landscape;

• This Economic Analysis includes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park; and

• Recycled Water Volumetric Charge altered from 1.07$/kL to 2.18$/kL, matching the Potable Water Volumetric Charge

65

7.4.5 Demand of 32ML/yr- Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (excluding Landscaping)

• Economic Analysis with reused demand 32ML/yr which is the expected demand for irrigation of the proposed business park and installed irrigated landscape;

• This Economic Analysis excludes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park; and

• Recycled Water Volumetric Charge altered from 1.07$/kL to 2.18$/k, matching the Potable Water Volumetric Charge

Figure 7-6: Economic Analysis for Demand of 32Ml/yr -Recycled Water Volumetric Charge = Potable Water Volumetric Charge (excluding Landscaping)

66

Figure 7-7: Economic Analysis for Demand of 93Ml/yr (including Landscaping)

7.4.6 Demand of 93Ml/yr (including Landscaping)• Economic Analysis with reused demand 93ML/yr which

is the expected break even point from service provided perspective with irrigation costs included;

• This Economic Analysis includes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park.

• It is noted that Water Balance modelling indicated that only 91% of the proposed demand of 93Ml/yr can be supplied, hence 85Ml/yr

67

7.4.7 Demand of 65Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping)• Economic Analysis with reused demand 65ML/yr which

is the expected break even point from service provided perspective with landscaping cost excluded;

• This Economic Analysis excludes the cost of the irrigated landscape which predominantly works to serve the purposes of the airport terminal building as opposed to future business park.

• It is noted that Water Balance modelling indicated that only 99% of the proposed demand of 65Ml/yr can be supplied, hence 64.4Ml/yr.

Figure 7-8: Economic Analysis for Demand of 65Ml/yr (excluding Landscaping)

68

7.5 Project Analysis Learnings7.5.1 Social Impacts• This project provides a passive recreation space at a

key gateway to Bendigo, being the Bendigo Airport terminal.

7.5.2 Environmental Impacts• A reduction in peak stormwater flows in the catchment

by 90.8% during a 1% AEP storm event (current state of catchment development) and 92.5% during a 1% AEP storm event (ultimate state of catchment development);

• Modelling by design engineers on the project indicated that the best practice design at the airport will decrease pollutant levels by:

o 86.4 % (55,990 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Suspended Solids

o 67% (89.3 kg/yr)Reduction in Total Phosphorus

o 38.5% (359 kg/yr) Reduction in Total Nitrogen

o 100% (12,400 kg/yr)Reduction Gross Pollutants

• This project realises a reduction of potable water use of 32Ml/year.

• There is potential to supply a total water demand of 65Ml/yr, should a demand be derived this would reduce potable water use by an additional 34 Ml/yr.

7.5.3 Economic Impacts• Existing research indicates a Broader Community’s

Willingness to Pay for recycled water projects, this has been conservatively estimated at 0.45 $/kl;

• Existing research indicates a Willingness to Pay to avoid water restrictions, this has been conservatively estimated at 3.00 $/kl;

• The long run value of avoided potable water source costs are often referred to as the Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC). Recent LRMC estimates have been published by economic regulators, this has been conservatively estimated at 1.82 $/kl;

• Viable water supply options negate the need for homeowners to install alternative water supply options such as tanks, the estimated saving is 3,000$/household; and

• The value of onsite benefits can still be captured through the sale/lease increase of council controlled airport land such as the proposed sale of business park allotments. It could be argued that the each allotment within the proposed business park could now achieve an increased site value of $10,000 per a lot.

7.5.4 Cost Benefit Analysis• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr and the inclusion of

the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $118,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$613,342

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr and the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $398,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$333,342;

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr, the inclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping and the equalising of the Recycled Water Volumetric Charge to that of the Potable Volumetric Charge, the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $118,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of -$101,026;

• With a reused demand of 32ML/yr, the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping and the equalising of the Recycled Water Volumetric Charge to that of the Potable Volumetric Charge, the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $398,775 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $178,974;

• With a reused demand of 93ML/yr (break even point from service provided perspective with irrigation costs included) and the inclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $2,119,600 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $41;

• Only 91% (85Ml/yr) of the service provider break even point demand of 93Ml/yr can be supplied without increasing the water storage capacity and

• With a reused demand of 65ML/yr (break even point from service provided perspective with irrigation costs excluded) and the exclusion of the cost of irrigated landscaping the project provides a Community Perspective NPV of $1,486,381 and Service Provider Perspective NPV of $80;

69

7.6 Project Analysis Further Recommendations7.6.1 Social Impacts• Undertake choice survey specific to Bendigo to

provide greater understanding of community’s views and perceptions.

