Future water 2060 FAQs
Everything you need to know about Future water 2060.
General FAQs
Large infrastructure projects have long lead times. A 10+-year planning horizon is common for large and complex projects.
We have completed preliminary environmental and economic studies for these water supply options. It was determined that desalination and potable reuse options are more expensive than groundwater to build, have higher long-term operating costs, and do not provide the same level of water security. Meanwhile, Rous has only recently been directed to resume investigations for surface water at the proposed Dunoon dam site.
To meet the challenge of a growing population and a changing climate, we are taking an ‘all options on the table’ approach to our third-stage planning. An adaptable supply of water may involve one or a combination of different options, including water saving measures, groundwater, surface water, purified recycled water and desalination.
No. Through the investigation process this has been determined as a long-term option only, which does not necessarily improve the security of the Rous water supply network.
Rainwater tanks will not give us the reliable water supply that is needed. While we encourage residents to make the most of our current generous rainwater tank rebates, they are one of the more expensive water supply options available to the community.
Rainwater tanks cannot be relied upon as a guaranteed source of water as we are unable to control how they are used. Furthermore, the effectiveness of rainwater tanks is unfortunately significantly diminished at the times we need water most, during dry weather. In the 2019 drought, Rous experienced unprecedented pressure on its supply from water carters who drew water from the main supply to replenish rural landowners that solely rely on rainwater tanks.
All new residential developments are required to have a level of water efficiency and often achieve this through the use of rainwater tanks. This is a state-based requirement known as BASIX, which aims to reduce the potable water consumption of all new residential developments by 40%, based on the average potable water consumption of a pre-BASIX home. This is achieved with rainwater tanks and water efficient appliances or fixtures. To demonstrate that all new residential development meets the BASIX requirements, all proponents for new dwellings must successfully create a BASIX certificate and submit this as part of the development application process.
Rous has previously assessed the performance of BASIX-compliant properties in 2013 against certificate data. This study found that the average consumption predictions from the BASIX tool are reasonably consistent with the water-metered averages, and Rous has adopted those water savings in the Demand Forecast report.
As the BASIX program is a state-based requirement, local governments cannot enforce a higher standard of efficiency for new residential development.
Yes. Unfortunately, given the undulating topography of our region, this option is mainly a localised water supply solution. Several storm water reuse options were investigated in the 2014 Future Water Strategy and were determined not to be viable. In NSW, the Building Sustainability Index (known as BASIX) requires that all new residential developments meet minimum water conservation measures, which is typically achieved by using onsite rainwater tanks.
Yes, Council has previously undertaken a preliminary feasibility assessment of potable reuse, which is also known as purified recycled water.
Council are undertaking additional investigations into the use of purified recycled water as a key action of the Future Water Project 2060.
Dual reticulation (water recycling) is a decision for local councils that provide sewerage services, and this decision is based on several factors, including the ability for the community to afford such an option. This was an action in the long-term water security strategy adopted by Rous in 1995. It was recognised at this time that there are significant financial, environmental and social costs associated with dual reticulation schemes and that the local councils are best positioned to determine if these options should be pursued.
Currently there is only a legal mechanism to restrict water use during periods of drought. Local councils do not have the authority to ban specific water use activities outside of water restriction times. Rous continues to support water conservation measures, but these actions on their own are not enough to secure our future water needs.
Groundwater FAQs
A diversity of groundwater sources has the potential to offer the Northern Rivers a meaningful supply of high-quality water not only in times of drought, but also to supplement everyday water supply.
However, other sources of water are likely to be needed at some point in the future. A combination of new surface water or other rainfall-independent water sources, such as desalination, could be needed to secure a truly robust and resilient water supply for the future.
Will the use of groundwater for town water supply impact on agriculture and surface water, such as streams and rivers?
To ensure that there are no impacts on agriculture or the environment, we are undertaking robust local hydrogeological assessments of aquifers. This typically happens via pumping tests of groundwater bores and monitoring programs of other nearby bores, streams and rivers.
State-regulated water sharing plans protect the environmental health of water sources and ensure groundwater extraction is sustainable in the long term. We work within these sharing plans to minimise potential impact on the environment and the community.
No. While groundwater is less susceptible to the effects of drought conditions than surface water systems, such as creeks and dams, groundwater is not considered to be a rainfall or climate independent source of water.
