Water Journal : Water Journal September 2012-1
sustainable water management technical features 82 SEPTEMBER 2012 water Key Learnings Particular WSUD practices that lead to the construction of wetlands provide flood and pollution control; however, the opportunity for harvesting is often overlooked. This makes retrofitting such systems to achieve integrated water management outcomes potentially difficult. During the concept design and challenge phase of a stormwater- harvesting project the proponent should discuss with the wetlands owner what portion of volume is harvestable. Taking water that is accumulated in the extended detention depth does not appear to affect the original intended performance of the wetlands. The proponent should be familiar with the catchment and the hydrogeological and geological conditions within the project area. This can help determine any influence on the wetlands and water quality. Drainage assets and wetlands are often built in areas that naturally collect water. Depending on the jurisdiction and legal framework, proponents should seek advice from town planning authorities and land developers on the works history in the investigation area if archaeological and historical factors are likely to be a concern. Similarly, land and assets associated with drainage can often also be associated with flora and fauna constraints. The proponent should educate themselves as to the limitations that may be imposed at their area of investigation. Finally, the WSUD system designs may provide further information as to the wetlands' ability to achieve integrated water management. Conclusion From a town planning perspective the schemes that were investigated as part of the PC SAWS project were ideal cases of where WSUD assets could be retrofitted to implement integrated water infrastructure. Drainage and WSUD assets were located immediately next door to regional ovals and schools. However, technical challenges proved to make Scheme B limitations on the project greater than the benefits, rendering the project unviable. Once all of the technical limitations were understood, adjustments to the design of Scheme A could be undertaken. All technical issues could be accommodated for Scheme A with the scheme still viable. Construction is expected to begin in late 2012. This paper was originally presented at Enviro 12 at Adelaide in July. The Authors Aleks Svazas (email: asvazas@city westwater.com. au) has worked on a range of integrated water management projects including the Yarra Park Sewer Mining Project and the Maribyrnong City Council Stormwater Harvesting Project. He is currently an Engineer -- Water Innovation with City West Water (CWW). Nigel Corby (email: ncorby@ citywest water.com.au) is the Integrated Water Projects Manager for CWW. He has overseen the planning and development of many CWW Integrated Water Management projects. References Environment Protection and Heritage Council (2009): National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Stormwater Harvesting Resuse. Government of South Australia (2007): Code of Practice: Irrigation of Public Open Space. Department of Sustainability and Environment (2012): Biodiversity Interactive Maps. Department of Primary Industries (2012): Geovic Interactive Maps. Department of Sustainability (1979): Aerial Photo Archives. Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works, unknown publication date. Water Supply Maps Darley 2500/29.04. Scheme A Scheme B Sanctuary Lakes Figure 3. Schemes A and B in context.
Water Journal November 2012-1
Water Journal August 2012