Hazard and risk assessment for indirect potable reuse schemes: An approach for use in developing Water Safety Plans

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in Water Research. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2010 Elsevier B.V.This paper describes research undertaken to develop an approach for facilitating an initial hazard assessment and risk characterisation for a proposed indirect potable reuse scheme, as part of the water safety plan recommended by the World Health Organization. The process involved a description and evaluation of the catchment, which was the sewerage system supplying the sewage treatment works that would provide the effluent to supply the pilot scale indirect potable reuse water treatment plant. Hazards, sources and barriers throughout the proposed system were identified and evaluated. An initial assessment of the possible hazards, highlighted chemical hazards as predominating, and assessment of risks, using a heat map as output, categorised most hazards as medium or high risk. However, this outcome has been influenced by a precautionary approach which assigned a high likelihood to the occurrence of hazards where no data was available on their occurrence in the system. As more data becomes available, and the waster safety plan develops, it is anticipated that the risk heat map will become more specific. Additionally, high quality targets, to drinking water standards, have been set, although water from the potable reuse plant will be discharged to receiving waters where it will undergo natural attenuation prior to further treatment to potable standards before distribution. The assessment has demonstrated the usefulness of the approach where data is initially limited, in generating a heat map allowing for prioritisation of hazards to a practical level.Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Mexican Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologıa

Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Australia

The Australian continent has an extremely variable climate, as a result of the different oceanic currents and atmospheric variation. Australia has regular cycles of droughts and floods resulting in highly variable storage volumes in its major dams. The population in Australia is nearly 23 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011) of which the majority lives in the South-East coast of Australia. The largest cities (see Figure 1) are Sydney (4.58 million people.), Melbourne (4.08 million people), Brisbane (1.07 million people) and Canberra (358,600 people) (ABS, 2011). The water supply storage for these cities is located in the nearby mountain ranges and brought to the metropolitan areas through large distribution water pipes. The urban fringe areas, rural locations and the outback have limited reticulated water supply and often rely on capturing roof water, farm dam water and bore water for their water supply. The roof water in these regions provides the principal potable water supply, whilst farm dam and bore water are often used to meet non-potable requirements and for livestock (ABS, 2010). Historically, this has been different in the urban areas where potable and non-potable supply demands are met with a reticulated water supply. A shift has occurred in the Australian Water industry as a result of population growth, the worst drought in living memory (Horstman, 2007) and a desire to become more sustainable. Total Water Cycle Management has gained momentum in Australia and new property developments must consider all aspects of the water cycle, including water supply, waste water treatment, stormwater control and water quality control of all discharges and supplies (Argue, 2004; Argue & Pezzaniti, 2009; Barton & Argue, 2009; Hardy, 2009; Hardy et al., 2003; Wong, 2006b, c; Wong et al., 2008; Wong & Brown, 2009). Rainwater tanks are being installed in urban areas, resulting in an increase resilience of the cities to droughts and a reduction of mains water demand. These rainwater tank installations are encouraged in various Development Control Plans (DCPs), through state legislation, such as the NSW Building and Sustainability Index (BASIX Sustainability Unit, 2009), and by providing rebates (Blacktown City Council, 2006; Blue Mountains City Council, 2005; Gardiner & Hardy, 2005; Ku-ring-gai Council, 2005; Penrith City Council, 2010). The reasons for installing a rainwater tank in Australia include reducing mains water costs, helping the environment, irrigating the garden and because it was mandatory when the house was built (ABS, 2010; Blackburn et al., 2010; White, 2010)

Water Reuse in Europe - Relevant guidelines, needs for and barriers to innovation

An EU regulatory instrument for water reuse is planned to be developed by 2015, in order to find innovative solutions to the challenges of ensuring water supply for urban, industrial and agriculture use. Despite the water reuse applications already developed in many countries, a number of barriers still prevent the widespread implementation of water reuse around Europe and on a global scale. These barriers will have to be overcome. This JRC Science and Policy Report analyses the technical, environmental and socioeconomic challenges to the option of water reuse as a means of ensuring sufficient supply to meet the growing needs of society. It presents and compares the most relevant national and international guidelines on water reuse, evaluates existing water reuse standards in EU Member States, presents a risk-based management approach for wastewater reuse, and identifies the areas that require technological and regulatory innovation as well as the barriers to be overcome.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

A biodiversity jigsaw: A review of current New Zealand legislation and initiatives

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review the current legislation and initiatives surrounding biodiversity management, protection and sustainable use related to the New Zealand local government sector. Design/methodology/approach: This paper takes the form of an archival review of the academic databases, legislation and biodiversity related websites to ascertain the current legislation and initiatives in place in New Zealand surrounding biodiversity. Findings: The paper found biodiversity to be managed through a combination of legislation, national policies, strategies, trusts and contestable funds. The majority of biodiversity protection on private land is the responsibility of the 78 local authorities that comprise the local government sector through their administration of the Resource Management Act 1991. Despite the legislative requirement to protect and manage biodiversity the paper confirmed that no statutory framework currently exists to guide biodiversity reporting. Research limitations/implications: This study is limited to New Zealand biodiversity related legislation and initiatives. As such it may not necessarily be applicable to any other jurisdictions. Practical implications:This review illustrates the difficulty that exists in navigating the disjointed legislation and other initiatives relating to biodiversity. This currently hinders the development of framework for reporting on biodiversity by local government. However the development of such a framework is crucial to the conservation and sustainable use of New Zealand’s unique biodiversity for the benefit of current and future generations. Originality/value: This paper adds to the limited literature in the field of biodiversity reporting and extends it to the local government sector in New Zealand