Rous has adopted the same approach that is used for surface water options when it has assessed the impacts of climate change on the long-term reliability of groundwater options. This approach is recommended given the uncertainty surrounding the effect of climate change on groundwater resources.
Proposed Dunoon Dam FAQs
The proposed Dunoon Dam is being investigated in conjunction with all of the stage 3 options outlined in Rous’s Future Water Project 2060. Rous continues to also investigate new groundwater sources, purified recycled water and desalination as potential future water sources.
Aboriginal cultural heritage and the natural environment remain key considerations for any work that Rous undertakes. In February 2022, Council approved the completion of comprehensive Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity assessments in relation to the dam. The assessments were requested by Council in order to provide contemporary and comprehensive information from which to assist in informing their decision making regarding the stage 3 options. After a comprehensive and competitive tender process at the start of 2024, Rous commissioned specialist consultants to undertake the work, which commenced in March 2024.
While these assessments were undertaken between 2011 and 2013, significant changes in environmental planning legislation have occurred in the following decade. It is also expected as part of the planning process of any large infrastructure project that preliminary investigations will be followed by more comprehensive and contemporary assessments. The decision to complete new assessments was also informed by a specific request received in June 2021 from NTS Corp. In the request, NTSCorp stated that the Widjabul Wia-bal Native Title Claim Group expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the preliminary assessment had been conducted and therefore requested for the assessments to be redone by a qualified archaeologist.
Not necessarily, there are many different methods an archaeologist can use to evaluate cultural values and significance. Disturbance work of any kind would only be done in agreement with Widjabul Wia-bal and within existing legislation, to ensure any potential sites and artifacts are safeguarded from harm.
The Dunoon Dam remains a proposal at this stage. Its viability and the need for additional water for the region will continue to be investigated. Like all proposals, the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts will be assessed and balanced against the benefits it could provide.
Building a new dam is a significant undertaking, where extensive assessments and design can take many years to complete.
Large infrastructure projects such as the proposed dam require approval by the state government. If Rous decided to proceed to the next stage after the Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity assessments are completed, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required for the state government to assess the proposed development’s effect on the surrounding environment.
Economic feasibility studies comparing the various long-term supply options are at a preliminary stage.
Desalination FAQs
The Northern Rivers Desalination Options Assessment, commissioned by Rous County Council, was completed in June 2024 by Beca Hunter H20. The driver for these investigations was to increase our understanding of the viability of using desalination in a drought emergency and as a potential stage 3 option in Rous’s Future Water Project.
The investigations looked at temporary desalination plants that are removable and full-scale permanent desalination plants that could be brought online during long periods of dry weather. This could also offer a new supply source to increase the region’s future water security. These investigations inform both Rous’s Regional Water Supply Drought Management Plan and the Future Water Project 2060.
Brine is water with a concentration solution of salt. It is a by-product of the desalination process. The environmental impact of discharging brine into the ocean is an important factor that must be considered and weighed against the potential benefits to the community.
In most cases, the direct environmental impact of a desalination plant can be reasonably managed through careful design and operation. A design example is using carefully engineered nozzles to achieve rapid dilution in the immediate area, and longer underwater pipes to discharge brine further out to sea where ocean currents provide additional mixing back to background levels.
If desalination planning were to progress, an environmental impact assessment would be required before any work could be undertaken. This would involve both near and far-field modelling to ensure that potential impacts can be understood. This assessment would then inform subsequent designs so that impacts could be mitigated as much as reasonably possible.
Not in a cost-effective manner. While this is technically possible, it is not practical nor economically feasible.
While there are potential uses for brine, at this point it is unlikely to be economic. Not discounting that salt is a common commodity, the brine itself would still require extensive processing.
There is research going into what can be extracted from seawater brine including minerals such as potassium and lithium; and research into the production of algae in concentrated brine that may be used as a feed stock or converted into biofuels. However, these options are only feasible in areas where inputs such as land is low cost and are typically only considered when disposal options are limited, which is not the case for our coastal region.
Yes. Desalination plants in Australia have offset emission requirements via the purchase of renewal energy certificate (RECs). If this option was adopted, Rous could contribute to further demand and thus the development of additional renewable energy supply. For instance, the Capital Wind Farm was constructed to supply renewable energy to the Sydney Desalination Plant.
The energy used for desalination plants in Australia are required to offset their emissions via the purchase of renewal energy certificate (RECs). This will ultimately be a decision for the energy providers who will no doubt seek to find efficiencies in the power supplied, which may include using locally generated sources.
