HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (STORMWATER HARVESTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 173.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (23:30): I advise that government members will not be supporting this bill. This government is committed to increasing the state's water security, but this bill will not do it. Instead, it simply increases the reporting required by the Stormwater Management Authority—an authority established in July 2007—so that state and local government sectors could work cooperatively to ensure maximum outcomes from funds invested in stormwater management. The government is continually looking at ways in which to secure the state's water security through a variety of methods and has already committed to developing stormwater harvesting projects. What this bill does is focus on increasing expenditure on stormwater harvesting works, but increasing spending on stormwater harvesting does not necessarily increase water savings. It is much more complex than that.

The Stormwater Management Authority has already prepared integrated stormwater management plans. The authority is the first of its kind in this state and the existing legislation promotes catchment-wide multi-objective stormwater planning and management for purposes such as flood risk mitigation, environmental outcomes and use. The legislation also enables funds to be used to carry out works and prepare stormwater management plans. The 2005 Waterproofing Adelaide strategy set out to increase South Australia's stormwater reuse to 20,000 megalitres; and we are well on track to reach or even exceed this target.

Waterproofing Northern Adelaide and the Metropolitan Adelaide Stormwater Project are examples of current initiatives being implemented in conjunction with the private sector. This bill acknowledges that stormwater harvesting and treatment can be expensive and seeks additional funding from the Land Management Corporation. The state government has already provided significant funding of $4 million per year indexed over 30 years to the Stormwater Management Authority and SA Water has committed a further $2 million this year to provide seed funding for feasibility studies for a range of stormwater reuse projects that have been recommended for funding approval through the authority. To date $5.5 million has been approved for 25 projects worth $13.5 million.

Aside from the complexities of treatment and reuse, stormwater is incredibly important to the natural environment for a variety of reasons. For example, flows into the River Torrens are important for refreshing the environment and for insects, fish and biota in the river that have survived the summer. Additionally, some flow must reach the sea to trigger, for example, the spawning of certain fish species. It is important to remember that stormwater is not just simply being wasted. It has an important role to play in the environment, as well. It is important to be realistic about the challenges involved in efficient and responsible reuse of urban stormwater. Stormwater treatment can be costly, so we need to determine the cost effectiveness of projects to treat stormwater against water savings in order to adequately determine the viability of any scheme. We also need to ensure that stormwater reuse does not inadvertently cause environmental harm. Unfortunately, this bill does not add any more to what is already in place and increases reporting loads and duplicates existing policy. It may actually deter local government from being involved in stormwater harvesting.

I reiterate that while this bill is, I am sure, well intended, we do not believe that it will increase the state's water security. In fact, it may cause unforeseen negative consequences. The government will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (23:33): On behalf of the opposition, I rise to speak to all three bills proposed by the honourable member. The opposition wholeheartedly endorses the principles behind what the honourable member is attempting to do. As all members would be aware, at the beginning of the winter rainfall season—sadly, we have not had a spring rainfall season so we are suffering from not only no stormwater but also a bad season for our farmers—the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith) launched our stormwater policy. We made a commitment to develop a broader ranging policy for stormwater capture and treatment, and aquifer injection and reuse, than the government has in place.

The government in its Waterproofing Adelaide strategy to which the Hon. Mr Hunter referred identified in 2002 that by 2007 the River Murray would not be sufficient to support Adelaide. Here we are in 2008. The government's strategy five or six years ago pointed out that we would run out of water, but it did nothing to move to protect the community. That is why we are now having the desalination plant that the opposition also proposed, which is one of a number of our policies that the government has picked up.

We support wholeheartedly the principle but do echo some of the concerns that have been raised by the government; that is, we should be looking at whole of catchments and maybe small stormwater harvesting and aquifer reuse projects such as the honourable member is suggesting for a minimum of 20 allotments. However, if we look at the government's proposed residential code of a minimum allotment size of 350 square metres, we are talking about 0.7 of a hectare of built area, plus a bit of road space. We are talking about very small parcels of that land on which this bill requires developers to install stormwater harvesting and aquifer recharge and reuse schemes.

