ABCD - Department for Environment and Water · ABCD © 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a...

ABCD

© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved.

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Office for Water Security

Water demand and supply scenarios for Greater Adelaide

and the Water Security Plan

Government 3 June 2009

This report contains 112 pages

ABCD Office for Water Security

Water demand and supply scenarios for Greater Government3 June 2009

i© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent

member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved. The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Acknowledgments

The assistance provided by SA Water, specifically Paul Doherty, in providing supply data and information is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance and input from the following staff within the Office for Water Security is also specifically acknowledged: • Linda Carruthers • Rachel Barratt • Andy McPharlin • Laura Phipps



ii© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



Glossary

Adaptive management Adaptive management is defined for the purpose of this report as a structured, iterative process of optimal decision making in the face of uncertainty, with the aim to reduce that uncertainty over time via system monitoring

Algal bloom A rapid accumulation of algal biomass (living organic matter) that can result in deterioration in water quality when the algae die and break down, consuming the dissolved oxygen and releasing toxins.

Available yield In this report the ‘available yield’ refers to the quantity of water (from a storage) that is available for supply after evaporation has been taken into account.

Catchment The area of land determined by topographic features within which rainfall will contribute to run off at a particular point.

Demand The expected average annual future water demand

Desalination The process of removing salt from seawater or brackish water so that it becomes suitable for drinking or other uses

Environmental Flow The streamflow required to maintain appropriate environmental conditions in a waterway

Environmental flow release

Release from a water storage intended to maintain appropriate environmental conditions in a waterway

Greenfield development New urban development area

Ground water Water occurring naturally below ground level or water pumped, diverted and released into a well for storage underground

Inflows Water flowing into a storage or a river

Irrigation The application of water to cultivated land or open space to promote the growth of vegetation.

Licence A licence to take water granted under the Natural Resources Management (SA) Act 2004

Murray Darling Basin Catchment for the Murray and Darling Rivers and their many tributaries



iii© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



Recycled water Water derived from sewerage systems or industry processes that is treated to a standard appropriate for its intended use.

Runoff Precipitation or rainfall which flows from a catchment area into streams, lakes, rivers or reservoirs

Sewage The waterborne waste of a community

Sewer mining The localised harvesting of sewage that is treated to a safe level as required for a particular use.

Sewerage system The pipes and plant for the collection, removal and treatment of sewage

Streamflow The flow in a stream or river

Stormwater Rainfall runoff from urban areas

Triple Bottom Line Integrated approach to the achievement of environmental, social and economic outcomes

Yield The quantity of water that a storage or aquifer reliably produces measured over a long period of time.

Abbreviations

DWLBC The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation

MAWSS Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply System

MLR Mount Lofty Ranges

NRM Natural Resource Management

WPA Water Proofing Adelaide



iv© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



Executive Summary

This report provides a range of possible demand and supply futures to guide planning and decisions in relation to water security for the Greater Adelaide region to 2050. The report has been prepared as part of the Water Security Plan for South Australia (the Plan) and underpins the demand and supply and adaptive management sections of the Plan. The report provides a number of core assumptions which have then used to provide a range of possible demand and supply futures for the Greater Adelaide region. The key points from this work are summarised as follows:

• In 2008 the Greater Adelaide region used around 163 GL/annum of mains water. This represents approximately 74 per cent of South Australia’s total mains water consumption for the same period1;

• The combination of permanent water conservation measures, demand management actions and water restrictions have reduced consumption in the Greater Adelaide region in 2008 by an estimated 50 GL;

• This report assumes that permanent water conservation measures remain in place and the actions in Water Proofing Adelaide that reduce mains water use in the Greater Adelaide region are fully executed;

• Over the period to 2050 population growth is expected to have a major impact on water demand in the Greater Adelaide region. Possible demand and supply futures for the Greater Adelaide region have been modelled using the same population growth projections as the [draft] Plan for Greater Adelaide, agreed to by the South Australian Government in 2008, that is:

• South Australia’s population is projected to reach 2.2 million by 2036. The population for the Greater Adelaide region is projected to reach 1.85 million by 2036;

• To take population growth out to 2050 this report uses a straight line continuation of projections between 2006 and 2036; and

• On this basis population growth for South Australia is expected to reach 2.49 million in 2050. The population for Greater Adelaide is expected to reach 2.08 million.

• On 12 May 2009 the Australian Government committed $228 million in additional funding to the Adelaide Desalination Plant. This funding enables the plant’s capacity to increase from 50 GL per annum to 100 GL per annum.

1 Approximately 75 per cent of all SA Water mains water supply for the State (sourced from PD). Total SA Water consumption for 2008 = 218 GL, therefore 163/218 = 0.74*100%.



v© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



• This report assumes 50 GL/year of desalination water will be available in the supply system for mains water use from 2011, with the full 100 GL per annum commencing from 2013;

• Climate change is expected to affect demand and supply in the Greater Adelaide region over the period by increasing temperatures and reducing inflows to the supply system. As agreed with the Office for Water Security and SA Water climate change impacts rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios A2 and B2 as follows:

• The A2 emissions scenario results in some of the highest carbon emissions and climate change impacts;

• The B2 emissions scenario results in significantly lower carbon emissions, compared to the A2 storyline; and

• Both storylines are provided in more detail in section 2.2.2.

• There is also a risk in any given year over the period to 2050 of reduced water supplies due to dry year or drought conditions.

• Using these base assumptions scenarios were modelled for the Plan taking into account the following three variables dry year event, climate change and additional measures to reduce demand and increase supply from the Plan. This work provides the following scenario graphs showing the demand and supply balance for the Greater Adelaide region:

• Scenario 1: Moderate and extreme drought and climate change

• Moderate dry year event equivalent to available Mount Lofty Ranges (MLR) inflows of 35 GL/annum in any given year and moderate climate change (gradual reduction of 41 per cent on available MLR flows based on IPCC A2 climate scenario and increased demand of 5 per cent based on IPCC B2 climate scenario);

• Extreme dry year event equivalent to available MLR flows in any given year of 18 GL/annum storages and harsher climate change impacts (gradual reduction of 41 per cent on inflows over the period to 2050 based on A2 climate scenario and a 17 per cent increase in demand based on the IPCC A2 climate scenario).

• Scenario 2: Actions from the Plan added to the two dry year events in scenario one above as follows:

• assumptions as per scenario one above plus an additional

• 50 GL/annum by 2050 from demand mitigation; and

• 40 GL from alternative supplies from 2025 to 2050.



vi© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



• In an extreme dry year scenario the effect of the 100 GL/year desalination plant adds around 16 years of supply2. In a moderate dry year and climate change scenario the desalination plant adds 25 years of supply to the mains water system.

• The Plan outlines additional actions to reduce demand by a further 50 GL per annum and increase alternative water supplies by an additional 40 GL between 2025 and 2050. If fully implemented these actions enable the demand and supply balance to remain in surplus for any given year for the Greater Adelaide region to 2050.

• The adaptive management framework developed for the Plan takes into account the risks to demand and supply that could arise from a worsening of climate change, prolonged drought and changes to population growth.

• The adaptive management framework and the use of triggers enables the Government to manage uncertainty in the future. Regular monitoring of the demand and supply balance against a set of water security standards enables risks to be anticipated, planned for and mitigated against.

• This approach helps avoid the consequences of over or under investment in providing water security and will be supported by a planning process that includes robust business case development to underpin decision making on options.

2 Based on earlier extreme dry year event and climate change with only a 50 GL desalination plant the balance went into a deficit in 2013. The 16 years = 2029 – 2013.



vii© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



Contents

1 Introduction 10 1.1 Background to the Report 10 1.2 Purpose 12 1.3 Scope of the engagement 12 1.4 Approach 13 1.4.1 Data sources 13 1.5 Outline of this report 14

2 Supply availability 15 2.1 Water available to the Greater Adelaide region 15 2.1.1 Natural water systems 15 2.1.2 Non potable supplies including stormwater, recycled water and

rainwater tanks 17 2.1.3 Desalinated water 18 2.2 Impacts on future water supplies 18 2.2.1 Drought 18 2.2.2 Climate change 22 2.2.3 Other supply impacts considered 24

3 Demand 26 3.1 Water consumption in the Greater Adelaide region 26 3.1.1 Household consumption 27 3.1.2 Non residential consumption 28 3.2 Demand drivers considered for the scenarios 28 3.3 Population growth 28 3.4 Climate change impacts on demand 28 3.5 Demand mitigation measures 29 3.5.1 Existing measures 29 3.5.2 New measures 31

4 A range of possible futures 35 4.1 Assumptions 35 4.1.1 Geographical area 35 4.1.2 Supply 35 4.1.3 Demand 36 4.2 Possible futures 37 4.2.1 Scenario 1: Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate

change with no further water security measures 37 4.2.2 Scenario 2: Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate

change with actions from the Plan 39 4.2.3 Impact from a reduction in the River Murray Licence 41



viii© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



5 Demand measures assessment framework 44 5.1 Assessment approach 44 5.2 Analysis of results 47 5.3 Further considerations 48 5.3.1 Data limitations 48 5.3.2 Demand modelling 49

6 Adaptive management framework – the use of triggers 50 6.1 Context 50 6.1.1 Principles 50 6.1.2 Interstate approaches 50 6.2 Adaptive management framework 52 6.3 Water Security Standards 53 6.4 State of the Resource 55 6.5 Trigger points 55 6.6 Governance 57 6.7 Decision making framework for this plan 57 6.8 Monitoring and measuring 58 6.9 Options and assessment 58

7 Implementation issues and future work 60 7.1 The value of information systems 60 7.2 Monitoring and reporting on the security plan 60

A South Australian Water Security – Draft chapter 62

B Data sheets for demand and supply 90

C Demand options 100 C.1 Key Assumptions 100 C.2 Assessment summaries 105



ix© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



Disclaimer Inherent Limitations This report has been prepared as outlined in the Scope Section. The services provided in connection with this engagement comprise an advisory engagement, which is not subject to assurance or other standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and, consequently no opinions or conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed.

The findings in this report are based on a qualitative study and the reported results reflect a perception of the key material examined and provided by the Office for Water Security but only to the extent of the information provided. Any projection in this report is subject to the level of bias in the method of sample selection and the information and data reviewed.

No warranty of completeness, accuracy or reliability is given in relation to the statements and representations made by, and the information and documentation provided by, the Office for Water Security consulted as part of the development of the demand and supply scenarios.

KPMG has indicated within this report the sources of the information provided. KPMG has not sought to independently verify those sources unless otherwise noted within the report.

KPMG is under no obligation in any circumstance to update this report, in either oral or written form, for events occurring after the report has been issued in final form. The findings in this report have been formed on the above basis.

Reference to ‘review’ throughout the report has not been used in the context of a review in accordance with assurance and other standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

Third Party Reliance

This report is solely for the purpose set out in the Scope Section and for the Office for Water Security’s information, and is not to be used for any other purpose or distributed to any other party without KPMG’s prior written consent.

This report has been prepared at the request of the Office for Water Security in accordance with the terms of KPMG’s contract dated 16 January 2009. Other than our responsibility to the Office for Water Security, neither KPMG nor any member or employee of KPMG undertakes responsibility arising in any way from reliance placed by a third party on this report. Any reliance placed is that party’s sole responsibility. We understand that this report may be provided to third parties. The third parties are not a party to our engagement contract with the Office for Water Security and, accordingly, may not place reliance on this report.

The third parties acknowledge that they are not a party to the engagement contract dated 16 January 2009 whereby KPMG has been engaged by the Office for Water Security to provide advice in relation the future demand and supply scenarios for the Greater Adelaide region and to report its findings to the Office for Water Security. Accordingly, the third parties acknowledge that they may not place reliance on the results and findings contained in this Report of the Office for Water dated April 2009. KPMG shall not be liable for any losses, claims, expenses, actions, demands, damages, liabilities or any other proceedings arising out of any reliance by the third parties on this Report dated April 2009.



10© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent



1 Introduction

1.1 Background to the Report The Office for Water Security (the Office), established in 2008, has the role of co-ordinating water policy development across Government and supporting negotiations with the Commonwealth on the National Plan for Water Security.

In 2008 the Office was tasked with developing a comprehensive Water Security Plan (the Plan) for South Australia. The Plan is expected to build on earlier work to manage water resources in the State and takes into account matters that have the potential to impact on demand and supply for the period to 2050:

• Projected population growth;

• climate change impacts; and

• drought.

The geographic area covered by this report and the demand supply projections is the Greater Adelaide region. The region includes all of the Mount Lofty Ranges (MLR) Natural Resource Management (NRM) boundaries and parts of the South Australia Murray Basin. The region covers an area where water demand to 2050 represents over 77 per cent of total demand for the State of South Australia. A map of the Greater Adelaide region including the Adelaide Hills, Barossa, Eastern Adelaide, , Northern Adelaide, Southern Adelaide Western Adelaide, Fleurieu and parts of Kangaroo Island regions is shown in Figure 1.

SA Water provides the major public water supply for Kangaroo Island, delivering on average 550 ML/annum to around 75 per cent of the Island’s population of 4,4003. Kangaroo Island is not included in the region for the Plan for the Greater Adelaide. For the purpose of this report, and taking into account the water supply connection to the SA Water supply system this report has included part of Kangaroo Island in the geographical boundary.

3 Kangaroo Island Natural Resource Management Board (December 2008) Draft Kangaroo Island Natural Resource Management Plan 2009 to 2019, State of the Region Part A






Figure 1: Regions covered by this report include Barossa, Adelaide Hills, Northern Adelaide, Southern Adelaide, Western Adelaide, Eastern Adelaide, parts of Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island serviced by SA Water

Source: Department of Planning and Local Government (December 2007) Map of South Australian Government Regions.






1.2 Purpose KPMG was engaged by the Office in January 2009 to assist develop future supply and demand planning for the Plan and related services.

This report describes the demand and supply work undertaken for the period to 2050 and the assumptions used. KPMG’s report is in six key parts as follows:

1 Describes the likely available water supply for the Greater Adelaide region;

2 Examines the future impacts on water demand for the region, taking into account drought and climate change;

3 Maps the demand and supply balance to 2050 under a range of possible futures;

4 Identifies and assesses a number of options to reduce water demand in the region;

5 Provides a suggested adaptive management framework to guide future water security planning; and

6 Identifies further information and data requirements aimed at enhancing the water security planning function.

1.3 Scope of the engagement The scope of KPMG’s engagement as outlined in the terms of reference is provided below:

• Outline supply/demand scenarios for Greater Adelaide including consideration of triggers for augmentation based on the outcomes of the following investigations:

– Desalination Working Group reports September and December 2007,

– the Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security (Tonkin Consulting studies 1, 2 and 3);

– Review for the Adelaide Desalination Plant Steering Committee of the Water Security Strategy for Adelaide and the Upper Spencer Gulf Desalination Plant (November and December 2008)

• Outline what is known and what further work is needed to provide a similar assessment for the rest of the State; and

• Provide options for demand reduction strategies in the urban, peri-urban, regional and rural contexts, including assessment of the relative benefits, costs and impacts to be achieved through the various demand reduction strategies.






The outcome of the engagement is:

• Draft demand and supply chapter (provided in Appendix A);

• Identification of demand options and an assessment process to compare the benefits and costs of the options;

• Adaptive management framework that includes trigger points and a review process; and

• Identification of further work required to roll out regional water plans across the remaining seven Natural Resource Management regions of South Australia.

This section outlines the approach used to model demand and supply scenarios for the region, and the adaptive management framework.

1.4 Approach In preparing the demand supply projections, and in accordance with the scope of the engagement, KPMG relied on existing reports and information, data sourced from SA Water and the Office.

In developing the report a number of studies provided useful information and background to the analysis. These are referenced throughout the report and appendices.

Limited external consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report in accordance with the terms of reference. Consultation was undertaken with nominated SA Water and the Department of Water, Land, Biodiversity and Conservation staff in the preparation of both demand mitigation actions and the demand-supply scenarios.

Reviews of the draft demand and supply chapter were undertaken by the Office during the engagement. Comments and amendments have been accepted. KPMG was provided with an early draft of the Plan by the Office in March 2009. The integration of Appendix A of this report with the Plan has been outside the scope of our engagement. For this reason KPMG takes no responsibility for inconsistencies that may arise between this report and the final Plan.

1.4.1 Data sources For this report KPMG relied upon third party data sources including, but not limited to, the following:

• SA Water network supply data for the Adelaide and MLR including historic data and projected data for the period 2008 to 2050;

• SA Water data on past and projected flow volumes from the River Murray and current licence information;






• SA Water drought impacted supply data based on two possible future events4:

• A one in 50 year dry year (extreme dry year event) or equivalent to the availability of 18 GL/annum from the MLR storages. The 18 GL/annum represents inflows to the MLR experienced in 2006, one of the worst years on record; and

• A one in 10 dry year event (moderate dry year event) or equivalent to the availability of 35 GL/annum of inflows from the MLR.

• SA Water climate reduced inflow data based on work undertaken by Tonkin Consulting, DWLBC and CSIRO that references work undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

• SA Water residential consumption and metering data by Local Government Area for the period 1997 to 30 June 2008;

• Department of Planning and Local Government population growth (2008 data source) the same as used for the Plan for Greater Adelaide; and

• Office data and information in relation to the desalination supply augmentations, demand mitigation targets and alternative supply volumes to be achieved under the Plan.

1.5 Outline of this report The following sections of the report have been prepared to address the terms of reference for KPMG’s engagement and cover:

• Section 2 describes the water supply situation for the Greater Adelaide region;

• Section 3 outlines the demand drivers that may impact on available water supplies in the region to 2050;

• Section 4 provides the projected water supply and demand balance under a range of different water futures for the Greater Adelaide region;

• Section 5 provides information on the demand management options identified and the multi criteria assessment process used to enable comparisons to be made across options;

• Section 6 outlines the adaptive management framework and the use of triggers; and

• Section 7 outlines areas for further consideration by the Office.

4 This approach is consistent with that used by Tonkin Consulting reports 1, 2 and 3 and confirmed with SA Water.






2 Supply availability The region’s water supply system in the past has offered a relatively high level of security for Adelaide and its surrounding regions. The South Australian Desalination Working Group in September 2007 noted that “Until recently Adelaide’s water supply system was viewed as being one of the most secure in Australia, with Adelaide having two separate water sources: the Mount Lofty Ranges and the River Murray5”.

This section describes the water supply currently available in the Greater Adelaide region.

2.1 Water available to the Greater Adelaide region The Greater Adelaide supply system is complex and offers a diversity of supply sources including:

• Rivers and Reservoirs;

• Groundwater

• Alternatives water supplies such as recycled water

• Rainwater and stormwater

The South Australian Government has announced that it will construct a desalination plant at Port Stanvac, south of Adelaide. The plant will supply up to 100 GL of water per annum. KPMG notes that first water will be available in 2010, with full supply by 20136. An initial 50 GL/annum of water will be available from 2011.