The capacity of desalination plants can be scaled to match the required demand. However, there is an obvious tradeoff between the cost and capacity of the facility.
In the previous investigations (Ganden Engineers 2020), a permanent 10 megalitre per day plant (ML/day) was specified to supply the Byron Bay area. However, the more recent report (Beca Hunter H2O) considers plants in the 15-25 ML/day range to supply both Byron and Ballina areas. This selected capacity would need to be optimised with reference to the existing mix of Rous’s water sources, and the desired level of water security. Additional modelling would assess the complex interactions between our existing sources, potential operational triggers, climate and hydrological models’ impact of surface water availability, and changes in forecasted demand for water.
The costs to build a permanent desalination plant depend on its size, the complexity of intake and outfall structures to the ocean, and the length of connecting infrastructure (water and electrical networks).
For the most prospective sites identified for the Northern Rivers, the capital cost of a permanent desalination plant at 15 and 25 ML/day capacity was estimated to be approximately $300 and $460 million respectively. Annual operating costs are estimated to be $7.25 Million (15 ML/day plant) and $10.75 million (25 ML/day plant) for year-round operations. This equates to a specific capital cost of between $18.8 to $20 million per ML/day.
These costs are useful for assessing the feasibility of a scheme and will help when comparing costings with other options, such as surface water and new groundwater schemes once those studies are completed.
The cost of a temporary desalination plant depends on its size, location and whether it is constructed in stages. We could reasonably expect the capital costs of a temporary plant to be between approximately $18 and $30 million, for a 12-month implementation.
Desalination plants vary in size and production capacity, which impacts capital and operating costs. Generally, desalination has high operational costs related to reverse-osmosis membrane treatment and the use of energy to operate the plant. In the Northern Rivers, a potential desalination plant is constrained by the Cape Byron Marine Park. To comply with the objectives of the Marine Park zones, a desalination’s intake and outfall structures to the ocean would need to be significantly lengthened to reach beyond the Marine Park’s sanctuary zone. Marine intake and outtakes are major pieces of infrastructure and increasing their length dramatically increases engineering complexity and costs.
Most desalination plants on the east coast of Australia have only been operated in long periods of dry weather and have tended to be mothballed during wetter periods. In contrast, desalination plants in Western Australia have tended to be more routinely operated, in part due to having a drier climate.
Rous has a relatively unique supply system which is characterised by high annual rainfall with relatively modest water storages. This means that whilst Rous has appropriate water security, the depletion rate of our water supply in severe or catastrophic drought conditions can be quite rapid. In over 9 out of 10 years, Rocky Creek Dam will spill in the year. As desalination is a more expensive water source, a continuous operational approach would not be the preferred strategy.
An additional consideration is the period associated with recommissioning a desalination plant, which can be long. When Sydney’s desalination plant was triggered in 2019, eight months were allowed for it to reach full production. This means a potential desalination plant will not be immediately available after entering a dry period.
There are different potential locations for permanent and temporary emergency desalination plants.
The most prospective sites for a permanent desalination plant avoid the Cape Byron Marine Park’s sanctuary zone, are close to population centres, and are close to connecting infrastructure including water and electrical networks. The marine park extends from Brunswick Heads to Lennox Head. The most prospective sites for a permanent desalination plant (producing up to 15 ML/day) are just south of the marine park.
The most prospective sites for a temporary desalination plant for use in a drought emergency are both north and south of the marine park. Some of the proposed sites are community parks and playing fields, which may be considered acceptable temporarily in a drought emergency. As an emergency option in a severe drought and under strict water restrictions, a temporary desalination plant is likely to produce between 5-10 ML/day.
Purified Recycled Water (PRW) FAQs
The Northern Rivers Purified Recycled Water (PRW) Investigations, commissioned by Rous County Council, was completed in June 2024 by the Tyr Group. This was an extensive, multi-year investigation to increase our understanding of PRW and identify potentially viable schemes for the region as a possible stage 3 option in Rous’s Future Water Project. The investigation involved a wide range of PRW specialists including international experts and a series of workshops involving regulators. While technically viable and a rainfall-independent source of water, the report identifies two primary challenges with implementing PRW in the Northern Rivers: the relatively high cost of producing drinking water and current legislative barriers.
Yes and no; the best way to understand PRW is that it provides a rainfall-independent way to extend the availability of other water sources. That is, you still need to have a primary source of water. By implementing a PRW scheme, a water utility can reduce the demand on other water sources.