While the opposition supports the principle of capturing stormwater and reusing it, it may well be better to look at a whole of catchment approach and take a much broader view. Our policy is to capture the stormwater, put it through a wetland, reinject it into an aquifer, and then bring it back out of the aquifer in a potable form and use it as potable water, similar to the way in which water is being harvested by the Salisbury council and the work that Colin Pitman has done. While that water is not being used for potable uses, it could easily be put back into the system and used for human consumption.

We see some difficulties with the honourable member's legislation, but we acknowledge all the good ideas that it brings. His bill is about having developments dual plumbed so that the water which is stored in the aquifer is used for second-grade water, shall we say. The opposition thinks that may be detrimental to its policy, notwithstanding the fact that we support broadly what the honourable member is trying to achieve but believe that it is probably better to look at things on a whole of catchment basis. It may well be that small aquifer storage and recovery projects such as what the honourable member is proposing may fit in certain catchments where it may be the best way to manage stormwater. It also may be better in small developments to require developers to have a flood retention dam so as to release water into the stream at a slow enough rate so that it can go through a wetland further downstream, be captured and reinjected back into an aquifer.

One of the concerns the honourable member's legislation raises is that, if there is not a suitable aquifer below the development, what does a developer do if it is not possible, considering that this bill compels the developer to do that work? The Hon. Mr Hunter mentioned the Stormwater Management Authority. I do not think its charter is the right charter. When we debated the bill, its charter was mainly focused on flood mitigation and protecting properties from inundation, rather than stormwater harvesting and aquifer storage and reuse.

I remember in the debate that, while people viewed that as probably part of the picture, it certainly was not the charter of the Stormwater Management Authority. It was more about protecting property and getting rid of the water as quickly as possible and getting it out to sea. I do not want to disappoint the honourable member. We see some positives and we are certainly happy to support this bill at the second reading stage because we think that debate is important and we want to encourage good ideas, but I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting it at the third reading.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (23:39): The Greens will be supporting the second reading of this bill. I will speak briefly to this bill and I will not speak to the other two bills on the Notice Paper relating to stormwater harvesting in the interest of efficiency. A couple of years ago in this place, we passed legislation dealing with stormwater harvesting only to see it languish in another place. I have a number of bills in the pipeline—no pun intended—that also deal with stormwater harvesting, and I will be bringing those to this place. This is a very important topic and I congratulate the member for bringing these bills to us.

Members may recall that, a couple of months ago, I released a report that I commissioned by Sustainable Focus with Richard Clark and Associates entitled 'Report on sustainable water options for Adelaide'. A large part of that report was focused on the opportunities for stormwater harvesting. To give a couple of basic statistics, the Waterproofing Adelaide information tells us that the combined stormwater harvesting and waste water reuse is around five gigalitres per annum; however, total stormwater and waste water flow, as estimated by Waterproofing Adelaide, is 230 gigalitres per annum. That shows that there is a massive potential to reuse that water.

The most important thing about both stormwater and waste water is that they are sources of water that are generated in almost direct proportion to the growth in population and development. That means that they have an intrinsic sustainability in relation to their future availability as potential water supply sources. The run-off from Adelaide now is vastly more than it was before it was developed, and this is a result of the hard surfaces—the roads, the roofs and the development.

The other point to note is that the aquifers (and other members have mentioned the relationship between stormwater and aquifers, because clearly aquifer storage is an important part of stormwater reuse) are spatially distributed over a wide area of central and western Adelaide, in particular. That means that we can and should spatially distribute aquifer recharge bores across the extent of the aquifer. That leads itself to a decentralised rather than a centralised system, and anyone who has read the Productivity Commission's report on urban water would know that the concept of economies of scale that we have, until now, assumed applied to water systems do not in fact deliver the savings that one would imagine. A decentralised system is the way to go in the future.