7.6.2 Environmental Impacts• Understanding of the effects of peak storm

discharges through the combination of a number of WWCM projects within the Bendigo Urban Catchment is outside the scope of this report. However it is anticipated that it would have significant impact in reducing flooding impacts through Huntly, possibility reducing capital cost on the existing levee banks. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact on flood events a series of WWCM projects in key strategic locations would have;

• The combined effect of the existing WSUD elements is not ascertained. It is suggested that delivery of WWCM project in key strategic locations would provide improved pollutant reductions, It is recommended further analysis is undertaken to assess the impact on pollutant loading a series of of WWCM projects being undertaken in key strategic locations would have;.

• Opportunity to extend the reticulation network into the Bendigo East industrial area, or alternatively explore additional demands for raw water should be explored so that full supply opportunity of 65Ml/yr (34Ml/yr above existing demand) can be exploited.,

7.6.3 Economic Impacts• Standard guideline for the cost and benefits for the

Bendigo region should be developed, to improve consistency in economic analysis or Whole Water Cycle Management Project in the region.

7.6.4 Cost Benefit Analysis• Whole Water Cycle Management incorporated

into the whole Bendigo urban catchment should be explored further, and an economic model built based on best practice cost benefit principles, prior to adhoc investment.

70

8. REFERENCESANSTEY, J., BARTLEY, M., LANGLEY, J., TANGEY, D. & WHITE, B. INNOVATIVE “VALUE CAPTURE” AND “TAX INCREMENT” FINANCING

FOR AUSTRALIAN WATER UTILITIES.

BLOMQUIST, W., HEIKKILA, T. & SCHLAGER, E. J. O. T. A. W. R. A.-. 2004. Building the agenda for institutional research in water resource management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(4): 925-936.

BROWN, R., KEATH, N. & WONG, T. 2009. Urban water management in cities; historical, current and future regimes. Water Science & Technology 59(5): 847-855.

BROWN, R. A. N. K. 2008. Drawing on social theory for transitioning to sustainable urban water management: turning the institutional super-tanker.’ Australian Journal of Water Resources, 12, 73-83.

COMPANY, T. R. D. 2014. Draft Kow Swamp Land and On-Water Management Plan. In: WATER, G. M. (ed.).

COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS 1994. Communiqué on Water Resource Policy. .

COUTTS, A., DEMUZERE, M., TAPPER, A., DALY, E., BERINGER, J., BROADBENT, A., HARRIS, R., GEBERT, L. & NICE, K. 2014. The impacts of harvesting solutions and WSUD on evaporation and the water balance and feedbacks to urban hydrology and stream ecology Green Cities and Micro-climat. Monash University

CULLEN, P. 2004. The challenges of water policy for Australia. Growth 52. .

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT. 2015. Climate Change Impacts in Victoria [Online]. http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/impacts/vic: Department of Environment. [Accessed 20/12/2015 2015].

DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2009. Review of the regulatory framework for alternative urban water supplies. Final project report. Melbourne, Victorian Government.

DOBBIE, M. F. & BROWN, R. R. 2013. Transition to a water-cycle city: sociodemographic influences on Australian urban water practitoners ‘ risk perceptions towards alternative water systems. Urban Water Journal 11(6): 444-460.

DR. JAMES FOGARTY, D. F. Z. A. D. M. P. 2015. The value of restoring urban drains to living streams. In: CITIES, C. F. W. S. (ed.). CRC for Water Sensitive Cities

ECONOMIC REGULATION AUTHORITY 2009. Inquiry into pricing of recycled water in Western Australia: Final Report. Perth, Economic Regulation Authority. .

FERGUSON, B., BROWN, R., FRANTZESKAKI, N., DE HAAN, F. & DELECTIC, A. 2013. The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: lessons from Melbourne.

FOGARTY, J., ZHANG, F. & POLYAKOV, M. 2015. The value of restoring urban drains to living streams. In: CITIES, C. F. W. S. (ed.). CRC for Water Sensitive Cities

FRONTIER ECONOMICS 2011. Externality pricing in the Australian water sector. Waterlines Report Series. Canberra, National Water Commission.

GARDNER, A., MACDONALD, D. & CHUNG, V. 2006. Pricing water for environmental externalities in Western Australia. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 23(4): 309. .

