greg oliver queensland department of environment and resource management aneurin hughes cardno a new...

Greg OliverQueensland Department of Environment and Resource Management

Aneurin HughesCardno

A New Era of Assessment and Engagement:

Achieving Safe Drinking Water in Queensland

Water Safety Conference 2010

A New Era of Assessment and Engagement: Achieving Safe Drinking Water in Queensland

Water Safety ConferenceNovember 2-4 2010, Kuching, Malaysia

• Background - Queensland• Regulatory Framework for Drinking Water Quality• Factors Contributing to Drinking Water Quality• Assessment Process• Findings• Strategies to Address the Challenges


Background - Queensland

Pop – 4.4 millionGrowth – 2.6% pa (varies across State – (minus 4% to +5% pa)Large land area67% of population in south east Queensland< 2% of population in western regions


77 drinking water service providersSE Qld – 6Outside SE Qld – 71 (mainly local governments)353 schemesPercentage of Queensland’s population

Serviced by number of Water Service Providers

84.3 % 18 large providers (>25,000 connections)

14.2 % 26 medium providers (1000 – 25,000 connections)

1.5 % 33 small providers (<1000 connections) including 15 Indigenous councils

Challenges•Large number of entities responsible for drinking water quality and supply•Widely dispersed across large geographical area•Varied capacity•Administration of water supply and quality management at different levels of government


Toowoomba region's water supply at critical level

E. coli found in Longreach water supply

Water is a hot topic…


Drinking Water Regulatory Framework

• Water Supply Safety and Reliability Act (2008)• Stage 1 Jan 2009

― Providers must report incidents― Supply quarterly monitoring results to department― Continues until providers have an approved Drinking Water Quality

Management Plan (DWQMP)• Stage 2

― Providers must have an approved DWQMP (elements 2-6) – 1July for large, later for others


Factors Contributing to Drinking Water Quality


Drinking Water Scheme Assessment Program

• Some providers (generally small to medium) were experiencing difficulties in meeting new legislative requirements

• Assessment program implemented across a sample of providers to better understand challenges and issues facing a sample of small and medium drinking water service providers in managing the quality of drinking water

Assessment scope • 36 of 61 small/ medium providers• 119 of 353 schemes


Drinking Water Scheme Assessment Program

• Planning• Survey sheets

– Provider level

– Scheme level• Comprehensive assessment manual developed• All assessors undertook a 2 day training program• Assessment included

― Meeting with providers― Short visit to a sample of schemes and facilities

• Focussed on― Provider management practices― Infrastructure condition― Scheme performance, operation and associated water quality risks― Constraints that limit performance

• Analysis of assessment results and other data• Compile into report• Feedback to providers


Findings

Skills capabilities and resources

•Providers endeavour to provide reasonable standard of service•Short-term focus•Limited opportunities for strategic management - data analysis, analyse performance and plan•< 50% have adequately trained staff, difficult to attract/ retain staff•Making efforts to train staff•Interest in support services, particularly monitoring support prior to undertaking water quality risk assessments


Constraints to Service Delivery (2009 Survey)

Constraints to Service Delivery(44 providers - provider opinion)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Inad

equ

ate

op

erat

ion

alre

sou

rces

Inad

equ

ate

sch

eme

man

gem

ent

reso

urc

es

Insu

ffic

ien

tin

fras

tru

ctu

reca

pac

ity

Inad

equ

ate

pla

nn

edm

ain

ten

ance

Inad

equ

ate

finan

cial

rese

rves

Inad

equ

ate

skill

s

Ag

ein

gin

fras

tru

ctu

re

Insu

ffic

ien

tre

ven

ue

Ageing infrastructure

Insufficient

revenue

Workforce skills


Water Sources and Treatment

• Quality - challenges need robust downstream barriers

• Treatment generally adequate – some inappropriate for source

Source water quality problems

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Tur

bidi

ty

Iron

/Man

gane

se

Tas

te/o

dour

TD

S

Oth

er

Blu

e-gr

een

alga

e

Bac

teria

l/ pa

thog

enco

ntam

inat

ion

Col

our

Har

dnes

s

Pes

ticid

es/H

erbi

cide

s

Tem

pera

ture

Alg

ae

Wat

erA

ggre

ssiv

enes

s

Flu

orid

e

Low

alk

alin

ity

Hea

vy M

etal

s

Ars

enic

Nitr

ates

Sof

tnes

s

Per

cen

tag

e o

f sc

hem

es


Systems and Processes

• Operational practices and supporting systems– Generally informal– Over-reliance on tacit knowledge– Documented operational practices – unavailable or

not used


Infrastructure

1Unsafe

NeglectedV high risk

4Minor issues

Good practicesLow risk

5Well maintained

Ex practicesV low risk

3Moderate

AcceptableMed risk

2DeteriorationPoor practices

High risk


Facility Evaluation – Reservoirs (1 - poor/high risk to 5 – good/low risk)