The total capacity of the tertiary aquifers underlying the Adelaide plain is uncertain, but it is estimated that it may be up to 100 times the capacity of the Mount Lofty Ranges storages—100 times more water can be stored under Adelaide than can be stored in the Adelaide Hills with the advantage, of course, that there is no evaporation for water stored in the aquifer.

The other point to make is (and the consultant's report to which I referred notes) that we will never recover 100 per cent of all stormwater. The Hon. Ian Hunter's comment suggested that there were some good ecological reasons why one would not want to, and I was interested to hear what he said; however, the biodiversity values of the trapezoidal Sturt Drain are very low and the need for environmental flows along that concrete is pretty minimal. Richard Clark, one of the authors of the report, estimates that we could capture 70 per cent of the stormwater and could recycle 95 per cent of our waste water.

The feasibility of storing large quantities of water in the aquifers beneath Adelaide is, as I have said, the key to the reuse of both stormwater and waste water but it brings a range of other benefits as well, not least of which is in terms of mitigating flood damage. Recent trials by the CSIRO have shown that aquifers can be used for water treatment and transmission as well as for storage. Water of potable standard was extracted from an aquifer at Parafield which had previously been recharged by stormwater and that had only been treated, before injection, by passing it through a wetland. The recovered water exceeded drinking water standards and was bottled as drinking water for publicity purposes. The ability to recharge in one location and recover the water in another offers the potential for water trading between rechargers and users without the need for linking pipelines, so there are economies to be gained there.

I asked the consultants to come up with a methodology for all the different water security options for Adelaide and put them in some sort of priority order. They looked at all the traditional and anticipated sources of water—whether it be taking more water from the River Murray or building a desalination plant—and assessed all these options against the following criteria.

They looked at the reliability of services and how affordable they were and whether the technology was currently available or merely a future possibility. They looked at the implications for human health and whether each water option would protect Adelaide from flood damage. They looked at environment protection issues both upstream and in-stream. They looked at downstream environmental impacts, and they considered the greenhouse implications.

What the consultants came up with, on a point system, was a points rating for stormwater harvesting of 41 out of 50. It achieved that result, particularly in relation to its affordability, because it is a relatively inexpensive way of providing fresh water. The consultants estimated the cost to be between 10 ¢ a kilolitre and $1.50 a kilolitre compared with up to $2 a kilolitre for desalination.

So, when we put stormwater reuse in a matrix with the other possible uses of water, the consultants found that Adelaide could be self-sufficient in water without relying on one drop of water from the River Murray, without building a desalination plant, without extracting existing groundwater resources and without increasing the storage capacity in the Mount Lofty Ranges, such as the Mount Bold expansion. So, putting zero litres next to all of those, there was still sufficient water for not just Adelaide today but Adelaide with a growing population as envisaged by the State Strategic Plan. The consultants estimated that we could be getting 60 gigalitres per annum from stormwater harvesting. On that basis, I am very keen for us to explore any measures that promote stormwater harvesting.

I agree with the Hon. David Ridgway when he said that there are some issues in relation to these bills that we might need to fine tune but, overall, the concept that we should be relying more on the water that falls on Adelaide and, in my view, less on trying to manufacture fresh water from the sea is a very sound proposition. I am pleased to support the second reading.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (23:48): I thank all members for their contribution. There are three bills, so I will speak on the second reading closure to the first bill. I am disappointed that the lead speaker for the government basically straight out said that it will not support this bill, even though he admitted that it was well intentioned.

There is nothing more important for South Australia's future than a water supply, and one which allows us to wean most of Adelaide's water supply off water from the River Murray—not all of it, because that is not possible, and it would not be in the best interests of the state, because we would probably end up not getting sufficient irrigation water or environmental flow, either. However, as my colleague the Hon. Mr Parnell said, we could be almost independent of the River Murray if we were to get serious. We have to do a lot more.

