Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option Council

Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option Council Workshop 28 th September 2010

Augmentation – why and when? 20, 000. 0 16, 000. 0 14, 000. 0 13, 750 12, 000. 0 10, 000. 0 8, 000. 0 6, 000. 0 4, 000. 0 Goal Achieve Planning Approval 2, 000. 0 Historical Water Supply BASIX/WELS only (legislated) Augmentation Historical (climate corrected) Selecting a preferred option Preferred DMS solution Baseline Shire Forecast 36 20 34 20 32 20 30 20 28 20 26 20 20 24 22 20 20 20 18 20 16 20 14 20 12 20 10 20 08 20 06 20 04 20 02 20 00 20 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 0. 0 19 Total Water Demand (ML/a) 18, 000. 0

Council determines Preferred Option Aim of this phase: Provide Council with the certainty it needs to be able to make this decision 2011 • Justify Preferred Option • Minimise subsequent Risks 2017 2023 - depending on demand NEXT PHASE WE ARE HERE Assess 4 Options 2012 Approve Preferred Option • Fine-tune Preferred Opt • Development Approval Delivery of Approved Option Increasing Commitment: Focus / Data / Costs Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

√ √ 100 √ √ Landholder 45 √ √ √ ? √ √ √ Approval Fine Screen √ EA (EIS) Shortlist + emergency Govt dept. √ AAC 9 Options Ref. Group 18 Assessment Coarse Screen Community Site invest. Involving: Reports Augmentation options process (approved Aug 2009) √ √ Preferred option Environmental Assessment BEGINS Licenses NEXT Detailed Design Planning Approval Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Fine-screen Assessment Additional investigations, studies and reports § § § Planning and environmental risks Cultural Heritage Ecological Environmental flows Cost estimates Additional information from the community § § § Community Working Group Aboriginal Advisory Committee and wider community Landholder meetings Information sessions and 1800 number Approx 160 submissions Additional feedback from Government Agencies § Planning Focus Meeting § Project Focus Group Meeting Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Input to MCA Cultural Heritage (Multi Criteria Analysis) Community submissions Landholder meetings Freecall 1800 submissions Community Submissions Ecology Environ mental Flows Legislation, Planning and Environment Consultants’ reports MCA Report Design Budget Estimates Forestry CWG Information sessions Queensland Agencies NSW Office of Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option Government Agencies DECCW Fisheries NSW Health NPWS

MCA – Process RATING Each option rated against 10 criteria Water Supply Augmentation x x WEIGHTING FACTOR = SCORE Each criteria weighted according to significance = Score Selecting a preferred option

Incorporating issues in the MCA - WEIGHTINGS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Course Screen Weightings Coarse Screen Water Supply Augmentation Fine Screen Weightings Even QBL Weightings 'CWG' Weightings Fine Screen 3 variants – sensitivity analysis Selecting a preferred option

Incorporating issues in the MCA - RATINGS Option: MCA Criteria: Clarrie Hall Dam Environmental Constraints GHG & Energy 3 1 2 Cultural Heritage Impacts 3 Lead Time & Escalation Costs Secure Yield 1 1 Planning Obligations Legislative Acceptability Water Supply Augmentation 1 1 4 Social Impacts Established Technologies SEQ pipeline 5 1 1 Byrrill Ck Dam Combined* Emergency 4 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 5 4 1 3 4 1 5 2 2 3 5 3 2 4 2 5 3 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 * Ratings dependent on sub-option chosen Selecting a preferred option

MCA results WEIGHTINGS x RATINGS = SCORE 262 210 215 189 171 151 169 136 117 147 111 Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option 150

Results Summary: 1. Clarrie Hall Dam is the preferred Water Supply Augmentation option 2. Byrrill Creek Dam scored equal or lower than CHD for every criteria, and has significant high risk issues 3. SEQ risk of prolonged delays too high 4. Given probable timings Contingency unlikely Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Recommendations: 1. Monitor demand management actions with the aim of achieving at least BASIX/WELS reductions. Reporting to Council every two years on progress. 2. Adopt Clarrie Hall Dam as the preferred Water Supply Augmentation option 3. Now proceed with actions to achieve Planning Approval and Detailed Design for the raising of the Clarrie Hall Dam 4. Pursue dialog with SEQ in parallel as an alternative augmentation option and as a emergency drought option Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Implications: 1. Clarrie Hall Dam offers least risk option: • Based on existing information • Further studies may uncover issues • Least risk ≠ Zero risk 2. Significant planning, investigations and approvals phase • Long timeframe (+5 years) • Significant costs ($4 -6 M depending on studies) 3. Landholders will be affected • Several Doon Ck landholders looking to sell • Byrrill Creek landholders face uncertainty Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Implications (cont): 1. Clarrie Hall Dam spillway upgrade: • Upgrade required by 2016 • Dam Safety Committee may not grant further extension 2. Emergency supplies • Investigation of emergency supplies for prolonged drought or contamination events still required Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option

Documents provided with Council Business Paper Document Contents Date Business Paper – WSA Recommendations to Council Oct 2010 Augmentation Options Study Fine Screen Report Recommendations to Council Original recommendations Detailed options assessment Sep 2010 Appendix B - Fine Screen Report - Multi Criteria Analysis Comparative overview of the main issues as assessed by the MCA Sep 2010 Community Submissions Report - WSA Summary of all issues raised in submissions and TSC responses Aug 2010 Council Workshop Powerpoint Presentation Overview of Water Supply Augmentation project and recommendations Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option 28. 09. 2010

THANK YOU Water Supply Augmentation Selecting a preferred option