2.1.1 Natural water systems

2.1.1.1 MLR The MLR watershed covers an area of 1,640 km2, stretching along the eastern side of the Greater Adelaide region7. The metropolitan Adelaide water supply system (MAWSS) consists of a network of 10 major reservoirs located in the MLR watershed that are supplied by runoff from local catchments and water sourced from the River Murray via a number of pipelines. The MLR storages currently provide around 12 months supply8. Figure 2: shows the watershed and the major MLR reservoirs.

5 Desalination Working Group (September 2007), Final Report of the Desalination Working Group (Cabinet in Confidence) 6 On the advice of the Office for Water Security on (March 2009) 7 Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges (AMLR) Natural Resource Management Board (June 2008) State of the Region Report: Volume A 8 Desalination Working Group (September 2007), Final Report of the Desalination Working Group (Cabinet in Confidence)






Figure 2: Major reservoirs in the region

Source: AMLR Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board (June 2008) State of the Region Report, Figure 16






2.1.1.2 River Murray The River Murray water is supplied through major pipelines. Tonkin Consulting noted that there is a preference to use MLR water supplies for the MAWSS over the River Murray water9. Depending on seasonal conditions between 10 and 90 per cent of the mains water supply is met by the MLR storages, with an average of 60 per cent10.

The volume drawn from the River Murray each year varies. Table 1 shows that during years where there is lower than average rainfall the reliance on the River Murray as a water source increases substantially.

Table 1: Percentage reliance of total source of potable water for period 2002-03 to 2007-08

% of total source Source of potable water 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 River Murray 72 48 44 49 91 85 Surface water 22 45 50 45 3 8 Groundwater 6 7 6 6 6 7 Desalinated water11 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Source: SA Water Sustainability Report 2007 and Annual Report 2007-08

Adelaide has relatively little storage to carry supplies over from year to year. The MLR system does not provide a steady, predictable flow of water; with historical experience showing that MLR flows are highly variable. The variability of the MLR is managed by pumping water from the River Murray. SA Water is currently entitled to extract 696 GL of minimum flows for dilution and evaporative losses in South Australia plus critical human needs of 201 GL/annum12.

In addition to the River Murray and the MLR, the region also relies upon groundwater for a range of consumptive and environmental water uses. There is limited historical data available in relation to groundwater and alternative supplies for the Greater Adelaide region. In the region groundwater is primarily used for irrigation. Smaller quantities of groundwater are used within the region for domestic purposes, stock water supplies and irrigation of open spaces for example parks and golf courses. Groundwater is linked to surface water systems and is vital to sustaining flow in rivers and wetlands during extended dry periods.

2.1.2 Non potable supplies including stormwater, recycled water and rainwater tanks These are generally sources of water that are not considered to meet the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for human consumption.

9 Tonkin Consulting (May 2007) Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security Investigation Stage 1 – Current Demands 10 Desalination Working Group (September 2007) Report of the Desalination Working Group to Cabinet 11 The seawater source listed in the table refers to the desalinated plant at Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island. The 50 GL Adelaide desalination plant will be completed in 2011. 12 Office for Water Security, (date)






The major urbanised areas within the region generate over 86,000 ML of stormwater runoff each year (based on average rainfall)13. A significant proportion of the stormwater generated is produced in the urban areas of the River Torrens, Patawalonga Creek, Fields River and Christie Creek catchments. Stormwater production is linked to rainfall patterns and therefore variable throughout the year. Stormwater is used mainly for open space irrigation within the region. It is not used for potable supplies. There is limited available data on the volumes of stormwater reuse in the region.

Recycled water is used in the region for a range of purposes mostly agriculture and open space watering. Recycled water is not used for potable purposes, volumes are used to substitute some non drinking water uses in the region. Around 31 per cent of Adelaide’s wastewater is reused14.

2.1.3 Desalinated water Desalinated water is being increasingly used worldwide for the supply of drinking water. Desalination contributes one of the most rainfall independent sources of water to a supply system as it is not affected by drought and climate change in the same way as rivers and aquifers. South Australia has announced the construction of a desalination plant at Port Stanvac, which will add up to 100 GL/year of desalinated water or 50 per cent of Adelaide’s water supply needs each year.

2.2 Impacts on future water supplies The Plan has an important role to identify factors that may affect the future availability of water in the Greater Adelaide region for the period to 2050. This report has considered factors that are likely to have an impact on the future availability of the MAWSS to 2050. These factors include:

• Drought;

• Climate change;

• Volumes able to be extracted from the River Murray; and

• Augmentation decisions, announced and planned.

2.2.1 Drought Parts of Australia are currently experiencing a severe drought. The drought has reduced major storages in southern Australia to very low levels and has contributed to a gradual drying of the environment so that inflows to storages are much less when it does rain. The drought is

13 Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges Natural Resource Management Board (June 2008) State of the Region Report – Volume A 14 SA Water (September 2008) Annual Report 2007-08






affecting the Murray Darling Basin and Tonkin Consulting noted that if the drought continues, it may impact on South Australia’s ability to extract water from the River Murray15.

The impact the drought is having on water availability is illustrated by inflow volumes into both the River Murray and MLR systems.

Figure 3 shows historical flows into the River Murray system. Since 1990-97 inflows have been extremely low compared with the long term average, with the 2006-07 inflows the lowest on record. Inflows for 2007-08 however have been tracking below 2006-07 levels.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority drought update reports that Murray inflows between January and March 2009 were the lowest on record for 117 years16. For the water year to date (June 2008 to end of March 2009) system inflows have been 1,720 GL. The year is currently tracking as the 6th driest year in 117 years of historical records. This follows the 2007-08 year which was the 7th driest, and 2006-07 which was the driest on record. The persistence and severity of the current drought, particularly over the past three years, is unprecedented.

Figure 3: Murray system inflows: Long term average and selected years (excluding Snowy and Darling inflows)

Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority (April 2009) Drought update

The drought has also impacted on inflows into the MLR as shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the long term average inflows into the MLR over the period 1882 to 2006 of 177 GL17. The figure illustrates the average inflows over the past 20 years of 146 GL, and 113 GL for the past

15 Tonkin Consulting (May 2007) Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security Investigation Stage 1: Current demands 16 Murray Darling Basin Authority (April 2009) Murray River System Drought Update Issue 18 17 A more up to date figure including 2007 and 2008 was not available at the time this report was prepared.






10 years. The last 10 years of inflows into the MLR are 36 per cent less than the long-term average.

Figure 4 Long-term annum inflows into the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges for the period 1892 to 2006.

Source: Tonkin Consulting Report (2006) MAWSS Stage 1 investigation

For the period to 2050, this report models supply availability from the MLR under two possible drought scenarios. One scenario aims to illustrate the extent to which a drought equivalent to 2006 could impact on supply in the MLR in any given year for the period to 2050. The second scenario models a less severe drought impact on available supply for the same period.

The modelling is based on historic inflow data which indicates a projected average availability from MLR storages for the period 2008 to 2050 of 163 GL/annum. This figure takes the long term average inflow from the MLR storages of 177 GL/annum, and deducts the anticipated loss (14 GL/annum) from evaporation in storages to arrive at an estimated amount of available water for delivery. This is the base upon which the scenarios were developed for the purpose of this report.

The same evaporation figure, 14 GL/annum, is used to illustrate the impact of drought events in any given year. In this report the ‘available yield’ refers to water available after evaporation from the MLR storages has been taken into account.

To show the impact on MLR available yields under extreme and moderate dry year events the following assumptions were used:

• Extreme dry year event: This illustrates the impact of events similar to the one in fifty years observed rainfall and inflows to the MLR, similar to those experienced in 2006, one of the






driest years on record. Available flows of 18 GL/annum in any given year for the period 2008-2050 are assumed to represent the one in fifty year event;

• Moderate dry year event: This illustrates a less extreme drought position, similar to the one in ten year event with available flows of 35 GL/annually in any given year.

Figure 5 below shows the difference in the available yield volumes between the two drought impact scenarios and the long term average of 163 GL per annum, excluding climate change.

Figure 5: Drought adjusted inflows to 2050

Mount Lofty Ranges rainfall yield - without climate change

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050

Historical average rainfall event (Return to Pre 1996 Scenario)

1 in 10 year rainfall event

1 in 50 year rainfall event

163 GL per annum

35 GL per annum

18 GL per annum

It should be noted that the one in fifty year event only impacts on 10 per cent of Adelaide’s total water supply in a dry year. If the MAWSS was to draw 100 per cent of its water supplies from MLR sources, then the use of a one in fifty year event would have a dramatic impact on water availability. In a one in fifty year event MLR source supply only accounts for 18 GL, which if it were to fall further would have a relatively small impact on the total demand for the Greater Adelaide region.

Continuous periods of drought place increasing pressure on surface and groundwater resources. Over time prolonged drought has the potential to reduce inflows reaching storages due to the drying of the catchments and decrease discharge to aquifers.






2.2.2 Climate change There is strong evidence to suggest that climate change is occurring. Changes in climate in Australia over the past decade are consistent with the changes indicated by global climate model simulations of the effect of enhanced greenhouse conditions. These favour a reduction in rainfall and a rise in temperatures.

Climate change is expected to have two impacts within the region as follows:

• Reducing rainfall which reduces inflows into MLR and the River Murray, and supply availability;

• Increasing temperatures in the Greater Adelaide region, which in turn creates a rise in demand levels.

Since the 1970s, South Australia along with most of the eastern part of Australia has experienced a considerable downward trend in rainfall. Figure 6 shows the difference in rainfall highlighting the trend reduction for the period from 1970 to 2008

Figure 6 Trend in annual total rainfall comparing 1900-2008 with 1970 to 2008 (mm/10 years)

Source: Bureau of Meteorology (2009) Trend Maps Australian Climate Variability and Change

The southern part of South Australia experienced below average rainfall for 2008 and was insufficient to break the long dry spell that has been experienced by most of the south east Australia.

Figure 7 shows the trend in temperature changes for Australia for the period 1910-2008 compared with the last 39 years. Overall and for much of the eastern and southern parts of Australia maximum annual temperatures have risen.






Figure 7 Trend in maximum annual temperature comparing 1910-2008 with 1970-2008 (Degrees Celsius/10 years)

Source: Bureau of Meteorology (2009) Trend Maps Australian Climate Variability and Change

Although there is increasing confidence among scientists that increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase global temperatures there is much less confidence in estimates of how climates will change at the regional scale. However, it is at this local or regional scale, for example the MLR catchments, that climate change impacts will be felt.

To model climate change impacts on demand and supply for the Greater Adelaide region for the period to 2050, the report has relied on recent work by Tonkin Consulting for SA Water and DWLBC. The work uses the A2 and B2 climate scenarios or possible future climates developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scenarios provide representation of a possible future consistent with assumptions about future emissions of greenhouse gas and other pollutants and the effect of increased concentration of these gases on the climate. A short description of the scenarios is provided below:

• The A2 emissions scenario results in some of the highest carbon emissions and climate change impacts. Global population growth to 2050 is the highest among the IPCC projections, reaching a total of 15 billion in 2100. A combination of continued use of carbon intensive and advanced technologies results in declining energy intensity of GDP of between 0.5 and 0.7 per cent per annum and higher total emissions than under alternative scenarios.

• The B2 emissions scenario results in significantly lower carbon emissions, compared to the A2 storyline. Under the B2 population growth is lower (10 billion in 2100) and carbon intensity in the economy falls by approximately 1 per cent per annum, resulting in a much less energy intensive and more environmentally aware economy. Total estimated GDP in 2100 is approximately equal to the A2 scenario, though global GDP per capita is much higher






This work estimates that water availability from the MLR catchments will gradually reduce by 41 per cent18 or 72 GL by 2050 using the A2 IPCC climate change trend19. Figure 8 shows the climate adjusted inflows used for the long-term average and two dry year event variables.

Figure 8: Climate adjusted inflows to 2050

Mount Lofty Ranges rainfall yield - anticipated climate change impacts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050

Historical average rainfall event

1 in 10 year rainfall event (M oderate dry years Scenario)

1 in 50 year rainfall event(Continued drought scenario)

91 GL per annum

15 GL per annum

5 GL per annum

2.2.3 Other supply impacts considered

2.2.3.1 Supply augmentation: desalinated water The supply of first water from the Adelaide Desalination Plant is due to commence in 2010, with the full 50 GL per annum supply available from 201120. On 12 May 2009 the Australian Government announced $228 million in funding support to enable the capacity of the Adelaide desalination plant to increase from 50 GL/annum to 100 GL/annum, and to reduce reliance on the River Murray.

18 The percentage reduction of 40.7 per cent has been rounded up to 41 per cent. 19Tonkin MAWSS Stage 3 investigation, 2008. Reduction in yields is after evaporation. The inflow rate for the 1 in 50 year event is 32 GL, less 14 GL evaporation (ie: inflow rate – minus evaporation = yield; 32 – 14 = 18). Applying the 41 per cent to 2050 reduction to 32 GL provides a 13 GL reduction by 2050 (inflow rate minus climate change reduction minus evaporation = yield; 32 – 13 – 14 = 5). The method is identical for the 1 in 10 (49 – 14 = 35; 49 – 20 – 14 = 15) and for the long term average (177 – 14 = 163; 177 – 72 – 14 = 91). 20 Information confirmed with the Office for Water Security, April 2009






Scenarios one and two assume the desalination plant is constructed and has commenced supply of 50 GL per annum desalinated water in 2011, and supplying the further 50 GL per annum of desalinated water supply in 2013.

2.2.3.2 Extraction volumes available from the River Murray The scenarios produced for the Plan assume no change in the volume of water able to be extracted from the River Murray. South Australia is currently entitled to minimum flows of 696 GL/a for dilution and evaporative losses in South Australia plus critical human needs of 201 GL/a taking the total supply to approximately 897 GL/a minimum flow into the SA River Murray system21.

Future climate change impacts are expected to reduce average annual rainfall across south eastern Australia, reducing inflows into the main Murray Darling Basin storages. This may reduce the volume of water flowing in the River Murray, potentially reducing the annual volumes available for extraction and supply into the MAWSS. Quantifying the expected likelihood and potential impact of the loss of River Murray source water on Adelaide’s water supply would help identify this risk.

21 Information provided by SA Water, April 2009 and confirmed with the Office for Water Security on 2 June 2009.






3 Demand This section outlines the basis for the demand scenarios used in the chapter and discusses the generation of the scenarios and the possible impacts of additional demand mitigation actions.

3.1 Water consumption in the Greater Adelaide region Water use in the Greater Adelaide region has reduced over the past 10 years. While it is difficult to separate out the effects of permanent conservation measures, introduced in 2003, and water restrictions, 2008 mains water consumption at 163 GL/annum was approximately 25 per cent lower than predicted based on historical demand levels without restrictions. This is illustrated below in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Historical mains water consumption for Greater Adelaide to 2008

0

50

100

150

200

250

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Ann

ual S

uppl

y / C

onsu

mpt

ion

(GL

per a

nnum

)

Historical consumption Historic Demand without restrictions

Permanent water conservation measures

Water restrictions

High rainfallyears

High rainfall year

Source: Data supplied by SA Water, 2009.

Despite a noticeable drop in consumption in 1993, the trend for consumption for Greater Adelaide was a steady but gradual rise year on year until 2001, when total consumption fell sharply. In 2008 water consumption in Greater Adelaide fell to its lowest level since 1983. This was due to permanent water conservation measures and restrictions on water use. The reduction in water use was despite increased demand from population and economic growth between 1983 and 2008.

SA Water’s estimates of the underlying demand for Greater Adelaide suggest that were water restrictions not in place, the demand for 2008 would have been approximately 216 GL for the year. The gap between the two trend lines on Figure 9 represents the estimated water savings






from water restrictions. The gap would suggest that water restrictions have reduced Greater Adelaide’s mains water consumption by an estimated 50 GL in 2008.

3.1.1 Household consumption In 2004 average household mains water use in metropolitan Adelaide was 245 kilolitres per household. By 2008 this figure had reduced by 21 per cent to 193 kilolitres per household. This reduction is mostly due to permanent water saving measures and water restrictions. Figure 10 shows the residential consumption per household for the region for the period 2003 to 2008.

Figure 10: Mains water consumption per household for the period 2003 to 2008

Household mains water consumption

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

M etropo litan Adelaide South Australia *

Source: SA Water (2009): Note refers only to the SA Water network in relation to South Australia data and data for Metropolitan Adelaide is not available for 2003.

Residential water use in the SA Water Network is similar to other jurisdictions with the highest use outdoors.

In recent years the Greater Adelaide region residential water use per person has declined, estimated at around 82 kilolitres per person for 200822. This compares favourably with water use levels for Perth for example which were 147 kilolitres per person per year23.

22 Per person water usage calculated by dividing 193 kilolitres per household for 2008 sourced from SA Water data by the number of occupants per household (2.35 sourced from the draft Plan for Greater Adelaide). 23 WA Water Corporation (February 2009) Directions for our water future, Draft Plan.






3.1.2 Non residential consumption Industrial and commercial users are generally manufacturers, retail traders and office buildings. Together they represent approximately 10 per cent of total water use annually. Water supplied for commercial and industrial use is of drinking water quality standards. At some locations local groundwater is used for industrial and commercial purposes.

Water for public or community purposes accounts for 17 per cent of the total water use. Government agencies, universities, schools and local government use community purpose water to maintain parklands, open spaces, sporting grounds, places of worship and gardens. In addition to mains water use, groundwater, stormwater, rainwater and surface water is sourced for community purpose watering

3.2 Demand drivers considered for the scenarios A number of drivers were considered in relation to their potential impact on water demand in the Greater Adelaide region for the period to 2050. Based on an analysis of these drivers and taking into account available data, the following drivers were considered to have the greatest impact on water demand:

• Population growth;

• Climate change; and

• demand mitigation strategies to 2050.

3.3 Population growth Population growth used for the scenarios is the same as the draft Plan for Greater Adelaide projections to 203624. Scenarios modelled for the report are based on these projections for the period to 2050. Assuming a continuation of the trend in projected population growth between 2006 and 2036, the population of South Australia could be expected to reach 2.49 million by 2050 and 2.08 million for the Greater Adelaide region for the same period.

3.4 Climate change impacts on demand Climate change also impacts on demand by increasing the amount of water demanded from the system in a hotter and dryer environment. Climate change impacts are modelled as future emission scenarios as determined by the IPCC.

Demand increases from population growth alone (not including climate change impacts) are expected to lead to a 37 per cent increase in demand from 2008 levels by 2050. Using the more severe IPCC A2 scenario climate change (resulting in more frequent hot and drier weather) a further 17 per cent increase in demand over the same period occurs (for a total of 54 per cent

24 Department of Planning and Local Government (2008)






increase in demand). Under the more moderate IPCC B2 emissions scenario, the climate change additional demand is approximately 5 per cent, amounting to a total increase in demand of 42 per cent for the same period.

3.5 Demand mitigation measures

3.5.1 Existing measures Water Proofing Adelaide (WPA) outlined a range of measures projected to achieve annual savings in water use of 70 GL by 202525. The source of the expected savings from WPA expected to be achieved are shown in Figure 11. Of particular relevance for the purpose of modelling projected demand for the scenarios is the expected mains water savings of 47 GL/annum.