Both of the major parties have a drought proofing Adelaide policy. One party rebadges it with a slightly different name, but both the major parties are saying, 'Hey; we've got to do something. We've got to have a waterproofing Adelaide and metropolitan area strategy.' We have introduced something in this place, and I am happy to see amendments moved in the committee stage. Fine tune it, for sure, but let us get on with it. All that seems to happen with water is talk and then knee-jerk reaction stuff.

The opposition came up with a desalination plant because the then leader of the opposition flew over to WA and had a look there, where, I might add, they have extremely different circumstances from those in South Australia. The government then said, 'No; we're not going down that track at all.' The government was just hoping that it would rain. It did not rain, so the government went on with the desal plant. How ad hoc is that? Where is a systematic, well planned water strategy?

The situation is that there are opportunities. Look at what Colin Pitman has done. For over 10 years, I have watched with interest what is going on out there in the Salisbury council area and beyond. Some fantastic and vital work is being done there, and it can be duplicated. You have to start somewhere.

This bill primarily locks in governments of the future, and this is why both the major parties do not like this, as I see it at the moment. I would love to sit down with both the major parties before we go into committee to try to work through it a bit more and see whether we can come up with some amendments that we can all agree on to get things going.

The major parties do not like having to have quarantined, transparent, locked-away money to provide vital infrastructure and opportunity. They are both the same when it comes to that. They like to be able to have general revenue, money coming in, to be able to provide for things that they think are important at the time. But, again, that is ad hoc. It might help for a term to get into government or to get back into government but it does not help the sustainability of the state.

I want to refresh the memories of honourable members briefly about this first bill which creates a plan for the government to spend the equivalent of 10 per cent of revenue from the Land Management Corporation's land sales on stormwater harvesting projects. We hear the honourable leader of government business in this council talk about the importance of planning for future subdivision—25 years, in fact—and I commend him for that. That is a great long-term initiative and we should have that sort of planning, but the south is an example right now. You go down there when parliament adjourns tomorrow and have a look.

The Land Management Corporation has either sold out or has a joint venture with development partners and, almost without exception, with that land that is being developed, the pipelines are going into creeks and the water is running straight out to the sea. Surely, it is not a big ask. You also have to lead by example. If we get this through, we are going to lock in developers to this, and I will talk about the greenfield sites later on. However, when it comes to the Land Management Corporation, 10 per cent of revenue going towards stormwater harvesting projects can help local government. Through the Liberal government, in particular, local government bodies had huge cuts in infrastructure support for stormwater and recycled aquifer storage and recovery opportunities. Those cuts were made; the money has not gone back into that, and local government is desperate.

Mayor Felicity Lewis of Marion would love to undertake a wetlands aquifer storage and recovery project in Marion where the motorbike training and development area is near the Warradale Army Barracks, but no money is available from the state government. This gives an opportunity for that money to be put into a quarantine pool to assist with this type of thing. Local government, in my opinion, has been the undoubted leader in stormwater harvesting in this state, yet people like Colin Pittman are almost ridiculed, or at best discounted, regarding their knowledge and what they have been able to deliver. The need to support local government is urgent.

This package of reforms links hand in glove with the debate on the River Murray. People all along the Murray have been signing petitions in support of stormwater harvesting (I am collating those petitions at the moment) because they realise that Adelaide needs to reduce its take from the Murray. By the way, for all that Land Management Corporation land being developed at the moment, guess where the water supply is coming from right now—the River Murray! We do not even have the water in the River Murray. These people have less sympathy for Adelaide gardens than metropolitan residents have because of the fact that they are under such severe restrictions.

I refer to some important data here. I thank my colleagues for being tolerant tonight because I know it is late but, to Family First, alternative water supplies are really important for the future of the state. In an average year, the River Murray provides 80 gigalitres (30 per cent) of Adelaide's water and 180 gigalitres (79 per cent) in drought years. Studies have shown that population growth in Adelaide between 2001 and 2031, which is what the leader of government business has been talking about in relation to planning, will account for an increased water demand of another 13 per cent.