HANEMANN, W. M. 2005. The economic conception of water.

HARPER, I., ANDERSON, P., MCCLUSKEY, S. & O’BRYAN, M. 2015. Competition Policy Review: Final Report, Canberra, Australian Government.

HEAD, B. W. 2014. ‘Managing urban water crises: adaptive policy responses to drought and flood in Southeast Queensland, Australia.’ Ecology and Society 19(2): 33.

JONES, R. N. & BROOKE, C. 2005. Adapting Australia’s water resources to a changing climate. CSIRO Atmospheric Research. .

KITCHING, A., CHIEW, F., HUGHES, P., NEWTON, S., SCHUSTER, A., TAIT, A. & WHETTON, P. 2014. Australasia. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,: Cambridge University Pres.

LINDSAY, P. J. 2014. Understanding social processes to achieve water sensitive futures. In: CITIES, C. F. W. S. (ed.). CRC for Water Sensitive Cities.

LINDSAY, S. S. A. J. 2013. Australian Domestic Water Use Cultures: A Literature Review. Melbourne, Australia:: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.

71

MARDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES. 2015. Recycled water economic assessment tool [Online]. Available: http://www.marsdenjacob.com.au/recycled-water-economic-assessment-tool/ [Accessed 2015.

MARKS, J., MARTIN, B., ZADOROZNYJ, M., ()., , , (1) & 83-‐99 2008. How Australians order acceptance of recycled water. National baseline data.

. Journal of Sociology,, 44.

MCCALLUM, T. & BOULOT, E. 2015. Becoming a Water Sensitive City: A Comparative Review of Regulation in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.

MURRAY-DARLING-BASIN-AUTHORITY Basin Map. In: MAP, B. (ed.). http://www.mdba.gov.au/about-basin/basin-environ-ment/georgraphy/geology-and-size: Murray Darling Basin Authority.

MUSIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM 2005. MUSIC User Guide. CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Version 3.

NATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MINISTERIAL COUNCIL, E. P. H. C. A. N. H. A. M. R. C. 2009. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling. Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION 2011. The National Water Initiative -securing Australia’s water future: 2011 assessment. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

NEWMAN, P. 2001. ‘Sustainable urban water systems in rich and poor cities – steps towards a new approach. Water Science and Technology, 43, 93-9.

OECD 2015. Water and Cities: Ensuring Sustainable Futures.

PICKERING, P. 2013. Economic viability of recycled water schemes Queensland: Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 2010. Review of urban water supply strategies, Sydney, Infrastructure Australia.

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 2011. Australia’s urban water sector. Inquiry report No.55 Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. .

SHARMA, A. K., S. COOK, G. TJANDRAATMADJA AND A. GREGOR 2012. ‘Impediments and constraints in the uptake of water sensitive urban design measures in greenfield and infill developments.’. Water, Science and Technology, 65 340-352.

SOUFOULIS, Z. & WILLIAMS, C. 2008. From Pushing Atoms to Growing Networks: Cultural Innovation and Co-‐Evolution in Urban Water Conservation. Social Alternatives, 27, 50‐57.

TAN, P., BOWMER, K. & MACKENZIE, J. 2012. Deliberative tools for meeting the challenges of water planning in Australia. Journal of Hydrology 474: 2-10. .

TJANDRAATMADJA, G., COOK, S., SHARMA, A. K., DIAPER, C., GRANT, A., TOIFL, M., BARRON, O., BURN, S. & GREGORY, A. 2008. ICON Water Sensitive Urban Developments. CSIRO Technical Report.

WATER CORPORATION 2009. Wastewater Systems: Decentralised or Distributed? A Review of Terms used in the Water Industry’ Water Journal 38(8): 69-73.

. Water Journal 38(8): 69-73. .

WONG, T. H. F., ALLEN, R., BROWN, R., DELETIC, A., GANGADHARAN, L., GERNJAK, W., JAKOB, C., JOHNSTONE, P., REEDER, M., TAPPER, N., VIETZ, G. & WALSH, C. J. 2013. Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City. Melbourne, Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.

Regional Management Group Pty Ltd 92 Wills Street, Bendigo, VIC, 3550 PO Box 2422, Bendigo DC, VIC, 3554 T: 0409 556 781 E: [email protected] This document is and shall remain the property of Regional Management Group Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Ver No. Author

Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Name Signature Date

A T. Dunlop

Document Status

www.regionalmanagementgroup.com