Figure 11: Source of water for expected annual savings under WPA by 2025

Source water for projected annual savings from WPA (GL) by 2025

Mains water47 GL

Ground water12 GL

Unallocated water 11 GL

Mains water Ground water Unallocated water

In July 2008, GHD undertook a First Implementation Review of Water Proofing Adelaide (progress review). The progress review found, amongst other matters, the following findings relevant to this report in determining assumed savings for WPA for the scenarios:

• WPA is fundamentally sound in its approach and is generally progressing to schedule;

25 Government of South Australia (2005) Water Proofing Adelaide






• There is a lack of specific actions linked to the WPA strategies which makes it difficult to account for progress in savings;

• There is a potential risk of delay in the completion of some of the strategies should there be any reallocation of existing resources to deal with water security issues arising from the drought;

• Costs of implementing WPA are likely to have escalated in line with the higher costs experienced for infrastructure projects more generally;

• There is a wide divergence in community views about the implementation of water restrictions and water savings measures.

Some of these findings have the potential to impact on progress of the water savings initiatives over the period to 2025. This report notes that the progress review found it difficult to determine the effect of individual strategies in reducing demand and increasing supplies26. The report did however identify the following estimated water savings from WPA activities completed, almost complete or committed (refer Table 2).

Table 2: Projected Annual Savings from WPA (GL) by 2025

Category of measure Total for activities completed, almost

complete or committed

GL

Against WPA savings targets by 2025

GL

Responsible water use 17.2 37.0

Additional water supplies 34.0 33.0

Total 51.2 70.0

Source: GHD (June 2008) WPA: First Implementation Review

The progress review did not distinguish between the types of water sources for which the savings or substitution activities should be measured against. Based on the progress review information and discussions held with Office staff and SA Water in January 2009 this report has assumed that WPA measures will deliver 50 GL/annum from 2025 or equivalent to a quarter of current water demand. Supply availability will be impacted, if the full volume of expected WPA measures are not achieved by 2025. It is recommended that every effort be made to ensure and, if practicable, accelerate the delivery of these actions in the short to medium term.

26 GHD (July 2008) Water Proofing Adelaide: First Implementation Review






3.5.2 New measures

On 29 January 2009 KPMG held a workshop with representatives from the Office and nominated stakeholders from SA Water and DWLBC. The purpose of the workshop was to identify demand management options for inclusion in the Plan. The workshop recognised the existing WPA actions already in place for the region. The workshop confirm advice on the progress and achievement of savings for current demand management activities implemented to date as well as contributed to the development of additional options for inclusion in the Plan.

This report notes that WPA has put in place those measures which were relatively easy and practical to adopt. In many cases the low-lying fruit. Further demand management measures for future implementation are likely to be more complex and have a higher implementation cost.

The demand options identified through this process aim to conserve water in homes, industry, businesses and open space watering. These options draw on best practice experience in Australia and overseas and build on the WPA actions.

These options however do not include water sensitive urban design or how this might be applied in Greenfield, transit corridors or transit orientated developments. These demand management actions however contribute to the 50 GL demand mitigation target in the Plan. Actions in the [draft] Plan for Greater Adelaide in relation to water sensitive urban design is expected to also make a contribution to the demand mitigation and alternative supply targets in the Plan.

These demand options are described briefly in Table 3 below.

Table 3: List of further demand management measures

Demand measure Description Estimated savings

ML/annum

Water saver kits This option involves the distribution of a Water saver kit containing a water efficient showerhead and a tap flow restrictor by the State Government to households in the Greater Adelaide region. Devices to improve water efficiency have high community acceptability and generate reliable water savings across time.

8,692

Mandated covers for swimming pools

Swimming pools lose a significant amount of water to evaporation each year. By installing a cover over a swimming pool evaporative losses can be reduced by up to 99.8 per cent. Pool covers have a reasonable level of community acceptability and can help retain heat within pools, reducing the need for heating. Covers have a low level of complexity and can generate reliable water savings over time.

1,753

Rainwater tanks for outdoor water use

Rainwater tanks provide water for outdoor usage and can also be piped into a property for domestic uses (that is toilet and the

2,394







ML/annum

and plumbed into the house.

laundry or hot water systems as well). This option has a high level of community acceptability despite the fact that tanks can detract from the amenity value of a property. The potential for issues to arise with tank pump systems lead to this option scoring negatively in terms of system complexity.

Artificial grass rebates for local councils and sporting clubs

This option involves the provision of rebates to local councils and sporting clubs for the installation of artificial grass as a lawn replacement on playing surfaces and other open space used by the community. Artificial grass is a very simple water saving option although it can impact negatively on the local terrestrial environment as natural surfaces are covered.

970

Artificial grass rebates for lawn replacement

This option involves the provision of rebates to homeowners for the installation of artificial grass as a replacement for lawn in their gardens. Artificial grass is a very simple water saving option although it can impact negatively on the local terrestrial environment as natural surfaces are covered.

3,780

Hot water re-circulators

Hot water re-circulators are devices that are attached to internal hot water pipes prior to the device outlet points (for example a showerhead). When the device is turned on the re-circulator diverts water that is below the preset temperature back into the hot water tank so that water wastage is avoided. This option involves the installation of re-circulators in new houses and retro-fitted to existing properties.

4,911

Smart meter and consumptive target pilot

This option is a voluntary measure that will allow households in pilot areas to have smart meters installed and access to up to date information on their water consumption. Where accompanied by a consumptive target, smart meters can provide households with some flexibility in how they choose to use water.

N/a

Public building retrofit

This option involves the Government retrofitting publicly owned buildings and amenities with water and energy efficient toilets, taps and showerheads by 2020. Measures include:

• Meter installation including sub-meters if applicable;

• Use of flow controlled showers and taps;

• Installation of dual smart-flush toilets (4.5/3 litres per flush) and where technically feasible waterless urinals;

• Rainwater harvesting to supplement toilet flushing and or

4,966







ML/annum

outdoor water use (where technically feasible); and

• Minimal water efficient landscaping.

Extension of the business water saver program

The business water saver program involves working with the industrial and commercial sectors to identify opportunities for reducing water usage. Savings are sought via:

• Water audits

• Reference to best practice benchmarks

• Suggestions for process improvements; and

• Staff education

1,270

Commercial building code reform

Reform of the commercial building code will lead to the adoption of higher environmental standards for commercial buildings, including water efficiency. This option has high regulatory impacts and has the potential to increase the complexity of building developments.

793

Open space watering by local councils

This option involves the adoption of targets by local Councils to reduce the amount of potable water they use in watering open spaces such as parks. Measures which could be adopted under this option include:

• Only watering turf in open spaces with non potable water where available;

• Building wetlands to collect and purify stormwater for irrigation of key fields and sporting grounds;

• Changing plant species to more drought tolerant varieties where appropriate;

• Using porous pipe and dripper lines to irrigate trees and plantings in the absence of sprinkler irrigation of open spaces, and

• Potentially using sewer mining to source additional non potable irrigation water for parks and gardens

N/A






Figure 12 below shows the projected savings expected to be achieved from the demand mitigation strategies.

Figure 12: Projected savings from demand management strategies

Supply savings for Greater Adelaide from demand management

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049

Save

d w

ater

con

sum

ptio

n, M

L pa

Building code reform

Private commercial building w ater savings

Government building retrof it w atersavings

Hot w ater re-circulator

Evaporative air conditioners

Synthetic turf for councils and openspaces

Synthetic turf for households

Rainw ater tank inside or outside

Sw imming pool covers (mandatory)

Water saver kits

Source: KPMG calculations, based on the Planning SA High population growth rate. Note: Legend items correspond from top to bottom to categories in the graph.

Other possible demand management options were not quantified due to data limitations. For example, smart water meters were not considered despite their potentially promising use to manage demand. Should rigorous data on the water saving potential of smart meters become available then this would be worth revisiting as an option.

The inclusion of all of the demand management options would lead to the overall reduction of approximately 50 GL in 2050. This is equivalent to around 25 per cent of Adelaide’s current water demand. Total demand for water in 2050 though may be much higher than current levels.

The possible options identified require long lead times to achieve the projected water savings. The effectiveness of these measures will be a key determinant in achieving water savings. The scenarios provide two rates of take up as follows:

• Low resulting in 40 GL in water savings by 2050; and

• High resulting in 60 GL in water savings by 2050.






4 A range of possible futures This section provides the outcomes of the range of scenarios modelled at the request of the Office.

Using population growth projections agreed to by the South Australian Government in 2008, and assuming that the Water Proofing Adelaide actions provide 50 GL by 2025 and 100 GL/annum is available from the Adelaide desalination plant from 2013 the scenarios model the following variables:

1 Moderate dry year event and moderate climate change;

2 Extreme dry year event and harsher climate change

3 The impact of additional actions from the Plan on the demand and supply balance under the two drought and climate change futures in 1 and 2.

The scenarios were developed based on discussions with the Office and are based on a set of agreed assumptions concerning population growth, demand management and supply augmentation for the region for the period to 2050.

On advice from the Office additional scenarios were modelled to show the impact on supply availability if the River Murray licensed extraction volumes were reduced.

4.1 Assumptions The critical assumptions used to generate the scenarios are described below:

4.1.1 Geographical area The Greater Adelaide region is the geographical boundary used for the demand and supply scenarios.

4.1.2 Supply Modelling is based on historic data which indicates a projected average availability from MLR storages for the period 2008-2050 of 163 GL/annum.

The figure of 163 GL/annum takes the long term average inflow from the MLR storages of 177 GL/annum, and deducts the anticipated loss from evaporation in the storages of around 14 GL/annum to provide an estimated amount of water available for delivery.

All scenarios assume a total supply of 100 GL/annum from the Adelaide Desalination Plant delivered as follows:

• 50 GL per annum from 2011; and






• 50 GL per annum from 2013.

No change in SA Water’s licence to extract water from the River Murray is assumed, with up to 150 GL of River Murray water available for extraction in any given year if required.

4.1.3 Demand

• Population growth is the same as the Plan for Greater Adelaide. Population projections used:

• South Australia's population is projected to reach 2.2 million by 2036, and 2.49 million by 2050;

• The population for the Greater Adelaide region is projected to reach 1.85 million by 2036 and 2.08 million by 2050; and

• To take population growth out to 2050 this report uses a straight line continuation of projections between 2006 and 2036.

• Drought impacts on the MLR use the following assumptions:

• Extreme dry year event (scenario 1) assumes one year in every fifty years available flows from the MLR will be approximately 18 GL (close to the available flows experienced in the MLR in 2006);

• Moderate dry year event (scenario 2) assumes one year in every ten years of available flows from the MLR will provide approximately 35 GL;

• The scenarios illustrate the anticipated surplus or deficit in any given year depending on whether it is an average, one in ten or one in fifty rainfall year. They do not make assumptions on how frequently drought or dry years may occur over the period to 2050.

• Climate change is assumed to:

• Create a gradual reduction in yield from the MLR sources of 41 per cent by 2050 (rounded up from 40.7 per cent), according to the IPCC A2 emissions forecasts; and

• Increase demand for water among household users, according to an increase in the number of hot days as anticipated in the IPCC A2 (assumes an increase in demand for water by 17 per cent) and B2 (assumes an increase in demand for water by 5 per cent) projections27.

• All non household water demand (ie; commercial, industrial, and public spaces) is assumed to grow at the same rate as household water demand to 2050.

27 The amount by which climate change impacts increase demand depends on the scenario (whether it is the drought series, which anticipates high climate change impacts, or the moderate dry year scenario, which anticipates moderate climate change).






• Demand also assumes the actions in Water Proofing Adelaide are fully executed and achieve 50 GL per annum by 2025 in savings in the Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply System (MAWSS).

To demonstrate the impact of proposed actions from the Plan the following assumptions were used based on discussions with the Office for Water Security:

• 50 GL/annum from 2050 in additional savings from demand mitigation measures outlined in the Plan; and

• Additional 40 GL/annum from alternative supplies between 2025 and 2050.

Appendix B specifies the data sources used in the preparation of the report.

4.2 Possible futures

4.2.1 Scenario 1: Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate change with no further water security measures Figure 13 shows the demand and supply balance for Greater Adelaide under two different possible inflow events without any further action. The set of assumptions that underpin Figure 13 are provided below.

Scenario 1 assumptions

Dry year event Moderate dry year event Extreme dry year event

Supply • A 1-in-10 dry year, equivalent to available flows in the MLR of 35 GL/a in that year, and climate change impacts representing a gradual 41 per cent reduction in yield.

• Inclusion of 50 GL/annum augmentation by 2011, with a further 50 GL/annum augmentation in 2013

• A 1-in-50 dry year, equivalent to available flows in the MLR of 18 GL/a in that year, and climate change impacts representing a gradual 41 per cent reduction in yield.

• Inclusion of 50 GL/annum augmentation by 2011, with a further 50 GL/annum augmentation by 2013

Demand • Population growth as agreed to by the Government in 2008

• 50 GL/a savings from Water Proofing Adelaide, and Permanent Conservation measures

• Increased demands from IPCC B2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation

• Population growth as agreed to by the Government in 2008


• Increased demands from IPCC A2 (higher than B2) trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation

Outcome For any given year supply under a moderate dry year event is in surplus to 2038. The Adelaide desalination plant adds around 25 years to supplies. In 2038 the balance






moves into deficit which equals 32 GL/annum in 2050.

For any given year under an extreme dry year event supply is in surplus to 2029. The Adelaide Desalination Plant adds around 16 years to supplies. In 2029 the balance moves into deficit which equals 68 GL/annum in 2050.

Figure 13: Scenario 1 Moderate and extreme dry year event and climate change

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)

Extreme dry years Moderate dry years

Deficit

68 GL

Surplus

32 GL

Figure 13 above shows the likely surplus or deficit of mains water in any given year under a moderate and extreme dry year event from 2008 to 2050, if no further actions are taken to safeguard Greater Adelaide’s mains water demand and supply balance.

The orange line shows what would occur in any given year with yields from the MLR storages equivalent to 35 GL per annum, gradually reduced by climate change impacts over the next forty years.

On the basis of the historical record there is a one in ten chance of this occurring in any given year over the period. Under climate change this one in ten event may occur more frequently. In this situation, any year after 2038 experiencing this level of reduced flows could result in a deficit of supply against demand.

The blue line shows what would occur in any given year with yields from the MLR storages equivalent to 18 GL per annum, gradually reduced by climate change impacts over the period to 2050. This event is similar to yields experienced in the MLR during 2006.






On the basis of the historical record there is a one in fifty chance of this occurring in any given year, and under climate change predictions this event may occur more frequently. In this situation, years experiencing this level of inflows after 2029 would result in a deficit of supply against demand.

For both events the surplus or deficit is expected to be equivalent to the volume shown in the graph for that year. For example, if a one in fifty year rainfall event occurred in 2029 the shortfall would be nearly zero. If however a one in fifty year event occurred in 2050 without further action to secure Greater Adelaide’s water supply, the shortfall would be 68 GL, or around one third of Greater Adelaide’s current total water consumption.

This means that without further action, Greater Adelaide could experience water shortages from 2029 onwards in dry years with no action.

4.2.2 Scenario 2: Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate change with actions from the Plan Figure 15 shows the demand and supply balance for Greater Adelaide using the inflow events described previously but including additional demand and supply reuse actions. The following assumptions were used for Figure 15.


Dry year event

Moderate dry year event Extreme dry year event



• Inclusion of at least an additional 40 GL from alternative supplies between 2025 and 2050 under both the moderate and extreme dry year events






• Increased demands from IPCC B2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation

• Additional demand mitigation target of



• Increased demands from IPCC A2 (higher than B2) trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation






50 GL/annum in savings by 2050 • Additional demand mitigation target of 50 GL/annum in savings by 2050

Outcome Supply remains in surplus for all years to 2050 under both the moderate and extreme dry year events.

In 2050 this surplus is 22 GL/a under an extreme dry year and 58 GL/a under a moderate dry year.

Figure 14: Scenario 2 Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate change with additional water security measures

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

22 GL

Surplus

58 GL

By including additional water savings through demand mitigation (50 GL per annum) and stormwater recycling (40 GL per annum) by 2050, Greater Adelaide’s water supply and demand balance remains in surplus beyond 2050 under even one in fifty year low rainfall events. Without these actions Greater Adelaide could experience water shortages in dry years after 2029, with the inclusion of the Adelaide Desalination Plant






4.2.3 Impact from a reduction in the River Murray Licence This report has noted previously that the scenarios did not model reduced availability of water from the River Murray. The scenarios assume that up to 150 GL/annum of water is available from the River Murray for extraction in any given year.

This report notes however that there is a potential risk to this approach and the assumption that the water available from the River Murray will continue at a volume sufficient to help balance supplies from the MLR. Risks include drought, water quality issues, climate change and the potential for policy changes in relation to the extraction volume. The June 2008 Murray Darling Basin Agreement recognises that critical human water needs are a high priority water use for communities dependent on the water of the Murray-Darling Basin and will be a mandatory part of the Basin Plan to be developed28.

To determine the impact from a reduced available volume of supply from the River Murray the Office requested two scenarios be modelled that showed the impact of a 15 per cent and 30 per cent reduction in the River Murray extraction limit for South Australia.

In response this report develops two scenarios showing a percentage reduction in available River Murray water and the impact this has on the demand and supply balance to 2050. The scenario models the impact of a potential reduction in the River Murray Water Supply licence in 2018 using two different percentage rates of reduction.

In a scenario with no further actions to secure Greater Adelaide’s water supply beyond the 100 GL Adelaide Desalination Plant in 2011 and 2013, the removal of 15 per cent of the Murray River supply licence causes an increase in the size of the deficit in 2050.

With no further actions and a 30 per cent reduction of the Murray River supply licence, the size of the deficit increases, to as much as 71 GL per annum for moderate dry year events, and 107 GL per annum for extreme dry year events in 2050.

28 Council of Australian Governments (3 July 2008) Agreement on Murray Darling Basin Reform






Figure 15: Moderate and extreme dry years with no additional demand or alternative supply actions and a 15 per cent reduction in River Murray sourced supply.

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)

Moderate dry year Extreme dry year

Deficit

Surplus

88 GL

52 GL

Modelling the same reduction below in Figure 16, with the inclusion of the additional water security measures outlined in the Plan mean that both the moderate and extreme dry year events remain in surplus in any given year to 2050. The extreme dry year event however remains only marginally in surplus, by 2 GL per annum.

Figure 16: Moderate and extreme dry year events with actions from the Plan and a 15 per cent reduction in River Murray sourced supply.

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

Surplus

2 GL

39 GL






Under a 30 per cent reduction in the Murray River licence extraction with no action beyond the 100 GL ADP, both the moderate and extreme dry year events result in a substantial deficit by 2050.