Comment on "Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality" by M. Schriks, M.B. Heringa, M.M.E. van der Kooi, P. de Voogt and A.P. van Wezel [Water Research 44 (2010) 461-476]

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in Water Research. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2011 Elsevier B.V.No abstract available

Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future directions

Despite the recognised importance of private land for biodiversity conservation, there has been little research into systems of private protected areas at a country-wide level. Here I look at definitions, legislation, ownership, management approaches and effectiveness, distribution and incentives provided to private protected areas in Australia. The term \u27private protected areas\u27, although increasingly used, still suffers from a lack of a clear and concise definition in Australia. Australian states and territories have legislation enabling the application of conservation covenants over private land; covenants being the primary mechanism to secure conservation intent on the title of the land in perpetuity. If considering all \u27in perpetuity\u27 conservation covenants under a dedicated program to be private protected areas and land owned by non-government organisations and managed for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, there were approximately 5,000 terrestrial properties that could be considered private protected areas in Australia covering 8,913,000 ha as at September 2013. This comprises almost 4,900 conservation covenants covering over 4,450,000 ha and approximately 140 properties owned by private land trusts covering approximately 4,594,120 ha. Most conservation covenanting programs now seek to complement the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of the public reserve system, either stating so explicitly or by aiming to protect the highest priority ecosystems on private land. There are a range of incentives offered for private land conservation and requirements of owners of private protected areas to report on their activities vary in Australia. However, there are a number of key policy challenges that need to be addressed if private protected areas are to achieve their full potential in Australia, including managing broad-scale ecosystem processes, protection and tenure reform, improved financial incentives, and access to emerging ecosystem service markets

A review of Australian approaches for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition: I. International context and evaluation criteria

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd Given the immeasurable value of estuaries and their severe and growing pressures, sound understanding and reporting of estuarine condition is essential for their effective management and sustainable development. In light of this, we aim to provide a timely and comprehensive three-part review of the approaches currently employed for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition, focussing on Australian systems. Here, in Part 1, we establish the national and international context of our review and define globally-relevant evaluation criteria against which to assess Australian progress. We achieve this by examining effective monitoring, assessment and reporting programs from around the world and characterising ‘best practice’. We then highlight the Australian historical context and consider recent policies, frameworks, guidelines and legislation relating to the monitoring and reporting of estuarine condition nationwide

Turning back the tide - the invasive species challenge

Terms of reference Preface On 26 March 2003 the Senate agreed to the recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee in its Report No. 4 of 2003 that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002 be referred to the Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2003. It was subsequently agreed that there was merit in a more comprehensive examination of the general topic of the regulation, control and management of invasive species, and accordingly on 26 June 2003 the Senate agreed to refer the Bill to the Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for examination in conjunction with a broad inquiry into invasive species with the following terms of reference: (1) The regulation, control and management of invasive species, being non-native flora and fauna that may threaten biodiversity, with particular reference to: (a) the nature and extent of the threat that invasive species pose to the Australian environment and economy; (b) the estimated cost of different responses to the environmental issues associated with invasive species, including early eradication, containment, damage mitigation and inaction, with particular focus on: the following pests: (A)  European fox (Vulpes vulpes), (B)  yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes), (C)  fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), (D)  cane toad (Bufo marinus), and (E)  feral cat (Felis catus) and pig (Sus scrofa), and the following weeds: (A)  mimosa (Mimosa pigra), (B)  serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), (C)  willows (Salix spp.), (D)  lantana (Lantana camara), (E)  blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.), and (F)  parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeata); (c) the adequacy and effectiveness of the current Commonwealth, state and territory statutory and administrative arrangements for the regulation and control of invasive species; (d) the effectiveness of Commonwealth-funded measures to control invasive species; and (e) whether the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002 could assist in improving the current statutory and administrative arrangements for the regulation, control and management of invasive species

A whole of water approach for the city of Sydney

Urban water managers and policy makers are struggling with the challenge of transitioning to an approach that considers a whole of urban water approach, where water planning and the urban form are considered in an integrated manner. The recent drive for liveable cities, where water is used to enhance the urban landscape through reuse and stormwater management, has seen a shift in focus. This has brought a number of challenges to bear on institutions charged with water planning and management at strategic, tactical and operational levels. Five central challenges have emerged from the research undertaken by ISF, viz.: a) Legislations and regulations that are prescriptive, overlapping and inconsistent, b) Economic and financial systems that are restrictive and traditional, c) Planning that is uncoordinated and non-collaborative, d) Organisational and professional cultures that are siloed and inflexible, e) Citizens engagement that is uncoordinated, technical and uninspiring. Drawing on the approach adopted by the City of Sydney, the paper will illustrate how a number of these challenges were overcome by local council in their attempt to achieve liveability goals, make the city more resilient to climate change, and reduce pollution levels in the water ways and harbour. The City undertook a consultative process to develop a decentralised water master plan that would both drive and guide future recycling, stormwater management, and pollution control initiatives. Six transferrable lessons and enabling actions were identified that will have relevance to other cities and urban planners aiming to achieve a whole water approach and liveable cities