Facility evaluation - reservoirs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Rating

Nu

mb

er

of

sch

em

es

Condition

Operations

DWQ Risk


Main breaks per 100km (average 2002-2007)

R2 = 0.1498

1

10

100

1000

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

Number of connections

Bre

ak

s p

er

10

0k

m (

log

sc

ale

)

Small WSPs

Medium WSPsLarge WSPs


Drinking Water Quality

• Provider perception – high to very high standard 88 % indicated few complaints

• Customer priorities – quantity, reliability, quality – unwilling to pay

• Monitoring programs improve with size• Analysis of data submitted – general compliance with

ADWG – compliance with parameters not monitored?• Increased likelihood of E.Coli with smaller providers• Incident reporting improves with size• Very early stages of developing water quality

management processes


Management of Drinking Water Quality

• Surveyed providers - average compliance with elements 2 -6 of ADWG DWQ Framework addressed in DWQMP

Implementation progress average of the overall ratings elements 2 - 6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5

Rating

Perc

enta

ge o

f pro

vide

rs

1. Very limited knowledge, understanding of documentation

2. Need for process understood, limited documentation

3. Process development has commenced

4. Process development and documentation substantially completed

5. Process and documentation fully developed and verified


Drinking Water Quality – microbiological

Provider Size

Number of providers

reported on E. coli)

Number of schemes

reported on E. coli

Total number of samples

taken

Number of samples

detected E. coli

Percentage of samples

detected E. coli Large 18 101 7,407 9 0.12% Medium 29 176 3,298 33 1.00% Small 26 44 695 23 3.31% Total 73 321 11,400 65 0.57%


Financial


Partnership Approach

Local Governments and Water Service Providers


Strategies to Address the Challenges

• Implementation of more streamlined and effective regulation

• Continuing and expanding the assessment program• Implementation of appropriate pricing principles• Enhancing workforce skills• Evaluating the operational scale of providers

Partnership approach with• Local Government Association of Queensland• Qldwater• Local government service providers



Implementation of more streamlined and effective regulation

• Rationalise the regulatory burden on service providers and DERM

• Clear performance objectives and reporting• Roles

– Accountability remains with service providers– State: audits and reports (transparency)

• Three options– Regulated business plan– Regulated performance standards– Combination of above



Continuing and expanding the assessment program

• High level risk assessment of all schemes outside SE Qld• Identify and prioritise risks

– Water source reliability– Drinking water quality– Water & wastewater infrastructure performance, capacity &

reliability

• Will work in partnership with providers to address high risk schemes through a development of Priority Action Plans



Implementation of appropriate pricing principles

• Lack of sufficient revenue – significant constraint• Reviewing options to improve infrastructure investment

by implementing National Water Initiative pricing principles

• Pricing model developed for use by small/medium providers

• Pricing principles adopted in building 10 year budgets and charges



Enhancing workforce skills• National Water Skills Strategy• qldwater (with LGAQ) are coordinating and leading the

development of a state-wide water industry Skills Formation Strategy – supported by DERM

• DERM collaborating to provide technical support for training institutions to reflect the needs of water service providers e.g.– water quality and monitoring– asset maintenance– long-term water supply planning

• Investigating the development of minimum mandatory certification requirements for operators



Evaluating the operational scale of providers• Only 2 States in Australia where urban water provided

through local governments• Opportunities for gaining economies of scale• LGs encouraged to seek alternative water service

management arrangements• Some options

– Voluntary binding alliances– LG owned water corporations– Commercialised water businesses within local governments– Staff & skill sharing– Regional groupings of local governments contracting to third

parties


Conclusion

• Standard of drinking water services variable• Dependent on a wide range of factors – finances,

capacity, documentation, people, infrastructure• Department has entered into a formal partnership with

local government peak representative and technical organisations

• Significant improvement opportunities identified• Will be implemented through close collaborative

approach

greg oliver queensland department of environment and resource management aneurin hughes cardno a new...

Documents