Figure 17: Moderate and extreme dry year events with no additional actions from the Plan and a 30 per cent reduction in River Murray sourced supply

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

Surplus

71 GL

107 GL

With additional water security measures and a 30 per cent reduction in the Murray River licence, the extreme dry year event results in deficits after 2021. Due to the impact of the additional water security measures to offset increase in demand, the scale of the deficit in extreme dry year events remains small, resulting in a 17 GL deficit in 2050.

Figure 18: Moderate and extreme dry year events with action and a 30 per cent reduction in River Murray sourced supply.

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

Surplus

19 GL

17 GL

.






5 Demand measures assessment framework This section of the report provides an assessment of the identified options using a multi criteria analysis assessment. The multi-criteria assessment framework compares the demand management options proposed for consideration in the Plan. This section:

• describes the assessment framework;

• presents results from the application of this framework;

• summarises the performance of each demand management option considered; and

• details the assumptions which sit behind the assessment process.

5.1 Assessment approach The assessment framework is intended to reveal the relative economic, environmental, social and technological attributes of each option. Information from the assessment framework is useful for understanding the trade-offs which may arise between the various options considered in the context of making decisions for secure and reliable future supplies of water.

The assessment framework comprises 10 assessment criteria. These criteria are identified and defined in Table 4.

Table 4: Assessment criteria and their definitions

Criteria Definition

Economic/Financial

Cost effectiveness The cost effectiveness of the option, expressed as the Present Value in $/ML terms.

Social

Potential for public health issues to arise With certain options there may be the potential for public health issues to arise, especially in relation to drinking water. While the key public health issue is contamination of drinking water, other inadvertent health risks such as the potential for bacterial outbreaks are also a consideration.

Amenity value of infrastructure Implementation of the options could mean a change to the aesthetic value of the landscape, either through infrastructure that may be visually obtrusive, less appealing or create an offensive odour or noise. A perceived reduction in the amenity value of the landscape reduces the social value in the community.






Criteria Definition

Community acceptability of option Factors which could affect the community acceptability of an option include the original source of the water, the perceived reliability of the supply and the impact on the cultural and natural heritage of the community associated with the construction of new infrastructure.

Environmental

Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation

Some options may require more energy than others (during construction and operation) to produce a given volume of water.

Impact on aquatic ecosystem Some options could involve the disposal of waste (e.g. brine) that can have an impact on aquatic ecosystems. Alternatively, an option may cause an improvement to the water quality in a catchment that will have a positive impact on the aquatic ecosystems in the area.

Impact on terrestrial ecosystems Some options could impact on the terrestrial ecosystem either during construction and/or during operation. This could include the clearance of native vegetation for pipelines, treatment plant sites or storages. The level of impact can vary between options based on size, location and the quality of the vegetation affected.

Technology/Functionality

System complexity Considers the complexity of the additional infrastructure associated with an option and whether there will be complementarity with existing infrastructure.

Reliability of supply/technology Reflects the ongoing reliability of either the water resource and/or the technology delivering and treating the resource.

Regulatory impacts Considers if a particular option is likely to require additional licence, legislation or guidelines that may add to the complexity of the operation of the option. Complexity of operating an option may increase with an associated increase in regulatory requirements.






Completion of the assessment process required assessing the performance of each identified demand management option against each assessment criteria and assigning a score. The scores for each option are then aggregated, and this supports a process of comparison for each option.

In undertaking an assessment exercise it is necessary to have a point of reference for considering the relative merits of a given option. The ‘point of reference’ is often a situation of ‘do nothing,’ which is frequently referred to as the ‘base case’. Hence, each option considered is assessed on the basis of their impact relative to the base case. This approach helps to ensure that each option is assessed in a consistent manner.

Most of the assessment criteria within the framework are qualitative in nature. In terms of scoring, each option is assigned a score for each criteria of between -4 and +4 based upon its assessed impact, as outlined in Table 5. This framework was promulgated by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance in its Investment Evaluation Guidelines.

Table 5: Scoring system for criteria in the assessment framework

Score Assessed impact

+4 Very much better than the base case

+3 Much better than the base case

+2 Moderately better than the base case

+1 Little better than the base case

0 No change on the base case

-1 Little worse than the base case

-2 Moderately worse than the base case

-3 Much worse than the base case

-4 Very much worse than the base case

Unlike the other criteria, the ‘cost effectiveness’ criterion is quantitative — the existence of price data has enabled a more specific scoring framework to be developed for this item. This is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Scoring system for the cost-effectiveness criteria

Score Cost effectiveness

+4 $550 ML<

+3 $550-$850 ML

+2 $850-$1,150 ML






+1 $1,150-$1,450 ML

0 $1,450-$1,550 ML

-1 $1,550-$1,850 ML

-2 $1,850-$2,150 ML

-3 $2,150-$2,450 ML

-4 >$2,450 ML

The primary reference point associated with assigning scores to the cost of water savings via demand management activities is the expected price of potable water in 2010. The assessment framework for demand management options has assumed that the price of water will increase by 8% per annum — this level of escalation has been applied to the tier 2 price for 2008-09 ($1.38 per kL) to generate an expected price for 2009-10 ($1.49 per kL). Converting this estimated price to a price per ML provides the benchmark (i.e. a score of zero) for assessing the cost effectiveness of the different demand management options under consideration. Cost bands have been assigned for each possible option based on a benchmark price of $1,490 per ML.

The assessment of each option’s cost effectiveness covers the period from 2010 to 2025. While cost and saving estimates are available for the period beyond 2025, these are not included in the assessment framework due to the skewing influence of discount factors on future costs and benefits.

Following the assignment of scores for each criteria for a given option, weights are applied on a category basis to generate an overall score — as there are four categories (economic, social, environmental and technological) each is assigned a weight of 25 per cent. Positive scores indicate the existence of net benefits for a given option, whereas a negative score indicates the presence of net costs.

5.2 Analysis of results

The following observations have been made in relation to the results of the assessment process:

• All options score quite well on the social criteria. This primarily reflects strong community acceptability of — and support for — water saving measures, including those which impact on members of the public directly (i.e. rainwater tanks).

• Only a few options have an impact on the local terrestrial environment, and only one was found to have a potential (albeit minor) impact on the local aquatic environment. These results are not too surprising as most of the options pertain to the built environment (i.e. houses and buildings) in one way or another. A number of options were found to have a positive environmental impact in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• Almost all options performed well in terms of the technological/functionality criteria. Significantly, every option was found to be a reliable source of ongoing water savings if






implemented. Around half of the options were found to have low levels of system complexity associated with their implementation, with the other half being more complex.

• In terms of the economic, cost-effectiveness, criteria only three options came up with positive scores — water saver kits and the two artificial lawn options. All of the other options scored negatively.

Table 7 summarises the results of the assessment framework.

Table 7 Results of the assessment framework

Option Assessed score

Water saver kits 1.33

Mandated covers for swimming pools -0.42

Rainwater tank for outdoor water use and plumbed into the house

-0.75


1.92

Artificial grass rebates for lawn replacement 1.83

Hot water re-circulators -0.17

Smart meter and consumptive target pilot -1.22

Public buildings retrofit -1

Extension of the Business water saver program -0.42

Commercial building code reform -0.25

Open space watering by local councils -0.585

Full summaries of the results for each assessment are provided in Appendix C.

5.3 Further considerations The methods used in calculating anticipated demand for water reflect the ‘best available’ approach based on current available data.

5.3.1 Data limitations Non-mains water (groundwater, rainwater and recycled water) use is not accounted for in the current supply system models. Data availability on non-mains water, and typically un-metered water flows and extractions, appears to be poor or non-existent. In rural areas within the Greater Adelaide region (and South Australia more generally) this can account for significant use, for example groundwater use. An improved water accounting system for non mains, bore, river and






other sources of water is required for effective water planning. This report notes that this is an ongoing requirement of the National Water Initiative.

5.3.2 Demand modelling The current modelling approach pro-rates the level of non-household water consumption to maintain a constant share of total consumption. Household demand, the non pro-rated component, is therefore the driving factor in anticipating future network water demand. New modelling approaches may be able to improve on the assumption that non household water demand increases proportionally to household demand, and provide a more accurate estimate for modelling the anticipated demand for non mains water in Greater Adelaide.

The approach for modelling demand also does not take into account trend reductions in demand over time from behaviour change, technological innovation and other ‘slow moving’ changes in the per household demand for water. Correctly attributing reductions in demand to behaviour change and not water restrictions is however, a technically challenging process requiring extensive data for consumption and meter numbers over time (in addition to other relevant factors). For this reason the demand projections contained in the Water Security Plan are based on restrictive assumptions that can be removed under alternative modelling approaches, to build a more rigorous view of demand over time.






6 Adaptive management framework – the use of triggers This section of the report provides an adaptive framework which sets out water security standards and a review process.

6.1 Context Planning for future supply with a high level of uncertainty is complex and requires an adaptive approach. Traditionally governments have planned based on historical long-term average inflows and invested in system augmentations pre-emptively to meet future demand. Until recently solutions have been largely climate dependent sources of water such as large dams.

The current severe and prolonged drought has changed this approach. The last ten years of inflows have meant that governments can no longer rely on past projections to provide for planning uncertainty. Nor can they rely solely on climate dependent sources of water to meet future demand needs. This trend is consistent across Australia and internationally.

6.1.1 Principles There are a number of principles that govern an adaptive management approach. These principles include:

• Quantification of the state of the resource;

• Decision making in relation to system health, planning and understanding is backed by science and evidence;

• There is a high level of investment readiness for demand and supply options at all times;

• Governance and institutional arrangements are independent, nimble, adaptive and capable for rapid and opportunistic decision making; and

• Annual and independent monitoring and evaluation of the situation.

6.1.2 Interstate approaches Adaptive management approaches and the use of triggers to guide augmentation decisions have been used in New South Wales and Victoria. These approaches provide useful insight into developing similar approaches for South Australia.

This report notes that one of the key differences between New South Wales and Victoria and South Australia is the capacity of the water supply system. New South Wales and Victoria have supply systems characterised by large dams, designed to provide a 3-4 year buffer during drought years29. These dam systems, when combined with demand mitigation measures

29 SA Desalination Working Group (November 2007)






including water restrictions, have been able to provide a level of supply security during one of the most prolonged droughts in Australia’s history.

Since 2004 New South Wales and Victoria have developed water supply strategies to ensure the future long-term security of supply for Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The strategies take into account the increasing uncertainty in predicting future inflows. This report notes that the shift towards an adaptive approach was different for each State.

In 2004 New South Wales released its Metropolitan Water Plan with a commitment to a range of augmentations to improve water security in response to drought and reduced storage levels. In 2006 increased rainfall in catchments and the effectiveness of the demand mitigation measures that had been put in place to ease the drought threat and question the need for continued investment in the augmentations. In response, the New South Wales Government commissioned an independent review of the Metropolitan Water Plan in February 200630. The review found that the drought was manageable and the ‘ability’ to construct the Sydney desalination plant, if required, was a sufficient security measure31.

Following the review, the New South Wales’ Government introduced an adaptive management approach and a set of trigger points32. The approach specified actions if severe drought conditions were experienced and dam levels fell rapidly. The plan and trigger points are provided in Table 8.

Table 8: New South Wales adaptive management approach and trigger points

Trigger Point Action

40 per cent of storage levels Construction of the groundwater bore field to provide the first line of defence against ongoing drought conditions and necessary planning time to commence construction of a desalination plant. The first bores would be operational within six months and the full network would be in place in two years

30 per cent of storage levels Award the construction contract for the desalination plant to ensure that the plant is built and operational 26 months later, well before storages would fall to critical levels

Victoria developed and released its Central Region Sustainable Water Strategy in October 2006 which set out a range of actions to secure water supplies for homes, farms, businesses, industry and the environment until 2055. The strategy committed to demand management measures but no major supply augmentations.

Unprecedented low rainfall experienced during the remainder of 2006 and early 2007 raised credible concerns that, without an effective response strategy, Melbourne’s water supplies could 30 Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, ACIL Tasman and SMEC (February 2006) Independent Review of the Metropolitan Water Plan 31 Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, ACIL Tasman and SMEC (February 2006) Independent Review of the Metropolitan Water Plan (Page 5) 32 NSW Government (February 2006) Progress Review on the Metropolitan Water Plan






face some security risk. An independent review commissioned by the Victorian Government identified short and long-term options available for demand and supply and provided a framework to deal effectively with the immediate security threat to supply, the risks of over or inappropriate investment in system capacity and demand structures33.

Importantly, the review stressed the need for water planning for the Central Region (and Victoria) to be recast to reflect the high level of uncertainty in predicting future inflows and the prospects for a structural shift over time as a result of climate change. In response the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future – the next stage of the Government’s water plan (2007) which committed to major supply augmentations including a 150 GL/annum seawater desalination plant.

The Victorian approach adopted an ‘insurance’ approach that offers relief from deep restrictions (which impact on economic growth and liveability) and creates the ability to move earlier and more effectively in relation to continuing low inflows. The approach includes:

• Diversification of water supplies including non rainfall dependent sources;

• Provides for future growth and climate change impacts;

• Develops a range of rainfall and inflow scenarios to guide future planning which take into account the possible rainfall and inflow futures; and

• Enables Melbournians to move back to unrestricted supplies34.

The adaptive management framework proposed for the Plan takes into account the lessons from the interstate approaches, the complexity of the MAWSS, the reliance on the River Murray extraction license and the construction of a 50 GL/annum desalination plant (with the capacity to expand if required).

6.2 Adaptive management framework The Government of South Australia has put in place measures to ensure that in the short to medium term the water security needs of Greater Adelaide are met. Over a longer time horizon it becomes increasingly difficult to predict with certainty what additional actions will need to be taken. This is illustrated through the different rainfall and inflow scenarios in this report.

This report proposes an adaptive management framework that comprises the following components:

1 A set of water security standards for the Greater Adelaide region;

2 State of the resource; 33 Institutue of Sustainable Futures and Acil Tasman (May 2007) Cabinet in Confidence Review of Victorian Water Supply-Demand Options and Risks (unpublished) 34 Victorian Government (June 2007) Our Water Our Future – the next stage of the Government’s action plan (page 3)






3 Demand pressures;

4 Governance and management;

5 Options and assessment process; and

6 Measuring and monitoring.

Figure 19 shows the adaptive management framework developed for the Plan.

Figure 19: Adaptive Management Framework

6.3 Water Security Standards In setting a decision making framework for triggers it is important to identify a set of water security standards that will underpin the framework and ultimately the investment decisions. The Office is responsible for setting the security standards for South Australia’s water supplies. The security standards define the risk points that threaten water supply and which require decisions on options that increase supply or reduce demand, or both.

Water security standards were identified in a workshop with representatives from the Office, SA Water Corporation and the South Australian Department of Treasury and Finance held on 9 February 2009. These standards are listed in the first column in Table 9.

Water Security Standards• System water quality • Restrictions• Capacity of the supply system• Source water• Consumer efficiency• Demand (population & economic growth)

• Climate change scenarios• Environmental requirements• Cost effectiveness

State of the Resource

Trigger Activated• Short term emergency• Long term (permanent

change)

Options• Drought Response Plan• Demand management• Supply augmentations• Back up supply• Water Purchase• Trade• Price• Alternative supplies• Policy changes• Aquifer Storage• Infrastructure efficiency

Assessment• Technical feasibility• Project readiness• Robust business case • NPV• Timeliness• Risks• Market testing• Community acceptance• Procurement strategy

Demand Pressures

Minister, Water Security Council, Office for Water Security, SA Water

Continuous monitoring and measurementAnnual review process

New independentPlanning function

Action

© 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved.






Table 9 suggests parameters or measures for each standard. Where possible this report has drawn on current measures or proposed additional measures. These measures should be developed further and agreed by the Minister, the Security Council, the Office, DWLBC and SA Water.

Table 9 – Water Security Standards and proposed measures

Standard Proposed Measure (to be developed)

System water quality Salt (range) between [X] ppm to [X] ppm

E-coli levels (to be agreed)

Restrictions (frequency, severity and duration) Restriction levels at level [3] by 2010

Restriction levels [< 2] by 2013

Then once every [100] years

Capacity of the supply system [> 12] months supply capacity in MLR maintained

[> X] months supply of water for Greater Adelaide region stored in River Murray head-works

Source including diversity, reliability and security [60 per cent] MLR in an average year

[X per cent] desalination in years [2011] to [2050]

[X per cent] River Murray in a dry year

Consumer efficiency Target [X] in an average year

Target [X] in a low inflow or extreme dry year

Demand factors, population and economic growth Population growth exceeds high growth projections by [2036]

Climate change scenarios IPCC scenarios A2 and B2

Environmental requirements </= [X] GL/annum for environmental needs

Cost effectiveness =/< $X/ML






6.4 State of the Resource Security is concerned with managing the risk of the system moving to a point of deficit or put simply insufficient water to meet demand. In assessing the future resource outlook for the Greater Adelaide region there is a need to regularly monitor and measure the resource and demand pressures.

The review of the state of the resource should take into account the volume and quality of water available, impact of climate modelling, the rate of any expected change to the resource and the impact of short-term impacts for example drought.

Future demand pressures should encompass all consumptive uses including economic, social, environmental and cultural. While difficult to predict all possible impacts whole of government and community input will be important.

An annual review process provides an important check point for significant investment decisions which can improve the cost effectiveness of projects. The review frequency is particularly important in the water industry as there often significant lead times required in the design and construction of assets to deal with future demand-supply imbalances.

This report recommends that the Office undertake an annual review of the Plan commencing in 2010. The review process will assess the state of the resource against the water security standards and update demand and supply forecasts. The review process will identify matters that relate to the future security and reliability of the State’s water supply system relative to forecast demand.

This report also recommends that the Minister for Water Security publish an annual review or Statement that covers, at a minimum, the following:

• Report on progress and any risks or issues during the previous period;

• Review water security standards and confirm these for the next period;

• Provide the demand-supply balance for the region;

• Identify and analyse the impact of any emerging issues; and

• Identify any options under consideration.

6.5 Trigger points All actions to meet future demand and supply will have economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. The objective is to achieve the least cost, most effective strategies to secure the water future of the State. The role of trigger points in an adaptive management framework assists in ensuring that decisions are cost effective and timely. In particular triggers:

• Deliver greater flexibility and diversity of solutions;






• Reduce the risk of high cost investments that prove to be redundant or delivered earlier than required;

• Reduce the downside risk while continuing the availability of upside opportunities;

• Ensure that demand-supply is continually monitored; and

• Provides a form of insurance.

This report has provided examples of the use of triggers in other jurisdictions, for example New South Wales. South Australia however has a more complex water resource system to manage as evidenced by:

• No major single supply source;

• No non climate dependent sources of water in the system until 2010;

• Storages are located upstream (along the Murray) as well as locally;

• Local storage capacity is designed to cope for short periods only (12 months); and

• High dependence on the River Murray which is over-allocated and vulnerable to drought and climate change

In using triggers as part of an adaptive approach it is important to distinguish between medium to long-term adaptive planning and drought or emergency response (required due to unplanned interruptions as a result of natural disasters, operational failure or water quality issues). Drought and or emergency response actions will always be required to be in place but are likely to be temporary mandatory and or voluntary measures to manage short-term demand and supply during these events. Once the situation that triggered the drought response is over these actions are usually no longer required. Water restrictions are an example of a mandatory measure used in this way.

Adaptive management has a long term planning focus that is usually guided by a combination of demand and supply triggers that could lead to a permanent imbalance between demand and supply. Examples of triggers that could be adopted for South Australia are shown in Table 10.

Table 10 – Possible triggers for South Australia

Demand Triggers Supply triggers

• Population drivers

• Gross, character, location

• Consumption

• State of the resource

• Amount/quality

• New information and science






• Yield requirements to meet growth

• Policy changes

• MDB Cap

• Change in security

• Population policy changes

• Economic policy

• Environmental policy

• Land use changes

• Industry

• Knowledge and science

• Climate modelling

• Rate of change

• Demand

• Competing demand

• Infrastructure

• Unforeseen permanent events

• Demand management

• Technology advances

• Augmentation options

• Alternative supplies

• Treatment technologies

To underpin the adaptive framework a temporal model is needed that clearly shows the trigger points (and timeframes) when decisions should be made to ensure water security for the Greater Adelaide region. This model will need to take into account the high variability of the MLR, the additional security provided by the 50 GL/annum desalination supply and the reliability of the River Murray extractions.

6.6 Governance The adaptive management framework requires a clear single point of authority that is nimble and accountable. This report recommends that an independent planning function oversee the annual review process and, when required, develop appropriate responses when the triggers are activated. The independent planning function will also ensure consistency the monitoring of the water security standards including any changes, as well as assess options and initiatives as they arise. The role could be undertaken by the Office. This report notes that the Office is currently considering separately options in relation to governance separately to this report (and scope).

6.7 Decision making framework for this plan Adaptive management is not a new concept. The shift away from more traditional approaches is necessary as water supply systems become more complex and the ability of managers to accurately and safely predict the outcome of all management interventions to control all processes diminishes.






Adaptive management techniques have become increasingly mainstream in Australia in the context of environmentally, socially and economically cost effective water system planning.

In practice adaptive management includes sound risk management, including minimising high cost investment decisions or unnecessary decisions and complex trade offs. The principles and framework lend themselves to making investment decisions when, and where, they offer value for money and social, economic and environmental benefits. The process is designed to test the proposition that more cost effective options may be available to meet future security needs.

6.8 Monitoring and measuring Demand and supply should be monitored annually for the Greater Adelaide region, and projections tested using the most current available hydrological, climate and population data. A monitoring and measurement framework that evaluates standards, current resource conditions and provides early feedback on progress against key actions to reduce demand and increase supply is expected to assist with decision-making and annual reporting.

The monitoring and framework is expected to include a set of water accounts for all water sources for the Greater Adelaide region and a model that enables timely and accurate projections of demand and supply for the region under different scenarios. Section 8.2 provides more detail in relation to suggested monitoring and reporting requirements.

6.9 Options and assessment To guide future decision making on the best solutions to meet demand and supply imbalances in the future and ensure water security for the region the following approach should be considered:

• Ensure all options are on the table, that is place no policy bans or limitations on what could be considered;

• Develop a rolling multi year program of options (capital and non capital) that have been developed to feasibility stage and independently assessed;

• Develop robust and repeatable assessment criteria including estimated capital and operating costs, water prices, the volume of water (either saved or supplied or both), the risk profile, social, economic and environmental impacts;

• Assess the level of flexibility inherent in each option, such as timing, scalability, scope for deferment or stopping to avoid costs, lead times required;

• Assess the readiness of the option within a short, medium or long-term timeframe. Readiness options may include the scope for reserving water in the Murray Darling Basin storages, acceleration of demand management actions and or water usage restrictions;






• Develop a robust business case that articulates a case for investment and provides decision makers with a clear understanding of all those factors that will enable sound prioritisation and decision making on the options;

• Build understanding and knowledge through best practice, research and development, and interstate and international comparisons to ensure technological advancements are continually considered in relation to the options identified;

• Build organisational capability for rapid roll out of options; and

• Review the option portfolio annually and in line with the State Budget process.






7 Implementation issues and future work

7.1 The value of information systems A key feature of many adaptive management approaches is investment in better information systems on which to base decisions and undertake more cost effective planning.

This could mean improved investment in data and information systems that establish and maintain readiness to implement responses such as further augmentations and or demand mitigation strategies. This approach could reduce the lead time usually required to process and approve these decisions in the future.

Investment targeted towards more sophisticated modelling of climate change, current demand drivers, regional weather patterns and actual rainfall and inflows for the supply system would support this readiness approach. In addition the active monitoring and assessment of technological improvements and innovation is considered important in ensuring value for money decisions or meet other environmental and social criteria, for example reduced energy consumption.

7.2 Monitoring and reporting on the security plan A key element of water resource planning is ensuring that a sound monitoring framework is in place to assess the resource outlook and adapt the implementation of the Plan to reflect discrepancies between forecasts and what actually happens. The report has already established that significant uncertainty exists in relation to the medium and long-term supply outlook for the Greater Adelaide region.

A regular review has the benefit of allowing consideration of variations between forecasts and outcomes in the key areas of uncertainty. In the case of the Plan these areas include:

• Supply forecasts;

• Climate change impacts; and

• Policy changes.

Annual reviews are common for capital intensive industries where significant lead time is usually required in the design and construction of assets to meet future imbalances between demand and supply. Regular monitoring and checking of supply forecasts have become routine for water resource planning. Key advantages of this approach include:

• Increased transparency in water security planning and management;

• Capital investment can be deferred until it is actually required or demanded by the market place; and

• Water users and investor confidence.






The annual review process would update forecasts and the associated assumptions of the overall water capacity for the Greater Adelaide region where the greatest demand for water exists. Annual planning will also assist the Office brief the Government on matters including the future capacity and reliability of South Australia’s water supply system relative to forecast demand.

This report notes that consultation and community engagement will be undertaken through the development of regional water plans. The Plan for is supported by actions to improve customer awareness and behavioural change with respect to water use. The annual review of the Plan would facilitate and assist in the co-ordination of communications strategies. These strategies could play a valuable role in informing and educating the community about particular initiatives, and assist in reinforcing existing positive or changing negative attitudes. This is particularly important in the water industry where there is currently an absence of a market system to provide transparent pricing signals that could facilitate economically rational consumer behaviour.

The permanent water saving measures, restrictions and the WPA actions (currently being implemented) have shown a corresponding reduction in consumer demand. However evidence from other jurisdictions shows that over time particularly in response to restrictions a bounce back in increased demand can occur particularly if the drought impacts reduce or when new augmentations come on line. An annual review process would ensure that the public is regularly updated on the need for options to be developed and pursued and the context in particular timeframes, risks etc.






A South Australian Water Security – Draft chapter

The following information was provided to the Office initially in March 2009. Since this time the Plan has undergone a number of revisions and edits in accordance with the Office for Water Security’s processes. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed upon the following information as an accurate representation of the final demand and supply section of the Plan. KPMG takes no responsibility for inconsistencies that may arise between Appendix A and the final Plan.

A.1.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the Plan describes the impact of demand and supply pressures on the Greater Adelaide region for the period to 2050. The section includes an adaptive framework including trigger points that will help guide decision making on future augmentations and demand management actions.

A.1.2 KEY POINTS

• In 2008 the Greater Adelaide region used around 163 GL/annum of mains water. This represents approximately 74 per cent of South Australia’s total mains water consumption for the same period35;

• The combination of permanent water conservation measures, demand management actions and water restrictions have reduced consumption in the Greater Adelaide region in 2008 by an estimated 50 GL;

• Over the period to 2050 population growth is expected to have a significant impact on water demand in the Greater Adelaide region;

• Population for the Greater Adelaide region is expected to increase to 2.08 million people by 2050;

• Climate change is expected to affect demand and supply in the Greater Adelaide region by increases to temperatures and inflows reductions over the period to 2050;

• Two possible demand and supply futures for the Greater Adelaide region have been modelled using the same population growth projections as the [draft] Plan for Greater Adelaide, and the inclusion of the 100 GL/annum desalination plant with full supply from 2013;

• The scenarios model possible dry year events and climate change impacts as follows:

35 Approximately 75 per cent of all SA Water mains water supply for the State (sourced from PD). Total SA Water consumption for 2008 = 218 GL, therefore 163/218 = 0.74*100%.






• Under scenario one, and with no further action other than 100 GL/annum supply from the Adelaide desalination plant, the Greater Adelaide region begins to experience a supply shortfall from the year:

• 2038 under a moderate dry year event; and

• 2029 under an extreme dry year event.

• The scenarios highlight the uncertainty regarding future inflows to the MLR and Murray Darling Basin and the vulnerability of the Greater Adelaide region supply system in the future without further action.

• To address the risk to water security under scenario one, the Water Security Plan outlines actions that, when implemented, could ensure that supply remains in surplus in any given year to 2050;

• To manage the future uncertainty, and to ensure the most cost effective options are considered to meet future demand and supply shortfalls, the Government has developed an adaptive management framework underpinned by water security standards and trigger points

• Without action further planning may be required to provide sufficient lead time to develop further supply augmentation measures for the Greater Adelaide region to ensure water security over the period to 2050.

• The adaptive management framework and the use of triggers enables the Government to manage uncertainty in the future. Monitoring demand and supply enables risks to be anticipated, planned for and mitigated against. This approach helps avoid the consequences of over or under investment in providing water security and will be supported by a planning process that includes robust business case development to underpin decision making on options.

A.1.3 OUTCOMES The chapter provides the following outcomes:

• Provides demand and supply scenarios for the Greater Adelaide region to 2050;

• Based on a continued drought and climate change scenario suggests that additional augmentation planning may needed during the period to 2050;

• Identifies security standards that frame an adaptive planning framework; and

• Provides an adaptive planning framework to assist decision making for future supply augmentations, alternative supplies and or enhanced demand management options to address future water security pressures for the region.






A.1.4 DEMAND – SUPPLY BALANCE Over the next 40 years a number of factors will potentially affect the demand-supply balance for the Greater Adelaide region. These factors can tip the balance leading to a surplus or deficit in supply.

Water security standards prescribe a level of security and reliability for the Greater Adelaide region. This level aims to ensure the future prosperity, economic growth and liveability of the region. The standards are set within an adaptive management framework that enables timely and cost effective decision-making. This in turn benefits consumers.

Water security standards, that are quantifiable and measurable, will be developed for the Greater Adelaide region based on the following:

• System water quality

• Restrictions including timing, frequency, severity and duration

• Capacity of the supply system

• Source including diversity, reliability and security

• Consumer efficiency

• Demand factors: population and economic growth

• Climate change scenarios

• Environmental requirements

• Cost effectiveness.

These standards are discussed further in section A.1.8. Regional water security standards will be developed through the regional water planning process described in a separate chapter.

A.1.5 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT The demand and supply projections are limited to the region of Greater Adelaide. This region represents the area where water demand to 2050 is expected to be impacted the most from projected population growth and climate change. Figure 1 shows the area comprising the Greater Adelaide region. Demand and supply forecasts for the remainder of South Australia will be determined through regional water plans as they are prepared. Throughout this section Greater Adelaide will refer to the above region.






A.1.6 CURRENT WATER SUPPLY AND USE

A.1.6.1 Greater Adelaide region water supplies The availability of water in the Greater Adelaide supply system is determined by inflows to major storages, the capacity of these storages (including upstream River Murray storages), the system’s ability to supply water and to transfer it to where it is needed and the availability of any alternative non-rain fed supplies and demand management actions.

The supply system for the Greater Adelaide region is complex and relies upon a diverse portfolio of water sources. South Australia’s water supply system serves predominantly, but not exclusively, the Greater Adelaide Region and is managed by SA Water.

Historically, the Greater Adelaide region has relied upon rainfall dependent sources of water from the River Murray, the MLR and groundwater sources. Unlike Sydney’s and Melbourne’s supply catchments, which have a capacity to maintain water supplies during drought periods for around 3-4 years, MLR storages have the capacity to store sufficient water to meet 12 months supply36. There is also the capacity for South Australia to store water upstream in the Murray Darling Basin storages as a strategic reserve.

Between 10 and 90 per cent of the Greater Adelaide region’s mains water supply is met by the MLR storages depending on seasonal conditions, with an average of 60 per cent. For more than 50 years, the balance of mains water supply required for the region has been met by the River Murray. In an average year approximately 45 per cent of the water supplied to consumers through the mains water supply system is sourced from the River Murray37.

SA Water is currently entitled to 696 GL minimum flows for dilution and evaporative losses in South Australia plus critical human needs of 201 GL/annum taking the total supply to around 900 GL/annum minimum flows into the SA River Murray system.

The amount of water drawn from the River Murray each year varies. Table 1 shows that during dry years where there is lower than average rainfall the reliance on the River Murray as a water source increases substantially.

36 Desalination Working Group (November 2007) 37 Tonkin Consulting (May 2007) Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security Investigation Stage 1 – Current Demands, page 4.






Table 1: Percentage reliance of total source of potable water for period 2002-03 to 2007-08

% of total source Source of potable water 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 River Murray 72 48 44 49 91 85 Surface water 22 45 50 45 3 8 Groundwater 6 7 6 6 6 7 Desalinated water38 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Source: SA Water Sustainability Report 2007 and Annual Report 2007-08

The volume of water extracted from the River Murray, and as such from the Murray Darling Basin, for South Australia’s urban supplies is small (around 1 per cent) compared with overall extractions from the Basin39. Total South Australian extractions, including agriculture, from the River Murray represent around 6 per cent.

The Greater Adelaide region also uses groundwater, fit for purpose alternative supplies such as recycled water and stormwater, as well as rainwater sources, but mostly for non drinking uses.

Figure 2 shows mains water consumption by NRM region. Of the NRM regions the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region has the greatest level of water consumption.

Figure 2: Mains water consumption according to NRM region.

NRM Region Mains Consumption

Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges

73%

SA Murray Darling Basin

6%

South East3%

Northern and Yorke14%

Eyre Peninsula4%

Arid Lands>1%

Kangaroo Island>1%

Source: SA Water, 2009; average mains water consumption 1999-2008.

38 The seawater source listed in the table refers to the desalinated plant at Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island. The 50 GL Adelaide desalination plant will be completed in 2011. 39 Desalination Working Group (November 2007)






Population centres in the SA Murray Darling Basin and Northern and Yorke NRM regions are also connected to the mains network that links Greater Adelaide with the River Murray, as well as parts of the Eyre Peninsula and the South East. This means that supply augmentations and demand management strategies that work to improve net water availability in the Greater Adelaide region can help water availability in these regions.

The remainder of the State not connected to the major mains network relies on groundwater and in some regions surface water to meet their water supply needs. The drought has highlighted the vulnerability of climate dependent water supplies in these areas as rainfall and groundwater become scarcer.

Water use in the Greater Adelaide region has reduced over the past 10 years. While it is difficult to separate out the effects of permanent conservation measures, introduced in 2003, and water restrictions, introduced in 2006, the result is that in 2008 mains water consumption was approximately 25 per cent lower than predicted based on historical demand levels without restrictions. This is illustrated below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Historical mains water consumption for Greater Adelaide to 2008

0

50

100

150

200

250

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Ann

ual S

uppl

y / C

onsu

mpt

ion

(GL

per a

nnum

)

Historical consumption Historic Demand without restrictions

Permanent water conservation measures

Water restrictions

High rainfallyears

High rainfall year

Source: Data supplied by SA Water, 2009.

Despite a noticeable drop in consumption in 1993, the trend for consumption for Greater Adelaide was a steady but gradual rise year on year until 2003, when total consumption fell sharply. In 2008 water consumption in Greater Adelaide fell to its lowest level since 1983. This was due to permanent water conservation measures and restrictions on water use. The reduction






in water use was despite increased demand from population and economic growth between 1983 and 2008.

SA Water’s estimates of the underlying demand for Greater Adelaide suggest that were water restrictions not in place, the demand for 2008 would have been approximately 216 GL for the year. The gap between the two trend lines on Figure 3 represents the estimated water savings from water restrictions. The gap would suggest that water restrictions have reduced Greater Adelaide’s mains water consumption by an estimated 50 GL in 2008.

In 2004 average household mains water use in metropolitan Adelaide was 245 kilolitres per household. By 2008 this figure had reduced by 21 per cent to 193 kilolitres per household. This reduction is mostly due to permanent water saving measures and water restrictions. Figure 4 shows the residential consumption per household for the region for the period 2003 to 2008.

Figure 4: Mains water consumption per household for the period 2003 to 2008

Household mains water consumption

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

M etropo litan Adelaide South Australia *

Source: SA Water (2009): Note refers only to the SA Water network in relation to South Australia data and data for Metropolitan Adelaide is not available for 2003

Residential water use in the SA Water Network is similar to other jurisdictions with the highest use outdoors. In recent years the Greater Adelaide region residential water use per person has declined, estimated at around 82 kilolitres per person for 200840. This compares favourably with water use levels for Perth for example which were 147 kilolitres per person per year41.

40 Per person water usage calculated by dividing 193 kilolitres per household for 2008 sourced from SA Water data by the number of occupants per household (2.35) as per Figure 6 which was sourced from the draft Plan for Greater Adelaide. 41 WA Water Corporation (February 2009) Directions for our water future, Draft Plan.






Industrial and commercial users are generally manufacturers, retail traders and office buildings. Together they represent approximately 10 per cent of total water use annually. Water supplied for commercial and industrial use is of drinking water quality standards. At some locations local groundwater is used for industrial and commercial purposes.

Water for public or community purposes accounts for 17 per cent of the total water use. Government agencies, universities, schools and local government use community purpose water to maintain parklands, open spaces, sporting grounds, places of worship and gardens. In addition to mains water use, groundwater, stormwater, rainwater and surface water is sourced for community purpose watering.

A.1.7 UNDERSTANDING THE DEMAND FOR WATER

A.1.7.1 Demand Drivers The key drivers influencing water demand in the Greater Adelaide region include population growth and climate change.

One of the key aims of the Water Security Plan is to project future demand pressures for the Greater Adelaide region to 2050. The following influences on demand have been considered in relation to their impact on water consumption in the region:

• Population growth

• Changing housing stock and occupancy rates

• Economic growth

• Climate change impacts affecting inflows and temperatures

• Projected growth in key industry sectors

• Significant land use changes

• Protecting river and groundwater health

It is difficult to get robust data on some of the above drivers. This section examines to the extent possible the above drivers to determine potential impacts on the future water security for the Greater Adelaide region.

A.1.7.2 Population growth The SA Department of Planning and Local Government modelled population projections for the region to 2036. Scenarios modelled for this plan are based on these growth projections to 2050 assuming a continuation of the trend in projected population growth between 2006 and 2036.






Based on this assumption the population of South Australia could be expected to reach 2.49 million by 2050. This is a 63 per cent increase from the 2008 population of 1.56 million. The achievement of 2 million people in the State by 2027 is around 23 years ahead of the target in South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

Population in the Greater Adelaide region is projected to grow to 2.08 million by 2050 from a base of 1.29 million people in 2008. This represents an increase of around 62 per cent. Figure 5 shows the projected population growth for the region to 2050. The second line represents previous population projections under South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

Figure 5: Projected population growth for Greater Adelaide to 2050

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048

Time (years)

Popu

latio

n, to

tal

SA Strategic Plan Projected population grow th Planning SA 2008

Source: Planning SA forecasts, 2008.

The current economic conditions may impact on the rate of population growth. The purpose of an adaptive management approach for future water planning is to activate action in the event that demand exceeds supply. If future growth is below projections, the trigger points are not activated. This ensures that additional measures to increase water supplies or reduce demand are timely and cost effective.

A.1.7.3 Changing housing stock and occupancy rates Future changes to housing stock and occupancy rates on water demand are highly variable and difficult to predict.






A range of factors associated with changing housing stock and occupancy rates could influence water demand in the Greater Adelaide region to 2050. These include:

• Increase in the numbers and types of dwelling;

• Decrease in the number of occupants per household. Figure 6 shows the projected fall in the number of occupants per household in Greater Adelaide to 2036;

• Changes to the housing density mix that is the proportion of detached homes versus flats, units and apartments;

• Proportion of new dwellings in Greenfield sites versus urban renewal and infill; and

• Building standards with respect to water efficiency

• New technologies, community desires and lifestyles.

The reduction in the number of occupants per household on water demand needs to be carefully considered. Figure 6 shows the projected fall in the number of occupants per household for the Greater Adelaide region for the period to 2036. The reduction in the number of occupants in a household may not necessarily lead to any significant change in per capita water demand. In some cases it may lead to a reduction in water use.

Figure 6: Projected fall in the number of occupants per household in Greater Adelaide.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036

Time (years)

Occ

upan

ts p

er h

ouse

hold

SA Strategic Plan Planning SA 2008

Source: Planning SA forecasts, 2008.






Inside the home, water consumption is more a function of the number and composition of the occupants, household income, dwelling tenure, the age of the dwelling and the number and type of water consuming devices in the dwelling e.g. toilets, showers, dishwashers, spas etc. Research by the University of New South Wales’ City Future Research Centre shows that per capita water consumption for detached houses versus flats and apartments shows very little difference in demand once allowance is made for the number of occupants42.

The main impact from changes in housing density on household water demand is likely to be through the reduction in the number of homes with gardens and the rate of change in housing density (change in proportion of detached homes to apartments and flats.

Typically, in Australia, a high proportion of residential water use occurs outdoors. Water Proofing Adelaide indicated that outdoor water use as a percentage of overall household water consumption was 40 per cent in 2005. Water restrictions, which allow outdoor watering on certain days and times during a week, are expected to have had a significant impact on reducing the volume of current outdoor water use in the Greater Adelaide region. Dwellings without gardens or outdoor water use could use significantly less water. In the future savings generated from a change in dwelling type (detached house to apartments and flats) may be offset by the rate of growth and type of new dwellings constructed.

The [draft] Plan for Greater Adelaide indicates that by 2036 the Greater Adelaide region will require 258,000 new dwellings43. The rate of growth and the density of these new dwellings is uncertain however the Greater Adelaide region in the future may have a greater mix of dwelling types and an increased housing density.

The impact of occupancy rates and changes in housing stock on future water demand is dependent on actions in the draft Plan for Greater Adelaide. Because of this occupancy rates and changing housing stock have not been modelled in the demand-supply scenarios.

A.1.7.4 Economic Growth The global financial situation has meant that Australia faces a period of change and uncertainty for the immediate future. The recent South Australian Economic Statement (March 2009) indicates that are a number of areas where South Australia could capture emerging economic opportunities during this period of change.

Greater Adelaide provides 81.8 per cent of the State’s total employment and houses around 83 per cent of the State’s total population44 .

42 City Future Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2005) Water use and the built environment: Patterns of water consumption in Sydney 43 Planning SA (November 2008) Directions for the 30 year plan for Greater Adelaide 44 Planning SA (November 2008) Directions for the 30 year plan for Greater Adelaide






Figure 7: South Australia’s employment growth for the period 2001 to 2009

Source: SA Government (February 2009) South Australia’s economic performance

South Australia’s economic growth (measured by the Gross State Product) has been slower compared with Australia as a whole (Refer to Figure 7).

Over the past 10 years South Australian economic activity grew annually by 2.5 per cent compared to 3.5 per cent for the nation as a whole as shown in Figure 845.

Figure 8: Growth in GSP/GDP from the previous year

Source: Economic Development Board (March 2009) Economic Statement

45 Economic Development Board (March 2009) Economic Statement






Developments in the construction, mining and defence sectors are expected to contribute positively to the State’s economy in the future. Growth forecasts for the next two years however have been downgraded in light of the economic changes with Gross State product growth expected to be between 1.75 – 2.30 per cent in 2008-09 and between 2.0-2.9 per cent in 2009-1046.

Actual impacts to future water consumption from economic growth and the ability to forecast these reliably is constrained by available data. Actual impacts to future water consumption from economic growth and the ability to forecast these reliably is constrained by available data. Economic and jobs growth data was not provided and has not been modelled as a key demand driver for the Greater Adelaide region.

A.1.7.5 Climate change impacts affecting inflows and temperatures There is strong scientific evidence that climate change is occurring in Australia. In summary climate change has the potential to impact water use in the following ways:

• Decreases surface water availability and the rate of rainfall recharge to groundwater

• Increase temperatures which can lead to an increase in demand

• Sea level rises which can lead to increases in salinisation of surface and ground water and inundation of coastal freshwater wetlands and lowlands

• Alter the frequency and severity of storm events which can lead to flooding and water quality impacts.

In southern South Australia (including the Greater Adelaide region) climate change impacts include:

• Increasing temperatures which could mean more hot days and less cold nights

• Increasing extreme storm events (both severity and frequency) which could mean more flash flooding

• Sea level rises and inundation affecting coastal areas and their natural and built infrastructure. Uncontrolled climate change could lead to global sea level rise of 1 metre or more by 2100 and more intense storms, threatening coastal housing and infrastructure.

The potential impact of climate change on inflows into the MLR storages are based on previous investigations undertaken by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation in conjunction with CSIRO and take into account A2 and B2 climate scenarios as specified in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC47.

46 SA Government (February 2009) South Australia’s Economic Performance 47 Tonkin Consulting (November 2008) Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security Investigation Stage 3.






A.1.7.6 Growth in key industry sectors The key industry sectors within the Greater Adelaide region that are likely to impact on the future demand for water are business, industry, and agriculture with some livestock grazing.

The services sector accounts for the majority of South Australian employment (73 per cent) and output (58 per cent)48. The majority of these services are provided in the Greater Adelaide region. Growth in many of the service sectors has been below the National average. Manufacturing employment has been broadly constant over the past decade. The developing mining, defence, energy and construction growth expected may help drive manufacturing in the Greater Adelaide region in the future49.

Agricultural activities in the region have been impacted by the drought and availability of water. Water use has increased in the Greater Adelaide region since 1998 due to the expansion of wine grape production50. There are limitations on the ability to extract more water in most agricultural areas, with most water resources being used at their sustainable limit. Future growth for the agricultural sector (including horticulture and viticulture) for 2008-09 and beyond remains uncertain. This sector will rely on the availability of water for further development.

Agriculture also provides the base for secondary production in the wine and food industries, and so its continued prosperity is important to the economy51. Future growth in this sector is expected to be constrained without additional water supplies or further efficiency improvements.

Other industry sectors such as forestry and mining activities can impact on demand and therefore their impact was considered in relation to the Greater Adelaide region.

The Greater Adelaide region has few areas with high rainfall, and as such does not have large forest areas. Most plantations are located in the South East NRM region. There are some important forestry activities in the Adelaide Hills. The region also supports a small number of timber production and processing operations. Future water demand from forestry and forest industries in the region is uncertain.

Mining is an important water use sector however the main mining activities are situated in regional parts of the State mostly outside the Greater Adelaide region. The future growth of mining on water demand will be examined through the regional water plans.

The current economic and drought conditions will continue to impact on these industry sectors. On this basis and recognising the future uncertainty with respect to growth forecasts these sectors are not expected to significantly drive water demand upwards in the short to medium term. The Government will continue to review and monitor developments, however the demand-supply scenarios do not model projected growth in these sectors.

48 SA Economic Development Board (March 2009) Economic Statement 49 SA Economic Development Board (March 2009) Economic Statement 50 Water Proofing Adelaide website www.waterproofingadelaide.sa.gov.au (2009) 51 South Australia Economic Development Board (March 2009) Economic Statement: South Australia’s prospects for growth






A.1.7.7 Significant land use changes Changes in land use can have significant impacts on water resources, and yield. Land use tends to change incrementally in response to society’s changing needs. The challenge is ensuring that these changes reflect sustainable development and do not threaten water security.

Land uses in the region have changed since 2001. Urban development has increased at the northern and southern edges of metropolitan Adelaide and production land has changed from agricultural to horticultural. This shift to horticulture in the northern part of the Region was more than likely linked to the expansion of existing horticultural areas in the Barossa due to previously strong demand for wine grapes52.

Land use change from agriculture to residential or peri urban or rural residential are particularly marked in the northern and Fleurieu parts of the Region. A change in use from rural residential to residential, showing denser housing has been noticeable in the Fleurieu, which has shown large population growth over this time.

Increases in residential and rural residential uses and increases in more intense land uses such as horticulture (compared to grazing) has the potential to create additional pressure on water resources. Based on current information and data land use change within the Greater Adelaide region is not expected to be significant and accordingly has not been modelled as a demand driver.

A.1.7.8 Protecting river and groundwater health The region is highly dependent on its surface and groundwater sources which include the River Murray. Protecting the ecosystems of these assets is complex, but crucial to ensuring there is water of a suitably quality and a healthy environment that supports a range of ecosystems and recreational and cultural activities. Environmental water targets are not specified in the NRM regional plans covering the Greater Adelaide region. Accordingly, the demand-supply projections have assumed no change to environmental water needs. Over the period to 2050 however this situation could change.

A.1.7.9 Policy changes The other factors that can influence water demand for the Greater Adelaide region over the next 40 years are policy decisions. The projections have not attempted to model every conceivable policy change that could influence future water demand, this would be an impossible task. However, should the policy environment change then the outcomes of water supply and demand would also change.

52 Greater Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges NRM Board State of the Region (June 2008)






A.1.7.10 Conclusions Based on the above assessment of potential drivers for the demand for water in the Greater Adelaide region to 2050 the following factors are considered to warrant further examination on their own and in combination as planning scenarios:

• population growth to 2050;

• drought;

• climate change; and

• additional supply and demand mitigation strategies from the Plan.

A.1.8 SCENARIOS – BALANCING DEMAND AND SUPPLY This section provides scenarios for the demand and supply of mains water in the Greater Adelaide region to 2050.

Population growth to 2050 is expected to have a significant impact on future water demand and supply for the Greater Adelaide region. Should projected population growth for the region be lower than projected over the period, the adaptive management framework ensures decisions required for additional water security measures are timely and cost effective.

Three major scenarios have been developed for the period to 2050 to guide water supply and demand management planning for the Greater Adelaide region. Each scenario shows possible futures using drought and climate change as variables, as well as additional demand mitigation actions as follows:

• Additional demand mitigation measures of between 50 GL/annum by 2050; and

• 40 GL/annum between 2025 and 2050 from alternative supplies53.

Assumptions used to develop the scenarios are summarised in Box 1.

Box 1: Key assumptions underpinning the scenarios:

This box specifies the assumptions underpinning the scenarios. The scenarios and the assumptions used have been modelled in conjunction with SA Water and DWLBC.

Data sources

• SA Water is the source for the supply and demand data, including the estimates of increased demand for water due to climate change

• Modelling of climate change reductions in inflows to the MLR catchments comes from updated estimates from CSIRO/DWLBC.

53 The volume has been modelled as a gradual increase over the period to 2050






Geographic coverage

• To provide projections within the Greater Adelaide Region boundary, data for the Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply System from SA Water on supply and demand has been adjusted on a pro-rata basis by area.

Supply projections are based on:

• The modelling based on historic data indicates an average availability from MLR sources (163 GL/annum)

• Moderate dry year assumes an availability of 35 GL/annum or the historical 1 in 10 dry year. Climate change remains the same as scenario 1 with MLR inflows assumed to gradually fall over time by 41 per cent from 2008 to 2050

• Extreme dry year event assumes availability of 18 GL/annum from the MLR in any given year. This volume is equivalent to the historical 1 in 50 year dry year, and is similar to the inflows experienced during 2006. The scenario includes MLR inflows gradually falling with climate change over time by 41 per cent from 2008 to 2050

• All scenarios include:

• The inclusion of 100 GL/annum of desalinated water into the supply system with 50 GL/annum commencing from 2011 and the remaining 50 GL/annum from 2013;

• No change in SA Water’s licence to extract water from the River Murray, and assumes that up to 150 GL of River Murray water is available for extraction in any given year. South Australia is currently entitled to minimum flows of 696 GL/annum for dilution and evaporative losses in South Australia, plus critical human needs of approximately 201 GL/annum taking the total supply to 897 GL/annum minimum flow into the SA River Murray system.

Demand forecasts assume:

• Achievement of existing targets in Water Proofing Adelaide for demand reduction and additional supplies by 2025

• Population growth projections from the [draft] Plan for Greater Adelaide

• Climate change impacts on demand from increased temperatures using the IPCC emissions forecasts for A2 (for harsher climate change) and B2 (for moderate climate change)

• No change in the proportion of total demand from changing housing stock and occupancy rates, economic growth, growth in key industry sectors, the environment, land use changes or future policy changes.

7.2.1.1 Future water supply in the Greater Adelaide region Previously water system yield for the Greater Adelaide region was relatively well known. The current prolonged drought and future climate change mean that there is less certainty in being






able to reliably predict inflows to storages. There is also the possibility in the future of a greater number of possible yield outcomes than has been experienced in the past.

Climate change, which is exacerbating inflows and temperatures, could in time, lead to a permanent change in the system yield for the Greater Adelaide region. A permanent reduction or stepped change in climate and runoff has been experienced by Western Australia54.

In the future climate change is expected to create hotter and drier days in the Greater Adelaide region. Climate change is also expected to reduce the long term average inflows into the MLR due to less frequent and lighter rainfall patterns. Under climate change projected inflows into the MLR catchments are estimated to reduce 41 per cent from 2008 to 2050. Scenarios one and two take into account climate change.

Over the last 10 years inflows to the MLR storages have been significantly less (approximately 36 per cent) than the long-term average, as illustrated in Figure 9. This figure shows the difference in the last 10 years of inflows (113 GL) versus the long-term average (177 GL).

Figure 9: Annual inflows to the MLR storages for the period 1892-2006

Source: Tonkin Consulting (May 2007) MAWSS Stage 1 investigation55.

In the last ten years there has been an absence of high flow years between dry years compared with the historical record. It is not clear whether the last 10 years represent an aberration, that is, 54 National Water Commission, Australian Water Resources 2005 website: www.water.gov.au It is noted that Tonkin Consulting in its first report Metropolitan Adelaide Water Supply Security Investigation Stage 1 – Current demands (May 2007) also referred to Perth’s situation on pages 4-5. 55 There was no available update to this figure showing the inclusion of the 2007 and 2008 flows at the time this Plan was prepared.






the worst drought on record or the beginning of climate change and a permanent step (downward) change in inflows to the MLR catchments. The continued drought and climate change scenario represents the impact on water availability in the MLR should the 2006 inflows continue into the future56.

Figure 9 also illustrates the natural variability in flows in the MLR, even under normal conditions. The one in 100 dry year event, roughly equivalent to the lowest year of recorded flows, is around one tenth of the average inflows experienced.

A.1.9 Possible futures

A.1.9.1 Scenario 1: Extreme and moderate dry years and climate change with no additional water security measures from the Plan Figure 13 shows the demand and supply balance for Greater Adelaide under two different possible inflow events without any further action. The set of assumptions that underpin Figure 13 are provided below.


Dry year event Moderate dry year event Extreme dry year event







• Increased demand for water by 5 per cent based on IPCC B2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation



• Increased demand for water by 17 per cent based on IPCC A2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation

Outcome For any given year supply under a moderate dry year event is in surplus to 2038, mostly due to supplies from the 100 GL/annum Adelaide desalination plant. In 2038 the balance moves into deficit which equals 32 GL/annum in 2050.

For any given year under an extreme dry year event supply is in surplus to 2029, mostly due to supplies from the 100 GL/annum Adelaide desalination plant. In 2029 the

56 According to information sourced from SA Water (March 2009) this one in fifty year event is approximately equal to a repeat of 2006 flow levels and has been assumed as available flows of 18 GL/annum






balance moves into deficit which equals 68 GL/annum in 2050.

Figure 13: Scenario 1 Moderate and extreme dry year event and climate change

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

68 GL

Surplus

32 GL

Figure 13 above shows the likely surplus or deficit of mains water in any given year under a moderate and extreme dry year event from 2008 to 2050, if no further actions are taken to safeguard Greater Adelaide’s mains water demand and supply balance.

The orange line shows what would occur in any given year with yields from the MLR storages equivalent to 35 GL per annum, gradually reduced by climate change impacts over the next forty years.

On the basis of the historical record there is a one in ten chance of this occurring in any given year over the period. Under climate change this one in ten event may occur more frequently. In this situation, any year after 2038 experiencing this level of reduced flows could result in a deficit of supply against demand.

The blue line shows what would occur in any given year with yields from the MLR storages equivalent to 18 GL per annum, gradually reduced by climate change impacts over the period to 2050. This event is similar to yields experienced in the MLR during 2006.






On the basis of the historical record there is a one in fifty chance of this occurring in any given year, and under climate change predictions this event may occur more frequently. In this situation, years experiencing this level of inflows after 2029 would result in a deficit of supply against demand.

For both events the surplus or deficit is expected to be equivalent to the volume shown in the graph for that year. For example, if a one in fifty year rainfall event occurred in 2029 the shortfall would be nearly zero. If however a one in fifty year event occurred in 2050 without further action to secure Greater Adelaide’s water supply, the shortfall would be 68 GL, or around one third of Greater Adelaide’s current total water consumption.

This means that without further action, Greater Adelaide could experience water shortages from 2029 onwards in dry years with no action.

A.1.9.2 Scenario 2: Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate change with additional water security measures from the Plan Figure 14 shows the demand and supply balance for Greater Adelaide using the inflow events described previously but including additional demand and supply reuse actions. The following assumptions were used for Figure 14.


Dry year event

Moderate dry year event Extreme dry year event









• Increased demand for water by 5 per cent based on IPCC B2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation



• Increased demand for water by 17 per cent based on IPCC A2 trend for estimated changes in temperature and evaporation






• Additional demand mitigation target of 50 GL/annum in savings by 2050

• Additional demand mitigation target of 50 GL/annum in savings by 2050

Outcome Supply remains in surplus for all years to 2050 under both the moderate and extreme dry year events.

In 2050 this surplus is 22 GL/a under an extreme dry year and 58 GL/a under a moderate dry year.

Figure 14: Scenario 2 Moderate and extreme dry year events and climate change with additional water security measures

-200

-100

0

100

200

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Ann

ual S

urpl

us /

Def

icit

(GL

per a

nnum

)


Deficit

22 GL

Surplus

58 GL

By including additional water savings through demand mitigation (50 GL per annum) and stormwater recycling (40 GL per annum) by 2050, Greater Adelaide’s water supply and demand balance remains in surplus beyond 2050 under even one in fifty year low rainfall events. Without these actions Greater Adelaide could experience water shortages in dry years after 2029, with the inclusion of the Adelaide Desalination Plant.

A.1.10 ADAPTIVE FRAMEWORK Planning for future supply while there is a high level of uncertainty about key drivers for both supply and demand is complex and requires an adaptive approach.






Traditionally, governments have planned based on historical long-term average inflows and invested in system augmentations pre-emptively to meet future demand. Until recently solutions have been largely climate dependent sources of water such as large dams.

The current severe and prolonged drought has changed this approach. The last ten years of inflows have meant that governments can no longer rely on past projections to provide planning certainty. Nor can they rely solely on climate dependent sources of water to meet future demand needs. This trend is consistent across Australia and internationally.

The principles underpinning an adaptive management approach include:

• Quantification of the state of the resource annually

• Decision making in relation to system health, planning and understanding is backed by science and evidence

• There is a high level of investment readiness for demand and supply options at all times

• Governance and institutional arrangements are independent, nimble, adaptive and capable of rapid (and opportunistic) decision making

• Annual and independent monitoring and evaluation of the situation.

The Government of South Australia has put in place measures to ensure that in the short to medium term the water security needs of Greater Adelaide are met. Over a longer time horizon it becomes increasingly difficult to predict with certainty what additional actions need to be taken. This is illustrated by the different scenarios discussed previously.

A new adaptive management framework will consider the following factors:

1 A set of water security standards

2 State of the resource

3 Demand Pressures

4 Governance and management

5 Options and assessment process

6 Measuring and monitoring

Figure 17 shows the adaptive management framework.






Figure 17: Adaptive framework to inform security decisions

A.1.10.1 WATER SECURITY STANDARDS The Government will set security standards for South Australia’s water supplies on the basis of advice from Office for Water Security and, the Water Security Council. The security standards define the risk points that threaten water supply and which require decisions on options that increase supply or reduce demand, or both. Water security standards will be developed based on the following parameters:

• System water quality

• Restrictions including timing, frequency, severity and duration

• Capacity of the supply system

• Source including diversity, reliability and security

• Consumer efficiency

Water Security Standards• System water quality • Restrictions• Capacity of the supply system• Source water• Consumer efficiency• Demand (population & economic growth)

• Climate change scenarios• Environmental requirements• Cost effectiveness

State of the Resource

Trigger Activated• Short term emergency• Long term (permanent

change)

Options• Drought Response Plan• Demand management• Supply augmentations• Back up supply• Water Purchase• Trade• Price• Alternative supplies• Policy changes• Aquifer Storage• Infrastructure efficiency

Assessment• Technical feasibility• Project readiness• Robust business case • NPV• Timeliness• Risks• Market testing• Community acceptance• Procurement strategy

Demand Pressures

Minister, Water Security Council, Office for Water Security, SA Water

Continuous monitoring and measurementAnnual review process

New independentplanning function

Action






• Demand factors: population and economic growth

• Climate change scenarios

• Environmental requirements

• Cost effectiveness

• Standard of service

A.1.10.2 STATE OF THE RESOURCE AND DEMAND PRESSURES Security is concerned with managing the risk of having insufficient water to meet demand. In assessing the future resource outlook for the Greater Adelaide region there is a need to regularly monitor and measure the state of the resource and demand pressures.

The review of the state of the resource should take into account the volume and quality of water available from all sources, impact of climate modelling, the rate of any expected change to the resource and the impact of short-term impacts such as drought or water quality deterioration.

Estimations of future demand should encompass all consumptive uses including economic development, social, environmental and cultural. While difficult to predict all possible impacts whole of government and community input will be important.

An annual review process provides an important check point for significant investment decisions which can improve the cost effectiveness of projects. The review frequency is particularly important in the water industry as there are often significant lead times required in the design and construction of assets to deal with future demand-supply imbalances.

An annual review of the Water Security Plan for South Australia will be undertaken commencing in 2010. The review process will assess the state of the resource against the water security standards and update demand and supply forecasts. The review process will identify matters that relate to the future security and reliability of the State’s water supply system relative to forecast demand.

The Government will publish an annual review or Statement that covers:

• Report on progress and any risks or issues during the previous period

• Review water security standards and confirm these for the next period

• Provide the demand-supply balance for the region

• Identify and analyse the impact of any emerging issues






A.1.10.3 TRIGGER POINTS All actions to meet future demand and supply will have economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. The objective is to achieve the least cost, most effective strategies to satisfy all three optimally while securing the future water supply of the State. The role of trigger points in an adaptive management framework assists in ensuring that decisions are cost effective and timely. In particular triggers:

• Provide a framework to deliver greater flexibility and diversity of solutions

• Reduce the risk of high cost investments that prove to be redundant or delivered earlier than required

• Reduce risk while and identify opportunities

• Ensure that demand-supply is continually monitored

• Provide a form of insurance

There are examples of the use of triggers in other jurisdictions, for example New South Wales. South Australia however has a more complex water resource system to manage than other jurisdictions as evidenced by:

• No major single supply source

• No non climate dependent sources of water in the system until 2010

• Storages are located upstream (along the Murray) as well as locally

• Local resources are limited and storage capacity is adequate for short periods only (12 months)

• High dependence on the River Murray which is over-allocated and vulnerable to drought and climate change.

In using triggers as part of an adaptive approach it is important to distinguish between medium to long-term adaptive planning and drought or emergency response (required due to unplanned interruptions as a result of natural disasters, operational failure or water quality issues). Drought and or emergency response plans will always be required to be in place but are likely to be temporary mandatory and or voluntary measures to manage short-term demand and supply during these events. Once the situation that triggered the drought response is over these actions are usually no longer required. Water restrictions are an example of a mandatory measure used in this way.

Adaptive management has a long term planning focus that is usually guided by a combination of demand and supply triggers that could lead to a permanent imbalance between demand and supply.






Examples of these triggers include:

Demand Triggers Supply triggers

• Population drivers

• Gross, character, location

• Consumption

• Yield requirements to meet growth

• Policy changes

• MDB Cap

• Change in security

• Population policy changes

• Economic policy

• Environmental policy

• Land use changes

• Industry

• Knowledge and science

• State of the resource

• Amount/quality

• New information and science

• Climate modelling

• Rate of change

• Demand

• Competing demand

• Infrastructure

• Unforeseen permanent events

• Demand management

• Technology advances

• Augmentation options

• Alternative supplies

• Treatment technologies

To underpin the adaptive framework a temporal model is needed that clearly shows the trigger points (and timeframes) when decisions should be made to ensure water security for the Greater Adelaide region.

A.1.10.4 GOVERNANCE The adaptive management framework requires a clear single point of authority that is nimble and accountable. The Government will create (or will examine options for) an independent planning function to oversee an annual review process and to activate the triggers. This independent planning function will also ensure consistency the monitoring of the water security standards including any changes, as well as assess options and initiatives as they arise.






A.1.10.5 MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT Each year, the Government will monitor every year resources, demand and supply and other key parameters on which water security plans are based for the Sate. A monitoring and measurement framework that evaluates the meeting of standards and current resource conditions and provides early feedback on progress against key actions to reduce demand and increase supply is expected to assist with decision making and annual reporting.

The monitoring and framework is expected to include a set of water accounts for all water sources in the State and a model that enables timely and accurate projections of demand and supply under different scenarios.

A.1.10.6 OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT To guide future decision making on the best solutions to meet demand and supply imbalances in the future and ensure water security for the region the following approach should be considered:

• Ensure all options are on the table, that is place no policy bans or limitations on what could be considered;

• Develop a rolling multi year program of options (capital and non capital) that have been developed to feasibility stage and independently assessed;

• Develop robust and repeatable assessment criteria including estimated capital and operating costs, water prices, the volume of water (either saved or supplied or both), the risk profile, social, economic and environmental impacts;

• Assess the level of flexibility inherent in each option, such as timing, scalability, scope for deferment or stopping to avoid costs, lead times required;

• Assess the readiness of the option within a short, medium or long-term timeframe. Readiness options may include the scope for reserving water in the Murray Darling Basin storages, acceleration of demand management actions and or water usage restrictions;

• Develop a robust business case for each option;

• Build understanding and knowledge through best practice, research and development, and interstate and international comparisons to ensure technological advancements are continually considered in relation to the options identified; and

• Build organisational capability for rapid roll out of options.






B Data sheets for demand and supply

Table B1: Supply and Demand projections, third party data sources

Data reference Figure Notes Source

Long term average supplies MLR sources 163 GL HOMA Modelled 110 year average

intake to storages = 177, minus 14 GL evaporation to give the available supply of 163 GL

Water Proofing Adelaide worksheet, Tonkin MAWSS stage 3, table 2.2

ADP Desalinated water

50 GL Assume a full years supply of 50 GL desalinated water from 2011.

Ministerial Press Release, Premier Mike Rann, 11 September 2007

Total Long Term Average Flow

267 GL This comprises the estimated intake to MLR storage (see above) of 177 GL intake from the MLR, 80 GL average pumping from the MDB, and 10 GL from other sources (eg stormwater and rainwater tanks)

Water Proofing Adelaide Estimate, Water Proofing Adelaide Report.

Dry year supplies (1 in 50 year event) River Murray sources 150 GL This is the 150 GL available for

critical human needs from the River Murray for the MAWSS under extreme drought conditions. This is also tested as an assumption in scenarios 5a and 5b.

Tonkin MAWSS Report Stage 3 assumption

MLR sources 18 GL Including an allowance for evaporation of 14 GL gives a net availability of 18 GL.

Evaporation: Water Proofing Adelaide information sheet

ADP Desalinated water

50 GL Assume a full years supply of 50 GL desalinated water from 2011.

Ministerial Press Release, Premier Mike Rann, 11 September 2007

Total Sum of above

Climate change reduction in flows – average year Reduction in MLR Inflows

40.7% 40.7% applied to 177 (estimated long term average supply from MLR sources) predicts a fall of 72 GL. (177 sourced above)

Tonkin MAWSS Stage 3 projected fall to 2050, Table 2.2, page 8, which has been straight line projected from 2008 to 2050.

Climate change reduction in flows – dry year Reduction in MLR Inflows

40.7% Projecting a 40.7 % reduction on the 32 GL (above), while still keeping the 14 GL evaporation rate predicts a fall of 13 GL by 2050 in a dry year.

Based on CSIRO and DWLBC, Tonkin 3 projected average reduction in inflows to 2050, Table 2.2, page 8, which has been straight line projected from 2008 to 2050; figure applied to the 1 in 50 year dry year event of 32 GL.






WPA High demand projection

Water Proofing Adelaide/SASP target projected demand growth

Water Proofing Adelaide

Planning SA Non Climate Change Low DWLBC, personalised data request High DWLBC, personalised data request Very High DWLBC, personalised data request Tonkin/Planning SA with Climate Change Low B2 Tonkin 3, Page 12, Table 2.5 High B2 Tonkin 3, Page 12, Table 2.5 High A2 Tonkin 3, Page 12, Table 2.5 Very High A2 Tonkin 3, Page 12, Table 2.5 MAWSS/WPA vs GAP boundary adjustment

1.063

Applied to supply and demand estimates (excluding desalination outputs). The GAP areas not supplied by MAWSS (talking about SA Water supplies only) are supplied either by the River Murray, or by Myponga Reservoir. Both of these sources have additional capacity (unlike the remainder of the MLR storages). Most of the areas concerned would be supplied from the SA Water country licence, not the Adelaide licence.

DWLBC Internal Paper, Comparisons of Various Definitions of Adelaide






Table B2: Projected Greater Adelaide water demand under simplified scenarios, volumes of water supplied per annum (GL).

Scenario 1A Scenario 1B Scenario 2A Scenario 2B

Year Supply Demand Supply Demand (low mitigation)

Demand (high mitigation)

Supply Demand Supply Demand (low mitigation)


2008 179 216 179 216 216 197 216 197 216 216 2009 178 218 178 218 218 196 218 196 218 218 2010 178 221 178 220 220 196 220 196 219 219 2011 228 224 228 222 221 245 222 245 220 219 2012 227 226 227 223 222 245 225 245 222 220 2013 227 229 277 225 223 244 227 294 223 221 2014 227 232 277 227 224 244 229 294 224 222 2015 226 234 276 228 225 243 231 293 225 222 2016 226 237 276 230 227 243 233 293 227 223 2017 226 240 276 232 228 242 236 292 228 224 2018 225 242 275 233 229 242 238 292 229 225 2019 225 245 275 235 230 241 240 291 230 225 2020 225 247 275 237 231 241 242 291 231 226 2021 224 250 274 238 233 240 244 290 233 227 2022 224 253 274 240 234 240 247 290 234 228 2023 224 255 274 242 235 239 249 289 235 228 2024 223 258 273 243 236 238 251 288 236 229 2025 223 261 273 245 237 238 253 288 238 230 2026 223 264 274 247 239 237 255 289 239 230 2027 222 266 276 249 240 237 258 290 240 231 2028 222 269 277 251 242 236 260 291 241 232 2029 222 272 278 253 243 236 262 292 242 233






Scenario 1A Scenario 1B Scenario 2A Scenario 2B



Supply Demand Supply Demand (low mitigation)


2030 221 275 279 255 244 235 264 293 244 233 2031 221 278 281 257 246 235 266 295 245 234 2032 221 281 282 259 247 234 268 296 246 235 2033 220 284 283 260 249 234 270 297 247 235 2034 220 287 284 262 250 233 273 298 248 236 2035 220 290 286 264 252 233 275 299 249 237 2036 219 293 287 266 253 232 277 300 251 237 2037 219 295 288 268 254 232 279 301 252 238 2038 219 298 289 270 256 231 281 302 253 239 2039 218 301 291 272 257 231 283 303 254 240 2040 218 304 292 274 259 230 286 304 255 240 2041 218 307 293 276 260 230 288 305 257 241 2042 217 310 295 278 262 229 290 307 258 242 2043 217 313 296 280 263 229 292 308 259 242 2044 217 316 297 282 264 228 294 309 260 243 2045 216 319 298 283 266 228 296 310 261 244 2046 216 322 300 285 267 227 299 311 262 244 2047 216 324 301 287 269 227 301 312 264 245 2048 215 327 302 289 270 226 303 313 265 246 2049 215 330 303 291 272 226 305 314 266 247 2050 215 333 305 293 273 225 307 315 267 247

Notes: Volumes in GL. For citations of source material, see the assumptions table above.






Table B3: Projected Greater Adelaide water demand under simplified scenarios, volumes of water supplied per annum (GL), continued.

Scenario 3 Scenario 4A Scenario 4B Scenario 5A Scenario 5B



Supply Demand (low mitigation)






2008 284 216 179 216 216 179 216 216 197 216 216 197 216 216 2009 284 217 178 218 218 178 218 218 196 218 218 196 218 218 2010 284 219 178 220 220 178 220 220 196 219 219 196 219 219 2011 334 221 228 222 221 228 222 221 245 220 219 245 220 219 2012 334 222 227 223 222 227 223 222 245 222 220 245 222 220 2013 334 224 277 225 223 277 225 223 294 223 221 294 223 221 2014 334 226 277 227 224 277 227 224 294 224 222 294 224 222 2015 334 227 276 228 225 276 228 225 293 225 222 293 225 222 2016 334 229 276 230 227 276 230 227 293 227 223 293 227 223 2017 334 230 276 232 228 276 232 228 292 228 224 292 228 224 2018 334 232 256 233 229 236 233 229 272 229 225 253 229 225 2019 334 234 255 235 230 236 235 230 272 230 225 252 230 225 2020 334 235 255 237 231 236 237 231 271 231 226 252 231 226 2021 334 237 255 238 233 235 238 233 271 233 227 251 233 227 2022 334 239 254 240 234 235 240 234 270 234 228 251 234 228 2023 334 240 254 242 235 235 242 235 270 235 228 250 235 228 2024 334 242 254 243 236 234 243 236 269 236 229 249 236 229 2025 334 243 253 245 237 234 245 237 268 238 230 249 238 230 2026 334 246 255 247 239 235 247 239 270 239 230 250 239 230 2027 334 248 256 249 240 237 249 240 271 240 231 251 240 231 2028 334 250 257 251 242 238 251 242 272 241 232 252 241 232 2029 334 252 259 253 243 239 253 243 273 242 233 253 242 233 2030 334 254 260 255 244 240 255 244 274 244 233 254 244 233






2031 334 256 261 257 246 242 257 246 275 245 234 256 245 234 2032 334 258 262 259 247 243 259 247 276 246 235 257 246 235 2033 334 260 264 260 249 244 260 249 277 247 235 258 247 235 2034 334 263 265 262 250 245 262 250 278 248 236 259 248 236 2035 334 265 266 264 252 247 264 252 279 249 237 260 249 237 2036 334 267 267 266 253 248 266 253 280 251 237 261 251 237 2037 334 269 269 268 254 249 268 254 282 252 238 262 252 238 2038 334 271 270 270 256 250 270 256 283 253 239 263 253 239 2039 334 273 271 272 257 252 272 257 284 254 240 264 254 240 2040 334 275 273 274 259 253 274 259 285 255 240 265 255 240 2041 334 277 274 276 260 254 276 260 286 257 241 266 257 241 2042 334 280 275 278 262 256 278 262 287 258 242 268 258 242 2043 334 282 276 280 263 257 280 263 288 259 242 269 259 242 2044 334 284 278 282 264 258 282 264 289 260 243 270 260 243 2045 334 286 279 283 266 259 283 266 290 261 244 271 261 244 2046 334 288 280 285 267 261 285 267 291 262 244 272 262 244 2047 334 290 281 287 269 262 287 269 292 264 245 273 264 245 2048 334 292 283 289 270 263 289 270 294 265 246 274 265 246 2049 334 294 284 291 272 264 291 272 295 266 247 275 266 247 2050 334 297 285 293 273 266 293 273 296 267 247 276 267 247







Table B4: Projected Greater Adelaide water supply availability under several possible scenarios, volumes of water supplied per annum (GL).

Base case (WPA) Climate change A2 scenario Climate change plus 100GL

Climate, 100GL, 15 % reduction

Climate, 100GL, 30 % reduction

Year Average year Dry year Average year Dry year Average year Dry year Average year Dry year Average year Dry year

2008 284 179 284 179 284 179 284 179 284 179 2009 284 179 282 178 282 178 282 178 282 178 2010 309 204 305 203 305 203 305 203 305 203 2011 334 229 328 228 328 228 328 228 328 228 2012 334 229 327 227 327 227 327 227 327 227 2013 334 229 325 227 350 252 350 252 350 252 2014 334 229 323 227 373 277 373 277 373 277 2015 334 229 321 226 371 276 371 276 371 276 2016 334 229 319 226 369 276 369 276 369 276 2017 334 229 317 226 367 276 367 276 367 276 2018 334 229 316 225 366 275 346 256 327 236 2019 334 229 314 225 364 275 344 255 325 236 2020 334 229 312 225 362 275 342 255 323 236 2021 334 229 310 224 360 274 341 255 321 235 2022 334 229 308 224 358 274 339 254 319 235 2023 334 229 306 224 356 274 337 254 317 235 2024 334 229 305 223 355 273 335 254 316 234 2025 334 229 303 223 353 273 333 253 314 234 2026 334 229 301 223 351 273 332 253 312 234 2027 334 229 299 222 349 272 330 253 310 233 2028 334 229 297 222 347 272 328 252 308 233 2029 334 229 296 222 346 272 326 252 307 233 2030 334 229 294 221 344 271 324 252 305 232 2031 334 229 292 221 342 271 322 252 303 232






2032 334 229 290 221 340 271 321 251 301 232 2033 334 229 288 220 338 270 319 251 299 231 2034 334 229 286 220 336 270 317 251 297 231 2035 334 229 285 220 335 270 315 250 296 231 2036 334 229 283 219 333 269 313 250 294 230 2037 334 229 281 219 331 269 311 250 292 230 2038 334 229 279 219 329 269 310 249 290 230 2039 334 229 277 218 327 268 308 249 288 229 2040 334 229 276 218 326 268 306 249 287 229 2041 334 229 274 218 324 268 304 248 285 229 2042 334 229 272 217 322 267 302 248 283 228 2043 334 229 270 217 320 267 301 248 281 228 2044 334 229 268 217 318 267 299 247 279 228 2045 334 229 266 216 316 266 297 247 277 227 2046 334 229 265 216 315 266 295 247 276 227 2047 334 229 263 216 313 266 293 246 274 227 2048 334 229 261 215 311 265 291 246 272 226 2049 334 229 259 215 309 265 290 246 270 226 2050 334 229 257 215 307 265 288 245 268 226







Table B5: Projected Greater Adelaide water demand under several possible scenarios, volumes of water supplied per annum (GL).

Base case

(WPA) Planning SA population without climate change Planning SA population with climate change

Year WPA/SASP Low Medium High Low B2 Medium B2* High A2**

2008 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 2009 216 215 217 217 216 217 218 2010 217 215 218 219 215 218 221 2011 217 214 219 221 215 220 224 2012 217 214 220 222 215 221 226 2013 218 213 220 224 215 222 229 2014 218 213 221 226 214 223 232 2015 218 212 222 227 214 225 234 2016 219 212 223 229 214 226 237 2017 219 211 224 230 214 227 240 2018 220 211 225 232 213 228 242 2019 220 210 226 234 213 230 245 2020 220 210 227 235 213 231 247 2021 221 209 228 237 212 232 250 2022 221 209 229 239 212 234 253 2023 221 208 230 240 212 235 255 2024 222 208 231 242 212 236 258 2025 222 207 232 243 211 237 261 2026 222 207 233 246 212 239 264 2027 208 235 248 212 240 266 2028 208 236 250 212 242 269 2029 208 238 252 212 243 272 2030 208 239 254 213 245 275 2031 208 240 256 213 246 278






Base case

(WPA) Planning SA population without climate change Planning SA population with climate change

Year WPA/SASP Low Medium High Low B2 Medium B2* High A2**

2032 208 242 258 213 248 281 2033 209 243 260 213 249 284 2034 209 245 263 214 251 287 2035 209 246 265 214 252 290 2036 209 248 267 214 254 293 2037 209 249 269 214 255 295 2038 209 251 271 214 256 298 2039 210 252 273 215 258 301 2040 210 253 275 215 259 304 2041 210 255 277 215 261 307 2042 210 256 280 215 262 310 2043 210 258 282 216 264 313 2044 211 259 284 216 265 316 2045 211 261 286 216 267 319 2046 211 262 288 216 268 322 2047 211 264 290 217 270 324 2048 211 265 292 217 271 327 2049 211 266 294 217 273 330 2050 212 268 297 217 274 333

Notes: * Referred to as the HighB2 projection in the Tonkin MAWSS Stage 3 Report, based on Planning SA medium projections. ** Referred to as the Very High A2 projection in the Tonkin MAWSS Stage 3 Report, based on Planning SA high projections.






C Demand options

C.1 Key Assumptions

For the purposes of the assessment process various assumptions have had to be employed about the costs associated with different options and the amount of water that these can potentially save.

General assumptions

The general assumptions employed in the assessment process were:

• the rate of CPI is assumed to be 2.5% per annum — all cost items are inflated by the rate of CPI on an annual basis. This is the standard level of indexation identified in the South Australian Governments 2008-09 Budget papers57;

• the discount rate is assumed to be 5% per annum — all future estimates of water saving are discounted to real terms for the purposes of determining cost effectiveness. This figure reflects the real yield on Australian Treasury bonds maturing in August 2020 (2.2%) augmented with a risk premium of 2.8%.58;

• the price of water in the Greater Adelaide areas is assumed to increase by 8% per annum —this rate of increase has been chosen with regard to the operationalisation of the forthcoming desalination plants in South Australia, which is expected to lead to an increase in the price of water. The impact of the forthcoming desalination plants on water prices in South Australia is currently unknown.

• the number of houses — the housing figures are drawn from modelling prepared for the Greater Adelaide Plan. In particular the figures associated with a high population growth scenario have been adopted.

No provision has been made for any future technological developments which could lead to greater levels of water saving for a given option or reductions in cost.

Specific assumptions

The specific assumptions made in relation to each option are listed in the table below.

57 See page 7.8 of Budget paper number 3 for 2008-09. 58 http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/indicative.html






Table C1 Assumptions employed for the assessment of each option

Option Assumptions Water saver kits

• ABS data indicate that 50% of all households in SA already have a water efficient showerhead – it is assumed this is the case for the Greater Adelaide region as well.59

• 40% of households that don’t currently have a water efficient showerhead install one as a result of the water saver kits.

• 100% of new households install a water efficient showerhead

• The annual reduction in water consumption resulting from the installation of a water efficient showerhead is 25 KL per household per annum. This is a reasonably conservative figure and is based on estimates of savings equal to 13,500 litres per person as a result of having a water efficient showerhead installed.60 25KL is the assumed saving where these showerheads are installed given the average house in the Greater Adelaide area has 2.2 persons living in it.

Mandated covers for swimming pools

• All swimming pools over 35,000 litres in size must be fitted with a swimming pool cover. The average sized swimming pool in Australia is around 40,000 litres.61

• ABS data indicates that 8% of households in the greater Adelaide region have a swimming pool — it is assumed that 10% of these currently have a cover.62

• Assume 8% of new houses have a swimming pool (based on ABS data as per above)

• Average cost of a cover is assumed to be $327 63

• Covers have a life of 10 years (500 Micron)64

• The annual reduction in water consumption resulting from having a cover installed is 35 KL per annum. This is a reasonably conservative figure — pool size, duration of use and air temperatures all affect evaporation rates.65

59 See: ABS 4602.0 - Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, Mar 2007 60 See: http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/saving/home/7.5ways 61 See: http://www.spasa.org.au/factsheets/Fact12.pdf 40,000 litres is the average of the range cited. 62 See: ABS 4602.0 - Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, Mar 2007 63 This is the average of two prices quoted on internet sites of pool cover providers: $280 a cover at the Universal pool care site (http://www.universalpoolcare.com.au/pool-covers.htm) and $374 a cover at the My pool Store site (http://www.mypoolstore.com.au/products.php?cat=78). 64 See: http://www.solapoolcovers.com.au/faq.php 65 See: http://www.savewater.com.au/library/Daisy_Pool_Covers/FactSheet_1_Evaporation.pdf






Option Assumptions Rainwater tank for outdoor water use and plumbed into the house

• ABS data indicate that 45% of all households in SA already have a rainwater tank – it is assumed this is the case for the Greater Adelaide region as well.66

• Tank size is assumed to be 5000 litres. Tanks are assumed to be suitable for outdoor use and also connected to the house, where there are connections to the toilet and either the laundry and/or hot water system.

• The annual reduction in water consumption resulting from having a tank installed is 39 KL per annum.67

• Average cost of buying a tank and having it installed is $3,440. This comprises $1,700 for the tank, $480 for the pump and pressure controller, $650 for a plumber, $130 for the float system, $260 for the concrete base and $220 GST.68

• 1% of houses that don’t have a rainwater tank install take up the rebate offer and install one per annum.

• 50% of new houses are assumed to have a tank installed (and connected to the house) during their construction.


• To qualify for the rebate the applicant must be a local council or sporting club.

• It has been assumed that rebates are available for areas that are 3,000 square meters in size (equivalent to a standard playing field).

• The cost of laying artificial grass on a playing field is $250,000.69

• A total of 20 councils and sporting clubs are assumed to take up the rebate per annum, and the average sized area that is covered is assumed to be 3,000 square meters.

• The (average) annual reduction in water consumption resulting from having artificial grass on a playing field is 1.5ML per field per annum.

Artificial grass rebates for lawn replacement

• It has been assumed that rebates are available for areas that are 50 square meters in size.

• To qualify for the rebate the applicant must be the owner of the property where the artificial grass is to be installed

66 Source: ABS 4602.0 - Environmental Issues: People's Views and Practices, Mar 2007. 67 See: http://www.yvw.com.au/yvw/ServicesAndProducts/LandDevelopment/WaterSensitiveUrbanDesign/ 68 See page 4: http://www.yvw.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/228FC7C2-F732-4ABA-9E5D-3EDCBE116B8B/0/RainwaterStorageAndReuse.pdf Cited cost estimates aside from the tank cost were inflated by 30% - updated information on tank cost was provided via personal communication with staff at Stratco’s Gepps Cross outlet on 27/02/09. 69 Personnel communication with staff at Loxton Waikerie council, 11/03/09.






Option Assumptions • 1% of existing households and 2% of new households are

assumed to take up the rebate per annum, and the average sized area is assumed to be 50 square meters.

• The cost of laying artificial grass on an area 50 square meters in size is $5,225.70

• The (average) annual reduction in water consumption resulting from having artificial grass as a lawn replacement is 40 kL per 50 square meter space per annum.

Hot water re-circulators • Assumed a cost of $350 per re-circulator71

• Assumed an annual savings of 16 kL per annum per HH. This figure equates to 45 litres saved per day and is based on an estimate of the amount of water lost each time a given appliance is used — we have assumed 1 minutes flow, which is around 15 litres of water. It has been assumed that there are 3 showers a day at the average residence.72

• It has been assumed that there is only one re-circulator per property (just before the shower head).

• A number of variables will influence the amount of water saved from the installation of a re-circulator. These include the length of pipe between the hot water tank and the re-circulator and the number of times a day the re-circulator is activated.

• The installation costs of a re-circulator have not been included in the analysis.

Smart meter and consumptive target pilot

• Assumed the cost of each smart meter exceeds $1000.

• This option is assumed to be a voluntary trial, and carried out over a reasonably short period (i.e. 2 to 3 years).

• No assumptions about take up rates have been made.

Public buildings retrofit • It has been assumed that retrofits are carried out on all publicly owned buildings over a period of 10 years.

• Estimating the water savings associated with this option requires an estimate of the floor space occupied by public buildings, as data is available on benchmark levels of consumption per square meter.

• To estimate the floor space occupied by public buildings in the greater Adelaide region the total commercial floor space

70 See: http://www.syntheticturf.com.au/cost-comp.asp 71 See: http://www.enviro-friendly.com/hot-water-recirculators.shtml Provision has been made for postage costs of $20. 72 See: http://www.anu.edu.au/anugreen/index.php?pid=232






Option Assumptions in Adelaide has been divided by the component of SA’s GSP which is attributable to the public sector.73

• Data on average levels of consumption in public buildings (per square meter) and the benchmark levels of consumption (per square meter) is drawn from the DEH water efficiency guide.

• The cost of implementing this measure is not known.

Extension of the Business water saver program

• Estimating the water savings associated with this option requires an estimate of the floor space occupied by privately owned buildings, as data is available on benchmark levels of consumption per square meter

• To estimate the floor space occupied by privately owned buildings in the greater Adelaide region an estimate of the amount of space occupied by the public sector has been deducted from data on the total commercial floor space in Adelaide

• Data on average levels of consumption in privately owned buildings (per square meter) is drawn from the DEH water efficiency guide — a 10% saving has been applied to this to give an estimate of total potential water saving.74


Commercial building code reform • The commercial building code is reformed, leading to the adoption of higher environmental standards for commercial buildings, including water efficiency — no assumptions have been made about the specifics of the reform measures.


Open space watering by local councils • Councils adopt targets to reduce the amount of potable water used in watering open spaces — no assumptions have been made about the targets set.


73 See: ABS state accounts, Dec 2008, catalogue number 5220.0. 74 See: http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/government/pubs/water-efficiency-guide.pdf






C.2 Assessment summaries

Option name Water saver kits Score 1.33

Average cost per kL saved, 2010-2025

$1.13 Description This option involves the distribution of a Water saver

kit containing a water efficient showerhead and a tap flow restrictor by the State Government to households in the Greater Adelaide region.

Devices to improve water efficiency have high community acceptability and generate reliable water savings across time. The overall environmental impact of these devices is positive.

Amount of water saved in 2025 (ML)

8,692ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts

Option name Mandated covers for swimming pools Score -0.42


$16.10 Description Swimming pools lose a significant amount of water to

evaporation each year. By installing a cover over a swimming pool evaporative loses can be reduced by up to 99.8%. Pool covers have a reasonable level of community acceptability and can help retain heat within pools, reducing the need for heating. Covers have a low level of complexity and can generate reliable water savings across time. The cost effectiveness of this option is negative.


1,753ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Rainwater tank for outdoor water use and plumbed into the house

Score -0.75


$111.20 Description Rainwater tanks provide water for outdoor usage and

can also be piped into a property for domestic uses (i.e. toilet and the laundry or hot water systema as well). This option has a high level of community acceptability despite the fact that tanks can detract from the amenity value of a property. The potential for issues to arise with tank pump systems lead to this option scoring negatively in terms of system complexity. The overall cost effectiveness of this option is negative.


2,394ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts

Option name Artificial grass rebates for local councils and sporting clubs

Score 1.92


-$33.40 Description This option involves the provision of rebates to local

councils and sporting clubs for the installation of artificial grass as a lawn replacement on playing surfaces and other open space used by the community. While the initial cost can be high this can be recovered over a period of time via savings in maintenance and watering expenses, thus the overall cost effectiveness option is positive. Artificial grass is a very simple water saving option although it can impact negatively on the local terrestrial environment as natural surfaces are covered.

Amount of water saved in 2025

970ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Artificial grass rebates for lawn replacement Score 1.83


-$85.50 Description This option involves the provision of rebates to

homeowners for the installation of artificial grass as a replacement for lawn in their gardens. Although initial costs can be high this can be recovered over a period of time via savings in maintenance and watering expenses, thus the overall cost effectiveness option is positive.

Artificial grass is a very simple water saving option although it can impact negatively on the local terrestrial environment as natural surfaces are covered.


3,780ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts

Option name Hot water re-circulators Score -0.17


$22.70 Description

Hot water re-circulators are devices that are attached to internal hot water pipes prior to device outlet points (for example a showerhead). When the device is turned on the re-circulator diverts water that is below a pre-set temperature back to the hot water tank so that water wastage is avoided. Re-circulators can be installed in new houses and retro-fitted to existing properties.

This option has a low cost effectiveness but is reasonably simple to implement and maintain and generates reliable water savings across time.

It is noted that hot water re-circulators are not currently included in the WELs framework.


4,911ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Smart meter and consumptive target pilot Score -1.22


N/A Description This option is a voluntary measure that will allow

households in pilot areas to have smart meters installed and access to up to date information on their water consumption. Where accompanied by a consumptive target, smart meters can provide households are provided with some flexibility in how they choose to use water.

Results from this pilot will inform the ongoing development of demand management strategies in South Australia.


N/A

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Public buildings retrofit Score -1


N/A Description This option involves the Government retrofitting all

publicly owned buildings and amenities with water and energy efficient toilets, taps and showerheads by 2020. Measures will include:

• Meter installation including sub-meters if applicable;

• Use of flow controlled showers and taps;

• Installation of dual smart-flush toilets (4.5/3 litres per flush) and where technically feasible waterless urinals;

• Rainwater harvesting to supplement toilet flushing and or outdoor water use (where technically feasible); and

• Minimal water efficient landscaping.

This option has a relatively low cost effectiveness, a reasonable degree of complexity and high regulatory impacts. Retrofits generate reliable water savings and have a high level of community acceptability.


4,966ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Extension of the Business water saver program Score -0.42


N/A Description The business water saver program involves working

with the industrial and commercial sectors to identify opportunities for reducing water usage. Savings are sought via:

• Water audits

• Reference to best practice benchmarks

• Suggestions for process improvements; and

• Staff education.

This option has a relatively low cost effectiveness and a reasonable degree of complexity. Changes to productive processes can generate reliable water savings and have a high level of community acceptability.


1,270ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts

Option name Commercial building code reform Score -0.25


N/A Description Reform of the commercial building code will lead to

the adoption of higher environmental standards for commercial buildings, including water efficiency.

This option has high regulatory impacts and has the potential to increase the complexity of building developments. The environmental impact of this option is positive and reliable water savings can be generated across time.


793ML

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts






Option name Open space watering by local councils Score -0.585


N/A Description This option involves the adoption of targets by local

Councils to reduce the amount of potable water they use in watering open spaces such as parks. Measures which could be adopted under this option include:

• Only watering turf in open spaces with non potable water where available;

• Building wetlands to collect and purify stormwater for irrigation of key fields and sporting grounds;

• Changing plant species to more drought tolerant varieties where appropriate;

• Using porous pipe and dripper lines to irrigate trees and plantings in the absence of sprinkler irrigation of open spaces, and

• Potentially using sewer mining to source additional non potable irrigation water for parks and gardens.

This option scores well in terms of community acceptability and the reliability of water savings, but could be detrimental to the amenity value of parks if it leads to application of less water to open spaces.


N/A

Cos

t ef

fect

iven

ess

Publ

ic h

ealth

Am

enity

val

ue

Com

mun

ity

acce

ptab

ility

Gre

enho

use

emis

sion

s

Aqu

atic

impa

ct

Terr

estri

al

impa

ct

Syst

em

com

plex

ity

Rel

iabi

lity

Reg

ulat

ory

impa

cts

Date post:	22-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ABCD - Department for Environment and Water · ABCD © 2009 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a...

Documents