There are two types of advanced treatment trains that have been proven to produce safe potable-quality water. They are reverse osmosis-based and carbon-based advanced treatments. Both include several stages. Sydney Water are currently operating a discovery centre in Quakers Hill that includes:
- Membrane filtration: The water passes through very fine hollow fibre membranes to remove particulate matter, protozoa and some viruses. These membranes are only 0.1 to 0.4 micrometres in size. (As a comparison, human hair ranges in size from 20 to 200 micrometres in diameter.)
- Reverse osmosis: Filtered water is forced at high pressure through a special membrane to remove contaminants larger than a water molecule. These contaminants include dissolved salts, viruses, pesticides and most organic compounds.
- Ultraviolet advanced oxidation: Ultraviolet light, with hydrogen peroxide, destroys any remaining trace amounts of impurities.
- Disinfection: This is generally the final stage of the advanced water treatment process. Disinfection with chlorine protects the quality of the water as it travels through pipelines.
PRW treatment plants are typically adjacent (or nearby) to a standard wastewater treatment plant (the water source) to limit the need for more pipe infrastructure. In the Northern Rivers each council manages is wastewater treatment plants and six of these plants have been considered in the recent PRW investigations. The most prospective locations that were shortlisted in the 2024 report are in Lismore and Byron Bay, with preliminary sites identified to assess overall scheme feasibility.
Ballina’s purple pipes scheme (recycled water for non-drinking purposes) reduces the amount of available wastewater for advanced treatment, which makes a PRW scheme in Ballina less viable than the other shortlisted options. Two options for Ballina which did not make the shortlist were considered at a preliminary level of detail as level 2 options.
For the most economically feasible site, the report estimates a capital cost of between $135 and $232 million and annual operating costs of between $3.6 and $4.8 million. This equates to a specific capital cost of between $16.3 – $27.4 million per megalitre per day (ML/day). It is important to note that there are no clear regulatory pathways for the most cost-effective schemes at this point in time.
These costs are useful for assessing the feasibility of a scheme and will help when comparing costings with other options, such as surface water and new groundwater schemes once those studies are completed.
Due to advanced treatment requirements and associated infrastructure, purified recycled water schemes generally have higher capital, operating and energy requirements than conventional water sources such as surface water or groundwater. Ongoing testing regimes for purified recycled water are also costly.
In the Northern Rivers we have a low population density dispersed across a wide geographical area. This means we have relatively small wastewater treatment plants (the water source), which limit the capacity of advanced water treatment plants to produce ~10 ML/day of drinking water. This is not sufficient to reach economies of scale that are normally seen in other urban installations around the world (typically ~40 ML/day or larger). The fixed cost associated with compliance testing, process monitoring, instrumentation, auditing, operation staff and control systems are significant and at this small scale, would result in higher costs to the community if implemented.
There are two different ways to implement purified recycled water for drinking. IPR takes treated wastewater and puts it through an advanced treatment process. The purified recycled water is then transferred to an environmental buffer such as a dam or underground water aquifer. Drinking water is then produced by extracting water from the environmental buffer and treating it again through a water treatment plant. DPR schemes treat and purify wastewater through advanced multiple barrier treatment processes without using an environmental buffer before it is distributed as ultra-clean drinking water. The purified water is sent either directly to the network (treated water augmentation) or to the intake of a water treatment plant (raw water augmentation).
Currently, there are significant regulatory challenges with DPR schemes and as such, there is no such scheme operating in Australia.
Purified water would need to comply with both the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) and the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (AGWR). At present, the AGWR primarily focuses on IPR rather than DPR. While there is some mention of DPR in the AGWR, it does not provide the same level of guidance as to how these schemes should be assessed. This means that there is not an accessible approval pathway for such a scheme under the current national guidelines.
In December 2022, Council reviewed a comprehensive study that found the costs to the community to establish a PRW plant at Perradenya Estate would be excessive compared to the benefits such a scheme could deliver. Notably, the lack of a wastewater treatment plant at Perradenya means a pilot scheme cannot accurately reflect the technology that would be required to supply the Northern Rivers with purified recycled water, it presents limited engagement opportunities and lacks regulatory support.
The report highlights that while costly to build, demonstration/pilot plants can play a role in the successful implementation of a PRW scheme. Pursuing a pilot plant is likely to be considered a reasonable expense if approval for a full-scale PRW scheme is pursued.