The State Strategic Plan is to increase Adelaide's population to two million by 2050. Desalination will supposedly deliver 50 gigalitres per annum. The cost of providing desalinated water could be in the order of $4 to $6 per kilolitre. It is acknowledged that part of the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy are the Kondoparinga and North Para catchments, which are estimated to yield 12.7 gigalitres per annum at a cost of only $1.55 per kilolitre—as against $4 to $6 for desalinated water—for the Finniss River, and $2.40 per kilolitre for the North Para River. So, the cheapest of those three options—all three of which supposedly this government is investigating—is $1.55 per kilolitre, and all those options together will deliver (supposedly) 62.7 gigalitres per annum.

Let us now consider stormwater harvesting. Long-term modelling of stormwater flows indicate that there may be up to 174 gigalitres per year available for capture, storage and reuse in the Adelaide metropolitan area. I ask honourable members to absorb the next piece of this information that I and Family First see as crucial. The Finniss River, at $1.55 per kilolitre, is the cheapest delivery of water to Adelaide, and let us set aside for a moment, if we may, the environmental risks of those projects.

The average cost for aquifer storage recovery for urban stormwater, when analysed across eight different projects in Adelaide, is $1.12 per kilolitre. That is between 30 per cent to 50 per cent of the cost of producing water from a desalination plant, depending on which study you believe, and it uses 3 per cent of the energy that you are going to use in a desalination plant.

Turning now, more specifically, to the subject matter of this spiel, I want to continue on the theme of costs as they relate to local government. In 1994, in the Salisbury council area (in the Premier's electorate) the first aquifer recharge bore was trialled. New residential subdivisions in the past 10 years have been required to install wetlands to contain stormwater, which is what we are talking about in these spiels, and now the City of Salisbury has significant wetlands that not only promote biodiversity but they deliver for the environment and they deliver, of course, water.

A recent wetlands project at the Parafield Airport catchment—and I have been out there and seen it with a now federal Labor MP when he was mayor; I went with him and had a good look at it, and he is committed and passionate about this—provides 1,000 megalitres of water to Michell's for wool processing. That is one gigalitre per annum. Before that, that wool processing plant was relying on fully treated mains water to process the wool. Now waste water is supplied directly from the wetlands and the excess from that goes into aquifer storage.

Throughout metropolitan Adelaide there are 22 operational projects, and they are injecting 2,000 megalitres per year of treated stormwater into various aquifers throughout Adelaide. All of these, I understand, have been generated by local government—the whole lot by councils. Five more are in the planning stages, which will increase the injection volumes to about 3,900 megalitres per year.

The government's Waterproofing Adelaide strategy includes provision for increasing rain water and stormwater use from an estimated two gigalitres per annum in 2002 to 20 gigalitres per annum by 2025, but the government says it will not support this bill—it has these goals but no way of driving them.

Look at the maths of this: desalination, 50 gigalitres; North Para and Finniss, 12.7 gigalitres; and stormwater harvesting, 20 gigalitres. That adds up to a total of 82.7 gigalitres, yet the potential, on the science, is up to 174 gigalitres available from stormwater harvesting. If we got serious about this, if the government got serious about supporting local government's great work, we could double what Waterproofing Adelaide intends to deliver.

The government should look to Israel for inspiration. I will provide some quick data on this. When I went to Israel 10 years or so ago, I saw this and I have been passionate about it ever since, because it is equally dry but more difficult, in many ways, to be able to address stormwater harvesting than a lot of Adelaide. Israel uses an average of 1,785 gigalitres to sustain 10 million people. On that figure alone, you can see that they are far more water efficient than we are. Their water shortage is far worse than Australia's, with the Jordan River significantly more degraded than the River Murray. Israel is one of the highest users of reclaimed waste water in the world. In fact, about 80 per cent of the total water generated is wastewater.

An estimated 455 gigalitres of water is recharged into their aquifers, and it is being extracted very quickly. The quantity captured is estimated at 160 gigalitres per year. Israel also provides all its fruit, vegetables and market gardening bowl from that water. I have seen it first hand. I believe that this is a good bill, and I look forward to further debate during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT