Managing Urban Stormwater Harvesting Reuse 060137

MANAGING URBAN STORMWATER
Har vest ing and Reuse

MANAGING URBAN STORMWATER
Har vest ing and Reuse
Disclaimer: The Department of Environment and Conservation has prepared this document
in good faith exercising all due care and attention, but no representation or warranty, express
or implied, is made as to the relevance, accuracy, completeness or fitness for purpose of this
document in respect of any particular user’s circumstances. Users of this document should satisfy
themselves concerning its application to, and where necessary seek expert advice in respect of,
their situation.
This material may be reproduced in whole or in part, provided the meaning is unchanged
and the source is acknowledged.
Published by:
Department of Environment and Conservation NSW
59–61 Goulburn Street
PO Box A290
Sydney South 1232
Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard)
Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests)
Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests)
Fax: (02) 9995 5999
TTY: (02) 9211 4723
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au
This report may be cited as Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse
ISBN 1 74137 875 3
DEC 2006/137
April 2006
Cover photo of stormwater harvesting and reuse at Sydney Olympic Park,

courtesy J Dahlenburg, wsud.org
Printed on recycled paper
ii
Foreword
The recent drought and concerns about climate change have all highlighted the need to
manage our water resources more sustainably. Expanding the use of stormwater runoff
to add to our water supply and reduce water pollution are important objectives for the
NSW Government. Stormwater is now recognised as a valuable resource, rather than a
nuisance to be disposed of quickly, especially in large urban centres.
Over recent years, stormwater harvesting and reuse have emerged as a new field of
sustainable water management. Harvesting and reusing stormwater offer both a potential
alternative water supply for non-drinking uses and a means to further reduce stormwater
pollution in our waterways. Stormwater harvesting complements other approaches to
sustainable urban water management, including rainwater tanks, greywater systems,
effluent reuse and demand management.
The NSW Government recognises the many benefits that can accrue from harvesting
stormwater. Through the Government’s Stormwater Trust, we have already provided over
$4 million for ten pilot projects that together are saving up to 13 million litres of water
annually. This has been Australia’s most comprehensive stormwater harvesting funding
program and many of these projects are profiled in this document.
Additional funding for stormwater harvesting will be made available from mid-2006
through the NSW Government’s $80 million Urban Sustainability Fund, part of the Iemma
Government’s $439 million City and Country Environment Restoration Program.
The pilot projects that have already been funded have taught us much about what
goes to make a stormwater harvesting scheme successful. In an Australian first, this
document combines these lessons with ideas and principles from the fields of stormwater,
wastewater and water supply management to provide specific guidance on developing
successful stormwater harvesting schemes. It aims to encourage projects that will lead
to more sustainable urban water management, while also managing the health and
environmental risks associated with stormwater reuse.
Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse provides a sound basis for
implementing operational stormwater harvesting schemes more widely. It is also an
invaluable part of the Government’s Metropolitan Water Plan which aims to utilise all cost-
effective means to help meet the demand for water resources as Sydney grows, while
sustaining the health of our rivers.
I encourage all local councils, water managers, developers and planners to use this
document and help realise the full potential of stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes.
Bob Debus
iii
Minister for the Environment
iii
Acknowledgments
This report was funded by the NSW Government through its Stormwater Trust.
Officers from the following organisations kindly provided information for this report:
Bexley Golf Course
City of Canada Bay Council
City of Sydney Council
Holroyd City Council
Hornsby Shire Council
Kiama Municipal Council
Landcom
Liverpool City Council
Manly Council
Monash University’s Institute for Sustainable Water Resources
Penrith City Council
Taronga Zoo
University of Western Sydney
Waitakere City Council (New Zealand).
This document also incorporates the results of modelling carried out for the Department
by WBM Pty Ltd.
Several people and organisations kindly supplied photographs for use in this report:
Cover: Stormwater treatment at Sydney Olympic Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
Contents: Kogarah Town Square (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
Section 1 opener: Taronga Zoo stormwater treatment plant and Sydney Harbour
(H Pantenburg/Taronga Zoo)
Sections 2 & 3 openers: Water ponding at Sydney Olympic Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
Section 4 opener: Fenced constructed wetland at Camden (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
Section 5 opener: Stormwater planning at Hornsby Council (K Walters/DEC)
Section 7 opener: Weed control in stormwater reuse system at Archers Creek, Ryde
(M Sharpin/DEC)
Section 8 opener: Hornsby stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
References opener: Stormwater treatment at Victoria Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
Appendices opener: Water-sensitive urban design at Victoria Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)
iv
Contents
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
1 Introduction 1
2 Overview of stormwater harvesting 5
3 Statutory requirements 17
4 Risk management 21
5 Planning considerations 27
6 Design considerations 37
7 Operational considerations 59
8 Case studies 73
References and further reading 109
Appendices 119
Appendix A: Key considerations 120
Appendix B: Risk management 123
Appendix C: Stormwater quality 142
Appendix D: Maintenance costs 148
Appendix E: Water balance considerations 149
Glossary 153
Abbreviations 155
v
1. Int ro duct ion
1.1 Water in the urban environment 2
1.2 Harvesting stormwater for reuse 2
1.3 The purpose and scope of this document 3
1.4 Structure of this document 4
Introduction 1
1.1 Water in the urban environment
Water is an integral part of urban life. In our homes, we use water for drinking, washing
and watering our gardens. Away from home, we swim and fish in water, and sail on
water. At the beach or paddling a canoe on a river, we appreciate good quality water. We
value water for its usefulness, its recreational benefits and its place in the landscape and
environment.
Urbanisation changes the way water flows through a catchment, and this can have a
range of adverse impacts on the water environment, including:
• poor water quality and degraded aquatic ecosystem health within rivers and creeks
from the disposal of stormwater and wastewater
• changes to the pattern of flow in streams and rivers
• increased frequency and magnitude of flooding
• demand for potable water exceeding the sustainable supply, and impacting on the
availability of water for users.
These are significant issues facing urban water managers and urban communities,
although there are many potential solutions.
One option receiving increasing attention is water recycling and reuse. Water for reuse
in urban areas can be sourced from rainwater, stormwater, greywater and effluent from
sewage treatment plants (STPs).
Water reuse projects can achieve multiple benefits, including:
• reduced demand for mains drinking water
• reduced pollution loads to waterways
• reduced wastewater flows (where effluent and greywater are reused)
• reduced stormwater flows (where stormwater and rainwater are reused).
Recognising all of the potential benefits is a key to the economic and environmental
viability of many reuse projects.
1.2 Harvesting stormwater for reuse

The capturing or harvesting of urban stormwater for reuse can contribute to water
conservation, water quality and streamflow objectives. It complements other approaches
to sustainable urban water management such as demand management, rainwater tanks,
and the reuse of effluent and greywater.
Stormwater harvesting and reuse can be defined as the collection, treatment, storage and
use of stormwater run-off from urban areas. It differs from rainwater harvesting as the run-
off is collected from drains or creeks, rather than roofs. The characteristics of stormwater
harvesting and reuse schemes vary considerably between projects, but most schemes
would have the following elements in common:
• collection – stormwater is collected from a drain, creek or pond
• storage – stormwater is temporarily held in dams or tanks to balance supply and
demand. Storages can be on-line (constructed on the creek or drain) or off-line
(constructed some distance from the creek or drain)
• treatment – captured water is treated to reduce pathogen and pollution levels, and
hence the risks to public health and the environment, or to meet any additional
requirements of end-users
• distribution – the treated stormwater is distributed to the area of use.
2 Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

Some components of a scheme may serve multiple purposes, such as a grass swale that
collects and treats stormwater while forming a feature in the urban landscape.
Stormwater harvesting and reuse is a relatively new form of water reuse compared to
rainwater tanks and the reuse of STP effluent. It is, however, increasingly recognised as a
potential option for meeting the water demands and other objectives of many projects and
sites. Harvested stormwater has commonly been used for irrigating public parks and golf
courses, and other non-potable uses are possible.
1.3 The purpose and scope of this document

This document is part of a series of publications from the Department of Environment and
Conservation NSW (DEC) under the Managing urban stormwater theme which provide
guidance on different aspects of managing stormwater in the urban environment.
As noted above, urban stormwater harvesting and reuse is a relatively new field of water
management and most of the projects constructed to date have been pilot projects. The
main aim of this document is therefore to provide guidance on key considerations for
future stormwater harvesting and reuse projects, based on experience gained from early
stormwater harvesting projects. The most important considerations are:
• planning – assessing the context of a project within a broader strategy of integrated
urban water cycle management and risk assessment
• project design – particularly treating stormwater to address risks to public health and
the environment, and meeting any additional end-use requirements
• operations, maintenance and monitoring – ensuring that potential impacts to public
health and the environment are managed appropriately and the project remains
sustainable.
The elements typically used in stormwater harvesting and reuse projects are also found
elsewhere in the water industry, such as in wastewater management. A successful
harvesting and reuse project will select, design and adapt elements from these other
contexts and integrate them into a sustainable system with multiple objectives and
benefits.
Experience to date has shown that no two stormwater harvesting projects are exactly
the same – there is no single approach to developing these projects, and any guidance
needs to provide for this in its approach.
A successful stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme needs specialist input from a
number of areas: stormwater management, water supply management, environmental
management and public health. One of the secondary aims of this document is therefore
to give specialists from these areas insights into key aspects of disciplines other than
their own.
This guidance was prepared to help stormwater harvesting become a more ‘mainstream’
water management discipline. It also aims to encourage wider appreciation of the factors
that can maximise the potential benefits of stormwater harvesting while minimising the
associated risks.
Stormwater harvesting is closely related to rainwater reuse, as they are both sourced
from rainfall. A discussion of rainwater and stormwater reuse is provided in section 2.
Guidance on using rainwater tanks has not been included in this document, as existing
comprehensive guidelines are available, including enHealth (2004), NSW Health (2004)
and Melbourne Water (2005).
Introduction 3
This document does not address urban stormwater harvesting as a raw water source for
large-scale potable water supply schemes. Relevant information about these schemes
can be obtained from the Australian drinking water guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC
2004a).
1.4 Structure of this document

Section 2 provides a brief overview of stormwater harvesting and reuse, including
potential applications, advantages and limitations
Section 3 summarises statutory requirements for a stormwater harvesting and reuse
project in New South Wales
Section 4 discusses the key considerations for managing public health and
environmental risks in stormwater harvesting and reuse projects
Section 5 presents an overview of planning a stormwater harvesting and reuse project,
both in existing urban areas and new urban developments
Sections 6 and 7 outline key considerations for the design and operation of stormwater
harvesting and reuse schemes
Section 8 contains case studies of stormwater harvesting and reuse projects.
Appendices provide detailed information to support the planning, design, operation and
maintenance of stormwater reuse schemes. Appendix A contains the key considerations
from sections 5 to 7 – these can be used as a project checklist.

2. O ver v iew of stor mwater har vest ing
2.1 Stormwater harvesting, treatment and reuse 6
2.2 Potential applications 6

2.2.1 Residential uses 6
2.2.2 Irrigation 6
2.2.3 Industrial and commercial uses 7
2.2.4 Ornamental ponds and water features 8
2.2.5 Aquifer storage and recovery 8
2.3 Potential benefits and limitations 8

2.3.1 Potential benefits 8
2.3.2 Potential limitations 10
2.4 Characteristics of successful schemes 12
2.5 Stormwater harvesting and rainwater tanks 13
2.6 Stormwater and effluent reuse 15
2.7 Community acceptance of treated stormwater 16
Overview of stormwater harvesting 5

2.1 Stormwater harvesting, treatment and reuse
This section looks at some of the applications for treated and reused stormwater. Some
of the potential benefits and limitations associated with non-potable applications are
described and pointers provided on what makes a scheme successful.
This section also compares stormwater reuse, rainwater tanks and effluent reuse and
looks at the willingness of communities to accept and support stormwater reuse.
2.2 Potential applications

Stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes can be developed for existing urban areas or
new developments and are mainly suitable for non-potable purposes such as:
• residential uses
• irrigating public areas
• industrial uses
• ornamental ponds and water features
• aquifer storage and recovery.
This report does not cover potential uses for stormwater reuse in growing crops, such as
in market gardens, many of which are located on the urban fringe, or in aquaculture.
2.2.1 Residential uses

Stormwater in residential areas could be harvested and
used for several purposes that would significantly reduce
household demand for mains water, such as:
• toilet flushing
• garden watering
• car washing.
Toilet flushing has a relatively constant demand
throughout the year and typically accounts for around
15% of internal household water use. Garden watering
consumes up to 30% of total household water, depending
on the premises and season. Car washing is normally a relatively small component of
residential water use compared to toilet flushing or garden watering.
In new urban areas, a scheme for harvesting, reticulating and reusing stormwater for non-
potable residential uses could help a proposed development meet its BASIX (building
sustainability index) water-savings targets. The water savings targets are required under
the Building Sustainability Index, BASIX, a state environmental planning policy (NSW
Government 2004).
Stormwater used for these purposes could expose the general public to potential health
risks from pathogens, usually arising from animal wastes, and would therefore need to be
treated to ensure a low risk to public health.
2.2.2 Irrigation
To date, harvested stormwater has been mainly used to irrigate public reserves and
playing fields. It is used to grow and maintain grass surfaces on playing fields, golf

courses and in other public open spaces, and to establish and grow ornamental plants in
public gardens.
Typical annual irrigation demand for open areas ranges between 3 and 8 ML/ha,
depending on the local climate, the type of vegetation being irrigated and the type of
irrigation system used.
The type of irrigation system will also help determine the degree to which the stormwater
needs to be treated before reuse in order to reduce health risks, and may also affect
whether public access needs to be controlled or restricted during irrigation.
The irrigation methods commonly used in urban areas are:
• sprinkler or spray irrigation – the most widely used technique for irrigating large areas
• drip irrigation – often used for garden areas
• subsurface irrigation using perforated pipes – which can be used to irrigate small or
large areas.
2.2.3 Industrial and commercial uses

Various processing and manufacturing industries have a regular and significant demand
for water, making them well-suited for stormwater reuse. Typical uses would include
washdown, cooling tower make-up or process water. Treated stormwater could also be
used on construction and mining sites for applications such as dust suppression and
vehicle washing. In commercial premises, stormwater could be reused for toilet flushing
and vehicle washing.
The degree of treatment required depends on the proposed use, particularly the level
of public exposure. Additional treatment may be required for specific industrial uses,
with little or no extra treatment required for low-grade uses such as washdown and dust
suppression.
K Walters/DEC
Irrigation with stormwater at Greenway Park, Cherrybrook

2.2.4 Ornamental ponds and water features
Water is commonly used in the landscape design of residential and commercial
developments. These features can consume a considerable volume of water through
evaporation or seepage. Stormwater can be used as make-up water to maintain design
levels where the public has no direct contact with the water. The stormwater would need
to be low in pathogens to reduce public health risks and low in nutrients to prevent algal
growth.
2.2.5 Aquifer storage and recovery

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is the planned infiltration or injection of water into
an aquifer during times when water is available, and the subsequent recovery of the
water when it is needed. ASR can also increase the yield of the aquifer or protect it from
seawater intrusion. Before recharge, the stormwater needs to be treated to prevent the
aquifer from becoming clogged with particulate or organic material, or contaminated
by other pollutants. ASR is not common in New South Wales, but is used elsewhere
in Australia where geologic conditions near urban areas are more suitable, such as in
Adelaide.
2.3 Potential benefits and limitations
2.3.1 Potential benefits

The main benefits that can be gained from a successful stormwater reuse scheme are
reductions in:
• demand for mains water
• stormwater volumes, flows and the frequency of run-off
• stormwater pollution loads to downstream waterways.
The extent of the benefits from a particular stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
depends on a range of factors, including:
• the local climate – particularly rainfall
• catchment land uses – which influence run-off quality and quantity
• the condition of the sewerage system – which affects sewer overflows to stormwater
• the demand for reuse water – in particular the flow rates and any seasonal variations
• the design of the scheme – particularly the flow diverted to the scheme and the
storage volume provided.
Reduced demand for mains water

Stormwater reuse can substitute in full or in part for existing mains water uses. The
volume of stormwater run-off from Australian capital cities (including Sydney) is about
equal to the amount of potable water used (Environment Australia 2002).
More than 50% of high quality water piped to urban areas is used for lower quality
purposes, such as garden watering and toilet flushing. There is potential therefore for
more stormwater to be collected, stored and reused for non-potable purposes. As an
example, stormwater harvesting could meet 10–25% of Adelaide’s water needs (Kellogg,
Brown & Root 2004). However, as stormwater is also needed to provide flows for urban
creeks and rivers, total stormwater harvesting is not an appropriate goal.

Lower stormwater volumes
Urban development typically has major impacts on the volume, frequency and quality of
run-off, and has associated ecosystem impacts. For example, it can:
• double annual run-off volumes
• reduce infiltration
• increase peak flows by up to ten-fold
• significantly increase the frequency of run-off.
Stormwater harvesting can reduce the volume of water flowing into the drainage system
and so reduce stream erosion and minimise the impacts of urbanisation on aquatic
ecosystems. In new urban developments, harvesting stormwater can reduce the need for,
and capacity of, on-site detention measures.
Lower pollution loads

Urbanisation of a catchment commonly results in up to a four-fold increase in stormwater
pollutant loads to local waterways. A stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme can
reduce these loads by:
• abstracting a proportion of the polluted stormwater within a drain or waterway for
reuse
• trapping pollutants in on-line storages, where the treated stormwater flows back to the
waterway rather than being reused
• returning surplus treated stormwater to receiving waters, further reducing pollutant
loadings.
Indicative outcomes
The actual outcomes from a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme depend on the
specifics of the scheme and its catchment. Table 2.1 indicates the potential outcomes that
could be achieved from schemes in New South Wales, based on moderate and large on-
line storages and an irrigation demand (WBM 2004, 2005).
The noted peak flow reductions for rare events, e.g. 100-year average recurrence interval
(ARI), are low. This is because stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes focus on
more frequent events (i.e. below the three-month ARI event). This is discussed further in
section 6.
Table 2.1 Indicative outcomes from stormwater harvesting projects
Indicator Indicative outcome
Moderate storage Large storage
Mains water demand reduction 2–35% 5–50%
Annual stormwater run-off volume reduction 2–20% 2–40%
100-year ARI peak flow reduction Negligible Negligible
2-year ARI peak flow reduction Negligible 1–2%
3-month ARI peak flow reduction 0–1% 1–2%
Suspended solids annual load reductions 15–35% 60–90%
Note: ARI – average recurrence interval

2.3.2 Potential limitations
The potential limitations and disadvantages to stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes
depend largely on the nature of the scheme and the local environment. The major
limitations are:
• variable rainfall patterns
• environmental impact of storages
• potential health risks
• high relative unit costs of treated stormwater.
Variable rainfall patterns

Variable rainfall is the main limitation for harvesting schemes, as this influences the
reliability of stormwater flows from a catchment. The extent of this variability depends on
local climatic conditions. For example, Sydney has an average of 130 rain days in a year,
around half of which are likely to generate significant run-off for harvesting and reuse.
Between-year variability also occurs, which is partly related to longer-term cycles such as
the El Niño Southern Oscillation Index, and possible longer-term changes in rainfall due
to climate change.
Variable rainfall patterns can affect the viability of stormwater reuse schemes by:
• increasing the required storage volume, resulting in larger land area requirements for
above-ground storages – in the case studies in this report (see section 8), the average
storage volume per unit of catchment area was 86 kL/ha, equivalent to one olympic-
sized swimming pool per 23 hectares of catchment
• increasing the need for back-up water supplies and/or demand management when
demand cannot be met from harvested stormwater
• causing considerable fluctuations in the water level in storages, due to the variability
in streamflow and demand, particularly for irrigation schemes. This may reduce the
aesthetic appearance of an above-ground storage – especially where it doubles as
an urban lake or other landscape feature – with denuded banks and possible algal
blooms and turbid water.
The required storage volume increases for a given reliability of supply as the demand
becomes more variable (e.g. for irrigation) or when otherwise poorly matched to the
availability of stormwater. The ideal system is therefore one where the stormwater supply
closely matches the pattern of demand.
Environmental impact of storages and extraction

A storage constructed directly on a drain or creek normally consists of a dam wall or weir
to retain streamflows. Planning for such storages would need to consider the potential
impacts on the environment as well as on people, and would need to address various
statutory requirements in New South Wales (discussed in section 3).
The environmental impacts of such storages can include:
• acting as a potential barrier to the passage of fish and other aquatic fauna (which
often need to move freely upstream or downstream to grow, reproduce or feed)
• trapping coarse sediment, which not only reduces the capacity of the storage over
time, but also results in downstream bank erosion where the sediment transport
capacity of the stream exceeds the supply (a well-known phenomenon in fluvial
geomorphology)
• increasing the potential for upstream flooding – this can also apply to diversion
structures (e.g. weirs) constructed for off-line storage

• providing potential habitat for mosquitoes and associated mosquito-borne diseases
• posing a risk to human safety, especially to children.
Extracting stormwater from a watercourse may reduce streamflows to below pre-
urbanisation levels. For on-line storage, this may occur during periods of low flow or
where storage capacity and demand are large relative to inflows. Over-extraction of flows
may impact on downstream aquatic ecosystems by reducing the available aquatic habitat,
interfering with natural flow regimes to streams or wetlands.
This is normally only a problem where the storage is very large or where demand for
water is high (Fletcher et al. 2006).
Potential health risks

Pathogens in stormwater for reuse can pose public health risks. These risks can be
reduced by treating and disinfecting the harvested stormwater and/or limiting public
access for some applications.
Higher unit costs of stormwater

Treated stormwater tends to have a higher unit or levelised cost (see glossary) than the
retail cost of mains water (see section 8.2.3). However, this type of cost-effectiveness
analysis does not take into account the multiple environmental benefits of stormwater
harvesting schemes, including reduced downstream pollution loads and flows.
Figtree Place, Newcastle
Figtree Place, in inner suburban Newcastle, discard the first part of inflow carrying
presents an innovative example of integrated sediment, leaves, etc.). Each tank
stormwater management in a residential services between four and eight homes.
and commercial setting. • recharge trenches on 19 of the home
The site, consisting of 27 residential units, sites, each trench measuring 750 mm
employs rainwater tanks, infiltration deep by 1000 mm wide, and containing
trenches and a central basin in which gravel ‘sausages’ enclosed in geofabric.
These trenches receive overflow from
treated stormwater enters an unconfined
the rainwater tanks and help to recharge
aquifer.
groundwater
During the planning phase of the • diversion of the run-off from impervious
development, it was determined that the areas to the central detention basin for
stormwater harvested from the site should recharging of groundwater
meet:
• increasing the degree of flood protection
• 50% of in-house needs for hot water and
for the site to the 50-year ARI level
toilet flushing
• use of groundwater for garden watering
• 100% of domestic irrigation needs
and bus washing.
• 100% of the bus-washing demand.
These measures achieved internal residential
The main features of the development water savings of 45% by using treated water
include: in hot water systems and flushing toilets,
• underground rainwater tanks, with with total water savings anticipated to be
capacities ranging from 9 to 15 kL, 60%. For further details, see Coombes et al.
fitted with ‘first flush’ devices (i.e. to (2000).

2.4 Characteristics of successful schemes
A successful stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme is one that:
• realises its full potential benefits
• addresses public health and environmental risks
• is both cost-effective and sustainable
• has the support of key stakeholders.
Some of the key characteristics of a successful stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
are:
• the project replaces an existing mains water use and is designed to reduce stormwater
flows and pollution loads – that is, the project is designed to meet multiple objectives
• the project has clearly defined and quantitative objectives, consistent with those for
the management of the catchment
• public health and safety risks are managed appropriately
• the end uses have relatively low water-quality requirements, minimising treatment costs
• the level of treatment is appropriate not just for meeting the needs of the end use, but
also for addressing public health and environmental risks
• the storage capacity is designed to achieve ‘reasonable’ reliability of supply
• the scheme is located close to the end use, minimising distribution costs (e.g. a golf
course located adjacent to a creek)
• procedures are in place for on-going operation, maintenance, monitoring and
reporting.
While no two stormwater harvesting schemes are exactly the same, these points above
can be used as a checklist for all schemes to varying degrees.
Another key consideration for a successful stormwater harvesting project is having all
stakeholders in the planning, design and operation of a scheme recognise that a reuse
scheme is a type of water supply scheme, not solely a form of stormwater management.
This is important because the public health risks from reuse schemes are higher than in
conventional stormwater management.
Consequently, stormwater reuse schemes need a more sophisticated management focus
than other stormwater activities, especially in the operation, maintenance, monitoring and
reporting. These issues are discussed further in section 7.

2.5 Stormwater harvesting and rainwater tanks
Stormwater harvesting schemes and the systematic installation of rainwater tanks across
a catchment can have broadly similar benefits in reducing pollution loads, downstream
stormwater flows and demand for mains water. However, there are distinct differences in
costs, stakeholders, maintenance and health risks between these approaches – each has
potential advantages and disadvantages.
Table 2.2 indicates the relative benefits and limitations of stormwater harvesting and
wide-scale rainwater tank usage. The comparison demonstrates that neither alternative is
clearly preferred – decisions about using rainwater tanks or stormwater harvesting should
be made on a case-by-case basis, to meet specific project or catchment objectives, and
should be based on the views of key stakeholders.
Combined rainwater and stormwater collection and reuse schemes have been
implemented successfully for medium-density developments, in which reticulation costs
are relatively low; see panels on Figtree Place, Newcastle (page 11) and Kogarah Town
Square (page 15).
In a combined stormwater/rainwater scheme, and from a risk management perspective,
the water treatment objectives for stormwater reuse should be adopted whether the
source waters are combined or if the stormwater stream if managed separately to the
rainwater. The references noted in section 1 can be used to guide development of the
rainwater tank component of such schemes.
Treated stormwater from a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme could provide
an alternative non-potable water source to rainwater tanks to meet the requirements
of BASIX for new developments in New South Wales (as noted in section 2.2.1).
Conversely, where rainwater tanks are installed to meet BASIX requirements, less
stormwater will be available for harvesting and reuse. rainwater tanks

Table 2.2 Indicative potential benefits and limitations of stormwater
Aspect Stormwater harvesting Rainwater tanks

Application Centralised community household Domestic non-potable uses
or industrial uses
Capital costs Higher, but paid by central authority Lower, but paid by individual
or industry owner homeowner (rebates may be
available)
Costs per kL of water used Likely to be higher than rainwater Likely to be lower than
tanks stormwater harvesting
Distribution costs Distribution costs may be Storage located near use,

significant, depending on the with negligible distribution
location of the storage relative to costs
the use
Flow attenuation benefits Reuse schemes can reduce Rainwater tanks only reduce
stormwater flows from a catchment flows from roofs
Health risks – drowning Potential public safety risks with No safety risks due to tanks
open storages
Health risks – pathogens Higher pathogen levels in raw Pathogen levels in rainwater
stormwater than rainwater relatively low
Health risks – viruses Potential for mosquito breeding in Limited potential for
storages with associated diseases mosquito breeding in tanks
Landtake Above-ground storage can Rainwater tanks can be

occupy a relatively large area of a readily incorporated on most
catchment residential blocks
Maintenance Maintained by a single organisation Maintained by householder,

(e.g. council), hence likely to be likely to be highly variable
reasonable
Statutory approvals Approvals needed Normally exempt from

requiring approval (standard
requirements need to be
met)
Suitability for application in Potentially suitable Land availability on existing

existing urban areas blocks likely to impair uptake
Water quality benefits Potentially significant reduction Limited reduction in pollution

in pollution loads as run-off from loads, as relatively clean
roads and other paved areas is roof run-off is collected
collected

Kogarah Town Square
Kogarah Town Square was redeveloped The ‘dirty’ run-off from the square passes
in 2003 as part of Kogarah Council’s shift through a gross pollutant trap into a storage
towards sustainable development. The site tank and is used for garden irrigation. The
contains 193 residential apartments, design uses the landscape to filter the water,
4500 m2 of retail and commercial space, a so that excess nutrients and fine particles are
public building, an underground carpark retained by the soil. The ‘clean’ stormwater
and both public and private gardens. (predominantly from roof surfaces) is
retained in a storage tank, and passes
Water-sensitive urban design concepts
through a screen filter and disinfection unit
were incorporated into the original design,
prior to use for higher level needs.
ensuring the capture, recycling and reuse of
all stormwater from the site for irrigation, The system saves up to 8 ML of mains water
toilet flushing, car washing and the town annually, representing a 50% reduction in
square water feature. water use for the site.
The reuse system recognises the difference For further details, refer to Salan (2002) and
between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ stormwater. Kogarah Council (2004).
wsud.org
2.6 Stormwater and effluent reuse

Some water reuse projects can use stormwater as well as effluent from STPs or leachate
from waste disposal facilities. This document focuses on stormwater harvesting and
reuse – DEC (2004) provides guidance on effluent reuse.
In general, the design criteria relating to effluent reuse will be more stringent than those
for stormwater reuse and should be adopted for combined schemes in place of guidance
in this document. The design needs to consider the different characteristics of stormwater
and effluent. In particular, stormwater supply is more variable in quality, quantity and
reliability, and pollution levels are usually lower than in treated effluent.
Some reuse schemes combine stormwater and effluent (by ‘blending’) to reduce effluent
salinity levels. The panel about Sydney Olympic Park provides an example of a combined
stormwater and effluent reuse project.

Sydney Olympic Park
The Water Reclamation and Management
Scheme at Sydney Olympic Park represents
a large-scale approach to recycling non-
potable water. Established in 2000, the
scheme aims to provide all water required
for toilet flushing, irrigation and other
residential uses in the park and the
nearby suburb of Newington. The scheme
conserves approximately 850 megalitres
(ML) of mains water per year.
Stormwater is captured in two storages
wsud.org
– the Brickpit Reservoir (located in the old
quarry), having a 300 ML capacity, and a
series of freshwater wetlands constructed as
for the annual diversion of approximately
part of the Haslams Creek area remediation.
550 ML of sewage normally discharged
Treatment through the wetlands reduces
through ocean outfalls.
sediment and nutrient loads by up to 90%.
Stormwater from both storages is combined The scheme, with a capital cost of $15
with reclaimed water ‘mined’ from a trunk million, provides recycled water to
sewer, filtered via continuous microfiltration consumers at a rate of $0.83 per kL. While
and disinfected prior to use. A dual this is lower than mains water charges, it
reticulation system distributes the water to does not reflect the true cost of recycled
the park and to Newington homes. water supply.
In addition to conserving water, For more information, see SOPA
implementation of the scheme has allowed (2004a, 2004b).
2.7 Community acceptance of treated stormwater

Community acceptance and use of treated stormwater is a key factor in a successful
scheme. Many of the existing schemes, particularly those referred to later in this
document, have irrigation of public areas as the end use. However, research suggests
that there is growing support for extending the use of treated stormwater for domestic
purposes, including clothes washing, toilet flushing and garden irrigation.
In a study investigating social acceptability of treated stormwater in Perth, Melbourne and
Sydney, Mitchell et al. (2006) found that:
• acceptance was highest among respondents for either household scale or large
(centralised scale) systems, rather than neighbourhood/cluster schemes operated by
a body corporate or similar entity
• respondents were more accepting of using rainwater than stormwater for garden watering
• the acceptance of treated stormwater was greater than that of treated wastewater.
More recently, stormwater harvesting and reuse has been successfully introduced as
part of the water-sensitive urban design of several developments (see panels). The initial
findings from these developments suggest a high degree of satisfaction and acceptance
by residents of treated stormwater for use within a residential environment (Coombes
et al. 2000).

wsud.org
3. Statutor y re quirements
3.1 Planning 18
3.2 Environmental and natural resource management 18

3.2.1 Environment protection licences 18
3.2.2 Water extraction 19
3.2.3 Impacts on fish habitats 19
3.2.4 Impacts on rivers and foreshores 19
3.2.5 Impacts on threatened species 20
3.2.6 Clearing of native vegetation 20
3.2.7 Impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage 20
3.3 Other requirements 20

3.3.1 Dam safety 20
3.3.2 Plumbing requirements 20
Statutory requirements 17
3.1 Planning
The statutory approvals required for stormwater harvesting and reuse projects vary between
states. This section deals with the requirements that may apply in New South Wales. The
information was current at the time of publication; however, statutory requirements and
the roles of government agencies can change over time – proponents should check that this
information is current during the planning stage of their project.
Stormwater harvesting schemes would normally be subject to the requirements of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The EP&A Act sets
out the requirements for environmental impact assessment for development consent
purposes.
Development consent is an approval for development issued by a ‘consent authority’,
normally the local council but sometimes the Minister for Planning. Environmental
planning instruments will determine if development consent is required for a development
proposed for a certain zone. Therefore, depending on the provisions in the relevant
environmental planning instruments, constructing a stormwater harvesting and reuse
scheme may require development consent.
Development proposals that require development consent are subject to the requirements
of Part 3A or 4 of the EP&A Act. Part 3A specifies the assessment and approval process
for major infrastructure and other major projects while Part 4 specifies the process for
other proposals requiring development consent. These Parts of the EP&A Act consider
development applications to be ‘integrated development’ where certain licences or
approvals are required from bodies other than a consent authority. Applicants must inform
the consent authority of any licences, additional approvals or permits required from state
agencies other than development consent before lodging their applications. Councils are
then required to consult with the relevant state agency and obtain requirements in relation
to the development.
Activities not covered by planning or development control processes, and thus not
requiring development consent, fall under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Such ‘exempt’
activities include installations of public utilities undertaken by local councils and
government agencies. A review of environmental factors (REF) may be required in these
circumstances.
3.2 Environmental and natural resource management
3.2.1 Environment protection licences

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 is the principal legislation
governing the protection, restoration and enhancement of the environment in New South
Wales. Part 3.1 of the Act requires environment protection licences to be issued for
scheduled activities that may cause pollution. Stormwater harvesting schemes do not
require such licensing.

3.2.2 Water extraction
The Water Management Act 2000 provides the statutory framework for water extraction
from rivers, lakes and estuaries. The Act’s definition of ‘river’ includes any watercourse,
including an artificially improved channel, but not a piped drain. The definition of ‘lake’
includes any body of natural or artificial still water, including a wetland. In an urban
context, the Act would apply to any river, creek, (open) drainage channel, lake or pond,
but not to schemes that harvest stormwater from a drainage pipe.
Stormwater harvesting schemes proposed for construction on a ‘river’ normally require:
• a water access licence
• a water use approval
• a water supply work approval.
Applications for these licences and approvals should be made to the Department of
Natural Resources and must be issued before water can be extracted from a river.
New water access licences for commercial purposes are generally not being granted, to
stop unsustainable over-allocation of water. In particular, this applies to areas covered by
a gazetted water-sharing plan. An existing access licence can be purchased on the water
market, subject to dealing (trading) rules. A water utility may apply for a special purpose
licence, although the amount of water available may depend on the rules of the water-
sharing plans.
An approval to use water is required before river water may be used at a particular
location, such as for irrigation or town water supply. A stormwater harvesting scheme
granted development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act does not require a water use
approval.
A water supply work approval is required for water management works associated with
water use, including to:
• extract water from a river or lake
• store water taken from a river or lake (in off-line storages)
• convey water extracted from a river or lake to another location
• retain water in a river (via a weir or in-river dam).
3.2.3 Impacts on fish habitats

Components of a stormwater harvesting project that involve works in a watercourse are
likely to require a permit from the Department of Primary Industries under the Fisheries
Management Act 1994. Further details can be obtained from Policy and guidelines
– aquatic habitat management and fish conservation (NSW Fisheries, 1999).
3.2.4 Impacts on rivers and foreshores

A permit under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 may be required for
projects undertaken in or adjacent to a stream, river, lake or lagoon. Depending on the
location of the project, the permits are to be obtained from the Department of Natural
Resources or the NSW Maritime Authority. The Act does not apply to works on piped
stormwater drainage systems.
Statutory requirements 19
3.2.5 Impacts on threatened species
The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 integrates the conservation of
threatened species and communities into the processes for planning and development
control under the EP&A Act. The Minister for the Environment can certify environmental
planning instruments if satisfied that they will bring an overall improvement or
maintenance in biodiversity values. A separate threatened species assessment may
not be needed for development applications in areas that have certified environmental
planning instruments.
Where a development is proposed in an area for which the environmental planning
instrument has not been certified, the EP&A Act sets out factors to be considered
in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species,
populations or ecological communities and if a species impact statement is required.
Where there is likely to be a significant effect, the consent authority must seek the
concurrence of DEC.
3.2.6 Clearing of native vegetation

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 applies to the clearing of native vegetation and certain
regrowth vegetation. The Act applies primarily to rural areas and not to the Sydney
metropolitan area, Newcastle, areas with certain residential land use zonings, or national
parks, conservation areas and state forests. Approvals are required from catchment
management authorities for clearing native vegetation in areas subject to the Act.
3.2.7 Impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 protects all Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal
places in NSW. A consent under the Act must be obtained from DEC for activities that are
likely to destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place.
3.3 Other requirements
3.3.1 Dam safety

The requirements of the Dams Safety Act 1978, as administered by the Dam Safety
Committee, may apply to storages for stormwater harvesting schemes depending on the
height of the dam wall and the associated hazard rating (Dam Safety Committee 1998,
2002). The hazard rating (consequence categories) is related to the population at risk of a
dam failure and the severity of the associated damage and loss.
3.3.2 Plumbing requirements

The plumbing requirements for distribution systems associated with stormwater
harvesting and reuse schemes are discussed in section 6.

4. Risk management
4.1 Background 22
4.2 Potential hazards 23
4.3 Risk management framework 23
Risk management 21
4.1 Background
Risk management is playing an increasingly important role in the water industry.
The Australian drinking water guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) apply a risk
management approach to the production of drinking water in Australia. Another relevant
example is the publication Guidelines for managing risk in recreational water (NHMRC
2005).
The draft national guidelines for water recycling (NRMMC & EPHC 2005) include a risk-
based framework for managing the quality and use of recycled water. This is based on the
framework in the Australian drinking water guidelines. The draft water recycling guidelines
note that the sustainable use of recycled water should be based on the following three
principles:
• the protection of public and environmental health is paramount and should never be
compromised
• ongoing protection of public and environmental health depends of the implementation
of a preventive risk management approach
• application of control measures and water quality requirements should be
commensurate with the source of recycled water and the intended uses.
The panel below summarises the approach to risk management used in the Australian
drinking water guidelines and adopted in this document. Further information on risk
management can be obtained from AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management (Standards
Australia 2004) and related documents.
Ideally, risks for a stormwater harvesting and reuse project should be assessed during the
project’s planning phase. This will enable many significant hazards to be managed during
the project’s design. If risk assessment and management are left to the operational phase
of a project, the costs of effective mitigation may be considerably higher than if they were
considered during the planning phase.
Further information on risk management is provided in appendix B.
Risk management
The current edition of the Australian be if it did. The final stage is to ensure that
drinking water guidelines emphasises existing preventive measures are sufficient
the importance of taking a preventive to control the hazards, and to improve or
management approach to drinking water replace such measures if necessary.
quality, in which risks are identified and
Source: NHMRC & NRMMC (2004a)
managed proactively, rather than simply
reacting to when problems arise.
There are three basic steps in taking a
preventive approach. The first step is to look
systematically at all the potential hazards
to the water supply from the catchment
to the consumer’s tap (i.e. what might
happen and how).
Once the hazards are identified, the next
step is to assess the risk from each hazard by
estimating the likelihood that the event will
happen and what the consequences would

4.2 Potential hazards
There are a range of potential public health, public safety and environmental hazards
from stormwater harvesting and reuse. Table 4.1 summarises the most common of these
(see also appendix B). The public safety risks are primarily related to schemes where
open storages are used.
Additional hazards relating to scheme operations and occupational health and safety
are also likely – these are not considered in detail in this section (refer to section 7.3 for
information on occupational health and safety).
4.3 Risk management framework

It is important that stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes are developed and
operated within a risk management context.
The draft national guidelines for water recycling include a comprehensive risk-based
framework for public health and environmental risks associated with wastewater recycling
and greywater reuse. This framework can be used in the planning, development and
operation of a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme. A future version of these
guidelines (due in 2008) will address stormwater harvesting specifically.
The framework incorporates a preventive risk management approach, including elements
of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) assessment, ISO 9001 (Quality
management) and AS/NZS 4360 (Risk management), and it applies them in the context
of recycled water supply.
A summary of the framework is provided in table 4.2, with further details provided in
appendix B. The elements in this framework are similar to those adopted in the Australian
Table 4.1 Common potential hazards associated with stormwater harvesting and reuse
Area Hazard
Public health Microorganisms (pathogens) in water:
• bacteria
• viruses
• protozoa
• helminths
Chemical toxicants in water:

• inorganic chemicals (e.g. metals, nutrients)
• organic chemicals (e.g. pesticides, hydrocarbons)
Public safety Water storages (above ground):
• drowning
• embankment failure/overtopping
Environmental Over-extraction of stormwater flows

Storage constructed on natural watercourses
Flooding above any diversion weir
Surface water pollution by run-off (irrigation schemes)
Groundwater pollution (irrigation schemes)
Soil contamination (irrigation schemes)
Risk management 23
drinking water guidelines. A related approach has been used in Queensland for water
recycling (EPA Queensland 2005a).
The framework in table 4.2 recognises that successful risk management requires
appropriate scheme planning, design and operations. As the monitoring of treated
stormwater is not continuous and there is normally a period of time (hours or days)
between sampling and the availability of monitoring results, monitoring should not be
used as a primary risk management activity – the focus of monitoring should be primarily
on validating the effectiveness of the preventive approaches to managing water quality.
The framework applies to schemes of all sizes and complexity, the main difference
in application being the extent to which the elements are applied. The extent of risk
management for a project should be appropriate to the project’s risks. Hence a large
stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme with significant public contact (exposure) to
treated stormwater warrants a comprehensive risk assessment. Smaller schemes with
controlled public access (i.e. lower exposure risk) warrant a less comprehensive risk
assessment.
The approach taken in this document is to provide guidance on appropriate public
health and environmental risk management activities for stormwater harvesting and
reuse schemes that meet the nominated threshold criteria noted in table 4.3 and follow
nominated design and operational practices. Management practices suitable for sub-
threshold schemes are noted in tables 4.4 and 4.5 and described in sections 5 to 7.
Public safety, occupational health and safety and operational risks should be assessed
separately for each scheme. The basis for the thresholds in table 4.3 is provided in
appendix B.
This default approach is intended to provide guidance on suitable risk management
activities to achieve low public health and environmental risks from the scheme’s
operations. This approach is particularly suitable for small schemes, particularly where
the application has relatively low public exposure such as irrigation. Most stormwater
harvesting and reuse schemes to date are relatively small-scale compared with many
effluent reuse schemes, and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Table 4.2 Risk management framework for recycled water quality and use
Element Description
1 Commitment to the responsible use and management of recycled water quality
2 Assessment of the recycled water system
3 Preventive measures for recycled water management
4 Operational procedures and process control
5 Verification of recycled water quality and environmental sustainability
6 Management of incidents and emergencies
7 Employee awareness and training
8 Community involvement and awareness
9 Validation, research and development
10 Documentation and reporting
11 Evaluation and audit
12 Review and continual improvement
Source: NRMMC & EPHC (2005)

Environmental risks from a well-designed and oprerated stormwater reuse scheme are
generally low. Further, the health risks from stormwater reuse are generally lower than for
wastewater reuse for the same application. However, stormwater reuse does carry some
health risks and these need to be managed appropriately. All recycled water schemes
need to be appropriately designed and managed to minimise risks – for example, a poorly
operated stormwater harvesting scheme may present greater health risks than a well-
operated effluent reuse scheme.
These thresholds are not intended to represent a threshold between viable and non-viable
schemes. The intention is to distinguish between schemes that can readily achieve low
public health and environmental risks and those where further investigation is appropriate.
Table 4.3 Thresholds for use of default risk management approach

Parameter Threshold criteria – all schemes
Catchment land use Residential/commercial (i.e. no significant
industrial areas)
Sewer overflows in the catchment Low frequency and volumes
Stormwater reuse application • Residential non-potable (small scale)

• Irrigation of public open spaces
• Industrial uses
• Water feature
• Irrigation of non-food crops
• Aquifer storage and recovery
Storage Constructed either off-line or on-line on a

constructed drain
Extraction Flow in watercourse after extraction is greater
than the estimated pre-urbanisation flow.
Stormwater is reused in the catchment from
which it was extracted
Stormwater quality Turbidity levels are low or moderate
Threshold criteria – irrigation schemes

Salinity levels in stormwater Low/medium
Groundwater Not in an area where groundwater is vulnerable
Location of irrigation area More than 1 km from a town water supply bore
Slope – sprinkler irrigation < 6%
Slope – trickle or microspray irrigation < 10%
Landform crests, convex slopes and plains
Surface rock outcrop Nil
Soil salinity (0–70 cm) < 2 dS/m
Soil salinity (70–100 cm) < 4 dS/m
Depth to top of seasonal high water table >3m
Depth to bedrock or hardpan >1m
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (0–100 cm) 20–80 mm/h
Available soil water capacity > 100 mm/m
Emerson soil aggregate test (0–100 cm) Class 4, 5, 6, 7
Risk management 25
Where a scheme does not meet some or all of the threshold criteria or different
management practices are proposed, a risk assessment should be carried out. It should
focus on the area exceeding the threshold or the different management practice. This
may result in additional management actions being developed.
The scheme’s developer should check that the management measures are appropriate
for the circumstances of the particular scheme, recognising that all schemes have some
unique features.
Further information is provided in appendix B, including a generic risk assessment for
sub-threshold schemes.
Table 4.4 General management measures for default risk management approach
Area Management measures

Planning • Identify any point sources of pollution and industrial land uses within
the catchment
• Identify sewer overflow characteristics within the catchment
• Involve scheme’s proposed operator in the scheme’s planning
Design • Involve scheme’s proposed operator in the scheme’s design
• Limit stormwater extraction rates
• Use plumbing controls and signage
Operations • Ensure organisational commitment, including continuous improvement
• Ensure appropriately qualified scheme operators
• Manage upstream catchment
• Follow appropriate scheme operations and maintenance
• Implement workplace procedures
• Establish and follow incident response procedures
• Monitoring, reporting and record keeping
• Prepare and implement scheme management plan
Table 4.5 Specific management measures for default risk management approach
Stormwater
Application Access restrictions quality criteria Specific operational practices
Residential Nil Level 1 Above-ground storage design
(non-potable) and management
Additional plumbing controls
Irrigation of Nil Level 2 Irrigation scheme design and
open spaces operational controls
Controlled public Level 3
access or subsurface
irrigation
Industrial Nil Level 2

access
Ornamental Nil Level 2
waterbodies
access
Aquifer Not applicable Level 3 ASR scheme operational
storage controls
and recovery

K Walters/ DEC
5. Planning consider at ions
5.1 Planning process 28
5.1.1 Identify the project objectives 29
5.1.2 Assess the site and catchment 29
5.1.3 Identify potential options 30
5.1.4 Evaluate options 31
5.1.5 Recommend an option 34
5.2 Considerations for schemes in existing urban areas 35
5.3 Considerations for schemes in urban developments 35
Planning considerations 27
5.1 Planning process
Key considerations in the planning process

The planning process should aim to:
• identify all risks to public health, safety and the environment
• identify all of the upstream catchment characteristics likely to present public health or
environmental risks to stormwater reuse
• involve the organisation(s) responsible for operating the scheme, and other key
stakeholders
• identify all site constraints and regulatory requirements
• evaluate possible arrangements for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme, including
evaluating costs and benefits.
Stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes can be implemented either in existing

urban areas or as part of a new urban development. The project’s context will therefore
influence the nature of the planning process.
The process summarised below could be used in part for preparing a plan for integrated
water cycle management in an existing urban area or as part of the master planning for a
new urban development. The basic steps are common to both situations, but the details
of each step may differ. The planning process is based on the assumption that a decision
has been made to proceed with a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme to at least the
planning stage.
Also, the planning process is likely to be iterative, requiring several rounds of review in
earlier stages as new information arises and negotiations progress with stakeholders
(including end users) that may alter the objectives and/or available options.
The complexity of the planning process for stormwater harvesting schemes should
match the size and nature of the project and the associated levels of public health and
environmental risks. For example, a small scheme to harvest stormwater for irrigating
a playing field would require less risk assessment than a major scheme to treat and
reticulate harvested stormwater to a new development area.
During the project’s planning stage, a risk management strategy should be developed.
This should, in particular, identify public health and environmental hazards and an
appropriate mix of controls to be implemented during the design and operational phases.
Key stakeholders should be consulted throughout the planning process, particularly
during the setting of project objectives. Their engagement in the scheme from the
planning stage will:
• provide opportunities for educating the community and the proponents
• allow for any concerns or misconceptions to be identified and addressed early in the
scheme
• build user confidence in the scheme, resulting in greater use of treated stormwater as
an alternative to mains water.
Additionally, providing feedback mechanisms to gain community opinions throughout
the design, construction and operation phases may help to secure greater community
acceptance for the project and any future schemes.

The five steps discussed below for stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes are broadly
similar to other planning processes, but they differ in the specific details relevant to
stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes:
1. identify the project objectives
2. assess the site and catchment
3. identify potential options
4. evaluate options
5. recommend an option.
5.1.1 Identify the project objectives

In developing reuse schemes for a site, broader catchment or regional objectives are
important (see section 2.3). These could involve specified reductions in:
• mains (potable) water use
• stormwater flow rates and/or volumes
• stormwater pollution loads
• the effective (connected) impervious area of the catchment.
Organisational objectives, government policies and environmental planning instruments
may also provide a strategic context for the project. The most common project objectives
will relate to:
• managing public health and safety risks
• managing environmental risks
• meeting the requirements of the end user, primarily relating to water quality, quantity
and reliability of supply
• protecting or enhancing visual amenity or aesthetics.
This step should determine the relative importance of reliability of supply and reductions
in mains water use. A scheme aiming for a high reliability of supply will generate a
relatively low yield (resulting in a smaller reduction in mains use). Put another way, less
harvested water would be used than if the design sought to maximise reuse volumes by
withdrawing stormwater to keep water levels in storage low, while keeping the capacity to
store new inflows high.
5.1.2 Assess the site and catchment

This step identifies and assesses the potential
constraints and opportunities of the proposed
project site. Potential constraints may include:
• topography
• land use
• adjacent land uses (including potential land-use
conflicts)
• watercourse characteristics (e.g. tidal
watercourses are normally inappropriate for
stormwater harvesting)
K Walters/DEC
• vegetation and other sensitive ecosystems

(potential biodiversity impacts)
• soil characteristics, such as salinity or acid
sulfate – refer to DEC (2004) for further details
• existing water management infrastructure
• statutory or regulatory constraints.
This step should identify opportunities for reusing treated stormwater, as well as suitable
locations for storages. Other aspects of the end-user’s operations may also be important,
such as future development plans or land-use changes that may affect longer-term water
use patterns.
The quality of stormwater for a reuse project is affected by the characteristics of the
scheme’s catchment. For example:
• the risk of chemical pollution in a catchment increases with the extent and nature of
industrial uses and paved roads, particularly those with high traffic volumes
• the risk of pathogen contamination increases where catchments have multiple sewer
overflows or high loadings of animal wastes.
The impact of such diffuse pollution sources can be gauged by investigating water quality
during wet and dry weather, or by referring to existing water quality databases.
Similarly, the scheme should investigate the impacts on water quality from any point
sources of pollution, such as sewage treatment plants and landfills. The hazard
assessment for the scheme (see section 5.1.4) may need to consider both diffuse
and point sources of pollution – for example, significant sewer overflows may pose a
significant hazard for a scheme involving residential use for garden watering.
The level of the site and catchment investigation required should match the size and
scale of the development and its potential impacts (i.e. larger developments having
a greater impact would require greater site investigation). As noted for effluent reuse
schemes (DEC 2004), a staged approach to site investigations can be adopted to
minimise costs. This involves an initial screening level assessment using readily available
information to identify major constraints and opportunities, then focusing efforts on any
identified constraints.
5.1.3 Identify potential options

This step identifies various possible layouts for a scheme to meet the project’s objectives.
As noted in section 2, different stormwater harvesting projects can have several elements
in common. However, the arrangement and sizing of these elements tends to be specific
to each project; for example, on-line and off-line storages could be considered, as well as
different treatment techniques depending on end uses and catchment water quality.
This step should assess the influence of different sizes for key elements such as
storages. This step is likely to involve modelling the outcomes from various options,
identifying the degree to which each option meets the adopted project objectives. This
could be iterative, modelling the influence of a number of key aspects of the project (such
as different storage volumes against predicted outcomes), and may include modelling of:
• water balance
• stormwater pollution and environmental flows
• stormwater peak flows and flood levels.
Water balance modelling

The water balance will determine the relationship between storage capacity, reuse
demand and reliability of supply or frequency of stormwater discharges for various
scenarios. If the demand pattern is known, the required storage capacity can be

estimated for varying levels of supply reliability and discharge frequency. Information from
section 5.1.2 is used as an input to the modelling. The outputs are then compared to the
water management objectives for the project. Water balance modelling can also be used
to assess variations in water levels, a consideration where fluctuations in open storages
may have aesthetic, environmental and operational impacts.
Stormwater pollution and environmental flow modelling

Modelling of stormwater pollution loads from the catchment, and the reduction achieved
through the stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme, should be conducted for each
option. The stormwater pollution load reductions to waterways that can be achieved by a
scheme include:
• the ‘loss’ of pollution due to the reuse of the extracted stormwater
• pollutant retention in on-line storages
• reduced loads in any stormwater that is treated by a scheme, but which is returned to
the stormwater system because it is not needed for reuse,
This modelling usually employs an extended timeframe (e.g. 10 years) with daily
or shorter time steps. It can also be used to assess the impacts of the scheme on
downstream streamflows – see Engineers Australia (2005) for further details of this form
of modelling.
Stormwater peak flow and flood level modelling

The third form of modelling involves estimating peak flows in the system for a range of
average recurrence intervals (ARI), commonly including the 100-year ARI flood. Flood
levels in the vicinity of the scheme can then be estimated, using hydraulic modelling,
to assess the impact of an option on upstream flood levels (Institution of Engineers
Australia 1987). This modelling can also assess the benefits of the scheme in reducing
downstream flood flows.
5.1.4 Evaluate options

The various options identified in section 5.1.3 should be evaluated, taking into account
social, economic and environmental considerations. The evaluation is likely to consider
the factors noted in table 5.1.
The evaluation of options should primarily assess how well each option meets the
project’s objectives. It is likely that during this process trade-offs between objectives may
need to be assessed as, for example, it may not be cost-effective to meet all objectives.
There is no widely used evaluation technique for water recycling schemes such as
stormwater harvesting (Hatt et al. 2004, Kellogg Brown & Root 2004, McAlister 1999).
This may be partially due to the difficulty in quantifying many of the costs and benefits of
such schemes, and where some of the costs and benefits can be attributed to parties not
directly involved in the proposed scheme.
Possible evaluation techniques include:
• economic evaluation:
• cost-benefit analysis
• cost-effectiveness analysis
• triple bottom-line analysis
• multiple criteria analysis.
Economic evaluation: cost-benefit analysis
Cost-benefit analysis quantifies in monetary terms all the major costs and benefits
of project options. The outcomes for a range of options are therefore translated into
comparable terms to facilitate evaluation and decision making. The technique can also
makes explicit allowance for the many costs and benefits which cannot be valued. In both
cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis, all unquantifiable benefits and costs should
be described.
Cost-benefit analysis is a more comprehensive technique than cost-effectiveness
analysis and is normally the preferred technique wherever feasible (NSW Treasury 1999).
An approach that can be adopted to cost-benefit analysis is described in NSW Treasury
(1999). This approach involves quantifying the benefits and costs over the project life,
with a 20-year analysis period recommended for consistency. The costs and benefits are
expressed in net present value terms, using a 7 per cent discount rate.
A potential difficulty in using cost-benefit analysis for stormwater harvesting and reuse
proposals is that some benefits can be difficult to quantify. Further, the analysis is often
not warranted for small reuse projects.
While capital costs for projects are relatively easy to estimate, maintenance costs (which
are important in the life-cycle cost of a project) are often more difficult.
Appendix D provides some guidance on estimating maintenance costs for stormwater
treatment measures.
Table 5.1 Potential option evaluation considerations
Area Evaluation consideration

Social • risks to human health and safety
• aesthetic benefits/impacts of storages
• any improvements to the condition of community assets (i.e. sports fields)
and other amenity improvements.
• any flooding impacts caused by weirs (this may also be a social, economic
and/or environmental factor)
Economic • capital costs (e.g. project management, investigation, design, construction
and any land acquisition)
• recurrent costs (e.g. operating, power, maintenance, asset renewal and
monitoring)
• any savings in mains (potable) water costs
• any income received from the sale of the treated stormwater
• any income benefits for end users (e.g. golf course remains green and
attractive to golfers)
• any savings in fertiliser application
Environmental • benefits of reduced stormwater pollution and downstream flows
• benefits in reduced mains water consumption
• potential impacts of on-line storages or diversions for off-line storages
• environmental risks (e.g. potential impacts of irrigation on surface water
quality, groundwater and soils)
• potential impacts of the scheme on endangered ecological communities,
populations and species
• energy use and any associated greenhouse gas production

Economic evaluation: cost-effectiveness analysis
Where the main benefits of a project are not readily measurable in monetary terms
(using either actual or proxy values), it may not always be possible to apply cost-benefit
analysis. An alternative approach is to use cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the
costs of each option, assuming the benefits of each option are broadly similar. Where
the benefits of each option differ, cost-effectiveness analysis is less useful than cost-
benefit analysis, where costs and benefits of different kinds of options are more readily
comparable (NSW Treasury 1999).
The approach to cost-effectiveness analysis described by NSW Treasury (1999)
quantifies the present value of project costs over the project life, using a 20-year analysis
period and a 7 per cent discount rate.
An alternative approach to estimating project costs for cost-effectiveness analysis is
life-cycle costing (Standards Australia 1999, NSW Treasury 2004), which is a process
to determine the sum of all the costs associated with all or part of an asset, including
acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, refurbishment and disposal. Taylor
(2003) provides further advice on life-cycle costing for stormwater projects.
A simplified approach to life cycle-costing is to calculate the net present value of a
project’s capital and operating costs, using the 20-year analysis period and 7 per cent
discount rate noted above.
A related approach is levelised costing, defined as the net present value of the project’s
costs over the analysis period divided by total volume of water supplied or pollutant
removed (IPART 1996). The 20-year analysis period and 7% discount rate noted above
can be used for these calculations. Levelised costs are expressed in cost per kilolitre or
cost per kilogram of pollutant removed.
A disadvantage of the levelised cost approach is that it associates the project’s costs
with a single objective (e.g. water supply volumes), whereas most stormwater harvesting
schemes satisfy multiple objectives that cannot readily be accounted for using this
approach. When the outcomes from different options are the same (e.g. the same volume
of water reused), levelised cost calculations are not warranted, as the comparison does
not need to be based on unit costs – life cycle costing can be used. Life cycle or levelised
costs can also be used in triple-bottom-line and multi-criteria analysis.
Triple-bottom-line analysis
An alternative and often more comprehensive approach to assessing costs and benefits
in a sustainability context is triple-bottom-line (TBL) assessment. This method provides
for the equal consideration of environmental, social and economic elements associated
with a given scheme proposal (see table 5.1).
While the obvious benefits of this approach lie with the potential to undertake a balanced
assessment of project options, the considerable investment of time required for detailed
investigations suggests that TBL assessment is best suited to large-scale proposals.
Taylor (2005a) generated comprehensive guidelines on the application of this approach
for stormwater management measures, and explains the preferred use of multi-criteria
analysis in evaluating multiple objectives.
Multi-criteria analysis
Multi-criteria analysis or evaluation provides a decision-support framework that can be
used to undertake a triple bottom-line assessment of project options. This technique
requires that proposals be evaluated against predetermined criteria, with the most
favourable option identified through comparing relative weightings or rankings arising
from this evaluation. While complicated, this approach allows for an in-depth assessment
of the multiple parameters and objectives normally associated with a stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme. Further information on undertaking a multi-criteria analysis
can be found in Proctor & Qureshi (2005).
5.1.5 Recommend an option

This step identifies a recommended option, based on the evaluation of options. The
options evaluation report should include a risk management strategy identifying actions
to reduce risks (including to public health and the environment) during the design and
operation of a scheme.
The selected option may then be subject to more-detailed conceptual design and analysis
to confirm its feasibility and suitability. This may include preparing a conceptual layout
that indicates the size and location of the proposed facilities for stormwater collection,
treatment, storage and distribution.
wsud.org
Water-sensitive urban design at Kogarah Town Square

5.2 Considerations for schemes in existing urban areas
The decision to implement a stormwater harvesting and reuse system in an existing
urban area should ideally be made in the context of a regional or catchment-based plan
or strategy for integrated urban water cycle management.
Such a plan would seek to integrate all streams of the urban water cycle – not just
stormwater, but also potable water and wastewater – towards multiple objectives such as
water demand, pollution loads, environmental flows and flooding.
A stormwater harvesting scheme could be developed in the context of a water utility’s
integrated water cycle management plan (DEUS 2004) or water savings plan
(DEUS 2005).
In existing urban areas, option evaluation of a scheme may be more straightforward than
in new urban areas, as the scheme’s proponent would also usually be the scheme’s
operator. The economic analysis can therefore be based on both the capital costs and the
operating costs to the proponent, which can be integrated through an analysis such as
life-cycle costing (Taylor 2005b).
5.3 Considerations for schemes in urban developments

For stormwater harvesting schemes in new urban developments, key project objectives
are likely to be established by council, and possibly by the water supply authority and/
or the Department of Planning. Such a scheme needs to be considered early in the
processes of master planning and development approval. It should also be an integral
part of a site’s water cycle master planning, accounting for water supply, sewerage and
stormwater objectives. This integrated approach should achieve the optimal water cycle
balance for the development, for example by addressing competing demands for non-
potable water uses between treated stormwater and effluent (e.g. dual reticulation). It
can also allow for the scheme to take into account any flood mitigation benefits when
assessing on-site detention requirements.
In new developments, it is important to consider the interests of the developer, the council
and the scheme’s operator (if this is not the council) by assessing the costs and benefits
to these stakeholders separately. The assessment should consider the capital costs to
the developer and the recurrent costs to the scheme’s operator (e.g. council). This is a
different emphasis to the life-cycle costing approach, which is useful when the proponent
is also the operator.
Councils would probably refer a development application for a stormwater harvesting and
reuse scheme to the Department of Health for comment. It would therefore be useful for
the proponent to discuss the project with that department during the development phase.
The likely issues that a council may want included in a development application involving
a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme include:
• anticipated benefits and impacts associated with scheme construction and operation
(including social, environmental and economic aspects)
• consideration of environmental impacts during construction and operation phases
through the preparation of an environmental management plan (EMP)
• compatibility of the proposed scheme with council’s objectives, plans or strategies,
including any relevant strategic water management plan or strategy
• how public health and safety risks are addressed
• management arrangements for the scheme
• what (if any) risks and/or financial obligations would be transferred to council if it
operates the scheme (e.g. operations, maintenance, monitoring and reporting costs)
• compatibility of the proposed plan with surrounding land uses (compliance with zoning
requirements)
• a ‘scheme management plan’, as described in section 7.
The development consent for a stormwater reuse scheme may include conditions
requiring:
• appropriate management arrangements to be in place, if council is not the scheme’s
operator (e.g. a golf course operated by a club or private company)
• implementation of an EMP to manage construction impacts on the environment
• the scheme management plan to be implemented
• regular reviews and updating of the management plan as required
• reporting of monitoring results (including any exceedances) and implementing any
corrective actions.

pervious
paving path path
road and irrigation/reuse
car park pump
infiltration
storage
6. Desig n consider at ions

6.1 Design overview 38
6.1.1 Arrangement of project elements 38
6.1.2 Approach to design 39
6.2 Collection 40
6.3 Storage 42
6.3.1 Storage volume 42
6.3.2 Design of storages 43
6.4 Treatment 48
6.4.1 Treatment overview 48
6.4.2 Stormwater quality criteria 48
6.4.3 Treatment techniques 51
6.5 Distribution 56
6.6 Irrigation systems 57

6.6.1 Background 57
6.6.2 Application rates 57
6.6.3 Buffer zones and irrigation scheme design 57
6.7 Construction 58
Design considerations 37
6.1 Design overview
Key considerations in the design process

The design process should aim to:
• design the reuse scheme for ease of operations and maintenance
• incorporate elements in the design intended to address public health and environmental
risks, to complement operational risk management activities
• cost-effectively meet the project’s objectives identified during project planning.
6.1.1 Arrangement of project elements

Various combinations of elements can be used in a stormwater harvesting and reuse
scheme, depending on the nature of the site and the end uses. The design process
needs to consider the following components:
• collection
• storage
• treatment
• distribution.
The design process should also consider construction, operations and maintenance
issues.
As noted in section 2, there is no fixed arrangement for project elements. For example,
a storage may be located before, after or between treatment facilities. Depending on the
design of the scheme, water may be transferred between these elements by gravity flow
or pumping. The elements should be arranged to suit the characteristics of the site and of
the specific application. Examples of two possible arrangements are shown in figure 6.1.
Storage Irrigation
Disinfection
Treatment Pump
Creek/drain
Low flow
diversion
Figure 6.1 (a) Schematic of an example harvesting scheme with off-line storage
Irrigation
Disinfection
Pump
Storage/treatment
Figure 6.1 (b) Schematic of an example harvesting scheme with on-line storage

6.1.2 Approach to design
As with the planning process discussed in the last chapter, the design of a stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme is likely to be iterative, particularly to optimise the project’s
costs. As the end-use requirements essentially dictate the collection, storage and
treatment elements of a scheme, the initial design is likely to follow the opposite direction
of water flow:
• identify the end-use requirements relating to water quality and quantity, including
reliability of supply
• for an irrigation scheme, prepare a preliminary design of the irrigation system to
estimate the irrigation demand and the peak flow
• assess the water balance for sizing the storage to meet the end-use demand
• design the collection system for off-line storage so that it collects sufficient stormwater
to meet the storage volume requirements – this can be estimated through a
relationship between average annual volume and diversion flow rates
• design the treatment system based on the diversion flow rate if treatment is provided
before the storage, or to the distribution flow rate if treatment occurs after the storage.
It is also important that the scheme is designed to consider the ease of operation and
maintenance (see section 7). It is therefore useful for maintenance personnel to be
involved in the design process. The project should also be designed to cost-effectively
address the project’s objectives determined during the planing phase (section 5).
As noted in section 5, a risk management strategy should be prepared during the
planning stage to identify risk issues for the project design to address.
K Walters/DEC
Stormwater pump at Greenway Park stormwater

reuse scheme, Cherrybrook
6.2 Collection
Key considerations in the collection of stormwater for reuse

The design of the collection system should ensure that:
• sufficient stormwater is collected for transfer to storage to meet the end-use volume
requirements
• the extraction does not compromise downstream aquatic ecosystems
• collection can be stopped if stormwater is contaminated by an incident within the
catchment
• the risk of upstream flooding impacts is minimised.
This component of a scheme collects or diverts stormwater into the harvesting scheme
from an urban creek, stormwater drain or overland flow. The nature of the collection
arrangements depends on whether the storage is constructed on a drainage system
(on-line) or away from the drainage system (off-line). These arrangements are discussed
further in section 6.3.
Where on-line storage is used, there is no collection system, as stormwater flows directly
into the storage. Stormwater can be directed to the storage by drains or swales.
For schemes with off-line storages, water is usually collected by a diversion weir
constructed on a stormwater drain or urban creek. The weir diverts low flows into the
scheme while enabling high flows to bypass the system. These schemes should also
include a bypass facility to return stormwater to the drain when the storage is full. Where
a scheme draws stormwater from larger watercourses, lakes or ponds, stormwater can be
collected by installing a well with a submersible pump and associated rising main.
In new urban developments, stormwater can be collected through water-sensitive
design elements such as swales and biofilters. These elements also provide a degree of
stormwater treatment.
The design of the diversion weir should ensure that an adequate volume of stormwater
would be diverted to meet the planned water demand and reliability of supply. The weirs
are usually designed to divert flows below a specific average recurrence interval (ARI)
peak flow into the scheme, with higher flows overtopping the weir. Usually it is the low ARI
storm events that are diverted (e.g. 3-month ARI), as such low flows provide the bulk of
the annual yield and account for the greater proportion of the pollution load.
The relationship between annual run-off volume and peak flow is site-specific and
distinctly non-linear. Figure 6.2 from Wong et al. (2000) illustrates that 90–97% of the
mean annual run-off from Australian urban catchments occurs at flows lower than the
3-month ARI peak flow. This relationship is indicative only, and a site-specific relationship
should be developed for particular projects.
Figure 6.2 also highlights a distinct ‘point of diminishing returns’ in the relationship
between diversion flow rate and the percentage of average annual run-off volume
diverted. Diversion flows of 6-month to 1-year ARI are likely to divert nearly all (over 98%)
of the annual run-off volume. The implication for the design of diversion structures is that
the diversion of infrequent, high-ARI flows is unlikely to be cost-effective.

100
99
98
Proportion of runoff volume diverted (%)
97
96
Melbourne
Sydney
95 Brisbane
94
93
92
91
90
0.1 1 10
Diversion structure design ARI (years)
Figure 6.2 Relationship between diversion structure flow and run-off volume
Source: after Wong et al. 2000
Similarly, where water is pumped from a creek, the benefits of selecting a pump with a
rate greater than the 3-month ARI flow would only be marginal.
The project design should assess the extraction volume compared to the needs of the
downstream receiving environment and any downstream users to prevent over-extraction.
For example, a 90% reduction in annual runoff volume may result in over-extraction
relative to environmental flows, and a design diversion flow of 1-month ARI or less
may be more appropriate. This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis as, for
example, a high extraction could be compensated for by significant stormwater inflows
downstream of a harvesting scheme.
6.3 Storage
Key considerations in the storage of stormwater

The design should aim to:
• store sufficient water to balance supply and demand, and meet reliability of supply
objectives
• design above-ground storages to minimise mosquito habitat (virus control), risks to
public safety and risks to water quality (e.g. eutrophication), and address dam safety
issues.
6.3.1 Storage volume

Storage in stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes needs to balance the variability
between stormwater inflow and demand. Demand variability can be significant, especially
in the case of irrigation, and may be the inverse of stormwater availability because
demand would decrease during periods of rainfall.
The primary function of a storage is to balance inflows and demand to achieve a desired
reliability of supply. There is a complex relationship between storage volume, annual run-
off volume, the demand for treated stormwater and the yield from a scheme. For example:
• if the storage size is increased for a given demand, the yield increases, as does the
reliability of supply – there is less likelihood of the storage being empty
• if the demand increases for a given storage size, the yield increases although the
reliability of supply decreases – the storage is empty or nearly empty more often,
increasing the capture of inflows
• where the demand represents a high proportion of the mean annual run-off and a high
degree of reliability is required, a significant storage volume will be needed.
These interactions highlight the importance of water balance modelling for sizing
storages (discussed further in appendix C). The size of storages can be optimised
when the pattern of demand is similar to that of stormwater supply. To keep storages to
a reasonable size, the design could include a top-up facility, usually from mains water
(if appropriate or permissible), or altered operating rules to ration or restrict demand in
certain periods.
Storages may be constructed specifically for stormwater reuse or a scheme could utilise
an existing storage, such as an urban lake. Alternatively, a harvesting scheme could
use a storage created as part of a broader stormwater management scheme, such as a
constructed wetland or pond for stormwater treatment. This would involve adding volume
for reuse at the design stage of the wetland or pond.
While most storages for stormwater harvesting projects are above ground, alternatives
include underground storages in tanks or injection into aquifers (known as aquifer storage
and recovery or ASR). ASR is used widely in South Australia (Kellogg Brown & Root
2004) and is very space and cost-efficient. Dillon & Pavelic (1996), EPA SA (2005) and
Dillon & Molloy (2006) provide further information on ASR.
There are three main issues associated with the design of stormwater storages:
• function – single or multi-purpose
• capacity – meeting a specific reliability of supply
• location – on-line or off-line, surface or aquifer, centralised or distributed.

Storages, particularly those above ground, may also have other functions, including:
• flood mitigation
• visual amenity
• pollution load reduction
• habitat
• fire-fighting supplies.
Figure 6.3 Schematic diagram of a multi-purpose above-ground storage
inflow
flood detention
flood outlet
reuse volume
supply outlet
permanent pool (water quality)
sediment storage
While multiple objectives may be desirable, the scheme may not be able to satisfy
all objectives all of the time, requiring some compromises to be made. For example,
significant fluctuations in the water levels of open storages may hinder the growth of
fringing macrophytes needed for effective water quality control, habitat, visual appeal and
access control, requiring some trade-off between these objectives.
The various storage volumes for a multi-purpose project can be derived through water
balance, water quality and flood modelling, as described in section 5.
6.3.2 Design of storages

The design of a storage should take the following constraints into account:
• location
• storage type
• water quality in storage
• human health and safety risks
• operations and maintenance
• spillway design and dam safety.
Location
Storage in stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes can be on-line and off-line. There
are both advantages and disadvantages with each type (see table 6.1). Some of the
potential disadvantages can be addressed through good design. Off-line systems are
likely to be the most appropriate for schemes on natural watercourses.
Storage types
Open storages and above-ground or underground tanks are normally used in stormwater
harvesting and reuse schemes. Each has particular advantages and disadvantages that
should be considered during the planning and design phases (see table 6.2).
Table 6.1 Comparison of on-line and off-line storages
Consideration On-line storage Off-line storage

Barrier to fish passage and Potential barrier if constructed No or little impact
connectivity of aquatic ecosystems on natural channel
Downstream water quality benefits Relatively high Relatively low

(additional to reuse benefits)
Potential for scouring of natural Relatively high Negligible

channels downstream of storage
Relative yield for a given storage Slightly higher Slightly lower

volume
Spillway costs Relatively high Negligible
Maintenance costs Relatively high Relatively low

(e.g. sediment removal)
Water quality in storages

Water quality considerations apply to varying degrees to both on-line and off-
line storages, as well as to open and covered (e.g. underground) storages. These
considerations are most critical when treatment levels other than disinfection are low and
when the demand is small relative to the storage volume.
Elevated nutrient loadings, particularly of phosphorus, can result in eutrophication of
an open storage in which cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae) can bloom and
anaerobic conditions develop. The risk of eutrophication is higher if the water is stored for
long periods and nutrients are not removed or reduced by the treatment process.
Table 6.2 Potential advantages and disadvantages of storage types
Storage type Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

Open storages Low capital and Public safety
maintenance cost
Mosquito-breeding potential
Higher potential for eutrophication
Aesthetic issues with fluctuating water
levels
Above-ground tanks Moderate capital and Aesthetic issues
maintenance costs
No public safety issues
Underground tanks No visual issues Higher capital cost
No public safety issues Higher maintenance costs
Aquifer Little space required Requires suitable geology
Cost-effective Potential to pollute groundwater unless

pre-treated
Prevents saltwater
intrusions to aquifer

K Walters/DEC
Stormwater storage at Pennant Hills Park stormwater reuse scheme
To minimise the risk of cyanobacterial blooms in open storages, Melbourne Water (2005)
recommends that detention times should not exceed those noted in table 6.3 at the
summer water temperatures indicated. This is based on the assumption that sufficient
nutrients are available for algal growth and there is no light limitation due to elevated
turbidity levels.
During the water balance modelling for the project, the residence time of water in the
storages should be checked against these guidelines. If the residence times will exceed
those indicated, consider options for minimising the likelihood of blue-green algal blooms,
such as nutrient removal before storage or altering the diversion/demand operating rules.
Anaerobic conditions can develop in all storages, especially where elevated loads of
organic matter occur with inadequate aeration. This is because the bacteria that break
down organic matter consume the available dissolved oxygen faster than it can be
replenished from the atmosphere. This may be a greater problem in underground tanks
than in open storages. Management options include reducing the loads of organic matter
before storage by installing a gross pollutant trap and not operating the scheme during
periods of limited demand and long retention times (e.g. winter).
Table 6.3 Detention times to reduce the risk of algal blooms
Detention time1 (days) Average daily temperature (ºC)
50 15
30 20
20 25
Note: 1 20th percentile
Open storages can be attractive to waterbirds, which contribute faecal matter containing
pathogens, thus increasing public health risks. This is of particular concern where the
treated stormwater is intended for residential uses, as low pathogen levels are required
due to the high public exposure. To minimise attractiveness to waterbirds, the storage
should be designed with relatively steep side slopes and no fringing macrophytes planted.
The storage should also be fenced for public safety and to minimise faecal inputs from
animals. This arrangement should be considered as an additional barrier for addressing
health risks for schemes with residential uses of treated stormwater.
K Walters/DEC
Turkey’s-nest dam, Bexley golf course
Human health and safety risks

The layout of above-ground storages and associated stormwater treatment measures
should consider public health and safety issues. These relate principally to side slopes
and storage depths. The side slope affects the ease with which somebody can clamber
out should they fall in, and from this viewpoint the slope should be shallow when adjacent
to areas of deep water.
However, shallow side slopes may encourage disease-carrying mosquitoes to breed and
so from this perspective steep slopes or vertical sides with handrails should be used.
Ultimately, the design of the edge treatments needs to balance public safety and public
health risks against environmental and aesthetic values.
Prominent warning signs should be considered for storages containing stormwater for
reuse where public access is available. Warnings could read ‘Recycled water storage
– do not drink. No swimming, wading or boating’. Signs should be designed to AS 1319
and could also use supplementary symbols.
The design also needs to consider the extent of fluctuations in water levels within the
storage, as this will influence the edge design.
The design of open storages is discussed further in Managing urban stormwater:
treatment techniques (DEC 2006) and Melbourne Water (2005).

K Walters/DEC
Warning sign at Bexley golf course
Sedimentation
Sediment levels in raw and treated urban stormwater are higher than those in mains
water. It is important that the design allows for accumulated sediment to be removed,
which is likely to involve dewatering of the storage. This also applies to storage tanks
where sedimentation of fine particles will occur.
Spillway design
Above-ground storages should be provided with a spillway to safely convey a design
flood flow. This design flow is commonly the 100-year average recurrence interval (ARI)
event or higher. Further advice can be sought from the Dam Safety Committee (NSW)
(2004).
6.4 Treatment
Key considerations in the treatment of stormwater

The stormwater treatment system should be based on:
• adopting stormwater quality criteria that:
• minimise public health risks for the adopted public access arrangements
• minimise environmental risks
• meet any additional end-use requirements
• designing appropriate stormwater treatment techniques to meet the adopted objectives.
6.4.1 Treatment overview

The treatment arrangements for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme should relate
closely to the project’s objectives, in particular by:
• addressing public health and environmental risks
• meeting any additional end-use requirements.
Stormwater quality can affect the performance of a reuse scheme in several ways, and
these need to be considered at the design stage. For example, a scheme may need to
include disinfection, but disinfection may be affected by turbidity. Associated with this is
the need to reduce sediment so that it does not block the distribution system, including
the sprays for any irrigation component. These aspects are discussed later in this section.
Where stormwater reuse is part of a larger stormwater project that, for example, includes
protecting receiving water quality, only the reuse component of the treatable volume
needs to be subject to these water quality considerations.
Thus, the design of a treatment system for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
needs to consider both:
• stormwater quality criteria, and
• treatment techniques to meet these objectives.
6.4.2 Stormwater quality criteria

Stormwater quality criteria for public health risk management
National guidelines for water recycling that include stormwater reuse are due in 2008. As
an interim measure, table 6.4 presents default stormwater quality criteria for managing
public health risks for various applications. Different criteria apply depending on the
access arrangements for some applications (refer to table 4.4), with more stringent
criteria applying (i.e. lower levels of pathogens) where the potential for human contact
and ingestion of water is higher.
These criteria are suitable for schemes below the thresholds noted in table 4.3. A health
risk assessment should be prepared for larger schemes with high public exposure,
such as medium to large dual reticulation schemes for residential purposes (refer to
Department of Health and Aging & enHealth Council 2002, and EPA Queensland 2005a

for guidance). This risk assessment may find that the stormwater quality criteria in table
6.4 are appropriate for the scheme.
The stormwater quality criteria in table 6.4 have an associated statistical descriptor;
for example E. coli objective is the median value. These values should be based on
the analysis of monitoring data conducted over a 12-month period. Section 7 provides
monitoring guidance.
Other aspects of water quality relevant to public health considerations noted in table 6.4
are turbidity and pH. High turbidity levels can shield pathogens from disinfection, which
may result in less-efficient disinfection or higher disinfection requirements (Health Canada
2003). When pH levels are lower than 6.5, plumbing features can be corroded. At higher
levels (e.g. above 8), the efficiency of chlorine disinfection is impaired.
Stormwater quality criteria for environmental risk management

Stormwater harvesting and reuse projects that are below the threshold criteria noted in
table 4.3 and are operated in accordance with the guidance in section 7 are expected
to have low environmental risks related to water quality. Specific stormwater quality
criteria for environmental risk management are therefore not required for these schemes.
Specific investigations and possible additional treatment may be required for schemes
where the raw stormwater quality is likely to be poorer than from sub-threshold schemes
– this may apply in catchments with industrial land uses or significant sewer overflows.
Table 6.4 Stormwater quality criteria for public health risk management
Level Criteria1 Applications

Level 1 E. coli <1 cfu/100 mL Reticulated non-potable residential uses
(e.g. garden watering, toilet flushing, car
Turbidity ≤ 2 NTU 2
washing)
pH 6.5–8.5
1 mg/L Cl2 residual after
30 minutes or equivalent level
of pathogen reduction
Level 2 E. coli <10 cfu/100 mL Spray or drip irrigation of open spaces, parks and
sportsgrounds (no access controls)
Turbidity ≤ 2 NTU2
Industrial uses – dust suppression, construction
pH 6.5–8.5
site use (human exposure possible)
1 mg/L Cl2 residual after
Ornamental waterbodies (no access controls)
30 minutes or equivalent level
of pathogen reduction Fire-fighting
Level 3 E. coli <1000 cfu/100 mL Spray or drip irrigation (controlled access) or

subsurface irrigation of open spaces, parks and
pH 6.5–8.5
sportsgrounds
Industrial uses – dust suppression, construction
site use, process water (no human exposure)
Ornamental waterbodies (access controls)
1
values are median for E. coli, 24-hour median for turbidity and 90th percentile for pH
2
maximum is 5 NTU
Source: derived from NSW RWCC (1993), DEC (2004), ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000)
Operational stormwater quality criteria
Urban stormwater contains elevated levels of gross pollutants, including litter and coarse
sediment (Engineers Australia 2005). These are likely to present a hazard to most
stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes through their potential impacts on pump
operations, the efficiency of treatment measures and the operations of the distribution
system. A high degree of gross pollutant removal should be achieved for flows up to the
scheme’s collection flow.
Additional stormwater quality criteria for specific applications

Residential uses
The NSW Guidelines for urban and residential use of reclaimed water (NSW RWCC
1993) note the need to consider a number of characteristics in non-potable reticulated
water, such as:
• salt
• nutrients
• heavy metals
• pesticides.
These apply equally to stormwater reuse, because garden watering is a key use of non-
potable water and it is important to prevent impacts on soils or groundwater.
Irrigation
Irrigation with stormwater has different water quality requirements to irrigation with treated
effluent. The levels of pollutants in stormwater are normally much lower than in effluent
(see appendix C). Further, effluent reuse schemes typically have higher application rates
(higher hydraulic loadings) because they aim primarily to dispose of effluent, whereas
stormwater schemes may have multiple objectives. For these reasons, the environmental
consequences of poor design or operation are likely to be more severe in an effluent
irrigation scheme than in a stormwater irrigation scheme.
As noted above, urban stormwater is characterised by high loads of suspended solids,
sand and grit. This can cause excessive wear and clogging of pumps and control
equipment, and may block irrigation sprays. The specific treatment level required would
depend on the design of the irrigation systems. For irrigating playing fields and golf
courses, suspended solids levels below 50 mg/L are unlikely to result in operational
problems. Limiting particle sizes to smaller than approximately 0.5–1.0 mm may avoid
operational problems in conventional spray irrigation schemes. Specific information
should be obtained from the irrigation scheme designer and/or equipment supplier.
High nutrient levels can cause operational problems for irrigation schemes through
biofilms clogging irrigation equipment. ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) provides trigger
values for agricultural irrigation that could be used for stormwater irrigation. These are
presented in table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Trigger values for nutrients in irrigation water
Element Long term (up to 100 years) Short term (up to 20 years)
Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.05 0.8–121
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 5.00 25.0–1251
1 Requires site-specific assessment (refer to ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000)

The phosphorus levels noted in appendix C are higher than the long-term trigger
values in table 6.5 but are lower than the short-term values. Hence there is potential for
long-term operational impacts where stormwater is irrigated without actions to reduce
phosphorus concentrations. The nitrogen levels are lower than the long-term trigger
levels.
Industrial uses
Additional stormwater quality objectives for industrial uses will depend on the nature
of the use. Advice should be sought from the operator of particular industrial premises.
Potential water quality concerns for industrial uses are noted in table 6.6.
Aquifer storage and recovery

Guidance on treatment objectives for aquifer storage and recovery can be obtained from
Dillon & Pavelic (1996), and information about design and operations from EPA SA (2005)
and Dillon & Molloy (2006).
6.4.3 Treatment techniques

The treatment arrangements for a stormwater reuse project should relate to the adopted
stormwater quality criteria for the project.
Where a project has a single objective of stormwater harvesting and reuse, the treatment
processes need to address the relevant public health and environmental risks, and any
additional end-use requirements. For example, a small scheme irrigating a golf course
with controlled public access may only need sediment removal by an efficient gross
pollutant trap and disinfection.
Where reuse is only one of several project objectives, more conventional stormwater
treatment measures (such as constructed wetlands for nutrient removal) may also be
required in order to reduce pollution loads to design levels.
Water quality should be monitored during the planning and design phase for harvesting
schemes where the upstream catchment has:
• point sources of pollution
• significant sewer overflows
• non-residential land uses, such as industrial areas
• roads with high traffic volumes.
The monitoring results will provide input into the project’s risk assessment and design.
A degree of redundancy or ‘over design’ is likely to be appropriate for these schemes,
particularly for pathogen removal, due to the higher public health risks.
Table 6.6 Potential stormwater quality concerns for industrial uses
Quality Potential problem
Pathogen levels Health risks to public and workers

Chemical quality (e.g. ammonia, calcium, Corrosion of pipes and machinery, scale
magnesium, silica, iron) formation, foaming etc.
Physical quality (e.g. suspended solids) Solids deposition, fouling, blockages
Nutrients (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen) Slime formation, microbial growth
Source: EPA Victoria (2003)
Stormwater treatment – contaminants
Stormwater for harvesting and reuse is likely to need pre-treatment to remove gross
pollutants, including litter, organic matter and coarse sediment before it enters a storage
or downstream treatment measures. Several types of proprietary and non-proprietary
gross pollutant traps are available which could be used for this purpose.
As the level of gross pollutants in stormwater and the efficiency of gross pollutant traps
are variable, the scheme should be designed on a contingency basis such that the
scheme’s operation is not compromised by the presence of gross pollutants. Pumps
should be capable of pumping sand and grit, and subsequent stormwater treatment
measures and storages should be able to accommodate some sediment inputs.
Table 6.7 shows indicative concentrations for pollutant retention and outflow from a range
of stormwater treatment measures. The outflow concentrations have been based on the
average stormwater concentrations contained in tables C.1 and C.3 (appendix C) for
a residential catchment. Outflow concentrations will depend on inflow concentrations,
with higher outflow levels expected in industrial catchments or those with high sewer
overflows. The relationships also assume that there is no significant loss of volume
through the treatment measure that might affect the concentration of a parameter.
Table 6.7 Indicative levels of pollution retention and outflow concentrations for
different stormwater treatment measures
Stormwater
treatment Suspended Total Total
measure solids phosphorus nitrogen Turbidity E. coli
Retention
GPT 0–70% 0–30% 0–15% 0–70% Negligible
Swale 55–75% 25–35% 5–10% 44–77% Negligible

Sand filter 60–90% 40–70% 30–50% 55–90% –25–95%
(up to 1.5 log)
Bioretention 70–90% 50–80% 30–50% 55–90% –58–90%
system
(up to 1 log)
Pond 50–75% 25–45% 10–20% 35–88% 40–98%
(0.5–2 log)
Wetland 50–90% 35–65% 15–30% 10–70% –5–99%
(up to 2 log)
Outflow*
GPT 42–140 0.18–0.25 1.7–2.0 18–60 9,000
Swale 35–63 0.16–0.18 1.8–1.9 14–34 9,000
Sand filter 14–56 0.08–0.15 1.0–1.4 6–93 500–11,000

Bioretention 14–42 0.05–0.13 1.0–1.4 6–93 900–15,000
system
Pond 35–70 0.14–0.19 1.6–1.8 7–81 200–5,000
Wetland 11–67 0.09–0.16 1.4–1.7 19–53 100–9,000
* concentrations in mg/L except for turbidity (NTU) and E. coli (cfu/100 mL)
Source of retention data: DEC (2006), Fletcher et al. (2004), Victorian Stormwater Committee (1999).

The actual reduction in concentration achieved by a particular stormwater treatment
measure will depend on its design and the inflow characteristics, both for flow and water
quality. Information on the design of non-proprietary stormwater treatment measures can
be obtained from DEC (2006) and Melbourne Water (2005).
The indicative results presented in table 6.7 highlight that stormwater treatment using
conventional treatment measures can achieve the following levels of treatment:
• suspended solids concentrations of less than 50 mg/L – this is important for the design
of irrigation systems
• reduced turbidity levels, but not to the levels of 2–5 NTU required for maximising
disinfection
• reduced total phosphorus levels, although rarely to the long-term trigger value for
irrigation systems shown in table 6.5 (no reduction is needed to meet the short-term
trigger level or for the average total nitrogen level).
Stormwater treatment – pathogens

Treatment techniques for reducing pathogen levels suitable for use in a stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme fall into two broad categories:
• stormwater treatment measures – constructed wetlands, ponds, sand filters etc.
• water treatment techniques – disinfection using chlorine, iodine, UV radiation and
ozone; membrane filtration etc.
Treatment to reduce the concentration of pathogens in stormwater should be undertaken
at or close to where treated stormwater is used, normally downstream of the storage and
at the start of any stormwater distribution system. Disinfection upstream of a storage is
normally not effective as pathogen levels may increase in storage (e.g. waterbirds may
add faecal matter to above-ground storages).
Stormwater treatment measures

Conventional stormwater treatment measures can achieve some degree of disinfection,
as noted in table 6.7. However, the reductions are highly variable and at best can achieve
the level 3 E. coli criteria noted in table 6.4. Overall, there will be difficulties in consistently
achieving target pathogen levels for urban applications of treated stormwater using only
conventional stormwater treatment measures.
The variability in pathogen removal efficiency of conventional stormwater measures is
compounded by variability in the quality of stormwater inflows. The expected variation
in pathogen levels in treated stormwater is a significant issue for public health risk
management, as many of the health impacts are acute and related to a single exposure.
The use of stormwater treatment measures alone for reducing pathogen levels should be
considered only when:
• a low level of treatment is required (e.g. level 3 criteria from table 6.4)
• site-specific monitoring has indicated that pathogen levels (as measured by indicator
bacteria) are relatively low
• the treatment measures are conservatively designed.
The land area required for conventional treatment measures such as wetlands should
also be considered. The scheme should also provide for the installation of disinfection
equipment should monitoring indicate that the system is not meeting the stormwater
quality criteria reliably.
Further information on the relative effectiveness of stormwater treatment measures
and treatment technologies for reducing pathogen levels in stormwater can be found in
Perdeck et al. (2003).
Water treatment techniques

The most commonly used disinfection technology for urban stormwater is UV radiation
– see the case studies in section 8, and Hatt et al. (2004). In these cases, the relatively
small flows and ease of using UV at small facilities made this option feasible. As these
schemes did not reticulate treated water for residential uses, there was no need for
residual disinfection. Disinfection by ozone has also been used at some stormwater
treatment facilities.
Chlorination is the most common disinfection technique for water supply schemes
(NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) which tend to be larger than typical stormwater schemes and
where residual disinfection is important. Chlorination would be appropriate for residual
disinfection where a scheme reticulates stormwater for residential uses. However, the
chemical reactions in chlorine disinfection create by-products which may present other
public health or environmental risks. This is discussed further in Department of Health
and Aging & enHealth Council (2002) and NHMRC & NRMMC (2004a).
Table 6.8 presents typical reductions in E. coli levels that could be expected using
common disinfection techniques. The actual disinfection efficiency however would depend
on factors like the design of the process, the operating rules (e.g. the dosing rates) and
the inflow characteristics. The resulting indicative outflow E. coli levels for all technologies
are <1 to 90 cfu/100 mL based on the average levels in stormwater from residential areas
noted in table C.1 (appendix C).
A further discussion on disinfection technologies is provided in the Australian drinking
water guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC) 2004a and EPA Victoria (2002). Guidance on
the design of disinfection systems can be obtained from Water Environment Federation
(1996) and American Water Works Association (1999).
As noted earlier, turbidity levels influence the effectiveness of treatment technologies. The
EPA Victoria (2002) recommend that pre-disinfection median turbidity levels should be:
• < 10 NTU for chlorination and microfiltration
• < 5 NTU for ozone and UV
• < 2 NTU for any disinfection method where the reuse application demands a
significant reduction in pathogens (e.g. E. coli to less than 10 cfu/100 mL).
This approach is based on the need to ensure high disinfection efficiency when low
pathogen levels are required, and relaxing this requirement when pathogen requirements
are less stringent. This guidance is based on effluent disinfection; however, it could also
be used conservatively for stormwater disinfection.
Table 6.8 Indicative effectiveness of disinfection technologies
Technology E. coli reductions – log E. coli reductions (%)
UV light 2 to > 4 99 to >99.99
Chlorination 2 to 6 99 to 99.9999
Ozonation 2 to 6 99 to 99.9999

From table 6.7, turbidity levels less than 10 NTU can be achieved by appropriate,
well-designed measures. However, achieving turbidity levels less than 2 NTU through
stormwater treatment alone is likely to be difficult. Some additional turbidity reduction
is likely to occur in storages having relatively long retention times, particularly tanks or
underground storages.
A suggested approach to optimise disinfection efficiency is to pre-treat according to the
stormwater quality criteria for the indicator pathogen (E. coli). This approach involves:
• for E. coli levels below 10 cfu/100 ml (level 1 or 2) – provide pre-treatment using a
conventional water or wastewater technology (e.g. filtration) or extended storage in
tanks to achieve median turbidity levels of less than 2 NTU
• for E. coli levels above 10 cfu/100 mL (level 3) – provide well-designed conventional
stormwater treatment as disinfection pre-treatment. E. coli levels should be monitored
intensively during commissioning to ensure that turbidity is not reducing disinfection. If
disinfection is affected, alter the disinfection process (e.g. incrementally increase the
dose of chlorine for chlorine disinfection) or provide additional pre-treatment to reduce
turbidity.
Overall, disinfection technologies can be expected to achieve the target pathogen levels
for urban applications of treated stormwater with a relatively high degree of reliability.
While wastewater and potable water disinfection is well known, stormwater disinfection is
a relatively new field.
Although turbidity may affect disinfection, the concentration of viable pathogens
associated with particulate matter in stormwater may be relatively small when compared
to wastewater (Water Environment Federation 1996). Thus wastewater needs to be pre-
treated (e.g. by filtration) to achieve high disinfection efficiencies. Consequently high
turbidity levels may be less of a concern for stormwater disinfection relative to wastewater
disinfection.
This uncertainty highlights the
importance of monitoring water
quality during the commissioning
and operational phases of a
scheme to ensure that adequate
disinfection is achieved or
modifications made to the
disinfection arrangements.
It is also important to
acknowledge that the reduction in
the level of one type of pathogen
(e.g. E. coli) achieved by a
specific disinfection technique
may not apply to other types of
pathogens (e.g. other bacteria,
viruses and protozoa). This is
discussed further in NHMRC &
NRMMC (2004a).
K Walters/DEC
UV disinfection unit at Greenway Park

stormwater reuse scheme, Cherrybrook
6.5 Distribution
Key considerations in the distribution of treated stormwater

The system for distributing treated stormwater should be designed to:
• minimise the potential for contaminant inputs downstream of the final treatment
facilities
• minimise the potential for public exposure to treated stormwater and ensure there is no
potential for cross-connection with mains water distribution networks or confusion with
mains water supplies.
It is important that distribution schemes minimise the potential for contaminant inputs
between the final treatment facility (e.g. disinfection) and the end use. This is usually
achieved by using a piped distribution system.
There is a risk that treated stormwater contained in a piped distribution system could
be mistaken for mains water, with the potential for accidental cross-connection. This
is particularly important for schemes that use mains water as a supplementary water
supply or for dual reticulation schemes for residential uses. To minimise these risks, the
distribution system should be designed on the basis of:
• no cross-connection of the stormwater distribution system into the mains water system
• where mains water is used as make-up water, a backflow prevention device (e.g. an
air gap) should be installed in the mains water supply before it enters the stormwater
reuse scheme. The stormwater distribution scheme should also be operated at lower
pressure than the mains water system, if practical
• underground and above-ground pipes in a stormwater distribution system should be
colour-coded (e.g. purple) for schemes where there is public access, mains water
back-up or dual reticulation. Identification tape should be installed on top of the
underground pipes warning that the pipe contains recycled/reclaimed water and that it
is not suitable for drinking
• hose taps for dual reticulation schemes should be have a removable handle and have
a connection different to that used for mains water supply. Signs should be provided
reading, for example, ‘Recycled water – not for drinking’. The sign could also include
relevant symbols indicating that the supply is not for drinking purposes. For sign
design, refer to AS 1319 (Standards Australia 1994).
If a harvesting and reuse scheme is operated on private property and there is no regular
public access, appropriate signage for site workers and any infrequent visitors should be
provided. Other special signage requirements may be needed in some circumstances.
Detailed information on the design of the distribution system’s plumbing is contained in
the following documents (or more recent versions):
• for reticulated systems for residential uses:
• NSW Guidelines for urban and residential use of reclaimed water (NSW Recycled
Water Coordination Committee, 1993)
• NSW Code of practice for plumbing and drainage (CUPDR, 1999)
• AS/NZS 3500: 2003 Plumbing and drainage (Standards Australia 2003)
• for other uses:
• National Water Quality Management Strategy – Guidelines for sewerage
systems: use of reclaimed water (ARMCANZ et al. 2000).

6.6 Irrigation systems
Key considerations in the irrigation of treated stormwater

A system for irrigating with treated stormwater should be designed to:
• minimise run-off, groundwater pollution and soil contamination
• minimise spray to areas outside the control zone where access control is adopted to
reduce public health risks.
6.6.1 Background
Irrigation with stormwater is a relatively new activity compared to irrigation using treated
effluent. However there is a significant overlap between these applications. This section
provides an overview of the issues to be considered in stormwater irrigation and
highlights the differences in irrigating with stormwater or effluent. General information on
the design of effluent irrigation schemes can be found in DEC (2004).
The main differences arise from the different pollutant levels in stormwater and effluent
(as noted in appendix C). In general, contaminant levels in stormwater are lower than
those in secondary treated municipal effluent, with the exception of some metals. DEC
(2004) can be adapted to account for these differences.
6.6.2 Application rates

Designing the irrigation scheme’s application rate is important for minimising surface run-
off, groundwater impacts and impacts on soils. The application rates should consider the
site’s characteristics (particularly soils) and the irrigated vegetation. DEC (2004) provides
guidance on water balance calculations for effluent irrigation schemes, which can also
be used for stormwater irrigation. This provides input into the scheme’s water balance
described in section 5. The loading rate calculations for nutrients, organic matter and
salinity in DEC (2004) are normally not required for stormwater irrigation.
The soil infiltration rate is an important consideration in the type of irrigation method used
and in the way it is operated. Stormwater should be applied uniformly and at a rate less
than the nominal infiltration rate to avoid surface run-off.
6.6.3 Buffer zones and irrigation scheme design

Spraying with stormwater may transmit pathogens through aerosols and mists from the
spray water. Where stormwater has been treated to a relatively high level (e.g. level 2 in
table 6.4), public health risks associated with irrigation sprays are low. However all spray
irrigation systems should be designed to minimise off-site spray drift, as this may present
a nuisance to neighbours.
Where a lower level of treatment is provided (e.g. level 3), greater management of
irrigation water to reduce public exposure is required. This can be achieved either by
using subsurface irrigation or by having buffer zones between the irrigation scheme’s
wetted perimeter and the nearest point of public access (e.g. road or private property).
DEC (2004) notes that the width of a buffer zone would depend on a range of factors,
including the type of irrigation equipment used, slope, wind direction and vegetation
present. The preferred approach is to carry out a site-specific study to determine a
suitable width. Alternatively, the design could use an indicative buffer zone of 30 metres
for drip or trickle irrigation schemes and 50 metres for spray irrigation (excluding high-
pressure sprays). To help define buffer zones, low-flow sprinklers or 180o inward throw
sprinklers can be used. Irrigation control systems can also include anemometers, which
monitor wind direction and speed, to trigger an irrigation system cut-off under high wind
conditions where excessive spray drift is likely.
In public access areas, facilities such as drinking water fountains, swimming pools and
picnic tables should be placed outside the area irrigated by treated stormwater or be
protected from drift and direct spraying.
Signage should be provided at all public access points to stormwater irrigation areas,
warning not to drink the water. Additional signage will be needed to warn the public where
access controls apply.
6.7 Construction
Key considerations in the construction of a stormwater

reuse scheme
In constructing a system for using treated stormwater:
• construct the scheme to minimise water, air and noise pollution and waste generation
• protect any valuable vegetation during construction.
The design of a stormwater reuse project needs to consider the potential environmental
impacts from both the operation and construction of the scheme. Construction may
cause water, air or noise pollution, and generate waste, and may also damage soils and
vegetation. These impacts maybe minimised by preparing an environmental management
plan, the implementation of which should be monitored during construction. This will
enable practices to be modified or the plan to be updated to address any observed
implementation issues.
The construction of a scheme should be in accordance with:
• relevant legislation and guidelines
• relevant development consent conditions
• any environmental management plan that may have been submitted with the
development application.
Guidance of particular relevance includes
Landcom (2004) for water quality management,
and any council guidelines or requirements
for preserving trees or other vegetation during
construction. Particular attention needs to be paid
to the construction of on-line storages, where
wsud.org
flows within the drain or stream on which the

storage is being built need to be diverted around
Jute matting prevents bank erosion – wetland
the construction site (refer to Landcom 2004).
reconstruction, Strathfield

7. O p er at ional consider at ions
7.1 Background 60
7.2 Organisational responsibilities 60

7.2.1 Organisational commitment 60
7.2.2 Qualified staff 61
7.2.3 Continuous improvement 62
7.3 Operations 62
7.3.1 Commissioning 62
7.3.2 Catchment management 63
7.3.3 Chemicals 63
7.3.4 Incident response 63
7.3.5 Occupational health and safety 64
7.3.6 Controlling access 64
7.3.7 Operating irrigation schemes 65
7.4 Maintenance 65
7.4.1 Inspections 65
7.4.2 Scheme maintenance 66
7.4.3 Asset management 67
7.5 Monitoring and reporting 67

7.5.1 Monitoring 67
7.5.2 Reporting 70
7.5.3 Record keeping 70
7.6 Scheme management plan 71
Operational considerations 59
7.1 Background
The planning and design phases of a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme play a
key role in managing risk, cost-effectiveness and sustainability. However, the operational
phase is equally important in achieving the scheme’s anticipated outcomes, particularly
from a risk management perspective.
The operation and maintenance of stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes are similar
to those of other recycled water reuse schemes and, to varying degrees, to other areas of
water supply and stormwater management. Consequently, guidance on the operation and
maintenance of stormwater reuse systems can draw on the available information from
these other types of recycled water schemes (see DEC 2004, ARMCANZ et al. 2000,
EPA Queensland 2005a, EPA Victoria 2003).
This section provides an overview of the issues to be considered in stormwater irrigation,
highlighting the differences relative to effluent irrigation, and it provides references to
additional relevant information.
7.2 Organisational responsibilities
Key considerations for an organisation operating a stormwater

harvesting and reuse scheme
A stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme’s operator should ensure that:
• the organisation is committed to the appropriate management of the scheme
• appropriately qualified staff operate the scheme
• the scheme’s management is committed to refining the scheme’s operations.
7.2.1 Organisational commitment

It is important that the organisation responsible for managing a stormwater harvesting
and reuse scheme is committed to the appropriate operation of the scheme. This forms
the foundation for all operational activities, as the organisation should be willing to commit
appropriate funds and other resources to the scheme’s operations.
The degree of management effort and commitment for a stormwater harvesting and reuse
scheme should be commensurate with the scale of the scheme and the risks associated
with the scheme’s operation. For example, a large scheme with significant public
exposure to treated stormwater should attract considerable management effort.
In many stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes, the scheme’s operator is also
the scheme’s developer. This makes achieving organisational commitment relatively
easy. However, different parts of the organisation may have been involved – a design
department may have developed the scheme and the maintenance department may
have responsibility for the scheme’s day-to-day operation. Often these departments have
separate management and budgets. The group responsible for operational management
should become involved in the design phase to ensure that the scheme is cost-effective
to operate and that a budget is provided for operations. Senior management should
resolve any disagreements about responsibility and resourcing before committing to the
scheme.

As stormwater harvesting schemes are often not cost-effective when compared solely
with potable water costs, many schemes are funded by grants from external bodies (e.g.
state and federal governments). In these circumstances, the organisation or department
that would be responsible for management should also be involved in the decision to
apply for the grant and the development of the project. As for internally funded schemes,
agreement with the scheme’s managers should be reached during the planning phase.
Stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes can also be constructed as part of a new
urban or commercial development project. In these circumstances, the developer is
responsible for the design and construction of the scheme, which is then transferred to
a separate organisation for operation. This operator may be a council, water utility, golf
course, body corporate or other organisation with the ability to resource the scheme’s
operations. The scheme’s proposed operator should be involved in the project’s
development and agree to the scheme’s design.
To provide a framework for the sustainable management of a scheme, the developer
and operator should develop a written agreement during the project’s development
phase. This agreement should focus on the roles and responsibilities of both parties and
ensure that all elements of the risk management framework are clearly attributed to one
or both parties. Under these circumstances, the developer should prepare a scheme
management plan for the scheme’s operator. The preparation of such an agreement
should be a condition of the development consent for the scheme – there are significant
potential risks if the scheme’s operator is not aware of their roles and responsibilities.
A similar arrangement on agreed roles and responsibilities should be developed in
circumstances where one organisation collects, treats or distributes the stormwater
for reuse by another organisation. Guidance on the content of such agreements can
be obtained from EPA Queensland (2005b), EPA Victoria (2003) and ARMCANZ et al.
(2000).
7.2.2 Qualified staff

This document has emphasised that there can be significant public health and
environmental risks from the operation of stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes.
Accordingly, it is important that only appropriately qualified staff manage and operate the
scheme. Depending on the scheme, plumbers, electricians and specialist technicians
may all be involved in operations. These staff should be suitably qualified and
appropriately trained in relevant aspects of the scheme’s operations and should follow the
scheme’s operational procedures.
If an organisation does not have the capacity to operate part or the entire scheme, it is
important that any contractors used for scheme operations are suitably qualified and
knowledgeable about the scheme’s operational procedures and protocols.
The operator should also maintain details of training programs delivered, any training
needs analysis undertaken and training records for employees and contractors.
7.2.3 Continuous improvement
The management team responsible for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
should be committed to the continuous improvement of the scheme’s operations. This is
likely to involve:
• reviewing monitoring results and assessing what, if any, corrective actions are
required
• preparing and implementing a plan to address identified problems
• auditing the operation of the scheme to identify any areas where procedures are not
being followed
• based on the audit results, reviewing procedures and/or retraining staff
• regularly reviewing the operations of the scheme to assess whether there have been
any changes to public health or environmental hazards
• revising the risk assessment and altering the operations as required.
7.3 Operations
Key considerations for scheme operations

In operating a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme:
• scheme commissioning should be carried out before starting routine operations
• catchment managers should identify and respond to incidents affecting the quality of
stormwater entering a scheme
• appropriate incident response procedures should be in place
• appropriate equipment and materials should be used
• occupational health and safety procedures should be followed, including procedures
related to working with recycled water
• appropriate records should be maintained.
7.3.1 Commissioning
The operation of all equipment and the scheme as a whole should be tested during the
commissioning phase. After equipment testing, the scheme should operate normally
for a certain period for quality assurance purposes – NSW RWCC (1993) recommends
one month. During this time, the scheme would operate normally, although all treated
stormwater would be diverted and not applied to its end use. More frequent monitoring
should be carried out during this commissioning phase (see section 7.5) and action taken
to address any identified problems.
The commissioning phase is particularly important for stormwater harvesting and reuse
schemes, as this is a relatively new approach to water management and there is a
degree of uncertainty associated with the performance of aspects of scheme design (e.g.
disinfection).

7.3.2 Catchment management
Managing stormwater quality from a harvesting scheme’s catchment is an important
preventive measure for addressing health and environmental risks. Appropriate
catchment management activities for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme include:
• auditing and educating staff in any commercial and industrial premises within the
catchment, focusing on those presenting the most risk of stormwater pollution
• abating sewer overflows.
These activities should be carried out by or on behalf of the scheme’s operator.
Information on catchment management for potable source water quality protection can be
found in the Australian drinking water guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) – while this
guidance is specifically for potable water supplies, aspects are relevant for stormwater
harvesting and reuse, particularly for a scheme with residential uses.
7.3.3 Chemicals
Some chemicals used in stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes may adversely
affect the quality of treated stormwater or the receiving environment (e.g. chlorine for
disinfection). These chemicals should be evaluated for potential contamination and
impact on the integrity of the scheme (e.g. their corrosion potential). All chemicals used
in treatment processes should be securely stored and bunded (as appropriate) to avoid
spills or leakage to waters.
7.3.4 Incident response

Incidents or emergencies that may compromise the operation of a scheme and hence
present public health or environmental risks should be responded to in a considered way.
By their nature, most incidents and emergencies are difficult to predict, in terms of their
nature and timing, and a contingency planning approach to management is therefore
required.
Types of incidents that could influence a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
include:
• a chemical spill or sewer overflow in the catchment upstream of the scheme
• power failure
• failure of part of the treatment system (e.g. disinfection)
• electrical or mechanical equipment failure (e.g. pumps)
• vandalism or operator error
• algal blooms in storages
• flooding.
The incident response should follow established procedures and communicate
the details to relevant stakeholders.
The project’s risk analysis should assess the likelihood of foreseeable incidents or
emergencies and their consequences. For serious incidents, it should identify responses
in an incident and emergency response plan. Operational staff should receive training in
following the plan and the plan should be tested regularly.
The scheme’s operator should develop a communications procedure as part of such a
plan. Depending on the nature of the scheme and the incident, the procedure should
nominate a person to communicate information to any end-users of the treated
stormwater, as well as the relevant council and health authorities. The notification would
summarise the nature of the incident and the actions to be taken. Following the incident,
when the scheme’s operations have returned to normal, all parties initially notified should
be advised.
As part of the incident response arrangements, the scheme’s operator should arrange
with the council and DEC to be notified of any major chemical spills within the catchment,
and with the water supply authority to be notified of any sewer overflows.
In the case of spills or sewer overflows within the catchment or algal blooms in the
storage, the operator should consider suspending operations of the scheme.
7.3.5 Occupational health and safety

Employers are responsible for the health and safety of employees, and the operator of
a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme must provide a safe working environment,
including:
• ensuring that employees are not placed at risk through exposure to stormwater
• providing adequate training so that employees can work safely and responsibly
• providing well-documented work and emergency procedures, and ensuring that
employees are trained in using them
• conducting regular educational and training programs to ensure up-to-date knowledge
for employees
• providing employees with appropriate protective equipment, such as impervious
gloves and footwear, protective masks, hats and clothing that will reduce their risk of
exposure to the stormwater
• ensuring the effective and safe operation of all equipment
• ensuring maintenance of all equipment
• ensuring that employees develop and maintain good personal hygiene
• providing, where appropriate, medical assessments of employees.
It may also be useful for owners/operators of these systems to prepare safe work method
statements to identify potential hazards, risk levels and controls to be implemented.
There are potential health risks to workers on stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes,
which should be managed during operations. Appropriate actions may include:
• training for workers (staff and any contractors) on the public health risks and
appropriate risk management activities
• immunisation for workers
• no consumption of treated stormwater – mains water should be provided for drinking
• installation of a washbasin using mains water at worker amenities
• no eating, drinking or smoking while working with treated stormwater until after hand
washing with soap and mains water
• prompt cleaning with antiseptic and dressing of any wounds
• using appropriate personal protective equipment
• avoiding high exposure to treated stormwater – for example, minimising access to
irrigation areas during irrigation.
7.3.6 Controlling access

As noted in sections 4 and 6, controlling access is an effective risk management
strategy commonly adopted for recycled water schemes. For irrigation schemes, this

normally involves restricting public access during irrigation and for a withholding period
after irrigation until the application area is dry. The length of this period depends on the
application rate, soil conditions and climate, and is commonly 1–4 hours in temperate
areas. These access restrictions do not apply to operations staff (refer to previous section
on occupational health and safety). Access control is usually achieved by fencing and
may be complemented by scheduling irrigation to occur at night.
7.3.7 Operating irrigation schemes

The application of the correct amount of treated stormwater can be controlled through
manual or automated techniques. For example, the soil moisture deficit can be simply
computed using monthly average evapotranspiration and actual rainfall events. Irrigation
is then applied according to the size of the deficit (see section 6). The irrigator will need to
know how much water is being delivered by their irrigation system over a given area. At a
more sophisticated level, soil moisture monitors can be used to determine when irrigation
is needed. These can be linked to a computer system.
Both methods are likely to give false results under certain circumstances and other
controls must be put in place to mitigate these. For example, regular checks of soil
moisture in the topsoil should be made before an irrigation event to ensure that the soil
is dry and needs irrigating, and after the event to check that watering has been adequate
but not excessive.
Anemometers, used to determine wind speed and direction, may be used to predict the
direction and extent of spray drift and can also trigger the irrigation system to cut out
under high wind conditions. Wind-activated
systems may also be used to start the irrigation
when conditions become suitable. The wind
speed at which the system cuts out can be
determined by considering the proximity to
K Walters/DEC
public or sensitive areas, the wind direction, the

height of sprayers and droplet size, and the type
of irrigation system used.
Irrigation controller at Greenway Park
stormwater reuse scheme, Cherrybrook
7.4 Maintenance
Key considerations for scheme maintenance

In maintaining a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme:
• the scheme should be inspected and maintained regularly
• asset management practices should be followed.
7.4.1 Inspections
Regular inspections of a scheme are needed to identify any defects or additional
maintenance required. The inspections may need to include:
• storages for the presence of cyanobacteria, particularly during warmer months
• spillways and creeks downstream of any on-line storage after a major storm
for any erosion
• stormwater treatment systems
• distributions systems for faults (e.g. broken pipes)
• irrigation areas for signs of erosion, under-watering, waterlogging or surface
run-off.
7.4.2 Scheme maintenance

Appropriate maintenance of stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes is important to
ensure that the scheme continues to meet its design objectives in the long term and does
not present public health or environmental risks.
The actual maintenance requirements will depend on the nature of the scheme.
Maintenance may include measures relating to each element of a scheme, as shown in
table 7.1. To help ensure that the scheme is operated and maintained appropriately, a
management plan (which includes operations and maintenance) should be prepared for
all schemes (see section 7.5).
Guidance on maintenance can be obtained from:
• Managing urban stormwater: treatment techniques (DEC 2006)
• Operations and maintenance manual for water pumping stations (Water Directorate,
2004a)
• Operations and maintenance manual for water supply service reservoirs (Water
Directorate, 2004b)
• Operations and maintenance manual for water reticulation (Water Directorate 2003a)
• Operations and maintenance manual for chlorination installations (Water Directorate
2003b).
Given that sediments removed from storages are likely to be highly contaminated, it
is important to ensure that they are disposed of to an appropriate waste management
facility.
Table 7.1 Indicative maintenance activities
Element Actions required

Collection • cleaning any blockages of or damage to diversion structures (e.g. weirs)
• maintenance of any pumps and rising mains
Treatment • removal of sediment and other pollutants from stormwater treatment
measures
• mowing and weed control for vegetated treatment systems (e.g. swales)
• regular inspection and maintenance of disinfection equipment in accordance
with manufacturer’s instructions, including removal of any sludge
Storage • removal of accumulated sediment
• ensuring the integrity of any fences around open storages
• ensuring the structural integrity of on-line storages (e.g. downstream erosion)
– an inspection of storages may be appropriate after major storm events
Distribution • cleaning of any screens and filters in irrigation systems
systems • maintenance of pumps and rising mains
• fixing any pipe leaks or breakages

7.4.3 Asset management
All elements of a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme
have a nominal design or replacement life. Some elements
such as concrete pipes may have a 100–150 year life, while
pumps may only have a 10-year life. Appropriate asset
management should be carried out for the scheme to ensure
programmed replacement of elements under an associated
financial plan.
K Walters/DEC
Guidance on asset management can be obtained from the
International infrastructure management manual (IPWEA,
2006).
7.5 Monitoring and reporting
Key considerations for monitoring and reporting

In monitoring and reporting on a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme:
• water quality should be monitored during the scheme’s commissioning and operational
phases
• monitoring results should be reported to internal and external stakeholders
• monitoring records should be maintained for an appropriate period.
7.5.1 Monitoring
Monitoring program
Monitoring programs should be developed to ensure that public health and environmental
hazards are monitored to provide sufficient data to manage the relative risk each poses.
Those components that play a critical role in the scheme’s risk management will require
more intensive monitoring than low-risk components.
Monitoring is costly and it is therefore important to design a monitoring program that gives
sound information at an affordable cost. Several guidelines and standards are available
on sampling techniques (e.g. ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000, Standards Australia 1998).
The following monitoring recommendations are a guide only and provide a basis for
tailoring a monitoring program to an individual scheme. It is important that any monitoring
program is site-specific and takes account of the above considerations. In particular, the
frequency (how often) and intensity (number of samples) of monitoring will depend on the
type and scale of the scheme, sensitivity of the site and trends identified in any previous
monitoring.
In an irrigation scheme using stormwater, the key component to be monitored is the
quality of the treated stormwater. Monitoring of soil characteristics is less important in
such a scheme than it is in effluent irrigation because of the generally lower contaminant
levels of stormwater. Where stormwater salinity levels are high, DEC (2004) provides
guidance on appropriate soil monitoring.
Environmental monitoring is also not usually important for a stormwater irrigation
scheme. This form of monitoring commonly assesses water quality or aquatic ecosystem
health upstream and downstream of a scheme to identify any impacts the scheme may
be having on water quality. As harvesting schemes commonly draw stormwater from
drains or creeks any runoff from the irrigation scheme is likely to have similar or lower
contaminant levels than the receiving waterway, and downstream impacts are therefore
unlikely.
Monitoring of the volume of treated stormwater and any mains water used can provide
useful information for optimising the operation of a scheme. This would use metering or a
combination of power usage records and pump characteristics where treated stormwater
is pumped within the scheme.
Commissioning stage monitoring

During the commissioning of a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme, treated water
quality should be monitored frequently and regularly. Monitoring should aim to assess the
degree to which the treatment system meets the scheme’s stormwater quality criteria, as
part of a validation process. EPA Queensland (2005a) suggests that 20 samples be taken
for validation, with sampling occurring on different days and at different times during the
day. During commissioning, the treated stormwater would not normally be reused.
Operational monitoring for public health

There are currently no specific national or NSW monitoring guidelines for verifying
stormwater reuse schemes to protect public health under operational conditions. National
guidelines for water recycling including stormwater reuse are due in 2008, and these will
include guidance on monitoring.
Until then, the most appropriate monitoring guidance available relates to the reuse of
reclaimed wastewater (effluent) from sewage treatment plants, where the public health
risks are probably greater than they are for treated stormwater (and are therefore
conservative). Table 7.2 provides interim guidance on the frequency of stormwater quality
monitoring for assessing the effectiveness of a scheme against criteria to manage public
health risks in the urban environment (see table 6.4).
G Dunkerley/DEC
Stormwater quality monitoring near Wagga Wagga

The required frequency of monitoring for treated water quality should be assessed when
preparing the monitoring plan. This should be a risk-based assessment, considering the
likelihood of significant variability in water quality and the consequences of poor water
quality. For example, a risk assessment for a small scheme irrigating a playing field
with controlled public access where UV disinfection is used may result in a sampling
frequency similar to that shown in table 7.1 for the scheme’s first year of operation. If
the scheme’s performance was found to be satisfactory, a reduced monitoring frequency
could be adopted. If the scheme’s performance deteriorates, corrective actions should be
taken and the monitoring frequency reduced until the system has re-stabilised.
As noted in section 6, the stormwater quality criteria against which monitoring results are
to be compared are the median values from annual monitoring, thus half of all results
could be expected to exceed this value. It is important to determine, however, whether
action is needed, rather than simply waiting to see if the next results are any better. It
is useful to set trigger levels above which another sample should be taken immediately.
Should this sample also exceed the trigger level, operations of the scheme could be
suspended until corrective action occurs and monitoring results are below trigger levels. A
trigger value 50% above the adopted E. coli stormwater quality criteria could be adopted
(EPA Queensland 2005a).
Operational monitoring for irrigation schemes

Table 7.3 suggests a basic monitoring regime for treated stormwater used for irrigation
purposes, based on values for low-strength effluent (DEC 2004), in addition to monitoring
for public health (above). More-frequent and/or targeted analysis should be undertaken if
any of these parameters exceed recommended trigger levels. A risk-based assessment of
monitoring frequency could also be carried out for irrigation water quality monitoring, as
noted above.
Table 7.2 Interim guidance on treated stormwater quality monitoring for public health
Stormwater quality criteria Monitoring frequency

Level 1 1
E. coli – five days in every week
turbidity – continuous
pH – weekly
Cl2 – daily (for chlorine disinfection systems)
Level 22 E. coli – weekly

pH – weekly
turbidity – continuous
Level 32 E. coli – weekly

pH – monthly
Notes:
1 derived from NSW RWCC (1993) and ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) 2 derived from DEC (2004),
7.5.2 Reporting
Monitoring results and other scheme performance information should be routinely
reported to key internal and external stakeholders (e.g. the consent authority), and this
would normally be annually. This would enable the operator and the consent authority to
assess the ongoing performance of the scheme, in particular by comparing monitoring
results to the scheme’s stormwater quality criteria. The report should identify appropriate
follow-up actions needed where systems are not performing adequately.
7.5.3 Record keeping

It is recommended that all monitoring results be retained for a suitable period. A number
of factors can influence how long monitoring records should be retained.
The minimum storage period would be whatever is required to meet any relevant
regulatory or development consent requirements and to satisfy auditing needs. This
assumes that once results have been reported to the relevant regulator or provided to the
external auditor, any actions that may be required will have been completed and further
storage would not be necessary. The managers of the system should determine data
storage for longer periods.
Other relevant considerations may be the need to track treatment system performance
over time, monitor the performance of new technology, or maintain data on
microbiological or chemical contaminants that may be of value for future projects.
Table 7.3 Interim guidance on treated stormwater quality monitoring for irrigation
Constituent Monitoring frequency
Suspended solids Quarterly
Total phosphorus Biannually

Total nitrogen Biannually
Conductivity/total dissolved solids Quarterly

7.6 Scheme management plan
Key considerations for a scheme management plan

A management plan should be prepared for all stormwater harvesting and reuse projects,
outlining:
• roles
• responsibilities
• procedures for the scheme’s operations.
The scheme management plan should be reviewed regularly and after any major incident.
The proponent of a stormwater reuse scheme should prepare a management plan for the
scheme and the site during the planning phase. The plan should highlight the roles and
responsibilities of relevant parties and provide a framework for the appropriate operation
of the scheme. The plan should be made available to all staff involved in the scheme’s
operations.
The content and extent of the management plan will vary depending on the nature and
scale of the scheme, but could include the information shown in table 7.4.
Various sources provide guidance on water management planning for recycled water.
This information can be modified to suit stormwater and applications other than irrigation:
• New South Wales – site management plan (DEC 2004, ARMCANZ et al. 2000)
• Queensland – recycled water management plan (EPA Queensland 2005a)
• Victoria – environment improvement plan (EPA Victoria 2003)
• South Australia – irrigation management plan (EPA SA 1999).
As part of the operator’s commitment to continuous improvement, the management plan
for the scheme should be reviewed regularly (e.g. every three to five years and after any
major incident) and updated as required.
K Walter/DEC
Checking the stormwater irrigation system at Greenway Park, Cherrybrook
Table 7.4 Indicative contents of a scheme management plan
Section Contents
Background • Statutory requirements
information • Relevant permits or approvals
• Description and flow diagram or map of the scheme, including
the location of public warning signs and all underground pipes
• Treatment objectives (against which monitoring data is compared)
Roles and • How responsibilities are shared between treated stormwater

responsibilities suppliers and end users (if applicable)
• Responsibilities of any third parties (e.g. councils)
Operational • Information on operating plant and equipment

information • Information on operating the irrigation scheme (if applicable),
such as loading rates, access restrictions, irrigation timing
• Procedures for responding to non-compliance with scheme
objectives (e.g. water quality criteria)
• Occupational health and safety procedures, including any
associated safe work methods for operations
• Qualifications of personnel involved in the scheme’s operations
Maintenance • Inspection schedules

information • Maintenance requirements
• Safe work methods for maintenance
• Asset management procedures
Incident response/ • Incident response protocols

contingency actions • Incident communications procedures
• List of key stakeholders with current contact details
Monitoring information • Operational monitoring requirements, including sampling methods

• Reporting procedures
Ta

wsud.org
8. Case studies
8.1 Background 74
8.1.1 Project profiles 74
8.1.2 Project costs 75
8.2 Comments on case studies 75

8.2.1 Nature of the projects 75
8.2.2 Common characteristics 75
8.2.3 Evaluation of project outcomes 76
8.3 Considerations for future projects 80

8.3.1 Objectives 80
8.3.2 Risk management 80
8.3.3 Operations 80
8.4 Case studies 81
Case studies 73
8.1 Background
8.1.1 Project profiles

A number of stormwater harvesting and reuse projects operate in NSW. A selection of
these are profiled in this section. For each project, these case studies provide:
• objectives
• description
• costs
• monitoring results, where available.
Most of these projects were funded or partly funded by the NSW Government through
its Stormwater Trust between 1998 and 2003. The profiles were derived from project
documentation, site inspections, and interviews with project managers (‘design’ data), but
where no information was available, estimates were made from other sources (‘estimated’
outcomes).
The estimated yields were based on average irrigation rates per unit or irrigated area for
the irrigation projects. The pollutant load reduction estimates were based on:
• the average stormwater concentrations in table C.3 (appendix C)
• irrigation volumes
• any additional load reductions achieved by on-line storages and overflows from
storages.
The 12 projects profiled in detail are:
• Barnwell Park Golf Course, Five Dock
• Sydney Smith Park, Westmead
• Bexley Municipal Golf Course, Bexley
• Black Beach foreshore park, Kiama
• Manly stormwater and reuse project, Manly
• Powells Creek Park, North Strathfield
• Hawkesbury water reuse project, Richmond
• Scope Creek, Cranebrook
• Solander Park, Erskineville
• Taronga Zoo, Mosman
• Riverside Park, Chipping Norton
• Hornsby Shire Council nursery and parks depot, Hornsby.
A further case study at the Prince Henry Development, Little Bay, is included as an
example of reuse associated with a new urban development. However, as this project
was incomplete at the time of publication, this profile contains less information than the
others. Additional stormwater harvesting projects are described in Hatt et al. (2004).

8.1.2 Project costs
Recurrent costs have been listed for each case study where cost information was
available. The total recurrent costs listed include the following:
• annual maintenance of the system
• electricity costs
• disinfection costs (where applicable)
• irregular costs (where applicable – including pump replacement, replacement of sand
filter media, dredging of sedimentation ponds, etc.)
• monitoring costs.
Life-cycle costs have been calculated for all projects where cost data was available, using
the simplified method described in section 5.1.4.
8.2 Comments on case studies

To provide a context for the case study summaries, the following paragraphs aim to:
• summarise the nature of the projects
• compare common characteristics
• evaluate project outcomes.
These comments apply to all of the case studies excepting Prince Henry Development,
Little Bay (incomplete). Considerations for future projects are summarised in appendix A.
8.2.1 Nature of the projects

There are clear differences between the objectives of a trial or demonstration project
and an operational project. The latter should have quantitative objectives established
during the planning stage as part of a broader integrated urban water cycle management
strategy.
Rather than aiming to achieve a specified flow or pollutant reduction target, the reuse
projects profiled here were predominantly pilot projects, to promote the concept of
stormwater reuse, or demonstration projects showing how a particular stormwater
treatment technique could be used. None of the projects were identified as part of an
integrated water cycle management strategy, in which a reuse project is part of a larger
series of water management measures aiming to meet specific quantified objectives.
8.2.2 Common characteristics

While all schemes include common elements of collection, storage, treatment and
distribution, they differ in their details. The type of reuse in these case studies is
predominantly the irrigation of public open space and sporting fields.
Disinfection was incorporated in the treatment process in only two of the twelve profiled
projects. As noted in section 6, disinfection should be considered for schemes where
treated stormwater is to be used in publicly accessible areas.
Most of the projects have only limited resources allocated for on-going water quality
monitoring, while in some projects there is no monitoring. The limited water quality data
available for these projects indicates that faecal coliform levels for some schemes are
generally higher than those suggested as criteria in table 6.4 for uncontrolled public
access (using the conversion between faecal coliform and E. coli levels in appendix C).
Case studies 75
None of the projects incorporate specific controls on public access during and following
irrigation, although it is likely that the two golf course projects are closed to the public
during irrigation.
The treatment processes for most projects used conventional stormwater treatment
measures designed to achieve typical stormwater quality objectives for protecting
receiving waters. Most of these systems were not designed specifically to meet
stormwater quality criteria for irrigation.
The case studies note the total project capital costs provided by the project managers.
Data for operating costs was not available for the projects, and so was estimated using
the approach noted in section 8.1. It was therefore not possible to accurately derive the
long-term cost-effectiveness of all projects.
This document highlights the importance of restricting access because of relatively low
stormwater quality, designing schemes to meet specific stormwater quality criteria, and
assessing both capital and operating costs.
8.2.3 Evaluation of project outcomes

The outcomes from these case studies are summarised below for the following
parameters:
• unit cost of treated stormwater
• water quality benefit unit costs
• total project costs
• storage volumes.
There are limitations with using unit cost approaches as these allocate all project costs
to either the volume of treated water used, or the pollutant reduction achieved. This
can overlook the multiple benefits achieved by the projects. However this approach is
commonly used in the water industry, particularly for comparing alternative water supply
schemes (potable or recycled).
An alternative approach would compare the costs of another project or combination of
projects that achieve the same outcomes as the case studies, rather than evaluating the
case study’s costs against a single objective.
Further, the project costs given for the case studies may not represent the cost of
designing similar projects today. This is because the case studies were developed before
the guidance in this document was available, and accordingly, some costs would be
higher, and others lower.
Cost of treated water

The levelised unit costs are summarised in figure 8.1 for all projects except the
Hawkesbury water reuse project and Prince Henry Development (Little Bay), for
which no cost data was available. Unit costs are presented for water savings and total
phosphorus reductions (as an indicator of pollutant removal). No total phosphorus (TP)
data was available for the Taronga Zoo and Hornsby nursery schemes. These costs were
calculated using the approach described in section 5.1.4.
The levelised cost relates to the reuse water volume and the total phosphorus loads
individually. As noted in section 5, the levelised cost indicator cannot readily attribute
costs to multiple objectives or evaluation parameters. Therefore the data indicates

100,000
Levelised cost ($/kL or $/kg)

Volume
TP load
10,000
1,000
100
10
0.1
k
rk
ly
ek
rk
y
ar
xle
ee
ar
er
ac
Zo
an
Pa
Pa
e
ll P
rP
rs
Be
Cr
Cr
Be
Nu
ith
e
ng
e
we
id
lls
e
k
nd
Sm
op
ac
ro
rs
y
we
rn
sb
la
ve
Ta
Sc
Bl
Ba
So
ey
Po
rn
Ri
dn
Ho
Sy
Figure 8.1 Levelised unit costs for case studies
relative, rather than absolute, differences in cost-effectiveness between projects.

The broad range of values between the case studies reflects the diversity of project
scales and design criteria. The average levelised cost of treated stormwater in the
projects was $10.80/kL, ranging from $0.52 to $42.00/kL. This average value is higher
than the mains water prices in the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area in 2005–06 (see
table 8.1). However, this figure does not account for the additional water quality benefits
from the projects, highlighting a limitation of the levelised cost approach.
Water quality benefits

The estimated average cost of total phosphorus removal from these case studies was
$9000/kg/year, ranging from $300 to $63,000/kg/year.
Comparing these stormwater pollution trapping costs against a benchmark is more
difficult than comparing water costs, as unit costs from conventional stormwater treatment
measures are not readily available and are likely to be relatively variable. The following
unit costs were derived from the cost data for pollutant retention, capital and operations
for a hypothetical constructed wetland in Sydney, using data from Fletcher et al. (2004):
• suspended solids: $2/kg
• total phosphorus: $2000/kg
• total nitrogen: $500/kg.
The average levelised costs for the case studies in figure 8.1 are higher than those for
Table 8.1 Unit prices for mains water in the Sydney, Central Coast and Newcastle
areas, 2005–06
Water authority Price ($/kL) Notes

Sydney Water 1.20 (Tier 1) Tier 1 consumption is up to 1.096 kL per day
1.48 (Tier 2)
Hunter Water 1.09 (Tier 1) Tier 1 consumption is up to 2.74 kL per day
1.03 (Tier 2)
Gosford/Wyong Councils 0.925
Source: IPART determinations
Case studies 77
the wetland. This higher cost is expected, as most of these projects included conventional
stormwater treatment measures, as well as additional reuse-related items.
Again, just as the cost of treated stormwater does not account for the benefits of pollutant
removal, the cost of pollutant removal does not account for the benefits of water reuse.
Total project costs

Figure 8.2 indicates the capital costs against reuse volumes for these projects. While there
is considerable variability in costs (R2 = 0.37), the capital cost for most small projects (less
than 10 ML/year) is around $500,000, with larger projects having a lower unit cost. Initial
project establishment costs for treatment, collection and storage apply for smaller projects
generating small reuse volumes. These costs increase more slowly with higher reuse
volumes – there is an economy of scale for larger projects. Kellogg Brown & Root (2004)
report a similar trend for stormwater harvesting schemes in Adelaide. Although data is
limited, economies of scale are also likely for operating and maintenance costs.
Cost-effectiveness
It is apparent that the cost-effectiveness of some projects is relatively low, as described
by their levelised costs (while acknowledging the limitations of this approach). The
stormwater treatment costs significantly affect the cost of these projects. Project cost-
effectiveness will be enhanced by following the steps in section 6.4 when designing
treatment arrangements. This involves adopting targeted stormwater quality criteria and
designing the treatment system to meet these.
Storage volumes
Figure 8.3 indicates the unit storage volumes (kL/ha) for the sites. The volumes are highly
variable, ranging from 0.2 to 344 kL/ha, averaging 86 kL/ha. The highest volumes were
2500
2000
1500
R² = 0.37
Capital cost ($000)
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Reuse volume (ML/yr)
Figure 8.2 Project costs for case studies

at Chipping Norton (where the reuse scheme was an addition to an existing wetland
scheme) and at the Hornsby Shire nursery.
The proportion of average annual catchment runoff volumes reused in these case studies
is illustrated in Figure 8.4. The percentage utilisation is highly variable, ranging from
1% to 83% (average 27%). The highest utilisation was at Manly, Powells Creek and
Richmond (which has large storage volumes).
400
350
Unit storage volume (kL/ha)
300
250
200
150
100
50
o
h
k
y
rk
rk
rk
ly
y
k
ee
Zo
xle
ac
ee
er
ar
on
an
Pa
Pa
Pa
rs
ll P
Be
Cr
Cr
Be
m
M
ga
er
Nu
e
ith
ch
id
we
ls
on
k
nd
Sm
op
ac
rs
Ri
el
y
r
rn
la
sb
Ta
ve
w
Sc
Bl
Ba
So
ey
Po
rn
Ri
dn
Ho
Sy
Figure 8.3 Unit storage volumes for case studies
100%
Proportion of annual runoff reused
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
k
h
rk
d
y
o
k
rk
rk
y
y
ar
ac
ee
xle
on
ee
Zo
l
er
Pa
an
Pa
Pa
ll P
Be
rs
Cr
Cr
Be
ga
ith
Nu
er
e
ch
we
lls
id
k
on
nd
Sm
ac
Ri
op
rs
rn
we
y
r
la
sb
Bl
Ta
ve
Sc
Ba
Po
So
rn
ne
Ri
Ho
d
Sy
Figure 8.4 Run-off volume use for case studies
Case studies 79
This variability in the storage and annual run-off volumes highlights the need to model
water balances at the planning and design stages, as these volumes depend heavily on
catchment characteristics and the demand for treated stormwater.
8.3 Considerations for future projects

Based on this review of case studies, future projects should take the following issues into
account, particularly to optimise scheme cost-effectiveness. These considerations have
been highlighted in sections 5 to 7 of this document and are grouped here under:
• objectives
• risk management
• operations and maintenance.
8.3.1 Objectives
• Identify the catchment objectives for the scheme (e.g. water quality, demand
management and stream flow). Also ensure there is a link between the objectives of
not only the project, but also an applicable integrated urban water cycle management
plan/strategy and the greater strategic goals of the organisation
• Develop quantified water management objectives for the project for:
• annual volumes of stormwater reused
• loads of stormwater pollutants reduced
• percentage reductions in streamflows.
• Determine related end-use objectives relating to volume and water quality
requirements and reliability of supply.
8.3.2 Risk management

• Identify and manage public health and environmental risks
• Ensure that the level of stormwater treatment meets public health and environmental
objectives and any additional specific end-use needs.
8.3.3 Operations
• Assess pollutant sources from within the catchment during the planning stage and
manage catchment pollution during the operational phase
• Undertake appropriate maintenance of the scheme
• Undertake water quality monitoring to assess compliance against the stormwater
treatment objectives
• Monitor the volumes of treated stormwater reused, to assist with project evaluation
and guide development of future projects.
• Communicate with internal and external stakeholders, including reporting of monitoring
results.

8.4 Case studies
Barnwell Park Golf Course, Five Dock 82
Sydney Smith Park, Westmead 84
Bexley Municipal Golf Course, Bexley 86
Black Beach Foreshore Park, Kiama 88
Manly stormwater treatment and reuse project 90
Powells Creek Reserve, North Strathfield 92
Hawkesbury water reuse project 94
Scope Creek, Cranebrook 96
Solander Park, Erskineville 98
Taronga Zoo, Mosman 100
Riverside Park, Chipping Norton 102
Hornsby Shire Council’s nursery and parks depot 104
Prince Henry Development, Little Bay 106
Case studies 81
Barnwell Park Golf Course, Five Dock
Brief description
Stormwater is diverted from a stormwater pipe, treated, stored off-line and irrigated onto a
golf course, partially replacing mains water.
Project objectives
• Reduce the mains water demand at Barnwell Park Golf Course through the use of
treated stormwater for irrigation
• Reduce stormwater pollution loads entering Hen and Chicken Bay, Drummoyne.
Project manager
City of Canada Bay Council
Completion date
2004
Catchment and site characteristics

The 7 ha catchment upstream of the golf course incorporates residential and industrial
land uses in the suburb of Five Dock. Stormwater from this catchment is conveyed to the
golf course by a stormwater pipe.
wsud.org
Barnwell Park Golf Course – stormwater channel, retention basins and storage tanks

Project description
A diversion weir was constructed in a pit on a stormwater pipe, diverting low flows into the
reuse scheme. Stormwater flows through a gross pollutant trap and into a 1 ML above-
ground sand filter basin. Stormwater filters through the sand media under the basin and
is collected by under-drains flowing to a monitoring pit. The treated stormwater is pumped
from the pit into four above-ground tanks with a total capacity of 100 kL. Overflows were
constructed in the sand filter basin and the monitoring pit to an adjacent concrete-lined
stormwater channel.
The treated stormwater is pumped into a piped irrigation network to spray-irrigate two
fairways, each of 0.25 ha. The annual reliability of supply was estimated to be 81% with
mains water used as a supplementary supply.
During the design phase, the option of irrigating three fairways (0.75 ha) was considered,
although the reliability of supply for this larger area was found to be 44%. It was
considered better to have a system with high reliability of supply for the smaller two-
fairway irrigation area. Additional storage could be provided in the future to serve a larger
area.
Project costs
Total capital cost $337,530
Recurrent cost $27,000
Life-cycle cost $572,000
Project outcomes
• Design annual stormwater reuse volume of 1.5 ML, saving $2200.
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads to Hen and Chicken Bay reduced by
4000 kg for suspended solids, 5 kg for total phosphorus and 20 kg for total nitrogen.
Monitoring results
Location
Parameter Storage tank inflow Storage tank outflow
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) < 10 < 10
Suspended solids (mg/L) 88 3
Total phosphorus (mg/L) 2.16 0.12
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 5.4 3.2
Oil and grease (mg/L) Negligible Negligible
Copper (μg/L) 36
Lead (μg /L) 21
Zinc (μg /L) 110
Sampled 13 September 2004
Case studies 83
Sydney Smith Park, Westmead
Brief description
Stormwater is diverted from a stormwater pipe, treated, stored off-line and irrigated on
playing fields, partially replacing mains water.
Project objectives
• Protect 30 downstream properties from flooding
• Reduce pollution loads to Domain Creek and Parramatta River
• Irrigate the soccer/cricket fields on Sydney Smith Park with treated stormwater,
partially replacing mains water use.
Project manager
Completion date
1999

The catchment area to Sydney Smith Park is 26 ha of residential land use in Holroyd. The
park covers an area of approximately 2 ha.
Project description
This project incorporated different collection and treatment arrangements for low
and high stormwater flows.
A diversion pit was constructed on the pipe beneath Sydney Smith Park. Low flows are
diverted to two underground gross pollutant traps for initial treatment. A proportion of this
treated stormwater then flows to an underground rapid sand filter for further treatment.
The outflows from the sand filter are stored in a 600 kL underground concrete storage
tank.
A drainage pipe beneath the park downstream of the diversion pit was removed.
Any flows greater than the capacity of the low flow diversion pipeline then flow into the
park. The park was excavated to provide temporary storage for floodwaters and an
embankment constructed at the downstream end of the park.
Sand filter under construction (showing sedimentation and filtration chambers)

Temporary storage is provided in the park for both major flows for flood mitigation and
smaller flows for stormwater treatment. The scheme provided extended detention
(temporary) storage for storms up to the 2-year ARI event, with the detained water
released over 6 hours. A proportion of the stormwater infiltrates through a filtration media
(sand) in the base of the playing fields. This drainage is collected by subsoil drains and
conveyed to the underground storage tank.
The existing automatic sprinkler irrigation system was replaced and the playing fields
regraded and turfed. Treated stormwater is pumped from the underground tank to the
irrigation system to irrigate an area of 1.5 ha. A 25 kL above-ground storage tank was
also constructed for mains water back-up to the irrigation supply. The underground
storage tank can be drained by a pump which discharges to the stormwater system
downstream of the park.
Project costs
Capital cost $731,827 (excluding flood mitigation cost of $400,000)
Life-cycle cost $1,115,000
Project outcomes
• Protection of 30 properties from flooding in a 100-year ARI storm event.
• Estimated annual stormwater reuse volume of 12 ML, saving $17,760.
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads to local watercourses reduced by
12,000 kg for suspended solids, 15 kg for total phosphorus and 70 kg for total
nitrogen. Design removal of approximately 30 tonnes of gross pollutants annually.
Monitoring results
No monitoring of irrigation water quality has been undertaken.
GPTs Rapid sand filter
Low
flows
High
flows Extended detention basin
High
flows Low 600 kL
flows storage
Sand filter base of

Discharge
playing fields
Irrigation
Figure A1 Schematic diagram showing Sydney Smith Park stormwater reuse scheme
Case studies 85
Bexley Municipal Golf Course, Bexley
Brief description
Stormwater is collected in an on-line weir, with some stormwater pumped to an off-line
storage. The stormwater is irrigated on a golf course, replacing mains water use.
Project objectives
• Reduce the mains water demand at Bexley Golf Course by using treated stormwater
for irrigation
• Enhance visual amenity of the golf course
• Reduce stormwater pollution loads entering the Cooks River.
Project manager
Rockdale City Council
Completion date
2001

The contributing catchment area comprises 77 ha of urban land use and 5 ha of golf
course. Stormwater from this catchment flows through the 20-ha golf course in a
concrete-lined channel. The irrigated area on the golf course is 12.6 ha, with an area of
only 1.35 ha requiring intensive irrigation and the balance consisting of fairways requiring
supplemental irrigation.
Project description
This project was implemented in two stages:
• constructing the system for stormwater collection, storage and treatment
• installing the irrigation system.
Collection, storage and treatment

A weir was built on the stormwater channel with excavation upstream to create an initial
storage capacity of 5.3 ML. The storage was dredged in 2005 to clean out accumulated
Z Fink/DEC
Weir at Bexley Golf Course (note spray from aerator)

sediment, increase the capacity to 7 ML and increase the yield from the scheme. It is
expected that the dam will need to be dredged every 10 years.
A supplementary turkey’s-nest dam storage was constructed on a high point on the
golf course. This 1.4 ML storage increased the project’s storage volume as there was
insufficient space available along the concrete channel for a larger storage to deliver a
reasonable yield. A two-way-flow pipe connects the two storages, allowing top-up water to
be pumped from the weir storage to the turkey’s-nest dam and for water from the dam to
flow back to the weir storage for irrigation.
Stormwater treatment occurs through a trash rack constructed in the concrete inlet
channel upstream of the weir. Further treatment occurs through sedimentation and
mechanical aeration in the storage. The storage also reduces faecal coliform levels,
primarily through UV light. The irrigation system includes self-cleaning irrigation disc
filters.
Installing the irrigation system

Treated stormwater is pumped from the weir storage to a piped spray irrigation system by
gravity from the turkey’s-nest dam. The system provides a high level of irrigation to 1.4
ha of tees and greens and a lower level of irrigation to 11 ha of fairways. Mains water is
available as a back-up supply.
Project costs
Capital cost $594,197
Project outcomes
• Design annual stormwater reuse volume of 66 ML, saving $97,680 and improving the
visual amenity of the golf course
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads to Cooks River reduced by 46,000 kg
for suspended solids, 60 kg for total phosphorus and 240 kg for total nitrogen. Design
reduction of annual gross pollutant load of 100 tonnes.
Monitoring results
Main storage
Parameter Results
E. coli (cfu/100 mL) 90
Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.1
Boron (mg/L) <0.1
Chloride (mg/L) 44
Iron (mg/L) 0.7
Sodium (mg/L) 26
Conductivity (dS/m) 0.28
pH 7.1
*E. coli sample taken on 7 November 2005. Other results from a grab sample in March 2004
Case studies 87
Black Beach Foreshore Park, Kiama
Brief description
Stormwater is collected, treated and pumped to an off-line storage and irrigated on two
parks, reducing mains water demand.
Project objectives
• Reduce stormwater pollution to Kiama Harbour
• Irrigate two parks to reduce mains water consumption.
Project manager
Kiama City Council
Completion date
2004

The catchment to the project site is 6.5 ha, comprising a mixture of residential,
commercial and open space. The treatment and reuse scheme is located in Hindmarsh
Park, adjacent to Black Beach and Kiama Harbour.
Project description
The project was developed progressively in three stages.
• installing gross pollutant traps
• constructing the primary treatment system
• completing the reuse system.
Installing gross pollutant traps

The first stage involved installing gross pollutant traps in numerous drainage pits within
the catchment, particularly focusing on the Kiama business district.
Constructing the primary treatment system

The project’s second stage involved constructing a diversion pit on an existing drain and
diverting low flows to a sand filter. Flows enter the sand filter through permeable concrete
‘Hydrocon’ pipes laid within the filter media. Treated stormwater is collected by a subsoil
drainage system at the base of the sand filter. Flows exceeding the capacity of the sand
filter are surcharged into a shallow basin constructed above the sand filter, and from there
they infiltrate through the floor of the basin into the sand filter. Treated stormwater flows
back to the main drainage system.

Kiama City Council
wsud.org
Black Beach Foreshore Park showing sand filter and park redevelopment (left) and surcharging during wet
weather (right)
Completing the reuse system

Following monitoring of the effectiveness of the sand filter, council proceeded with the
reuse system. Treated stormwater low flows from the sand filter are diverted to a holding
tank with high flows continuing to the stormwater system. Stormwater is pumped from the
holding tank into a 45 kL underground storage tank. Stormwater is then pumped from the
tank through a UV disinfection unit into the irrigation network. The scheme irrigates
2 ha of the Black Beach foreshore and Hindmarsh Park. Mains water is used as a back-
up supply.
Project costs
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater reuse volume of 12 ML/year
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads have been reduced by 5000 kg for
suspended solids, 7 kg for total phosphorus and 40 kg for total nitrogen.
Monitoring results
Sand filter*
Pollutant Upstream Downstream
Thermotolerant coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 6000 4
Total suspended solids (mg/L) 28 17
Iron (mg/L) 0.71 0.26
*Grab sample taken in wet weather, November 2003
Case studies 89
Manly stormwater treatment and reuse project
Brief description
Collection of stormwater using permeable pavement, underground storage and irrigation
of a previously non-irrigated park.
Project objectives
• Provide an alternative water source for irrigation of the Manly beachfront, particularly
during periods of water restrictions
• Reduce stormwater pollution loads to Manly Beach, particularly pathogens.
Project manager
Manly Council
Completion date
2001

The catchment for the Manly stormwater treatment and reuse (STAR) project comprised
2.6 ha of road and carpark. The site is adjacent to Manly Beach.
Project description
A 500-metre length of concrete dish drain on the eastern side of North Steyne was
replaced with ‘Atlantis Eco Pavers’. These permeable pavers receive run-off from the
road surface and the adjacent car park. Stormwater infiltrates through the pavers into an
amended soil media beneath the pavers. The treated stormwater is collected by a plastic
channel at the base of the media and piped to a 390 kL geo-cell underground storage.
Water levels in the tank are influenced by groundwater interactions.
pervious
paving path path
road and irrigation/reuse
car park pump beach
infiltration
storage
Figure A2 Infiltration and treatment system at Manly Beach

Treated stormwater and supplementary groundwater is pumped from the storage and
spray irrigated on approximately 4 ha of foreshore lawns and heritage-listed Norfolk
Island pines. Mains water is available as a supplementary supply when water restrictions
do not apply. Council water tankers can also fill from the storage tank for cleaning and
watering.
Project costs
Manly Council
Manly Beach foreshore lawn

and Norfolk Island pines
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads reduced by 4000 kg for suspended
solids, 6 kg for total phosphorus and 50 kg for total nitrogen.
Monitoring results
Result
Parameter Minimum Maximum
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 90 870
Copper (μg/L) 0.01 0.21
Lead (μg /L) 0.02 0.19
Zinc (μg /L) 0.05 0.32
Turbidity (NTU) 0.9 23
Sampled weekly from storage tank between June 2005 and February 2006
Case studies 91
Powells Creek Reserve, North Strathfield
Brief description
Collection of stormwater using pervious road gutters, stormwater treatment and irrigation
on a previously non-irrigated park.
Project objectives
• Reduce the level of stormwater pollution entering Homebush Bay, particularly
protecting the mangrove wetlands near the Powells Creek estuary
• Irrigate part of Powells Creek Reserve using treated stormwater
• Demonstrate an innovative method for managing road stormwater run-off.
Project manager
City of Canada Bay Council (formerly Concord Council)
Completion date
1999

The main project site is a series of five short streets in North Strathfield on the eastern
side of Powells Creek. The catchment area for each street is approximately 1300 m2 and
the land use is residential. The creek at the discharge points from these streets is a tidal
concrete-lined trapezoidal channel. Powells Creek Reserve is located to the north of the
five streets.
Project description
The gutters along both sides of a 40- to 50-metre length of the five streets were removed
and replaced with porous plastic ‘Atlantis geo-blocks’. The geo-blocks were filled with
biologically engineered soil (soil with added organic matter and minerals) then grassed.
Stormwater infiltrates through the geo-blocks and through a biologically engineered filter
media within plastic block channels. For three of the streets, the stormwater is stored
Z Fink / DEC
Irrigation storage tank, Powells Creek Park

in three 17 kL plastic cell storage (retention) tanks. Overflows from the tanks are piped
to the stormwater system, which then flows to Powells Creek and some of the treated
stormwater recharges groundwater. Treated stormwater from the other two streets flows
directly to the stormwater system and is not stored for reuse.
Treated stormwater from the three retention tanks is piped to a 50 kL concrete irrigation
header tank in Powells Creek Park. The storage tank incorporates top-up water from the
mains supply. The irrigation water is then pumped from the tank into a spray irrigation
system in the park, which irrigates a grassed area of 2200 m2.
Project costs
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater reuse
volume of 2 ML.
• Estimated annual stormwater
pollution loads reduced by 300 kg
for suspended solids, 0.5 kg for total
wsud.org
phosphorus and 4 kg for total nitrogen.
Z Fink / DEC
Pervious gutters, North Strathfield (note loss of
grass cover in cells)
Monitoring results
Location
Parameter Upstream of cells Retention tank
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) (not monitored) 94 (range 1–400)
Suspended solids (mg/L) 291 50
Turbidity (NTU) 449 42
Conductivity (mS/m) 24.3 61.9
pH 7.8 9.1
Mean of ten storm events between March and August, 1999
Case studies 93
Hawkesbury water reuse project
Brief description
The Hawkesbury water reuse project (HWRP) involves the treatment, storage and reuse
of stormwater. It is part of the Hawkesbury water recycling scheme (HWRS), which also
includes effluent reuse.
Project objectives
The project manages stormwater in a total catchment context, involving both structural
and non-structural strategies, as below:
• develop, trial and implement structural and non-structural control strategies for
controlling source pollution affecting Rickaby’s Creek (a Hawkesbury River tributary)
• develop infrastructure to integrate stormwater and effluent reuse
• develop an effective monitoring system to provide information for adaptive catchment
and infrastructure management
• promote Richmond as a model stormwater township and transfer experience to other
councils and stormwater managers.
Project manager
Hawkesbury City Council, with the University of Western Sydney
Completion date
2000

There are two main catchments for this project:
• the township of Richmond, consisting of residential and golf course areas – 285 ha
• the University of Western Sydney rural agricultural catchment area – 130 ha.
Project description
The HWRP utilises both treated effluent and treated stormwater to supply a number of
irrigation users, including the Richmond Campus of the University of Western Sydney,
Richmond TAFE, and a variety of other stakeholders. The project ultimately seeks to
establish sustainable use of water within the peri-urban land area of the Richmond
township. The project is long-term, implemented in a number of stages.
Approximately 45% of the
stormwater from the Richmond
township and university grounds
flows into a 60 ML detention basin
constructed below ground level
to minimise flood risk. Retained
stormwater is pumped from the
basin to a series of four one-hectare
constructed wetlands where further
treatment occurs.
Z Fink / DEC
Detention times in the wetlands

were predicted to be seven days,
Stormwater wetlands, Richmond

but when water is at a
minimum depth this can Effluent
Richmond STP 90 ML
be as low as two days. As wetlands
Stormwater
a result, detention times wetlands
Stormwater
turkey’s-nest
within the wetlands vary dam
Effluent Inflows
according to the volume turkey’s-nest Environmental
dam 60 ML flow
of residual water and Inflows detention
basin
operating depth. TAFE dam
Water from the wetlands Hillside

is transferred at a rate of dam
3.4 ML per day to a 24 Horticulture dam

ML settling pond, where Effluent
remaining fine sediments Stormwater
settle out of the treated

stormwater, and is stored Figure A3 Richmond model township stormwater reuse
in a 90 ML turkey’s-nest schematic
dam. From here, treated
stormwater is pumped to dams located on University and TAFE grounds for irrigation
purposes. Excess treated stormwater is discharged to Rickaby’s Creek to contribute to
environmental flows.
Project costs
Not available
Project outcomes
At present the amount of mains water saved has not been calculated for the HWRS in
its entirety. However, within the university, horticulture production is currently reusing
a minimum of 25 ML and potentially 40–50 ML annually. These volumes directly offset
mains water use, with potential savings of up to $74,000.
Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads have been reduced by 30,000 kg for
Monitoring results
Constructed wetland
Parameter Wetland inflow Wetland outflows
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 94 90
Enterococci (cfu/100 mL) 117 85
Suspended solids (mg/L) 14.1 77
Conductivity (μS/cm) 516 572
pH 7.6 8.0
Mean results from fortnightly monitoring between November 2003 and August 2005
Case studies 95
Scope Creek, Cranebrook
Brief description
Collection of stormwater low flows, treatment and initial irrigation of a woodlot.
Project objectives
• Reduce stormwater pollution levels in low flows from a mixed residential/semi-rural
catchment by piloting a range of innovative treatment techniques
• Irrigate a woodlot with treated stormwater during its establishment phase.
Project manager
Penrith City Council
Completion date
1999

Scope Creek upstream of the project site has a catchment area of some 220 ha.
The drainage system constructed in the early 1980s at the project site consists of dry
detention basins with low-flow pipes. The site is located at the junction of two creeks –
one draining a predominantly rural residential catchment, and the other draining an urban
residential catchment. The downstream creek discharges to the Sydney International
Regatta Centre.
Project description
The scheme was designed to target low flows from the catchment. A GPT comprising
a trash rack and sediment basin was constructed at the inlet to the site (immediately
downstream of the three stormwater pipes leading to the site). A diversion pit was
constructed on the low-flow pipe beneath the grass-lined stormwater channel downstream
of the GPT to divert a proportion of the low flows into the stormwater harvesting scheme.
Flows were treated by an underground oil and grit (sediment) separator.
Treated stormwater from the separator flows to a pumping station with a wet-well volume
of 4 kL. The stormwater is pumped into two underground concrete storage tanks with a
combined volume of 44 kL. When the storages are full, a bypass pipe directs outflows
from the separator to the main low-flow pipe. When originally constructed, the treated
stormwater was pumped to a 1 ha (1500-tree) woodlot constructed on adjacent land,
where it was distributed by sub-surface drip irrigation to assist with establishment of the
newly planted trees. The trees are now fully established and no longer irrigated. Treated
stormwater from the oil and grit separator now flows back to the low-flow pipe.
The project also involved significant earthworks to reshape the site to form the woodlot,
as well as channel and pipeline construction.

GPT/DIVERSION BALANCE STORAGE TANKS (2)
STRUCTURE 44 KL
low-flow pipe
oil and grit
separator pump well
Figure A4 Scope Creek treatment train
Project costs
Project outcomes
• Irrigation of a woodlot during its establishment phase without the use of mains water,
reusing approximately 6 ML/year of treated stormwater
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads to Penrith Lakes Scheme have been
reduced by 80,000 kg for suspended solids, 90 kg for total phosphorus and 260 kg for
total nitrogen.
Monitoring results
No water quality monitoring has been undertaken.
Z Fink/DEC
Z Fink/DEC
Scope Creek irrigated woodlot – trees fully Gross pollutant trap on pipes upstream of the scheme
established (note drainage channel on centre-right
of photo)
Case studies 97
Solander Park, Erskineville
Brief description
Collection of stormwater from an underground pipe system, treatment, and then irrigation
onto a park previously irrigated by mains water.
Project objectives
• Reduce the stormwater pollution loads entering Alexandra Canal
• Reduce flooding in nearby residential areas
• Irrigate Solander Park without using mains water by using treated stormwater
• Provide an educational opportunity for the community to learn about:
• their impacts on water quality
• stormwater treatment technologies.
Project manager
City of Sydney Council (formerly South Sydney City Council)
Completion date
2001

The catchment area to the 0.4-ha park is 65 ha comprising predominantly residential
land uses, with some commercial land and a large proportion of railway land. Houses
surrounding the park tended to be flooded regularly because of an overland flood route
through Solander Park.
Project description
Stormwater from the upstream catchment enters a GPT designed to treat all flows up
to the 6-month ARI event. The GPT traps street litter, vegetation and coarse sediments.
The treated stormwater is diverted to a 12 kL underground holding tank, then undergoes
further treatment by electrolysis in two 1000-litre ‘Electropure’ units. This removes
sediment fines, organics and any heavy metals not already removed by the GPT.
The treated stormwater is directed to a 225 kL storage tank and then pumped through the
park’s irrigation system to irrigate 0.4 ha. The storage tank also receives surface drainage
wsud.org
Solander Park above the GPT (including sound sculptures)

from the park, which is STORMWATER
OVERLAND FLOW
then treated by a sand
filtration system located
FLUSH TANK
beneath the low point (1200 L)
sand filtration
of the park. All system
overflow
components are below
ground. The system TREATMENT TANK
STORAGE TANK
HOLDING TANK (2x1000 L
originally included a top- (12 KL) ELECTROPURE (225 KL)
UNITS)
up system from mains
overflow overflow
water, however this has SOLANDER
PARK
been disconnected due IRRIGATION
to water restrictions on STORMWATER
INFLOW
irrigation. GROSS POLLUTANT TRAP overflow
The project incorporates

Figure A5 Solander Park treatment and storage arrangements
interpretive art
components. This
includes a sound sculpture that resonates the water sounds from within the GPT through
two brass horns. There are also storyboards with designs on the access lids that depict
the water movement underground.
The system is quite complex, which presents an operational and maintenance challenge
to council.
Project costs
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater reuse volume of 2.7 ML, saving $4000 and supplying up
to 90% of the irrigation demand.
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads to Alexandra Canal have been reduced
by 40,000 kg for suspended solids, 45 kg for total phosphorus and 190 kg for total
nitrogen. Design retention of 20 tonnes of gross pollutants annually.
Monitoring results
Irrigation storage tank
Parameter Concentration
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 343 (4,800 max)
Suspended solids (mg/L) 13
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 517
pH 7.6
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 1.0
Mean of monthly monitoring from May 2003 to May 2004
Case studies 99
Taronga Zoo, Mosman
Brief description
The project collects stormwater from the zoo, provides advanced treatment, and reuses
the stormwater for irrigation, washdown and toilet flushing.
Project objectives
• Reduce stormwater pollution loads to Sydney Harbour (prompted by water quality
monitoring between 1988 and 1992 indicating high faecal coliform levels at beaches
near the zoo)
• Reduce the demand for mains water
• Demonstrate advanced stormwater treatment methods.
Project manager
Zoological Parks Board
Completion date
1996

The catchment consists of 38 ha of mixed land use including animal enclosures, moats
and tourist facilities. There is a high gross pollutant and organic nutrient load.
Project description
The Taronga Zoo scheme is a combined wastewater/ stormwater system treating water
generated from animal cage washdowns, moats and low stormwater flows.
A stormwater basin installed upstream of the zoo’s treatment plant provides first flush
collection of up to 1200 kL/day of stormwater from the site. From here, a chamber for
screen and grit removal filters roadway and exhibit solids (animal droppings) from the
stormwater stream. This primary treated stormwater then flows to an aeration channel
and through a biological treatment plant to remove nitrogen and phosphorus.
From here, the stormwater flows to a buffer tank and feeds a continuous membrane
microfiltration system where further filtration and disinfection occurs. The treated
stormwater is then discharged into a 500 kL holding tank and disinfected by UV
H Pantenburg/Taronga Zoo
Taronga Zoo stormwater and wastewater treatment plant

before use. This reuse water is
washdown,moats,
then distributed around the zoo stormwater
through a recycled water supply

pipe to provide for animal exhibit inlet
washdown, moat make-up water,

bypass pit
public toilet flushing and irrigation overflow to
harbour
for 10 hectares of land on the site.
retention tank 500 kL
Water not required for reuse is
discharged to Sydney Harbour
under an EPA licence. Backwash 10 mm bar screen
water from the microfiltration unit is
returned to the aeration basin. grit removal
The system was constructed to

treat 240 ML (60%) of the 400 ML pasveer
aeration basin
annual average run-off from the waste-activated
site. At present, the average daily sludge
demand for treated water is 100 kL clarifier
(36.5 ML/year).
overflow
buffer
Project costs backwash
Capital cost $2,200,000 UV disinfection microfiltration

storage tank 500kL
Life-cycle cost $2,585,000
moats
Project outcomes UV disinfection
toilets
washdown
• Estimated annual stormwater irrigation
reuse volume of 36.5 ML, saving

$54,000.
• Reduction of stormwater Figure A6 Taronga Zoo water treatment process
pollution loads to Sydney
Harbour.
Monitoring results
Not available
Case studies 101

Riverside Park, Chipping Norton
Brief description
Stormwater is treated by a wetland system and used to irrigate sporting fields, replacing
mains water use.
Project objectives
• Reduce mains water use at the Riverside Park sporting fields through the use of
stormwater for irrigation, utilising an existing constructed wetland system for treatment.
Project manager
Completion date
2002

The catchment is approximately 47 ha and discharges directly to the Georges River. Land
uses consist predominantly of industrial development (47%), residential uses (31%) and
the park itself (22%).
Project description
The project added stormwater reuse facilities to an existing off-line wetland system
constructed in 2000. A weir diverts low flows from the catchment through a grass-lined
stormwater channel to a 2.4 ML storage and sedimentation pond. Stormwater is then
pumped to the first of three treatment wetlands. The first two ponds provide water
treatment through gravity (sedimentation) and biological processes. Water is stored in a
third wetland (polishing pond) from where it flows to the Georges River via groundwater
infiltration.
This project involved installing a pump to draw water from the third wetland for distribution
to an existing irrigation system for the adjacent baseball fields. This system irrigates an
area of 2 ha (baseball fields). Mains water provides a back-up supply for the irrigation
system.
Project costs
Recurrent cost $5700
Note: these costs relate only to the
irrigation headworks and pipeline to
the existing irrigation system.
Final wetland from which irrigation water is drawn

High flows bypass
Flow Georges River
Catchment
Weir
Open channel
Deposition of course sediment
Pump house
Irrigation First flush
Wetland 3
UV irradiation and Wetland 1
infiltration of water Filtration of fine
to Georges River sediments
Via infiltration
Flow
Wetland 2
Uptake of
nutrients by
Flow plants
Figure A7 Process diagram – Riverside Park, Chipping Norton
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater pollution loads have been reduced by 17,000 kg for
Monitoring results
Third wetland
Parameter (median values) Concentration
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 150
Suspended solids (mg/L) 2.5
Turbidity (NTU) <2
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 0.2
Oil and grease (mg/L) 80
Mean results from three storms in 2002
Case studies 103

Hornsby Shire Council’s nursery and parks depot
Brief description
Collection of stormwater from a nursery, treatment, storage and reuse for nursery
irrigation, truck wash and toilet flushing.
Project objectives
• Use the nursery/depot site as an example of best practice in the nursery industry
• Demonstrate cost savings from reusing stormwater to other local governments
• Significantly reduce the volume of stormwater/irrigation water leaving the site.
Project manager
Hornsby Shire Council
Completion date
2003

The catchment is a 0.7 ha plant propagation nursery and maintenance depot. The
total reuse volume required by the nursery operations averages about 2 kL/day with a
noticeable increase in demand during the spring–summer growing period.
Project description
The site was re-graded to direct all run-off into a 90-metre vegetated infiltration trench
(bioretention system). Stormwater is then directed into a junction pit, a sediment trap and
a series of gravel-filled, baffled wetland bays for initial treatment. This primary treated
stormwater is pumped into a 107 kL concrete storage tank.
The stormwater is then pumped through a specialised 27 kL filtration tank. This includes
10% washed river gravel and 70% ‘Grodan’ (stone wool) filtration media. Outflow from
the filtration tank is then pumped to a second 107 kL concrete tank for storage. Treated
stormwater is then pumped from the tank into the nursery’s irrigation system.
A second sub-surface irrigation system was constructed to complement the existing
copper irrigation system which uses mains water. Existing sprinkler heads were replaced
with more water efficient heads.
Z Fink/DEC
Sand filter and wetland

wsud.org
Harvested stormwater is used to raise native seedlings
The project also included the installation of three modular rainwater tanks to collect run-
off from the roofs of the existing buildings for toilet flushing. One set of toilets is also
serviced by the recycled water system. Xeriscaping (‘dry landscaping’) of the site was
also carried out to display plant selection and techniques for minimising water use.
Project costs
Project outcomes
• Estimated annual stormwater reuse volume of 0.72 ML, saving $1000.
• Reduction in annual stormwater pollution loads.
Monitoring results
Parameter Inlet Outlet
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 10,300 114
Suspended solids (mg/L) 39.6 1.3
Conductivity (mS/cm) 0.35 0.30
pH 7.23 8.26
Oil & grease (mg/L) 3.6 2.5
Total aluminium (mg/L) 2.48 0.285
Total iron (mg/L) 2.49 0.179
Total copper (mg/L) 0.023 0.011
Total zinc (mg/L) 0.085 0.021
Total lead (mg/L) 0.010 0.0005
Mean results of five grab samples from filtration tanks taken in wet weather during 2004
Case studies 105

Prince Henry Development, Little Bay
Brief description
Stormwater from a residential and retail development will be collected, treated and
drained to two new storages and two existing storages. This will be used for irrigating
three local parks, street trees and road verges within Prince Henry Development, and to
irrigate the Coast golf course.
Project objectives
• Reduce stormwater pollution to Little Bay
• Provide a high-reliability alternative supply for irrigation of the adjacent golf course and
the local development
• Provide a cost-effective stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme utilising existing
infrastructure
Project manager
Landcom
Completion date
2006 (scheduled)

The catchment of the project site is 49 ha, consisting of 29 ha of the Prince Henry
residential development, 4 ha of protected eastern suburbs Banksia scrub bushland, and
16 ha of golf course fairways and greens.
Project description
The project is the result of a detailed water-sensitive urban design strategy undertaken
as a component of the master-planning process for the site. This strategy recommended
stormwater reuse rather than the use of individual lot rainwater tanks and reuse, based
on the results of a water balance for the site.
Run-off generated from the residential areas of site will be filtered through a sediment/silt
arrestor pit before combining with road and open space run-off. All stormwater will then
pass through one of six GPTs
to remove gross pollutants and
coarse sediments.
This partially treated stormwater
will be discharged from the
GPTs into six bioretention
systems. These systems use
a combination of fine media
filtration, extended detention
and biological uptake (through
vegetation) to remove nutrients,
Landcom
organics, heavy metals and fine

suspended solids. Each of the
separate bioretention systems Coast golf course, Little Bay

have been designed according to the size and nature of the upstream catchment, and
aim to reduce total suspended solids by 80% and total phosphorus and total nitrogen
levels by 45%.
The treated water will be stored in three open storage ponds with capacities of 4.6 ML,
3 ML and 1 ML. Before being reused for irrigating the golf course, nearby parks and
residential recreational areas, the treated stormwater will pass through a fine-mesh
irrigation filter to remove sediment resuspended in storage ponds and so protect irrigation
lines.
Project costs
Not available
Project outcomes (expected)

• Design annual stormwater reuse volume of 70 ML.
• Design annual stormwater pollution loads reduction of 40,000 kg for suspended solids,
70 kg for total phosphorus and 450 kg for total nitrogen.
Prince Henry Prince Henry

Golf course ESBS
catchment 6 catchment
catchment catchment
and 4a 2, 3A and 4C
(4 ha) (4 ha)
(19 ha) (6 ha)
17 21 178 51 ML/yr
ML/yr ML/yr ML/yr (flow)
Prince 15
Henry ML/yr Irrigation of public
storage open space
pond demand = 15.5 ML/yr
3 ML
199
Golf course ML/yr Prince Henry
catchment (overflow) catchment 4B
(4 ha) (4 ha)
39 ML/yr North pond

20
Main golf (flow) 1 ML
ML/yr
(flow) course
storage
pond
4.6 ML
Balance line
36
Golf course New southern
catchment
ML/yr
storage pond 55 ML/yr (available from
(8 ha) 1.7 ML storage in three ponds)
Irrigation of golf
course
demand = 65 ML/yr
Figure A8 Golf course harvesting post-development

Source: Landcom
ESBS: Eastern suburbs Banksia scrub area
Case studies 107

wsud.org
References and fur ther re ading
References – main text 110
References – case studies 116
Further reading 118

References – main text
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC & ARMCANZ),
2000. National water quality management strategy: Australian and New Zealand
guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Canberra.
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand &
Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ARMCANZ & ANZECC),
1995. National water quality management strategy: guidelines for groundwater protection
in Australia. Canberra.
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian
and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & National Health and
Medical Research Council (ARMCANZ, ANZECC & NHMRC) 2000. National water
quality management strategy: guidelines for sewerage systems, use of reclaimed water.
Canberra.
American Water Works Association, 1999. Water quality and treatment: a handbook of
community water supplies, 5th edition.
Brown, W & Schueler, T, 1997. The economics of stormwater BMPs in the mid-Atlantic
region. Centre for Watershed Protection. Elliot City, MD.
Burton GA & Pitt R, 2002. Stormwater effects handbook: a toolbox for watershed
managers, scientists, and engineers, CRC Press, Florida.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997. Hazard analysis and critical control point
(HACCP) systems and guidelines for its application.
Committee for Uniform Plumbing and Drainage Regulations (CUPDR), NSW, 1999. NSW
Code of practice for plumbing and drainage, 2nd edition.
Coombes, PJ, Argue, JR & Kuczera, G, 2000. Figtree Place: a case study in water-
sensitive urban development (WSUD). Urban Water Journal 1(4)
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment (CRCWQT), 2004.
Pathogen movement and survival in catchments, groundwaters and raw water storages.
Dam Safety Committee (NSW), 1998. General information. Information sheet DSC1.
Dam Safety Committee (NSW), 2002. Consequences categories for dams. Information
sheet DSC13.
Dannecker, W, Au, M & Stechmann, H, 1990. Substance load in rainwater runoff from
different streets in Hamburg. The Science of the Total Environment, 93: 385–92.
Davies, CM & Bavor, HJ, 2000. The fate of stormwater-associated bacteria in constructed
wetland and water pollution control systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 89: 349–60.
Davies, CM, Yousefi, Z & Bavor, HJ, 2003 Occurrence of coliphages in urban stormwater
and their fate in stormwater management systems. Letters in Applied Microbiology,
37: 299–303.
Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS), 2004. Integrated water cycle
management guidelines for NSW local water utilities. NSW Government, Sydney.
Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS), 2005. Guidelines for water
savings action plans. NSW Government, Sydney.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), 2004. Environmental guidelines:
use of effluent by irrigation. NSW Government, Sydney.
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), 2006. Managing urban stormwater:
treatment techniques. NSW Government, Sydney.
Department of Health and Aging & enHealth Council, 2002. Environmental health risk
assessment: guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards.
Canberra.
Department of Land and Water Conservation, 1997. NSW State groundwater policy
framework document. NSW Government, Sydney.
Department of Land and Water Conservation, 1998. NSW Groundwater quality protection
policy. NSW Government, Sydney.
Dillon P and Molloy R, 2006. Developing aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)
opportunities in Melbourne: Technical Guidance for ASR, CSIRO Land and Water client
report for Smart Water Fund.
Dillon PJ & Pavelic J, 1996. Guidelines on the quality of stormwater and treated
wastewater for injection into aquifers for storage and reuse. Water Services Association
of Australia.
Duncan HP, 1999. Urban stormwater quality: a statistical overview. Cooperative Research
Centre for Catchment Hydrology report 99/3.
Engineers Australia, 2005. Australian run-off quality: a guide to water-sensitive urban
design. Canberra.
enHealth, 2004. Guidance on use of rainwater tanks. Canberra.
Environment Australia, 2002. Introduction to urban stormwater management in Australia.
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Queensland 2005a. Queensland water recycling
guidelines. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Queensland 2005b. Manual for recycled water
agreements in Queensland. Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Environment Protection Authority (EPA), South Australia, 1999. South Australian
reclaimed water guidelines.
Environment Protection Authority (EPA), South Australia, 2005. Code of practice for
aquifer storage and recovery. Government of South Australia, Adelaide.
Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Victoria, 2002. Guidelines for environmental
management: disinfection of treated wastewater. Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Victoria, 2003. Guidelines for environmental
management: use of reclaimed water. Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Fane S & White S, 2003. Levelised cost: a general formula for the calculation of unit
costs in integrated resource planning. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of
Technology, Sydney.
Fletcher TD, Duncan H, Poelsma P & Lloyd S, 2004. Stormwater flow and quality
and the effectiveness of non-propriety stormwater treatment measures: a review and gap
analysis. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 04/8.

Fletcher, TD, Mitchell, VG, Deletic, A & Séven, A, 2006. Is stormwater harvesting
beneficial to urban waterway environmental flow? Urban drainage modelling and
international water-sensitive urban design conference, Melbourne.
Gannon, JJ & Busse, MK, 1989. E. coli levels in urban stormwater, river water and
chlorinated treatment plant effluent. Water Research, 23(9): 1167–76.
Hatt B, Deletic A & Fletcher T, 2004. Integrated stormwater treatment and reuse systems:
inventory of Australian practice. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology
Technical Report 04/1.
Health Canada, 2003. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: supporting
documentation – turbidity. Water Quality and Health Bureau, Healthy Environments and
Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ontario.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) 1996. Water demand management:
a framework for option assessment. Report of the Water Demand Management Forum,
Sydney.
Institution of Engineers Australia, 1987. Australian rainfall and run-off: a guide to flood
estimation, 4th edition. Sydney, NSW.
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA), 2006. International infrastructure
management manual, Sydney
Jagals, P, 1997. Stormwater runoff from typical developed and developing South African
urban developments: definitely not for swimming. Water Science & Technology,
35(11–12): 133–40.
Jagals, P, Grabow, WOK & de Villiers, JC, 1995. Evaluation of indicators for assessment
of human and animal faecal pollution of surface runoff. Water Science & Technology,
31(5–6): 235–41.
Jiang, S, 2004. Is urban runoff a source of human pathogenic viruses to recreational
beach waters? University of California Water Resources Center Technical Completion
Report Project no. W-943.
Kellogg Brown & Root, 2004. Metropolitan Adelaide stormwater management study – Part
B: Stormwater harvesting and reuse. Local Government Association & State Government
of South Australia.
Kogarah City Council, 2004. Fact sheet – water.
Landcom, 2004. Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction vol 1 (4th edition)
LeChavellier, MW, Norton, WD & Lee, RG, 1991. Occurrence of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium spp. in surface water supplies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
57: 2617–21.
Leeming, R, Bate, N, Hewlett, R & Nichols, PD, 1998. Discriminating faecal pollution:
a case study of stormwater entering Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Water Science &
Technology, 38(10): 15–22.
Livingston, EH, Shaver, E & Skupien, JJ, 1997. Operation, maintenance and
management of stormwater management systems. Watershed Management Institute,
Ingleside, Maryland.
McAlister, A, 1999. Stormwater reuse – a balanced assessment. Stormwater Industry
Association 1999 Conference, Homebush Bay.

McCarthy D, Mitchell VG & Deletic, A, 2006. Escherichia coli levels in urban stormwater.
Urban Drainage Modelling and International Water-Sensitive Urban Design Conference,
Melbourne.
Makepeace, DK, Smith, DW & Stanley, JS, 1995. Urban stormwater quality: summary
of contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 25(2):
93–139.
Melbourne Water, 2005. WSUD engineering procedures: stormwater. Melbourne.
Mills NF, 2003 Water quality relative to end use, Australian Journal of Water Resources,
7(1): 23–28.
Mitchell VG, McCarthy D, Deletic A & Fletcher T, 2005. Development of novel integrated
stormwater treatment and reuse systems: assessing storage capacity requirements,
Institute for Sustainable Water Resources, Monash University, Report 05/01.
Mitchell, VG, Taylor, A, Fletcher, T & Deletic, A. (2006) Integrated design and life-cycle
costing of stormwater reuse systems. Institute for Sustainable Water Resources. Draft
report.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 2005. Guidelines for managing
risks in recreational water. Canberra.
National Health and Medical Research Council & Natural Resource Management
Ministerial Council (NHMRC & NRMMC) 2004a. Australian drinking water guidelines.
Canberra.
National Health and Medical Research Council & Natural Resource Management
Ministerial Council (NHMRC & NRMMC) 2004b. Water made clear: a consumer guide to
accompany the Australian drinking water guidelines. Canberra.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council & Environment Protection and
Heritage Council (NRMMC & EPHC), 2005. National guidelines for water recycling:
managing health and environmental risks. Draft for public comment.
NSW Department of Primary Industry, 2004. Landform and soil requirements for biosolids
and effluent reuse, Agnote DPI–493.
NSW Fisheries, 1999. Policy and guidelines for aquatic habitat management and fish
conservation. NSW Government, Sydney.
NSW Government, 2004. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability
Index: BASIX) 2004
NSW Health, 2000. Greywater reuse in sewered single domestic premises. NSW
Government, Sydney.
NSW Health, 2004. Rainwater tanks. NSW Government, Sydney.
NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee (RWCC), 1993. NSW guidelines for urban
and residential use of reclaimed water. NSW Government, Sydney.
NSW Treasury, 1999 Economic appraisal, principles and procedures simplified. NSW
Government, Sydney.
NSW Treasury 2004. Life cycle costing guideline. Report TAM04-10.
Oliveri, VP, Kruse, CW & Kawata, K, 1977. Microorganisms in urban stormwater. Report
for US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-77-087.

Perdeck, JM, Arnone, RD, Stinson, MK & Tuccillo, ME, 2003. Managing urban watershed
pathogen contamination. Report for US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-
03/111.
Proctor, W & Qureshi, E, 2005. Multi-criteria evaluation revisited. Conference
proceedings: ecological economics in action, Australia New Zealand Society for
Ecological Economics. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Salan, R, 2002. Case study 8: Kogarah Town Square – a sustainable development.
In Lgov NSW: Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) information guide for local
councils.
Schueler, TR, 1987. Controlling urban run-off: a practical manual for planning and
designing BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Sharpin MG, 1995. Stormwater quality characteristics from urban and non-urban
catchments in south-eastern Australia. Proceedings AWWA 16th Federal Convention.
Smith, J and Perdek, J 2004. Assessment and management of watershed microbial
contaminants, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 34: 109–39.
Smullen, JT, Shallcross, AL & Cave, KA, 1999. Updating the US nationwide urban runoff
quality database. Water Science & Technology, 39(12): 9–16.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC) (1991) Costs of urban
non-point source water pollution control measures. Technical Report No. 31, Waukesha,
Wisconsin.
Standards Australia, 1994. Safety signs for the occupational environment. AS/NZS 1319:
1994.
Standards Australia, 1998. Water quality sampling. AS/NZS 5677: 1998.
Standards Australia 1999. Life cycle costing – an application guide. AS/NZS 4536: 1999.
Standards Australia, 2003. Plumbing and drainage. AS/NZS 3500: 2003.
Standards Australia, 2004. Risk management. AS/NZS 4360: 2004.
Stevens M, Ashbolt N and Cunliffe D, 2003. Review of coliforms as microbial indicators of
drinking water quality. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA), 2004a. Urban water reuse and integrated water
management. Sydney.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA), 2004b. WRAMS – water reclamation and
management scheme. Sydney.
Sydney Water Corporation (SWC), 1995. Stormwater monitoring project: 1994 Annual
report. Volume 1 – Clean Waterways Programme. Sydney.
Sydney Water Corporation (SWC), 1998. Sewer overflows licensing project environmental
impact statements – Volume 1: Sydney-wide overview. Sydney.
Sydney Water Corporation (SWC), 2004. Environmental indicators compliance program
report. Sydney.
Taylor, A, 2003. An introduction to life-cycle costing involving structural stormwater
quality management measures. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,
Melbourne.

Taylor, AC, 2005a. Guidelines for evaluating the financial, ecological and social aspects of
urban stormwater management measures to improve waterway health. Technical Report
05/11. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Taylor, AC, 2005b. Structural stormwater quality BMP: cost/size relationship information
from the literature. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Taylor, AC & Wong, THF, 2002. Non-structural stormwater quality best management
practices: a literature review of their value and life-cycle costs. Technical report 02/13,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (UPRCT), 2004. Working paper on capital and
operating costs for stormwater treatment measures.
Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999. Urban stormwater: best practice environmental
management guidelines. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), 2003. HSPF model calibration
and verification for bacteria TMDLs. Guidance Memo No. 03-2012
Water Directorate, 2003a. Operations and maintenance manual for water reticulation,
Sydney.
Water Directorate, 2003b. Operations and maintenance manual for chlorination
installations, Sydney.
Water Directorate, 2004a. Operations and maintenance manual for water pumping
stations, Sydney.
Water Directorate, 2004b. Operations and maintenance manual for water supply service
reservoirs, Sydney.
Water Environment Federation, 1996. Wastewater disinfection, Manual of Practice FD10.
Virginia, USA.
WBM Pty Ltd, 2004. Guidance for water reuse in new urban developments. Interim report
to Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).
WBM Pty Ltd, 2005. Stormwater reuse modelling. Working paper for Department of
Environment and Conservation (NSW).
Wiegand, C, Schueler T, Chittenden, W & Jellick, D, 1986. Cost of urban run-off controls
In Urban run-off quality. Engineering Foundation Conference. ASCE, Henniker, NH
pp 366–80.
Wong T, Breen P & Lloyd S, 2000. Water-sensitive road design: design options for
improving stormwater quality of road run-off. Cooperative Research Centre for
Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 00/1, Melbourne.

References – case studies
Barnwell Park Golf Course, Five Dock
Patterson Britton and Partners, 2001. St George’s Crescent catchment oil/grit separator
and Barnwell Park Golf Course stormwater reuse projects. Concept report. Report to City
of Canada Bay, Drummoyne.
Patterson Britton and Partners, 2004. St George’s Crescent catchment oil/grit separator
and Barnwell Park Golf Course stormwater reuse projects. Progress report 3 (final).
Report to City of Canada Bay, Drummoyne.
Sydney Smith Park, Westmead

Holroyd City Council, 1998. Scoping report on Domain Creek Comparative Technologies
Project.
Holroyd City Council, 2000. Domain Creek Comparative Technologies Project – Final
project report.
Bexley Municipal Golf Course

Woodlots and Wetlands, 1999. Bexley Golf Course stormwater management system.
Woodlots and Wetlands, 2001. Stormwater management system, Bexley Municipal Golf
Course. Final report to NSW Stormwater Trust.
Black Beach Foreshore Park, Kiama

Dunphy, A, Beecham, S, Jones, C, Collins, A, Liebman, M, Wells, J & Michael P, 2005.
Confined water-sensitive urban design stormwater filtration/infiltration for Australian
conditions. 10th Annual Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen.
Kiama Municipal Council, 2004. Final report for project no SR/G4133 Kiama catchment
caretakers. Report to NSW Stormwater Trust.
Storm Consulting, 2002. Hindmarsh Park sand filter design report. Report to Kiama
Council.
Manly stormwater treatment and reuse project

Ball, JE, 2003. A study of water-sensitive design concept as implemented in the Pine St
catchment, Manly. University of New South Wales Water Research Laboratory Research
Report No 211.
McRae, B, 2002. Managing Manly Beach from source to sea, Water – Journal of the
Australian Water Association 29 (2): 99–101.
Scarsbrick, J, 2002. Stormwater management measures to existing development
to prevent pollution and attenuate run-off. IPWEA NSW Division Annual Conference 2002
Powells Creek Reserve, North Strathfield

Atlantis Corporation, 1998. Design report for Powells Creek East Catchment Stormwater
Quality Scheme.
Atlantis Corporation, 1998. Scoping report for Powells Creek East Catchment Stormwater
Quality Scheme.

Australian Water Technologies, 1999. Powell’s Creek East Catchment Stormwater Quality
Scheme. Final report to Concord Council.
Concord Council and Atlantis Corporation, 2001. Powells Creek East Catchment
Stormwater Quality Scheme. Final Report.
Hawkesbury water reuse project

Attwater R, Aiken J, Beveridge G, Booth CA, Derry, C, Shams, R, & Stewart, J, 2005.
An adaptive systems toolkit for managing the Hawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme.
Integrated concepts in water recycling, SJ Khan, MH Muston & AI Schäffer (eds).
Attwater, R, Aiken, J, Booth, S, Derry, C & Stewart, J, 2005. Adaptive systems of
management and risk communication in the Hawkesbury water recycling scheme.
Ozwater Conference, Australian Water Association, Brisbane.
Booth CA, Attwater, R, Derry, C & Simmons, B, 2003. The Hawkesbury water reuse
scheme. Water – Journal of the Australian Water Association 30(5): 42–44.
Stewart, J, 2005. Addressing the challenges of large scale stormwater harvesting and
use. PhD thesis (in preparation). University of Western Sydney.
Scope Creek, Cranebrook

Penrith City Council, 2000. Final report, Scope Creek stormwater project.
Solander Park, Erskineville

Dallmer, L, 2002. SQIRTS – an on-site stormwater treatment and reuse approach
to sustainable water management in Sydney. Water Science and Technology
46(6–7): 151–58.
Manly Hydraulics Laboratory, 2004. Monitoring report: SQIRTS assessment at Solander
Park, Erskineville. Report 1243.
South Sydney City Council, 2002. Stormwater Trust grant scheme final report – SQIRTS
stormwater quality improvement and reuse treatment scheme for the Macdonald sub-
catchment, Erskineville – Stage 1.
Taronga Zoo, Mosman

Environment Industry Development Network, 2005. Wastewater and stormwater
treatment process for a zoo. Environment Technology Case Studies Directory.
Edwards, D, 2005. personal communications (Taronga Park Zoo).
Riverside Park, Chipping Norton

Liverpool City Council, 2003. Final report for state 2 Stormwater Trust grant SP/G2173
Urban Environment Centre, Riverside Park, Chipping Norton.
Stewart, J & Hackney, P, 2003. Final report on water quality of stormwater treatment
wetlands at Riverside Park, Chipping Norton.

Hornsby Shire Council’s nursery and parks depot
Collins, A, 2005. Stormwater reuse issues and experiences, Hornsby Shire Council.
Stormwater Industry Association Regional Conference, Port Macquarie NSW.
Hornsby Shire Council, 2004. Final report – water-sensitive design and education for the
Hornsby Shire Council’s nursery and parks depot.
Prince Henry Development, Little Bay

Napper, M, 2006. personal communication (Landcom)
Further reading
Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 2004. Water recycling in Australia.
Berndtsson, JC, 2004. Beneficial use of stormwater: a review of possibilities. Urban Water
Report 2004:6, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, 1993. Urban stormwater: a resource too
valuable to waste. Canberra.
Mitchell VG, Mein R & McMahon, T, 1999. The reuse potential of urban stormwater and
wastewater. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology Industry Report
1999/14, Melbourne.
Mitchell VG, Mein RG & McMahon TA, 2002. Utilising stormwater and wastewater
resources in urban areas. Australian Journal of Water Resources, 6(1): 31–43.
Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, 2003. Recycling water for
our cities.
Waitakere City Council, 1999. Guidelines for the beneficial reuse of stormwater.
Comprehensive urban stormwater strategy and actin plan report No 7, Auckland, New
Zealand.
WBM Oceanics Australia, 1999. Stormwater recycling background study, prepared on
behalf of Queensland Water Recycling Strategy.

App endices
A.1 Planning 120
A.2 Design 120
A.3 Construction 121
A.4 Operations 121

B.1 Risk management 123
B.2 Potential public health hazards 125
B.3 Potential environmental hazards 128
B.4 Schemes meeting default criteria 133

C.1 Introduction 142
C.2 Relationship between faecal coliforms and E. coli 142
C.3 Pathogens in stormwater 143
C.4 Chemicals in stormwater 146
Appendix D: Maintenance costs 148

E.1 Water balance modelling 149
E.2 Relationships between storage size and demand 149
E.3 Influence of climate 151
Appendices 119
Appendix A: Key considerations
A.1 Planning
The planning process should aim to:
• identify all risks to public health, safety and the environment
• identify all catchment characteristics likely to present public health or environmental
risks to stormwater reuse
• involve the organisation(s) responsible for operating the scheme, and other key
stakeholders
• identify all site constraints and regulatory requirements
• evaluate possible arrangements for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme,
including evaluating costs and benefits.
A.2 Design
The design process should aim to:
• design the reuse scheme for ease of operations and maintenance
• incorporate elements in the design intended to address public health and
environmental risks, to complement operational risk management activities
• cost-effectively meet the project’s objectives identified during project planning.
A.2.1 Collection
The design of the collection system should ensure that:
• sufficient stormwater is collected for transfer to storage to meet the end-use volume
requirements
• the extraction does not compromise downstream aquatic ecosystems
• collection can be stopped if stormwater is contaminated by an incident within the
catchment
• the risk of upstream flooding impacts is minimised.
A.2.2 Storage
The design of the storage system should ensure that:
• sufficient water is stored to balance supply and demand, and meet reliability of supply
objectives
• above-ground storages minimise mosquito habitat (virus control), risks to public safety,
risks to water quality (e.g. eutrophication), and address dam safety issues.
A.2.3 Treatment
The stormwater treatment system should be based on:
• adopting stormwater quality objectives that:
• minimise public health risks for the adopted public access arrangements
• minimise environmental risks
• meet any additional end-use requirements
• designing appropriate stormwater treatment measures to meet the adopted objectives.

A.2.4 Distribution
The system for distributing treated stormwater should be designed to:
• minimise the potential for public exposure to treated stormwater and ensure there is
no potential for cross-connection with mains water distribution networks or confusion
with mains water supplies
• minimise the potential for contaminant inputs downstream of the final treatment
facilities.
A.2.5 Irrigation
For irrigation systems, ensure that:
• irrigation systems are designed to minimise run-off, groundwater pollution and soil
contamination
• where access control is adopted to reduce public health risks, the irrigation scheme
minimises spray to areas outside the control zone.
A.3 Construction
In constructing a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme:
• construct the scheme to minimise water, air and noise pollution and waste generation
• protect any valuable vegetation during construction.
A.4 Operations
Ensure that:
• the organisation is committed to the appropriate management of the scheme
• appropriately qualified staff operate the scheme
• the scheme’s management is committed to refining the scheme’s operations.
A.4.1 Commissioning
Scheme commissioning should be carried out before starting routine operations. The
scheme should ensure that:
• catchment managers should identify and respond to incidents affecting the quality of
stormwater entering a scheme
• appropriate incident response procedures are in place
• appropriate equipment and materials are used
• occupational health and safety procedures should be followed, including procedures
related to working with recycled water
• appropriate records are maintained.
A.4.2 Maintenance
Plans for maintenance should ensure that:
• the scheme is inspected and maintained regularly
• asset management practices are followed.

A.4.3 Monitoring and reporting
Plans for monitoring and reporting should ensure that:
• water quality should be monitored during the schemes commissioning and operational
phases
• monitoring results should be reported to internal and external stakeholders
• monitoring records should be maintained for an appropriate period.
A.4.4 Scheme management plan

A management plan should be prepared for all stormwater harvesting and reuse projects,
outlining:
• roles
• responsibilities
• procedures for the scheme’s operations.
The scheme management plan should be reviewed regularly and after any major incident.

Appendix B: Risk management
B.1 Risk management

B.1.1 Approaches to risk assessment and management
As noted in section 4, the aim of risk management is to reduce identified risks to
acceptable levels. Risk management can be either quantitative, where risks are
calculated, or quantitative, where risks are allocated a relative risk level.
The basic approaches to risk management involve steps similar to the following:
• decide on the risk management objective – this may be numerical for a quantitative
risk assessment or a ‘low’ risk for qualitative risk assessment
• identify potential hazards
• identify the level of risk associated with each potential hazard
• reduce the risks to the objective level for each hazard.
The concept of risk combines both the likelihood of a hazard or hazardous event
occurring and the resulting consequences. Risk management can therefore address
either the likelihood or the consequences or both.
When it comes to public health and the environment, most risk management effort aims
to reduce the likelihood of a hazard occurring – there is often only a limited opportunity to
manage the consequences of an event once it has occurred.
Risk management may be an incremental process, involving assessing the effectiveness
of proposed risk reduction measures, by assessing the level of residual risk. If the
residual risk does not meet the objective, further actions will be required.
There are several approaches to risk assessment and management which can be used
for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme, including:
• AS/NZS 4360: 2004 – Risk management
• the risk assessment and management approach used in the Australian drinking water
guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) and the draft national guidelines for water
recycling (NRMMC & EPHC 2005)
• adopting the quality management approach in ISO 9001: 2000 – Quality management
systems or ISO 14001: 1996 – Environmental management systems
• hazard assessment and critical control point (HACCP) – Codex Alimentarius
Commission (1997)
While a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme should be planned, designed and
operated on a risk management basis, there is no required approach to risk management
which must be adopted – a proponent should adopt a suitable systematic approach to
identifying and managing risks which may include one or more of the above approaches.
B.1.2 Risk management

Risk reduction measures aim to partly or fully reduce the risk associated with a hazard to
an acceptable level. These actions may be described as risk treatment options (AS/NZS
4360) or preventive measures (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004).
There is often a degree of uncertainty associated with both the assessment of risks
associated with specific hazards and the effectiveness of risk reduction actions.
Consequently a ‘multiple barrier’ approach is adopted in drinking water quality
management (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) and recycled water management (NRMMC &
EPHC 2005, ARMCANZ et al. 2000, DEC 2004).

Multiple barrier approach
A stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme incorporating multiple barriers aims to:
• control hazards
• provide for process reliability
• incorporate redundancy
• enhance overall performance.
It involves the use of a series of hazard reduction actions from the catchment to the end
uses which may include:
• managing the catchment to minimise pathogen and chemical loads
• treating stormwater to remove most chemicals and pathogens and enhance
subsequent processes
• maintaining moderately long detention times in storages (although these would be
generally lower than for a water supply system)
• preventing public access and minimising wildlife access to a storage
• disinfecting stormwater before it enters the distribution system
• maintaining residual disinfection within the distribution system (if chlorine disinfection
is used)
• maintaining the integrity of the distribution system, avoiding additional inputs following
final treatment
• having on-site controls for some applications to reduce public exposure to stormwater.
Monitoring end-use water quality (refer to section 7) is essentially a way of validating the
effectiveness of the various barriers. As microbiological monitoring is not continuous, it
can miss short-term peaks in pathogen levels. As microbiological hazards are generally
acute, the consequences of short-term variations from ‘average’ levels may be significant.
In high-risk applications (e.g. dual reticulation systems), continuous monitoring of a
surrogate measure of system effectiveness (e.g. turbidity) can be used. This multiple
barrier approach is incorporated in the key considerations contained in sections 5 to 7.
Critical control points

Complementing the multiple barrier approach, critical control points (CCP) can also be
used for risk management in drinking water supply and recycled water schemes. CCPs
apply to high-risk hazards that require management to achieve an acceptable risk level.
A CCP for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme is a risk reduction or preventative
measure that:
• substantially reduces or eliminates a hazard
• can be monitored and corrective actions applied
• if the measure failed, would lead to immediate notification of key stakeholders (e.g.
council, consent authority)
An example of a critical control point is disinfection – it is a risk reduction measure that
aims to reduce high public health risks and it meets the three criteria for a critical control
point noted above using turbidity as a surrogate for direct monitoring. This is likely to be
the main critical control point for schemes below the threshold indicated in table 4.2. For
schemes above these thresholds, where a risk assessment is carried out, further critical
control points may be identified.
Critical control points apply to operational risk management measures, where there is
still some residual risk to be managed during the schemes operations after the projects
planning, design and construction. Critical control points have associated mechanisms

for operational control. These usually involve establishing a critical limit (e.g. chlorine
residual concentration) against which data from continuous or frequent monitoring can be
evaluated and where exceedances trigger corrective action.
A more detailed description of critical control points in drinking water supply management
is provided in NHMRC & NRMMC (2004a).
B.1.3 Risk management framework

Further details of the recycled water risk management framework summarised in
section 4 are detailed in table B.1.
B.2 Potential public health hazards

B.2.1 Introduction
Microbial contamination is the most serious potential public health hazard associated with
a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme. A single infective dose of a small number of
pathogenic microorganisms can result in illness.
Some chemicals may present a secondary hazard to human health, but toxicity usually
occurs following prolonged intake of toxic material at high levels – it normally requires a
major malfunction or accident for a single dose of a chemical to cause illness (Mills 2003).
Further general information on public health hazards can be found in NHMRC & NRMMC
(2004b).
B.2.2 Public exposure

The Australian drinking water guidelines (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a) adopt a standard
daily consumption of two litres of water per person for adults and one litre per person for
children as the basis for setting trigger values for pathogens and dissolved chemicals in
drinking water.
For stormwater ingestion, the exposures for stormwater reuse applications will be
considerably lower. Human exposure to contaminants in stormwater includes direct
exposure through ingestion of water and inhalation of aerosols or sprays, but there is little
information on which to determine trigger values.
For example, NRMMC & EPHC (2005) estimate the:
• consumption of irrigation water in public areas as 1 mL for ingestion and 0.1 mL for
aerosols (inhalation), with an estimated frequency of 50–90 exposures annually.
• accidental ingestion for garden watering at 100 mL once a year.
B.2.3 Pathogens
Gastroenteritis is the most common disease derived from water. It can be caused by
bacteria, viruses or protozoans from human or animal faeces (Mills 2003). The Australian
drinking water guidelines contain a comprehensive account of water-borne pathogens
(NHMRC & NRMMC 2004a).
Quantitative microbiological risk assessment (QMRA) can be used to assess the health
risks from water-borne pathogens. This involves:
• identifying the potential hazards and their effects on human health
• identifying a relationship between the dose of the hazard and the likelihood of illness
• assessing the size of the exposed population and the amount of exposure

Table B.1 Risk management framework for recycled water quality and use
Element 1: Commitment to the responsible use and management of recycled water quality
• Involve public health and environment protection agencies
• Ensure that schemes are designed and operated by organisations and individuals with
appropriate expertise
• Meet all regulatory requirements
• Engage relevant stakeholders
• Develop an organisational policy for recycled water quality (refer to section 5)
Element 2: Assessment of the recycled water system

• Identify recycled water sources, uses and potential exposure routes
• Collect data and analyse the system
• Identify hazards and assess risks (refer to sections 5 and 6)
Element 3: Preventive measures for recycled water management

• Identify the preventive measures required to reduce risks to acceptable levels
• Identify critical control points for operational control (refer to sections 6 and 7)
Element 4: Operational procedures and process control

• Identify and document operational procedures
• Develop and document monitoring protocols for operational performance
• Establish procedures for corrective action when operational parameters are exceeded
• Develop and implement equipment inspection and maintenance
• Ensure only approved materials and chemicals are used (refer to section 7)
Element 5: Verification of recycled water quality and environmental sustainability

• Develop and implement a plan for recycled water quality, the application site and receiving
environment monitoring
• Develop and implement a system for managing complaints from users of recycled water
• Review short-term monitoring data and implement any necessary corrective action (refer to
section 7)
Element 6: Management of incidents and emergencies
• Establish protocols for incident and emergency response and associated communication
procedures. (refer to section 7)
Element 7: Employee awareness and training
• Increase employee awareness of recycled water quality management
• Provide appropriate employee training (refer to section 7)
Element 8: Community involvement and awareness
• Develop an appropriate community consultation strategy
• Develop a communication program with users of recycled water (refer to section 7)
Element 9: Validation, research and development

• Validate processes and procedures to ensure that they appropriately control hazards
• Validate the selection and design of new equipment to ensure reliability
• Investigate the improved management of the recycled water system (refer to section 7)
Element 10: Documentation and reporting
• Manage documents and records appropriately
• Establish procedures for internal and external reporting
• Produce an annual report for stakeholders (refer to section 7)
Element 11: Evaluation and audit
• Collect and evaluate long-term data to assess performance and report results
• Audit and report on the processes for managing recycled water quality (refer to section 7)
Element 12: Review and continual improvement
• Conduct senior management reviews of management systems and the need for change
• Develop and implement a plan for improving the management of recycled water quality
(refer to section 6)
Source: adapted from NRMMC & EPHC (2005)

• risk characterisation, based on integration of the hazard present, dose response and
exposure.
This approach is taken in the draft national guidelines for water recycling (NRMMC &
EPHA 2005). Compared to chemical risk assessment, quantitative microbiological risk
assessment is a relatively recent development and so only limited dose–response models
are available (Department of Health and Aging & enHealth Council 2002).
For stormwater reuse, the approach would require:
• comprehensive data on levels of specific indicator species of bacteria, viruses and
protozoans in stormwater
• data on the effectiveness of stormwater treatment measures in reducing pathogen
levels.
As noted in appendix C, data on pathogen levels in stormwater is poor. The limited data
available focus on indicator bacteria such as E. coli, and the performance of treatment
measures is highly variable. Until further data on pathogen levels in stormwater is
available, the application of QMRA for assessing health risks from stormwater reuse
will be limited. Further, the dose–response models used may also need to be refined
(Department of Health and Aging & enHealth Council 2002).
While QMRA can assist in the design of treatment processes and on-site controls, it
is both difficult and expensive to validate monitoring results from pathogen reduction
treatment. Most treatment processes are more effective in removing bacteria than in
treating viruses and protozoa, and the results from monitoring programs may not indicate
the system’s efficiency in removing pathogens other than bacteria.
To date, most studies into the potential health risks from water recycling schemes have
focused on wastewater (sewage) recycling. Most of the pathogens found in sewage are
also likely to be present in stormwater, partly because of overflows from sewers into
stormwater drains. The levels of these pathogens is around two orders of magnitude
lower in stormwater than in effluent, based on limited available data (appendix C).
Based on the QMRA approach, the exposure and dose–response for a given reuse
application (e.g. municipal irrigation) will be the same regardless of the source of the
recycled water. The level of pathogens in recycled water likely to result in illness among
a given population is therefore independent of the source water. The magnitude of the
hazard is, however, essentially related to the difference between pathogen levels in the
source water and the illness ‘threshold’ concentration for a particular application. For
example, the pathogen levels in sewage are commonly higher than in raw stormwater,
with a resulting higher risk to manage (e.g. through disinfection). However, pathogen
levels in stormwater are commonly higher than the threshold levels and measures to
reduce risks are still required.
QMRA may provide a sound basis for defining the risks to public health from pathogens
in stormwater in the future, but given its current limitations and as an interim measure, it
is preferable to use the indicator pathogen levels that are widely used in other recycled
water applications. Table 6.4 shows these indicators, which were derived largely from
RWCC (1993) and ARMCANZ et al. (2000). The values from the latter document were
based on:
• a consensus of local practice which has been demonstrated to be safe
• a consideration of the current status of scientific understanding and worldwide practice
in reclaimed water use (ARMCANZ et al. 2000).
It is recognised that there are limitations to this approach and it is hoped that a more
comprehensive and practical approach can be developed over time.

B.2.4 Toxicants
Stormwater reuse could lead to exposure to a range of chemical contaminants, including
both inorganic and organic chemicals. In assessing the potential health risks associated
with a broad range of such substances in stormwater, the Australian drinking water
guidelines could be used to provide health-related guideline values. However, these
values may be too conservative for stormwater reuse, because the volume of drinking
water consumed is over 700 times greater than that expected from incidental exposure to
a stormwater harvesting scheme.
A review of the available data on the levels of contaminants in raw stormwater
(appendix C) indicates that generally raw stormwater falls within guideline values for most
parameters, including some heavy metals, organic chemicals, pesticides and disinfection
byproducts. While levels of metals such as cadmium, nickel and lead in stormwater
are up to 10 times higher than guideline values for drinking water, the associated
risks are low because of the low risk of exposure. Further, this review is based on the
concentrations found in raw stormwater rather than treated stormwater and is therefore
conservative. The risk to human health from chemicals in stormwater is therefore low.
A larger risk however would be from sudden changes in catchment conditions or activities
upstream of the harvesting point. These could include inputs of chemicals from spills
or industrial discharges that could lead to elevated chemical concentrations in treated
stormwater. Smaller schemes would be more susceptible than larger schemes to
unauthorised chemical discharges, as there would be less dilution of the contaminants
from ‘cleaner’ stormwater.
These risks could be managed by having a way of isolating the system at the inlet or
harvesting point, and through more-vigilant catchment management efforts.
B.3 Potential environmental hazards

B.3.1 Introduction
The potential environmental hazards for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme fall
into two groups: potential hazards for all schemes, and hazards that specifically apply
during the irrigation of stormwater, where the potential receiving environments are:
• surface waters
• soils and plants
• groundwater.
The potential hazards for all schemes depend on the design of the scheme and include
any on-line storages and stormwater extraction from drains or watercourses.
B.3.2 On-line storages and diversion structures

As noted in section 6.3, several potential hazards are associated with on-line storages,
particularly those constructed on a natural creek. These potential hazards include:
• obstructing the passage of fish and other aquatic fauna, impacting on aquatic
ecosystem health
• trapping of coarse sediment, potentially causing sediment starvation downstream, with
associated channel erosion if flows are not reduced
• removal of riparian vegetation and disruption of associated habitat corridors.

These hazards tend to be site-specific and should be assessed for any project involving
an on-line storage on a natural waterway. Weirs constructed on a natural waterway as a
stormwater diversion structure (see below) may present similar hazards.
The statutory requirements noted in section 3 relating to impacts on fish habitats, rivers or
foreshores may also apply to an on-line storage or diversion weir.
B.3.3 Extraction of stormwater

While urbanisation increases streamflows relative to pre-development conditions,
there is a potential for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme to extract excessive
stormwater, reducing flows to below pre-development conditions. This may impact on
aquatic ecosystem health.
An assessment should be made of the sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems downstream of a
proposed stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme to determine the critical limit for flow
extraction. This may be the pre-urbanisation flow regime.
B.3.4 Flooding
There are potential flooding hazards for stormwater harvesting and reuse schemes
excluding those where pumps are used for stormwater collection. Diversions for schemes
with off-line storages for collecting stormwater for reuse commonly involve installing
a weir in the drain of waterway, with low flows diverted upstream of the weir. On-line
storages involve installing a weir or embankment across the drain or waterway.
Weirs and embankments will normally result in higher upstream flood levels. This may
present a hazard to riparian vegetation and bank stability. There may also be associated
impacts on adjacent properties.
These hazards tend to be specific to each site and project and should be assessed for
any project involving a diversion structure or an on-line storage.
B.3.5 Irrigation hazards to surface water

Nutrients, suspended solids, metals and inorganic substances in stormwater present a
potential hazard to the environment (Burton & Pitt 2002) because of their potential to
affect organisms, natural communities and ecological systems. However, most of these
substances are present in natural waters and become hazards at elevated levels.
Run-off from a saturated stormwater irrigation scheme may have impacts on water quality
and/or local aquatic ecosystems. If the stormwater was sourced from the same catchment
as the irrigation scheme, the overall water quality impacts of any run-off from the scheme
(for example, from a saturated irrigation area) are likely to be low. The scheme would
harvest a proportion of the catchment’s pollution loads and only a fraction of this load
would return to the waterway from over-irrigation.
Run-off from an irrigation area reaching a waterway in dry-weather conditions
may present a hazard through increased pollutant concentrations in the waterway.
Concentrations of pollutants in reused stormwater are likely to be closer to wet-weather
levels, unless the stormwater has been treated extensively; these levels are higher than
dry-weather levels in stormwater and most waterways (Fletcher et al. 2004). Irrigation
area runoff may therefore increase dry-weather pollution concentrations. However, over-
irrigation is more likely to occur in wet periods, when soil moisture levels are high, hence
the risk associated with this hazard will often be low.

Excessive run-off from an irrigation area may result in soil erosion with consequent
sediment inputs to receiving waters. Seasonal waterlogging of soils in an irrigation area
may also result in erosion if irrigation occurs. Tables B.2 and B.3 indicate irrigation area
landform and soil characteristics and their associated erosion and waterlogging risks.
Harvesting and reuse schemes should be designed and operated in a manner that
minimises stormwater run-off. This should be achieved by identifying and applying
appropriate hydraulic loading rates for the soil conditions in an irrigation area and making
operational decisions such as irrigating only when soil moisture levels are low. If run-off is
minimised, the environmental risks are likely to be low. Iron concentrations in stormwater
are below the short-term trigger values for irrigation from ANZECC & ARMCANZ
(2004), although they can be above the long-term trigger values. The main concerns
with elevated iron levels are operational (clogging of irrigation equipment) rather than
environmental.
Where a reuse scheme harvests stormwater from another catchment, e.g. through inter-
catchment transfers, any run-off from the scheme would introduce additional pollution
loads from the harvested catchment to the receiving catchment. Such schemes should be
designed to achieve no net increase in loads to the catchment.
B.3.6 Irrigation hazards to soils and plants

A number of chemicals found in stormwater can present a hazard to soils and plants.
Key chemicals are noted in table B.4, along with their potential impacts. Other chemicals
in stormwater are usually at a low level relative to the concentrations that present an
environmental hazard. The potential impacts of excessive water application (hydraulic
loading) are also noted in the table.
The impact of the chemicals in table B.4 depends on their concentration in stormwater
and the application rate. A review of the available data on their concentrations in raw
stormwater (appendix C) indicates that stormwater concentrations are within guidelines
levels (DEC 2004, ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) for the irrigation of sensitive plants and
for minimising impacts on soils. No data on boron concentrations in stormwater has been
Table B.2 Landform risks for stormwater irragtion
Limitation
Property nil or slight moderate severe Restrictive feature

Slope (%) for irrigation Excess run-off and
techniques: erosion risk.
– surface/underground
<1 1–3 >3
– sprinkler
<6 6–12 >12
– trickle/microspray
<10 10–20 >20
Landform • crests • concave • drainage Risk of erosion and

• convex slopes lines seasonal waterlogging
slopes • footslopes • incised
• plains channels
Surface rock and outcrop nil 0–5 >5 Increased risk of run-off.
(%)
Source: modified from NSW DPI (2004)

located – it is assumed that levels in stormwater from a residential catchment with limited
sewer overflows will be relatively low.
Impacts on soils tend to be chronic, rather than acute, and site-specific. With the possible
exception of salinity impacts on soils, there is generally a low environmental risk of using
stormwater to irrigate soils and plants.
Table B.3 Soil risks for stormwater irrigation
Limitation
Property nil or slight moderate severe Restrictive feature

Salinity measured as <2 2–4 >4 Excess salt restricts plant
ECe (dS/m, 0–70 cm) growth
Salinity measured as <4 4–8 >8 Potential seasonal

ECe (dS/m, 70–100 cm) groundwater rise
Depth to top of seasonal >3 0.5–3 <0.5 Wetness, risk to

high watertable (m) groundwater
Depth to bedrock or >1 0.5–1 <0.5 Excess run-off,

hardpan (m) waterlogging
Saturated hydraulic 20–80 5–20 <5 Excess run-off,

conductivity (Ks, mm/hr, waterlogging, risk to
>80
0–100 cm) groundwater
Available water capacity >100 <100 – Risk to groundwater

(AWC, mm/m)
Emerson aggregate test 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2, 3 1 Poor structure, risk of

class (0–100 cm) subsurface erosion
Source: modified from NSW DPI (2004)
Table B.4 Potential impacts on soils and plants
Hazard Potential effect or impact

Boron Plant toxicity
Chlorine disinfection Direct toxicity to plants

residuals
Nitrogen Nutrient imbalance, pests and diseases in plants
Eutrophication of soils and effects on terrestrial biota
Phosphorus Eutrophication of soils and toxic effects on phosphorus-sensitive

terrestrial biota (especially some native plants)
Salinity Salinity may cause rising damp or corrosion of assets, and can arise
from excessive hydraulic loading (secondary salinity)
Plants stressed from osmotic affects of soil salinity
Contamination of soils by increasing bioavailability to plants of cadmium
present in the soil
Chloride Direct toxicity to plants when sprayed on leaves

Plant toxicity via uptake through the roots
Sodium Direct toxicity to plants when sprayed on leaves

Plant toxicity via uptake through the roots
Loss of soil structure due to sodicity

Herbicides may interfere with plant growth. Phenoxyacid herbicides, such as 2,4-D and
its derivatives, are widely used for weed control and they may occur in stormwater. Table
B.5 indicates threshold levels of concern for common chemicals for the irrigation of grass.
This is derived from ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000), based on recommended thresholds
for the crops lucerne and alfalfa. Only limited data is available for these herbicides in
stormwater – site-specific monitoring is recommended if herbicide use is prevalent within
a scheme’s catchment.
B.3.7 Irrigation hazards to groundwater

Any development should aim to protect the quality of the underlying groundwater which
should continue to be able to support its most sensitive beneficial use. Irrigation with
stormwater could pose a risk to underlying groundwater. These risks are greatest when:
• irrigated stormwater has high salinity levels and, to a lesser extent, high levels of
nutrients, pathogens or other contaminants
• the groundwater has a current or potential beneficial use (e.g. for drinking water or
sustaining a groundwater-dependent ecosystem, such as a wetland).
The actual impact from any chemicals in the stormwater would depend on both their
concentration and the application rate – as discussed above, such impacts tend to
be chronic rather than acute. The risk of impacts from stormwater on groundwater is
expected to be low when:
• the application rate is controlled by irrigation scheduling or soil moisture monitoring
to ensure that stormwater does not percolate deeper than the root zone or intersect
groundwater
• salinity (as electrical conductivity) in stormwater is less than 0.3 dS/m (DEC 2004).
If the application rate and salinity are higher than these, the site should be investigated
and a comprehensive risk management approach adopted – DEC (2004) provides
further guidance. Salinity in stormwater tends to be below this threshold and lower than
in effluent (refer to appendix C), hence the risks of salinity impacts on irrigated land and
groundwater from a stormwater reuse scheme would be lower than from an effluent
irrigation scheme.
Further considerations for minimising risks include avoiding areas where the groundwater
has a current or potential beneficial use or is close to the soil surface, or where there is
evidence of dryland salinity.
Table B.2 lists the soil characteristics that indicate potential risks to groundwater.
For further information on protecting groundwater quality, see the NSW state groundwater
quality protection policy (DLWC 1997, 1998), the NSW state groundwater policy (DLWC
1997) and the national guidelines for groundwater protection (ARMCANZ & ANZECC
1995).
Table B.5 Indicative threshold concentrations of herbicides
Herbicide Indicative threshold for injury to grass (mg/L)

Amitrol 1600
Dichlobenil 10
Fluometuron 2.2
Propanil 0.15

B.4 Schemes meeting default criteria
B.4.1 Basis for risk thresholds in default approach
The thresholds in table 4.3 for the default approach to risk management were derived
considering the potential public health and environmental hazards described in section
B.2 and B.3, and critical operating constraints. The basis for these thresholds is
presented in table B.6.
B.4.2 Generic risk assessment for default approach

Tables B.7 to B.11 present a simplified public health and environmental risk assessment
for a stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme. The risk assessment is generic as
it is intended to apply for all schemes within the thresholds noted in table 4.3. It is
also qualitative because there is currently insufficient data for quantitative health risk
assessment for stormwater reuse. The risk assessment is based on the qualitative criteria
noted in tables B.7 to B.9. These tables also include the risk management measures
shown in tables 4.4 and 4.5, noting any residual risks.
For schemes with characteristics above the thresholds noted in table 4.1 and/or where
different management measures are used, the draft national water recycling guidelines
(NRMMC & EPHC 2005) and the Queensland water recycling guidelines (Queensland
EPA 2005a) provide guidance on possible approaches to risk management.
Table B.6 Thresholds for use of default risk management approach
Threshold criteria – all schemes Basis

Catchment land use Residential/commercial areas generate lower heavy metal
concentrations in stormwater – high concentrations that may
occur from industrial catchments may present public health
or environmental risks.
Sewer overflows in the catchment High levels of sewer overflows can significantly increase
pathogen levels and concentrations of some contaminants
in stormwater
Stormwater reuse application This document is targeted at typical urban applications.

Medium to large-scale residential schemes have a higher
potential public exposure and should be subject to a risk
assessment.
Storage Storages constructed on a natural waterway present a

potential environmental hazard (refer to section B.3.2)
Extraction Excessive extraction present a potential environmental

hazard (refer to section B.3.3)
Stormwater quality High turbidity levels may have a significant impact on

disinfection effectiveness and site-specific studies are
appropriate.
Additional threshold criteria – irrigation schemes

Salinity levels in stormwater High salinity levels in stormwater present an environmental
hazard to soils and groundwater
Groundwater Groundwater vulnerability areas are sensitive to additional
groundwater inputs
Location of irrigation area Potential impact on groundwater beneficial use if located
within 1 km of a town water supply bore
Landform and soil characteristics Low limitations from tables B.2 and B.3.

Table B.7 Qualitative measures of likelihood
Level Descriptor Example description

A Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances. May occur once in
100 years
B Unlikely Could occur within 20 years or in unusual circumstances
C Possible Might occur or should be expected to occur within a 5-year to 10-

year period
D Likely Will probably occur within a 1-year to 5-year period
E Almost certain Is expected to occur with a probability of multiple occurrences within

a year
Table B.8 Qualitative measures of consequence or impact
Level Descriptor Example description

1 Insignificant Insignificant impact or not detectable
2 Minor Health – Minor impact for small population

Environment — Potentially harmful to local ecosystem with local
impacts contained to site
3 Moderate Health – Minor impact for large population.

Environment – Potential harmful to regional ecosystem with local
impacts primarily contained to site
4 Major Health – Major impact for small population

Environment – Potentially lethal to local ecosystem. Predominantly
local, but potential for off-site impacts
5 Catastrophic Health – Major impact for large population.

Environment – Potentially lethal to regional ecosystem or
threatened species. Widespread on-site and off-site impacts

Table B.9 Qualitative risk analysis matrix: level of risk
Consequences
Likelihood 1 Insignificant 2 Minor 3 Moderate 4 Major 5 Catastrophic

A Rare Low Low Low Low High
B Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Very high
C Possible Low Moderate High Very high Very high
D Likely Low Moderate High Very high Very high
E Almost certain Low Moderate High Very high Very high


135
136
Table B.10 Qualitative public health risk assessment – sub-threshold schemes
Hazard and pathway Uncontrolled risk Control strategies Residual risk Comments
Likelihood Consequences Risk Likelihood Consequences Risk
General (all uses)

Pathogens – ingestion Possible Moderate High Plumbing controls Unlikely Minor Low Likelihood is greatest for dual
(cross-connection with reticulation although may occur
for any scheme with a mains
drinking water supply)
water backup supply.
Non-potable residential
Pathogens – ingestion, Almost Minor Treatment to achieve Unlikely Minor Low Likelihood of exposure is high
aerosol certain median E. coli levels relative to other applications
– refer to section B.2.2 re
of <1 cfu/100 mL
ingestion volumes. Treat to
Disinfection residual level in NSW RWCC (1993) to
achieve low risk.
Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

Plumbing controls
Toxicants – ingestion Unlikely Insignificant Low Plumbing controls Unlikely Insignificant Low Concentrations of toxicants in
urban stormwater are less than
drinking water values (NHMRC
& NRMMC 2004a) except for
some metals. Ingestion volumes
are, however, relatively low
(section B.2.2), hence low risk.
Irrigation – open space

Pathogens – ingestion, Almost Major Very high Treatment to achieve Unlikely Minor Low Likelihood of exposure is
aerosol certain median E. coli levels moderate relative to other
of <10 cfu/100 mL with applications – refer to section
uncontrolled public B.2.2 re ingestion volumes.
access OR Control risks through either high
treatment or moderate treatment
Treatment to achieve
and access controls (ARMCANZ
median E. coli levels of
et al. 2000).
<1000 cfu/100 mL and
controlled public access
with spray controls
Table B.10 Qualitative public health risk assessment – sub-threshold schemes (cont’d)

Toxicants – ingestion Unlikely Insignificant Low Nil Unlikely Insignificant Low See comment for residential
non-potable.
Industrial
Pathogens – ingestion, Almost Major Very high Treatment to achieve Unlikely Minor Low Likelihood of exposure
aerosol certain median E. coli levels is variable depending on
of <10 cfu/100 mL with the industrial use and the
uncontrolled public associated level of public
access OR exposure. Likely ingestion
volumes are expected to
be considerably less than
for drinking water. Control
risks through either high
treatment when there is no
with spray controls
access limitation or moderate
treatment with access controls
(ARMCANZ et al. 2000).
non-potable.
Water features (ornamental)

aerosol certain median E. coli levels variable depending on the
of <10 cfu/100 mL with associated level of public
uncontrolled public exposure – refer to section
access OR B.2.2 re ingestion volumes.
Control risks through either
high treatment when there is no
access limitation or moderate
treatment with access controls
(ARMCANZ et al. 2000).
with spray controls

137
138
Table B.10 Qualitative public health risk assessment – sub-threshold schemes (cont’d)

non-potable.
Aquifer storage and recovery

Pathogens – ingestion Likely Minor Moderate Stormwater treatment to Unlikely Minor Low Likelihood of direct exposure
achieve median E. coli is relatively low. Control risks
levels of <1000 cfu/100 through low-level treatment
mL (Dillon & Pavelic 1996).
non-potable.
aerosol certain median E. coli levels moderate relative to other
of <10 cfu/100 mL with applications – refer to section

uncontrolled public B.2.2 re ingestion volumes.
access Control risks through either high
treatment or moderate treatment
OR
and access controls (ARMCANZ
Treatment to achieve et al. 2000).
with spray controls
Table B.11 Qualitative environmental assessment – sub-threshold irrigation schemes
Hazard and receiving
environment Uncontrolled risk Control strategies Residual risk Comments
General
Over-extraction Possible Moderate High Design and operate to Unlikely Minor Low Limit extraction to pre-
– surface waters limit extraction development flows or other
flow depending on ecosystem
characteristics
On-line storages (on Rare Insignificant Low Nil Rare Insignificant Low Risks are low for on-line
drains) – surface waters storages constructed on piped
and ecosystems drainage systems or constructed
channels
Nutrient and organic Likely Minor Moderate Treatment to remove Unlikely Minor Low Growth of cyanobacteria is also
matter inputs to open phosphorus and influenced by temperature and
storages organic matter if design turbidity levels.
residence times are
long.
Monitoring
Incident response
Weirs for diversion Impacts are site and project-
systems – surface specific and should be assessed
for each project
waters (flood impacts)
Irrigation applications
Boron – soil (plant No data located on boron
toxicity) concentrations in stormwater
– assume risk is low for reuse
of stormwater from residential
catchments.

139
140
Table B.11 Qualitative environmental assessment – sub-threshold irrigation schemes (cont’d)

Nitrogen – surface Unlikely Minor Low Irrigation controls Unlikely Minor Low Typical stormwater
waters, groundwater concentrations less than long-
term trigger value for irrigation in
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).
Low impact likely in any surface
run-off.
Phosphorus– surface Unlikely Minor Low Irrigation controls Unlikely Minor Low Typical stormwater
waters concentrations less than short-
term trigger value for irrigation in
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000)
(long-term value applies for
bioclogging). Low impact likely
in any surface run-off.

Salinity – plants Unlikely Minor Low Irrigation controls Unlikely Minor Low Typical stormwater
concentrations less than values
for sensitive crops or soil
structure impacts in ANZECC &
ARMCANZ (2000). Groundwater
impacts low if no site constraints
and irrigation controlled.
Chloride – plants Unlikely Minor Low Nil (monitor for any Unlikely Minor Low Typical stormwater
impacts) concentrations less than
values for sensitive crops in
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).
Table B.11 Qualitative environmental assessment – sub-threshold irrigation schemes (cont’d)

Pesticides (herbicides) Unlikely Minor Low Nil (monitor for any Unlikely Minor Low Little data on herbicide levels in
– crops, surface waters impacts) stormwater. Risk assumed to be
low – monitor if plant impacts
occur
Metals Unlikely Minor Low Unlikely Minor Low Typical stormwater
concentrations less than long-
term trigger values in ANZECC
& ARMCANZ (2000). Exception
is iron, where concentrations
are less than short-term
values (long-term values are
operational).
Hydraulic loading – soils Likely Minor Moderate Site selection Unlikely Minor Low Refer to tables B.2 and B.3 for
(salinity, erosion), plants site characteristics for low-risk
Irrigation design and
(waterlogging) schemes.
operation

141
Appendix C: Stormwater quality
C.1 Introduction
The three aspects of stormwater quality of particular relevance to stormwater harvesting
and reuse schemes are:
• pathogens, including faecal coliforms and E. coli – for public health implications
• chemical constituents – for public health and environmental considerations, and some
end-use requirements (e.g. irrigation)
• suspended solids and turbidity – for their potential impact on both the effectiveness of
disinfection and the function of irrigation schemes.
C.2 Relationship between faecal coliforms and E. coli

The relationship between total and faecal coliforms, and E. coli is:
• total coliform bacteria comprise 16 species of bacteria found in soil, vegetation, animal
wastes and human sewage
• faecal coliforms comprise six species of coliform bacteria that are found in animal
wastes and human sewage
• E. coli is one of the six faecal coliform bacteria species and is found in animal wastes
and human sewage.
The three guidelines used to derive the pathogen public health treatment objectives in
table 6.4 (NSW RWCC 1993, DEC 2004, and ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) describe
pathogen (bacterial) criteria in terms of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms. Since those
guidelines were prepared, there has been considerable research into appropriate
microbial indicators of faecal contamination (e.g. Edberg et al. 2000). The Australian
drinking water guidelines (NHRMC & NRMMC 2004a) and the draft national guidelines
for water recycling (NRMMC & EPHC, 2005) have adopted E. coli as the primary indicator
of faecal contamination, as recommended by Stevens et al. (2003). Based on this more
recent research, E. coli has been used in table 6.4 in place of thermotolerant coliforms. E.
coli are also used in the recent Queensland guidelines for water recycling (Queensland
EPA 2005a).
Most monitoring of pathogen levels in stormwater and freshwater in NSW has focused on
faecal coliforms. The relationship between faecal coliform and E. coli levels is variable.
Ideally, a site-specific relationship should be derived from concurrent faecal coliform and
E. coli monitoring data.
In the absence of site-specific data, the approach derived in the US by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and approved by the US EPA could be
adopted. The translator equation was developed by VADEQ to translate faecal coliform
data into E. coli data through a regression analysis of 493 paired datasets from the
department’s statewide water quality monitoring network.
The resulting equation is:
EC = 0.988 FC0.919
where EC = E. coli level (cfu/100 mL)
FC = faecal coliform level (cfu/100 mL)
The E. coli proportion derived from this equation is presented in figure C.1. Further details
can be obtained from VADEQ (2003). No correlation coefficient for this equation was
provided in this reference.

90
80
70
60
50
E. coli (%)
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL)
Figure C.1 Relationship between E. coli and faecal coliforms derived in Virginia, USA
C.3 Pathogens in stormwater

Table C.1 summarises reported E. coli levels in untreated urban stormwater, based on the
faecal coliform data reported in Fletcher et al. (2004) and the VADEQ (2003) conversion
equation (above). This table indicates that E. coli levels in stormwater run-off can be
highly variable. The E. coli concentrations reported from residential catchments tend to
be higher than those from industrial and commercial catchments (McCarthy et al. 2006),
probably because of household pets.
For comparison, figure C.2 indicates the relative median levels of E. coli concentrations
from various wastewater and rainwater streams, both raw and treated. The stormwater
levels are typical outflow concentrations from conventional stormwater treatment
measures (e.g. constructed wetlands) with no additional disinfection. The levels from
the different streams should be compared cautiously as both sewage effluent and
Table C.1 Indicative E. coli levels in urban stormwater

Wet-weather concentration Dry-weather concentration
Land use (cfu/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL)
Typical Typical
Lower value Upper Lower value Upper
Roofs 5 40 400 – – –
General 200 2,000 20,000 20,000 200 1,500

urban
Residential 1,000 9,000 75,000 100 1,300 13,000
Industrial/ 200 2,000 20,000 20 200 1,500

commercial
Source: modified from Fletcher et al. (2004)

stormwater quality depend heavily on the level of treatment provided as well as the inflow
concentrations.
Figure C.2 highlights a trend in E. coli between water types, with relatively low levels in
rainwater, moderate levels in stormwater, and high levels in raw wastewater. Treated
stormwater tends to have higher bacterial levels than rainwater. There can, however,
be considerable variability in these levels depending on catchment characteristics and
rainfall event history.
Table C.2 provides a more detailed comparison of pathogen levels in urban stormwater
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
E. coli (cfu/100 mL)
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
Rainwater Stormwater Greywater Wastewater
1
Raw Raw Treated Raw Treated Raw Treated
Figure C.2 Indicative median E. coli levels for rainwater, stormwater, greywater
and wastewater
Source: adapted from Fletcher et al. (2004), NSW Health (2000), SWC (1998, 2004)
(in wet-weather conditions) compared to sewage, and is derived from a literature review.
Considerable variability in levels was found both within and between sites. Where
data was sourced from North America or Europe, sites influenced by combined sewer
overflows were not included. Combined sewer overflows considerably increase pathogen
levels in stormwater and almost all sewerage systems in Australia are separate, rather
than combined systems.
Monitoring of pathogens in stormwater has focused heavily on indicator organisms
such as thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms and E. coli. Relatively limited monitoring data
is available on the levels of other specific bacteria and viruses in stormwater, as is the
case elsewhere, such as the USA (Smith & Perdek 2004). This limitation may hinder
the application of a comprehensive risk-based approach contained in the draft national
guidelines for water recycling (NRMMC & EPHC 2005).
In general, bacterial and viral concentrations are around two orders of magnitude lower
in stormwater than in sewage. However, a direct comparison is difficult, due to different
monitoring and reporting techniques used in the literature.

Table C.2 Reported levels of micro-organisms in stormwater and raw sewage
Numbers in stormwater Numbers in sewage
Bacteria (per 100 mL) (per 100 mL)
Thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms1,2,3 102 – 105
Escherichia coli6, 8 102 – 106 104 – 109
Faecal streptococci2, 3, 4, 5, 6 102 – 105
Enterococci6, 12, 13, 14 102 – 105 105 – 106
Shigella No data available 10 – 103
Salmonella7, 12 0 – 101 102 – 104
Clostridium perfringens6 102 – 104 104 –105
Campylobacter11 100 – 101
Viruses
Enteroviruses7, 12 10 – 102 101 – 105
Adenoviruses10, 12 10 – 103 10 – 103
Noroviruses No data available 10 – 103
Rotaviruses No data available 101 – 104
Somatic coliphages 101 – 105 105 – 108

(indicators)5, 10, 15
F-RNA coliphages (indicators)10, 15 0 – 102 104 – 106
Protozoans and helminths

Cryptosporidium9, 11 10–2 – 102 0 – 103
Giardia9 10–2 – 10 101 – 104
Helminth ova No data available 0 – 103

Source: Stormwater data – 1 Fletcher et al. (2004), 2 Engineers Australia (2005), 3 Duncan (1999), 4 Jagals et al.
(1995), 5 Jagals (1997), 6 Leeming et al. (1998), 7 Oliveri et al. (1977), 8 McCarthy et al. (2006),
9 LeChavellier et al. (1991), 10 Jiang (2004), 11 CRCWQT, 12 Makepeace et al. (1995), 13 Davies & Bavor (2000),
14 Gannon & Busse (1989), 15 Davies et al.(2003). Sewage data – as cited in NRMMC & EPHC (2005)

C.4 Chemicals in stormwater
Table C.3 summarises the reported data on wet-weather concentrations of key chemicals
in urban stormwater. The data reported in this table is from urban residential catchments
– data from specific catchment types (e.g. industrial or roads) can be sourced from the
references provided. In the table, the upper and lower concentrations are the mean
+/– one standard deviation from the studies of Fletcher et al. (2004), Engineers Australia
(2005) and Duncan (1999). As with the pathogen data in table C.2, chemical pollutant
levels vary considerably both within and between sites. Where data was sourced from
North America or Europe, sites influenced by combined sewer overflows were not
included (where these could be identified).
Note that the nitrogen and phosphorus data was obtained from different sources, as no
single source provided comprehensive data. Therefore the components of these nutrients
(particularly nitrogen) do not necessarily sum to the quoted total nitrogen or phosphorus
values.
For comparative purposes, typical values for raw municipal sewage and secondary
treated STP effluent are also provided in this table. In general, nutrient and salinity levels
are typically higher in effluent compared to urban stormwater, with the converse applying
to metals.

Table C.3 Indicative stormwater, sewage and effluent concentrations
Stormwater
Constituent Units Lower Typical Upper Sewage Effluent

Suspended solids1 mg/L 40 140 500 300 n/a
Turbidity2,3 NTU 14 60 260 n/a
Total phosphorus1 mg/L 0.08 0.25 0.8 12 5.9
Filterable phosphorus6 μg/L 18 70 170
Soluble phosphorus5, 7 mg/L 0.0381 0.129 3.52
Total nitrogen1 mg/L 0.7 2 6 55 15.2
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen5,6 mg/L 1.73 3.02 4.7
Ammonia6 mg/L 0.15 0.17 0.23
Nitrate and nitrite 5,6

mg/L 0.15 0.34 0.34
Chemical oxygen demand2,3 mg/L 35 78 175 n/a
Biochemical oxygen demand2,3 mg/L 7 14 26 275 n/a
Total organic carbon2,3 mg/L 13 24 40 n/a
Oil and grease1 mg/L 3 9.5 30 n/a
pH 2,3
– 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.9
Total dissolved salts4 mg/L 110 160 220 675
Electrical conductivity4 dS/m 0.17 0.25 0.34 1.3
Aluminium7, 8 mg/L 0.1 1.7 4.9
Boron8 mg/L 289
Cadmium (total) 1
μg/L 1 4.5 20 0.3
Chloride7, 9 mg/L 0.3 2.4 4.5 135
Chromium μg/L 6 20 25 9.4

(total) 2,3
Copper (total)1 μg/L 20 80 300 23.5
Cyanide7,8 μg/L 2 33 80
Iron (total) 2,3

μg/L 800 2,700 9,000 722
Manganese μg/L 80 230 660 35

(total) 2,3
Mercury (total)2,3 μg/L 0.06 0.22 0.78 0.1
Nickel (total)2,3 μg/L 14 24 25 7
Sodium7, 9 mg/L 0.18 10.7 21.3 181
Zinc (total)1 μg/L 100 300 1,000 48
PAH7 μg/L 0.24 0.77 1.3
MTBE μg/L 1.6

Source: stormwater data – 1 Fletcher at al. (2004), 2 Engineers Australia (2005), 3 Duncan (1999), 4 Sharpin (1995),
5 Smullen et al. (1999), 6 SWC (1995), 7 Makepeace et al. (1995), 8 Dannecker et al. (1990). Sewage data – SWC
(1998). Effluent data – NRMMC & EPHC (2005)
Note = total dissolved solids (TDS) levels were converted to electrical conductivity using the equation
EC (dS/m) x 670 = TDS (mg/L) (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000)
PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Appendix D: Maintenance costs
Table D.1 Estimated annual maintenance costs for stormwater treatment measures
Estimated annual
Stormwater treatment maintenance cost
measure (% of construction cost) Source(s)
Retention basins and ~2% – 6% Wiegand et al. (1986), Schueler
constructed wetlands (1987), SWRPC (1991), Livingston
et al. (1997), Taylor & Wong
(2002),
Infiltration trench ~5% – 20% Schueler (1987), SWRPC (1991),
Taylor & Wong (2002)
Sand filters ~11% – 13% Livingston et al. (1997), Brown &
Schueler (1997), Taylor & Wong
(2002)
Vegetated swales ~5% – 30% SWRPC (1991), UPRCT (2004)
Bioretention systems ~5% – 7% SWRPC (1991), Taylor & Wong

(2002)
Gross pollutant Side entry ~ 30% UPRCT (2004)
trap pit
Trash racks ~ 30% UPRCT (2004)
End of pipe ~ 10% – 25% UPRCT (2004)

devices
Wet vault ~ 7% UPRCT (2004)
devices
M Sharpin/DEC
Trash removal, Centenial Park

Appendix E: Water balance considerations
E.1 Water balance modelling

A water (mass) balance analysis is an essential part of developing a stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme. The water balance accounts for inputs to the scheme,
primarily stormwater flows and any significant direct rainfall onto open storages, and
outputs including:
• reuse water demand (for irrigation, this will be related to rainfall, evapotranspiration
and infiltration, and is discussed further in section 6)
• evaporation from open storages
• exfiltration losses from open storages or permeable underground storages.
The key output from a water balance study is an analysis of the performance of the
storage, in particular the:
• yield from storage (the volume supplied for reuse)
• volumetric reliability of supply (the proportion of the demand met by stormwater).
The analysis enables an assessment of the influence of different storage sizes and
reuse demands on these key parameters. A water balance is usually undertaken over a
relatively long period, for example a 10-year period that incorporates ‘average’, ‘wet’ and
‘dry’ years. A daily time step or smaller is normally used for the analysis.
A number of computer models are available for water balance analysis. Alternatively a
spreadsheet analysis could be used for small schemes or for the preliminary analysis of
larger schemes.
E.2 Relationships between storage size and demand

As noted in section 6, the relationship between storage size, stormwater reuse volume
and annual run-off volume is complex and depends on the nature of the demand and the
run-off characteristics.
Figure E.1 illustrates the results of an analysis undertaken for a hypothetical stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme that includes various levels of irrigation demand (derived
from WBM 2004, 2005). This illustrates the interrelationship between demand, yield and
storage size (expressed in volume per unit of catchment area). For a given storage size,
the irrigation yield increases with the demand. This is because there is a greater chance
of the storage having volume available for inflows. Where the demand is similar to the
average annual run-off volume, significant storage sizes are required for the irrigation
yield to approach the demand.
The figure also illustrates that for a given demand, there is a ‘point of diminishing returns’
in storage size, where increasing the size further does not provide a significant increase
in yield.
Figure E.2 illustrates the variation in reliability of supply for this hypothetical reuse system
(derived from WBM 2004, 2005). It also highlights the interrelationship between storage
size, demand and reliability. As expected, reliability (the percentage of the demand that
can be met by the available stormwater) decreases with increasing demand for a given
storage size. These findings are similar to those of Mitchell et al. (2005).

5.0
Average annual runoff volume (4.4 ML/yr)
Irrigation yield (ML/ha/yr) 4.0
3.0 Demand
Increasing demand 0.4 ML/ha/yr

1.3 ML/ha/yr
2.0
2.2 ML/ha/yr
3.1 ML/ha/yr
4.0 ML/ha/yr
1.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Storage size (kL/ha)
Figure E.1 Illustrative relationship between storage volume, yield and demand
Source: DEC, derived from WBM 2004, 2005
100%
80%
Volumetric reliability
Demand
60%
0.4 ML/ha/yr
1.3 ML/ha/yr
40% Increasing demand 2.2 ML/ha/yr
3.1 ML/ha/yr
4.0 ML/ha/yr
20%
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Storage size (kL/ha)
Figure E.2 Illustrative relationship between storage volume, reliability and demand
The storage capacity can be either storage limited or supply limited. Where the average
annual demand is equal to or less than the average annual run-off diverted into storage,
the storage capacity is the factor that normally determines the reliability (storage limited).
Where the average demand is greater than the average annual run-off, it will not be able
to meet all the demand, irrespective of the size of the storage (supply limited).
There can be a range of combinations of demand and storage options available to
achieve a target volumetric reliability. In general, the greater the demand or the variation
in either the demand or the supply pattern, the greater the storage volume required for a
given volumetric reliability of supply.

E.3 Influence of climate
Climatic conditions, particularly rainfall patterns, have a significant influence on
stormwater harvesting reuse schemes. This particularly applies to schemes where
irrigation is the end use, as both stormwater flows and irrigation demand are climate
dependent.
This is illustrated in figure E.3 for a hypothetical urban development incorporating
irrigation use in Sydney, Dubbo and Coffs Harbour (derived from WBM 2004, 2005).
Dubbo is the driest site (annual rainfall of 580 mm) and while the demand is high,
the available run-off is low. Coffs Harbour is the wettest site (1680 mm), however the
irrigation yield is lower than the intermediate rainfall site (coastal Sydney – 1260 mm).
This is because the higher rainfall satisfies more of the demand, whereas in Sydney
there is still a reasonable demand (albeit lower than Dubbo) which can be readily met by
stormwater.
The situation in Coffs Harbour is effectively demand limited, while in Dubbo a supply limit
applies. This highlights the importance of water balance modelling for all projects.
2.5
Irrigation yield (ML/ha/yr)
1.5 demand limited
1 Dubbo
supply limited
Coffs Harbour
Sydney
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Storage (kL/ha)
Figure E.3 Illustrative relationships between storage volume and irrigation yield

The converse of this relationship applies when stormwater volume reductions are
considered, as shown in figure E.4 (derived from WBM 2004, 2005). The highest
reductions occur for the driest location (Dubbo), as a greater proportion of the annual
stormwater run-off volume is captured and reused. In the wettest location (Coffs Harbour),
a relatively small proportion of the stormwater run-off is reused, as the annual rainfall is
high and the demand is relatively low. These run-off volume reductions correlate directly
with stormwater pollution load reductions achieved by reuse (excluding any additional
reductions achieved by on-line storages).
35
30
Stormwater volume reduction (%)
25
20
15
10 Dubbo
Coffs Harbour
5 Sydney
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Storage volume (kL/ha)
Figure E.4 Illustrative relationship between storage volume and stormwater reductions

Glossary
Biochemical oxygen demand the decrease in oxygen content in a sample
(BOD) of water caused by the bacterial breakdown of
organic matter.
Bioretention system a stormwater treatment measure similar to a
sand filter, in which vegetation is planted at the
top of the filter in a soil filter medium. Also known
as a biofiltration system.
Controlled public access the limitation of public access to sites so as to
minimise the likelihood of direct physical contact
with reuse water.
Cost-benefit analysis a method used to assess the costs and benefits
of a proposal.
Cost-effectiveness analysis a method used to find the least-cost means of
meeting a single objective.
Cyanobacteria the scientific name for blue-green algae
Discount rate the percentage rate of compound interest at
which future benefits and costs are adjusted to
their equivalent present-day values in a cost-
benefit analysis
Disinfection destruction of disease-causing organisms.
E. coli Escherichia coli, a common rod-shaped bacillus
that indicates faecal contamination of water.
Electrical conductivity (EC) a measure of the conduction of electricity
through water. This can be used to determine
the soluble salts content.
Eutrophication enrichment of waters with nutrients causing
excessive aquatic plant growth.
Evapotranspiration the combined loss of water from a given area
during a specified period of time by evaporation
from the soil or water surface and transpiration
from plants.
Gross pollutants litter and debris transported by urban run-off.
Gross pollutant trap a stormwater treatment measure that traps gross
pollutants using a screen or trash rack.
Levelised unit costing the present value of the costs over the planning
period divided by the volume of water supplied
or pollutant load removed over this period.
Life-cycle cost assessment a method of costing that includes all costs
incurred in the life of an item from inception
through to decommissioning.
Glossary 153
Log reduction logarithmic (base 10) concentration reductions
(e.g. 1 log reduction equals 90% reduction, 2 log
reduction equals 99% reduction, 3 log reduction
equals 99.9% reduction)
Mains water potable water from a reticulated water supply,
e.g. town water supply.
Nutrient a substance that provides nourishment for
an organism. For the purposes of stormwater
run-off, the key nutrients are nitrogen and
phosphorus.
Pathogen an organism capable of eliciting disease
symptoms in another organism (e.g. humans).
pH value taken to represent acidity or alkalinity of
an aqueous solution; expressed as the logarithm
of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity in
moles per litre at a given temperature.
Potable water water of drinking quality
Rainwater water collected from the roofs of buildings.
Reuse utilisation of water for domestic, commercial,
agricultural or industrial purposes, which would
otherwise be discharged to wastewater or
stormwater systems.
Storage an area, dam, pond, tank or other facility for
storing water
Stormwater rainfall that runs off all urban surfaces such as
roofs, pavements, carparks, roads, gardens and
vegetated open space.
Suspended solids the solids in suspension in water that are
(non-filterable residue) removable by laboratory filtering, usually
by a filter of nominal pore size of about 1.2
micrometres (μm).
Swale a shallow and wide grass-lined channel.
Treatable flow the minimum flow that a pollution control device
must be capable of treating without bypass.
Turkey’s-nest dam a dam constructed on a valley slope or plain
rather than a watercourse, usually with no
catchment.
Yield the volume of water extracted from a stormwater
system or creek and used in a stormwater
harvesting and reuse scheme, usually expressed
as an annual volume. This is a proportion of the
annual runoff volume from the catchment, which
can be termed the ‘catchment yield’.

Abbreviations
ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment
Conservation Council
ARI average recurrence interval
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council
of Australia and New Zealand
ASR aquifer storage and recovery
BASIX building sustainability index
cfu colony-forming units
CRCCH Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology
CRCWQT Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality
and Treatment
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
(NSW)
DEUS Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability
(NSW)
DPI Department of Primary Industries (NSW)
EMP environmental management plan
EPA Environment Protection Authority (now
part of the Department of Environment and
Conservation in NSW)
EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council
GPT gross pollutant trap
ha hectare (10,000 m2)
HACCP hazard analysis and critical control point
IPART Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal
(NSW)
IPWEA Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia
kL kilolitre (1000 litres)
mL millilitre (0.001 litres)
ML megalitre (1,000,000 litres)
MPN most probable number
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NPV net present value
NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial
Council
NSW New South Wales
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy
Abbreviations 155
SA South Australia
SS suspended solids
STAR stormwater treatment and reuse
STP sewage treatment plant
TBL triple bottom line
TDS total dissolved solids
TN total nitrogen
TP total phosphorus
UV ultraviolet
WSUD water-sensitive urban design

Managing Urban Stormwater Harvesting Reuse 060137

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Urban Stormwater Harvesting Reuse 060137

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Urban Stormwater Harvesting Reuse 060137

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANAGING URBAN STORMWATER

Har vest ing and Reuse

ISBN 1 74137 875 3

Cover photo of stormwater harvesting and reuse at Sydney Olympic Park,

Printed on recycled paper

Bexley Golf Course

City of Canada Bay Council

City of Sydney Council

Holroyd City Council

Hornsby Shire Council

Kiama Municipal Council

Liverpool City Council

Monash University’s Institute for Sustainable Water Resources

Penrith City Council

University of Western Sydney

Waitakere City Council (New Zealand).

Cover: Stormwater treatment at Sydney Olympic Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

Contents: Kogarah Town Square (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

Sections 2 & 3 openers: Water ponding at Sydney Olympic Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

Section 4 opener: Fenced constructed wetland at Camden (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

Section 5 opener: Stormwater planning at Hornsby Council (K Walters/DEC)

Section 8 opener: Hornsby stormwater harvesting and reuse scheme (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

References opener: Stormwater treatment at Victoria Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

Appendices opener: Water-sensitive urban design at Victoria Park (J Dahlenburg/wsud.org)

2 Overview of stormwater harvesting 5

References and further reading 109

1.2 Harvesting stormwater for reuse 2

1.3 The purpose and scope of this document 3

1.4 Structure of this document 4

1.2 Harvesting stormwater for reuse

2 Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

1.3 The purpose and scope of this document

1.4 Structure of this document

4 Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

2.2 Potential applications 6

2.3 Potential benefits and limitations 8

2.4 Characteristics of successful schemes 12

2.5 Stormwater harvesting and rainwater tanks 13

2.6 Stormwater and effluent reuse 15

2.7 Community acceptance of treated stormwater 16

Overview of stormwater harvesting 5

2.2 Potential applications

2.2.1 Residential uses

6 Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

2.2.3 Industrial and commercial uses

Irrigation with stormwater at Greenway Park, Cherrybrook

Overview of stormwater harvesting 7

2.2.5 Aquifer storage and recovery

2.3 Potential benefits and limitations

2.3.1 Potential benefits

Reduced demand for mains water

8 Managing urban stormwater: harvesting and reuse

Lower pollution loads

Table 2.1 Indicative outcomes from stormwater harvesting projects

Indicator Indicative outcome

Moderate storage Large storage

Mains water demand reduction 2–35% 5–50%

Annual stormwater run-off volume reduction 2–20% 2–40%

100-year ARI peak flow reduction Negligible Negligible